first?

At least there's no bias in this post...yeah right.

Guys at my high school wanted to marry inanimate objects, but couldn't because marriage was only between a "man and woman".

How things change.

*Griswold

*Griswold

Ok, I've been of the opinion that we have to give Elie time to get settled in, but ... huh?

What is "Connecticut wants no part of 'National Lampoon's Mystic Vacation: Meet Mr. & Mr. Girswold'" supposed to mean? I remember the "Vacation" movie franchise, but still ... huh? If CT has *approved* gay marriage, then why would Connecticut not want to be a part of what appears to be a gay marriage reference?

And what is "52.5% of voters mumbled something about an activist God before Connecticut jurists stopped listening" a reference to? Seriously, I don't want to work that hard when I'm blowing off work.

does being gay give you a leg up in the law firm recruiting process?

-nervous T-10 1L
email job leads to nervoust101l@yahoo.com

You would think that Elie would check his grammar a little more carefully as a result of the 10,000 posts pointing out the constant errors. You would be wrong.

Gotta love AA.

Seriously, Elie, why do you decide to tread in this politically loaded area? Also: screw you.

This is why Texass has AIDS.

you guys need to stop making funny of elie!!!

*nuzzles elie tenderly in the hopes of getting a job at atl this summer*

-nervous T-10 1L
email job leads to nervoust101l@yahoo.com

Elie, your post doesn't make any sense, but I'm getting the vague feeling that you're a homophobic bigot.

Feel free to prove otherwise, though.

Oh, and for the people here who constantly whine about being a bigot, as though being called a bigot anywhere approached the harm of being DENIED BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS: stop BEING a bigot, and we'll stop CALLING you one.

Whoops, that should read "for the people here who constantly whine about being CALLED a bigot"...

-13

Mystic is a town in Connecticut.

Elie probably mentioned it because "Mystic" looks like "Mystal" if you get bored and stop reading halfway through, which is what I do with most of Elie's posts.

Gays are the new African Americans.

Careful, guys. If you comment here you might catch teh gay.

16, are you saying that rainbow is the new black?

Where I grew up in CT, I didn't even know that people actually voted republican. I thought they just created the republican party so it would seem like a contest.

I love my state and I am glad to see we did this! I hope the rest of the country pulls their heads out of their bottoms and follows suit.

Black rainbows are weird. I like black triangles better.

And now for your Blackuweather Forecast....

ITS GUNNA BE REAL GAY!

stop posting this shit and post about law shit. thanks.

MysTTTal is bigoted against proper grammar

Look at the Law.com article. This is the most important part of the whole story, and what sets it apart from Cali, Mass etc:

"But in Connecticut, voters last week rejected the idea of a constitutional convention to amend the state's constitution, dealing a major blow to opponents of same-sex marriage...."

VOTERS this time! Not just judges! Voters were actually sort-of involved! Sweet.

23 - bigoTTTed

23 - Hofstttra5L

3 - While there is a good argument to be made that judges should remove themselves from this issue (from a legal/procedural standpoint), there really IS no intelligent argument against gay marriage as a policy question. I don't think the non-superstitous world is really obligated to pretend otherwise and humor the knuckle-draggers at this point in history. =)

If I see one more comment from nervous T-10 1L, I'm going to punch myself in the face.

How would I know if I was gay-married?

- Nervous T10 1L

i'm nervous about my very existence causing people to fatally vomit themselves or punch themselves in the face

-nervous T10-1L
-pls email jobs to nervoust101l@yahoo.com

I'm really happy for both the straight and gay citizens of Connecticut. Just like in Massachusetts, the supposed secondary effects on straight marriage will never materialize. I wonder for how long the anti-gay marriage bigots will continue being able to peddle their disgusting b.s. that gay marriage will destroy everything. I already called out two of such bigots at my law school the other day. It got heated, but I think they felt pretty embarrassed and humiliated in the end and it made me feel good.

31- They deserve it. I hate this spin now that anti-gay bigots are being opressed somehow because people yell at them and call them bigots.

31:
Massachusetts was the poster child for the Yes on 8 lobby, because of the parents who couldn't keep their kid from learning about gay marriage in school. That was one of the main "secondary effects."

MysTTTal, why can you not do anything correctly the first time? Why can't you write at a basic high school level? Why must others constantly correct your lazy, inconsiderate ass?

You aren't dumb (though you aren't especially intelligent), you're something far worse: sloppy.

You and that other piece of dumbed down HLS trash, Phil TTTelfeyan, who was too lazy and sloppy to even walk around the statue on which he based his note, share a common weakness.

Lat, you think this worthless hack's lack of work ethic could have cut it at WLRK? Why are you letting him trash this blog?

It seems like it's only states with Top 3 law schools that do this.

27 -

Actually I have yet to read one intelligent argument in support of gay marriage. Really, is there one? So far the arguments on ATL consist of calling people a bigot, close-minded, and homophobic. Is this really the argument? Are you really comparing the gay marriage movement to slavery & the civil rights movement? Maybe that's why over 80% of African-Americans voted Yes on Prop 8.

Yes on Prop 8 did not take any rights away. Gay rights were no different after the vote than they were before. Rather, its the No on Prop 8 supporters who are trying to force their views on the rest of society by changing the centuries-old definition of marriage. Its not discrimination. When a man and woman get together its called marriage. When a man and a man get together its called a domestic partnership. Same rights, different names because they mean different things.

34 = junior associate who gets yelled at by partners and so is now unloading on a blog post.

Another great post by Elie . . . on opposite day!!!

-Confident T1-3L

36 - Slavery no, and "civil rights" only a little.

The paralel with anti-misoginy (sp?) laws though is unmistakable. Religion was an excuse for preventing blacks and whites from marrying each other for years too.

Gay people are human beings with lives and feelings and families just like the rest of America.

They should be able for form family units and deal with property and children etc just like the rest of the world.

They should be able to be 100% Americans, and not second-tier Americans that are tolerated but excluded from certain key institutions and rights conveyed by the government.

Civil Unions are ok, but still a thumb in the eye saying "you are not the same as us."

Gays will continue to exist and be gay either way.

When you want to deprive people of rights and happyness and (even symbolic) equality in their lives, the burden really should be on YOU to show a good reason why society should do so.

Nobody is being forced to gay-marry, so nobody is having ANYTHING forced on them. If you dont like SEEING gays and gay marriages, or if you are bothered by the term "marriage" being used for them, well thats tough cookies. No actual harm to you or anyone.

31 here.

33: I know - how pathetic. What a terrible tragedy for young children (especially the ones whose parents are gay) to be exposed to the fact that there are people in this world who love a member of the same sex and who wish to memorialize that love in a legal contract akin to the way straight people do.

When a white man sits on the bus, his seat is at the front. When a black man sits on the bus, his seat is at the back. They're both on the bus, so who cares? Same rights to sit on the bus, just different seats. This is a decades old tradition. Why would anyone try to change it?

41 - And in harmony with Scripture, I might add!

oh noes! if gay people get married, that's somehow going to make my own heterosexual wedding less meaningful! i'm not sure what the mechanism is, but my pastor said it, so it must be true!

p.s. he also told me not to marry black people. and not to masturbate, either.

36, you need to fact-check better. You're just plain wrong from an objective, factual standpoint. That by itself doesn't make you a bigot, but it does make you ignorant.

The California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the RIGHT to marry. So, you're wrong right there -- Prop 8 DID take away a right that same-sex couples had.

If a domestic partnership is the same as marriage, why are YOUR people getting so up in arms about gay people calling it the same thing? If they "mean" different things (whatever the hell that means), how are the rights the "same"?

And as a straight person, I am bothered at you trying to force your definition of marriage down my straight throat. As someone who cares about equality, I don't want any part of an institution that discriminates against my gay friends and family. So now, thanks to you, my right to marry has been tarnished every bit as much as yours supposedly would if you were no longer allowed to exclude people who are different from you.

See how everyone can play the "I don't like how this makes me feel" game? Not exactly a persuasive basis for public policy when you're up against an equal rights argument on the other side.

Also, as for kids learning about gay marriage in public schools, that is just plain absurd as an "argument." I don't see anyone proposing an amendment preventing people from talking about gay couples or gay people around schoolchildren (and for good reason, since a proposition like that would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution). Guess what? If your kids ever talk to, you know, ANYONE AT ALL in their schools, chances are, they will learn about teh gay pretty quickly, whether or not it is part of the official curriculum. The only way to keep your kids from learning about gay couples would be to stuff them in a closet. And even then, they're only going to come out of it ten or fifteen years down the road. Haha!

43 - Yeah, but then someone at school might tell your kid what "gays" are before someone on the playground calls him a "faggot" and he has to ask one of the older kids what that means.

How dare gay people suggest they have the capacity to enter into a committed relationship? We all know that they are promiscuous, taking five or sex different sexual partners each night. And for this, they shall burn in hell. This desire to pretend to be "married" is simply a ruse, so that they can gain acceptance and get closer to our young boys, who they will then abuse repeatedly. Do not let this happen! Let them be known to all the world for the harlots that they are! If they don't like it, then they should repent!

Way to use the commenters on this board as a strawman, 36, for the gay marriage movement as a whole. Let's see...because 36 has not read a comprehensive intelligent argument in favor of gay marriage by the anonymous morons who post on this board, there must not be one. Hmmm...try again.

I assume you're a lawyer, 36, or at least a law student. Try reading any of these opinions:
In re Marriage Cases: 183 P.3d 384
Goodridge: 798 N.E.2d 941
Kerrigan: 2008 Conn. LEXIS 385
You should be able to taste a flavor of the "slight" argument why gays should not be prohibited from entering into marriages.

36:

Actually, the passage of Prop 8 did take rights away. In May, the California Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples:
"In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to
live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation." http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF

See here for analysis of the current legal challenges to Prop 8: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1226036505

Ugh...just saw Erin Brockovich addressing mesothelioma victims and directing them to a "law firm I trust"...forget the name, but i felt disgusted by it.

39: anti-misogyny laws? i want to move to that state!

Thanks 44. I would like to add that whereas other states must honor a marriage entered into under California law, they have no obligation to honor a California "civil union." Thus, again, separate does not mean equal.

So, it seems we have a group of people that think society should permit gay marriage and another group that thinks it shouldn't. If only our democratic form of government had some means of deciding what to do in a situation like this.

So, it seems we have a group of people (southerners) that think black people should be discriminated against and another group (the rest of the country) that thinks they shouldn't. Hmmm...if only our democratic form of government didn't fail black people repeatedly in situations like this.

So, it seems we have a group of people that think society should permit black people to vote and own property and another group that thinks it shouldn't. If only our democratic form of government had some means of deciding what to do in a situation like this. Because important rights should totally be up for simple majority vote.

52 -

1. Thats why the CT case stands out from the others. Voter-endorsed, even if only posthumously. Good stuff.

2. What about anti-misoginy (sp?) laws then? Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided? Is discrimination always ok if 51% of voters approve it? Maybe judges should lay off here and now, but deferring to democracy isn't ALWAYS the right historically.

I'm afraid it's worse than you think, 51. Ever heard of DOMA? No matter what you call it, no state is required to recognize a same-sex union entered into in another state. Even if California had approved gay marriage, no other state would be required to recognize it.

Hahaha, 53, beat me to it!

-54

8====> is this a gay penis or a straight penis?

You can't tell, can you?

Kumbaya.

Serious question here - so Prop 8 passed, and now people everywhere are up in arms, staging numerous protests and boycotts and such. It's great that people are coming together so well to support the issue but...isn't it a little late? Where was all this support in the days and weeks leading up to the election? I live in CA - yeah, there were commercials for both sides up the ying yang, and there were little clusters of people with "No on 8" signs along Sunset a few evenings, but nothing like what's going on now.

Does anyone have insight into why the huge push has come when it's arguably too late? It's not like there's a mulligan ballot in a few weeks...

59 - Distracted by the Presidential election and Obamamania?

60 - sure, sure...I guess I was looking for something more than that. Maybe it's not there.

Or maybe this exposes a critical flaw in the thinking of many California Obama supporters - they seemed to assume everyone supporting Obama shares all their same beliefs, including to vote no on 8. As it turns out, blacks and latinos voted overwhelmingly in support of 8. I actually read a truly hideous comment about that phenomenon earlier today - the general gist was "oh, well the black and latino voters were really confused and didn't know what they were voting for when they voted on 8." Yikes. Shockingly, people can share in their support for a candidate while having diverging views on other issues (and vice versa).

Why do the gay do the gay?

MysTTTal, please buy a bullet and rent a gun. Thanks.

Here's why the No on 8 campaign lost... Their message was that marriage is an individual civil right that individual gays deserve. Meanwhile, the Yes on 8 campaign's message was "this will be bad for your kids." You ask any parent, gay or straight, if they think the choice is between your rights or their kids, your rights will lose every time.

Where were the gay families? The gay parents with their normal kids? The normal kids that lived down the block from the gay couple?

Even the ad they showed a million times from the California Superintendant of Schools saying that gay marriage wasn't "required" to be taught in school implied that if it were taught, it would be a bad thing.

The No on 8 campaign lost because they never showed what a gay marriage would look like, they only paraded a never-ending stream of gay individuals around talking about their individual rights.

39:

Miscegenation (miscegeny): Marriage or sexual relations between individuals of different races.

Misogyny: Hatred of women.

...the more you know.

Can someone explain the whole "being taught in schools" thing? What the hell is that about?

I don't recall marriage, in any context, ever being taught... What's the issue here?

64: Agreed. I actually thought a lot of the ads were kind of...offensive. Like that old couple sitting there assuring everyone that they still loved their daughter "even though" she's gay and "please don't take away her right to marry."

I guess, they just really didn't do anything to assure people that the Yes on 8'ers really are bigoted liars and instead it was more like "look, this won't hurt...much." Well, I voted no on 8 but I didn't particularly believe that the No on 8 campaign believed what they were selling.

On the other hand I live in ultra-liberal hippy granola town where only a handful of people would have actually voted yes and the few that did sure as hell wouldn't talk about their bigotry.

This blog sucks. I'm going back to Dealbreaker.

66: That was a big argument used by Yes on 8 people saying that gay marriage and "gayness" in general would be taught to young, impressionable children, I believe reaching as low as 2nd or 3rd grade.

Also, there was a class of young-ish (5th or 6th graders?) in San Francisco whose teacher was getting married to her partner. The kids, as a surprise, attended the ceremony. This was a school sanctioned field trip, but as such, there was a parental permission slip that had to be signed in order for the child to attend. If the parent didn't agree, the kid didn't go.

Also, the whole thing was actually set up by some of the parents in the class who -wanted- to expose their children to the process, and really, history in the making.

Lastly, the ironic exaggerations of 46 are not exactly that far off what some *cough* religious! *cough* people believe.

To all - Prop 8 passed. Ha!!!

The Church of Latter Day Saints spent $25M on ads to vote yes.

I don't get it. Is Elie pro-gay marriage, anti-gay marriage or just an idiot that switches back and forth as he writes so that we can't figure out which?

Regardless, I don't come here to read this crap. I can't believe there are already this many comments on such a shitty post.

I've read comments chewing Elie's ass out (no pun intended) for weeks, but I finally get it--he really is a moron. Write David Lat directly at dlat@breakingmedia.com and ask him to pull this joker.

i'm done with this blog.

56, you kind of missed the mark. DOMA is framed in terms of "marriage," not "marriage or civil union." If California has only "civil unions," there's nothing to challenge when that couple moves to a state that doesn't recognize civil unions. Once the relationship is legally labeled as a marriage by one state, and that couple moves to another state, as soon as they are denied equal rights based on DOMA, they have a basis to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA. A couple in a civil union will never be able to do that.

71, it's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was probably a whole lot more than $25M. So what?

So, since President-Elect Barack Obama is against gay marriage does this mean he is a bigot too?

75: So it sucks that a group of people suffering from a mass delusion can affect an entire state and an entire segment of the population.

71 - No, the Church of Latter Day Saints spent a total of 2,078.97 on flight reimbursements for some people that spoke about Prop 8. Individual members of the church donated anywhere between $15M and $25M (all estimates since religious affiliation isn't requested when you make a donation).

77, are you talking about the LDS church or the gay population? Either way, you're offensive.

78, sounds more educated on the topic. Just get the name of the church right.

79: The LDS church. All churches, really. And pretty much everyone who believes in god.

And whether or not I'm offensive (probably am) I'm also offended that someone can impose THEIR religion on MY life.

Proposition 4 (parental notification for abortion) failed in California as well, but you don't see pro-lifers rioting and whining constantly about it.

As far as I'm concerned, no gay marriage until we can give to-be-slaughtered fetuses at least a 48 hour reprieve. You want to talk about civil rights? There's nothing more basic than the essence of innocence getting a chance to live.

82: Let me guess, you're a man?

Please.

Nobody LIKES abortion, but it is a necessary and essential right.

81, so you feel the need to impose your disbelief?

*yawn*

I'm going to bed.

84: Didn't "impose" just stated. That's what comments are for, right?

58:

I lol'd.

82--don't get it wet and you'll never have to worry about someone aborting your kid.

83--don't give it up and you won't have to exercise anything.

How did we get here? Aren't we talking about how shitty of a job Elie is doing running this blog?

I love how it makes people bigots if they oppose gay marriage, what the California Supreme Court determined was a fundamental right, yet those same people are not bigots for attacking religion. I am pretty sure religion is constitutionally protected and is a fundamental right as well.

If you want to change people's opinions on gay marriage, you cannot go about it that way. I was opposed to gay marriage until I spoke with my gay friend and saw how much it hurt him that he is not able to marry someone that he loves. The people opposed to gay marriage, which are apparently are the majority of people in CA, will not change their minds because they are called bigots. Although, if it truly is a fundamental, you deserve the right to marry, the only way it looks like you will get it is to convince people that you belong, that you are productive citizens, and that you have real feelings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

-posted by a member of the religious right

89:
Nice Rickroll!

Tricky 89. Sending everyone to an edit, gay porn video. Niiiiice!

PORN

Yes, Obama is a bigot!!! He is AGAINST gay marriage. I never understood why all the gays love him. Maybe he will change his mind... but who knows..?

92 here. Just checking to make sure the word PORN doesn't get filtered.

If gay marriage becomes mainstream, I say we legalize bigomy next. Who's with me?

94 here. I meant to write "bigamy". Ok, it's me. It's Elie MysTTTal. I couldn't resist getting involved and spelling a few words wrong.

I agree with Elton John: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

If gays can get married, I think that all potential types of marriage should be OK. For example, polygamous relationships. If marriage should truly be open to ALL who love each other, why not polygamous relationships? And on that matter, what about first cousins who are of consenting age? Or brothers and sisters? The fact that these may not be as "common" as gay marriage is irrelevant, if these people want it, then they should have it.
Since we are going to alter the centuries-old definition of marriage, then what is stop it from being redefined in other ways? If it doesn't have to be one man and one woman, then it could be anything...

97 - I love three or four women and I'd marry them all if I could.

98, 97 here - I agree that you should be able to. But nobody is up in arms and protesting about the rights of polygamists or people who want to marry their cousins. Nobody is arguing for this, but it makes just as much sense as gay marriage

99:
Nobody's up in arms about it YET. The polygamists need a precedent first... I wonder where that may come from?

97 = law student. Everyone who has taken barbri knows marriage IS STILL legal between first cousins in nearly all the original 13 colonies.

101 is married to his first cousin. He considered moving to Utah so he could also marry his other first cousin, but she gave bad head.

this is absurd.

however you feel about this issue, please be respectful of those people who feel they're being denied a fundamental right, and those whose lives will be made inordinately more difficult by the harm states cause when they are excluded from marriage.

there's no reason for this passive-aggressively homophobic type of commentary.

disgusting.

103:
The only "inordinate difficulties" gays in California have suffered thus far are such issues as "Where do we protest next?" and "What will my next picket sign read?" The domestic partnership law hasn't been overturned.

ALL OF THESE POSTS FORGET THE REAL ISSUE!!!!

Elie needs to stop using block quotes on all his posts. Try writing sometime. Dumbass.

Elie really sucks.

As is characteristic of decadent societies in advance stages of declne, the US has forgotten the roots of its social institutions and the way they contribute to society's survival. Marriage exists to regulate reproductive activity. All societies have established a structure within which men and women get together, bear and raise children. It is a necessity. That is why of all types of relationships it is singled out for special treatment, benefits, restrictions on exit, etc - whether legal or social.

The people who say they want to get married so they can "celebrate love" are so stupid a law should be passed barring them from expressing opinions. You can love your friend, aunt, dog, pocket watch, etc. Celebrate it in your own way. Don't ask the law to require everyone else to acknowledge and applaud you. Even civil unions/domestic partnerships are unjustified since society has no interest in giving special recognition to gay relationships.

10+ years ago gays were saying they just wanted to be left alone to do what they wanted since their behavior did not harm anyone. A valid argument. It seems they were dishonest. They want their relationship to be singled out from all others (except hetero marriage) for special recognition. We have no reason to care. Do your own thing and don't drag the rest of us into your relationships.

Didn't bother reading the posts in here, as they are assuredly the usual mindless drivel. i did see one or two about how this post by Elie was "biased."

IT'S A FUCKING BLOG. Get over it, you boners.

Anyhow, Elie, I enjoyed this post. Good work.

Elie - to quote Rodney Dangerfield in his immortal role in Natural Born Killers "You think? Don't think. You're a fucking idiot."

Connecticut wants no part of "National Lampoon's Mystic Vacation: Meet Mr. & Mr. Griswold."

I think, as always, you got it wrong. I think Connecticut actually DOES WANT A PART OF "National Lampoon's Mystic Vacation: Meet Mr. & Mr. Griswold," which apparently is a unfunny reference to gay marriage.

107- Shoot yourself now. Before you breed and spread your stupidity. When it comes to inter-personal relationships, society, and the social contract we enter into, covers more than hetero fucking to produce offspring you fucking moron. BTW, did I mention you're a fucking moron? Just wanted to be extra clear on that point.

It evolves and changes and has a basis in recognizing the greater good of the many and part of that is overcoming bigoted irrational bias against particular groups. In your little fucked up world view it would be just fine to pass laws saying "A man and a woman may only fuck with the intent of producing offspring", cause breeding more people is all society cares about. You fucking moron (once again for emphasis).

Extending rights of two people (or more for all I give a damn) to exercise control over each other's health care, property, offspring (adopted or birthed), is well within the compact of what society is for. Regardless of gender/orientation bigotry. You fucking moron (did I mention that you are a fucking moron btw?).

clinton was the first black president. who will be the first gay one?

112- Too late. Taft.

107 = retarded

107 -

1. Being left alone was a big step up from being considered a criminal in many states. One step at a time.

2. I agree to the extent that marriage is good and serves to give order to society, stability etc. I just want to bring everyone into that same stable, loving tent, if you cant forgive the sap.

3. Reproduction? So why can straigth couples who don't want children get married, but gay couples what want (or HAVE) children cannot?

4. Yeah, peopel talking about "celebrating love" is annoying as hell.

5. You are on the loosing side of history.

112, 113 - Woodrow Wilson strikes me as a little bit gayish too. Perhaps we will never know?

Elie's contempt for religion just shows how worthless he is. Have fun in hell (just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

105 - There is nothing wrong with block quotes. YOU are an ass.

112, 113 - Buchannan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan

"For 15 years in Washington, D.C., prior to his presidency, Buchanan lived with his close friend, Alabama Senator William Rufus King.[12] King became Vice President under Franklin Pierce. He took ill and died shortly after Pierce's inauguration, and four years before Buchanan became President. Buchanan and King's close relationship prompted Andrew Jackson to refer to King as "Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy", while Aaron V. Brown spoke of the two as "Buchanan and his wife".[13][14] Further, some of the contemporary press also speculated about Buchanan and King's relationship. Buchanan and King's nieces destroyed their uncles' correspondence, leaving some questions as to what relationship the two men had, but the length and intimacy of surviving letters illustrate "the affection of a special friendship"[13] and Buchanan wrote of his "communion" with his housemate.[15] Such expression, however, was not necessarily unusual among men at the time. Circumstances surrounding Buchanan and King's close emotional ties have led to speculation that Buchanan was homosexual.[13] James W. Loewen, in his book Lies Across America, points out that in May 1844, during one of the interruptions in Buchanan and King's relationship that resulted from King's appointment as minister to France, Buchanan wrote to a Mrs. Roosevelt about his social life, "I am now 'solitary and alone', having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection."[16][17][18] The only President never to marry, Buchanan turned to Harriet Lane, an orphaned niece whom he had earlier adopted, to act as his First Lady."

Frank Schubert, Yes on 8 campaign manager, stated:

"Public records show that it is in fact the fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8
campaign who are lying to California voters. On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools."

120 - I feel like if they have to go as far afield as public schools to find a reason not to let gays get married, they really don't have much to go on.

Its all pretext anyway. Country folk, old people and, now it seems, racial minorities just don't LIKE gays. I honestly don't think there is much more to it than that.

121: I feel like if they have to go so as far afield as "it's called something different!" to find a reason not to be happy with civil unions, they really don't have much to go on.

Its [sic] all pretext anyway. Homosexuals, feminists and, now it seems, champagne socialists just don't LIKE religion. I honestly don't think there is much more to it than that.

122 -

I disagree with your position, but fantastic retort. Well done, sir. You are a worthy adversary.

Not 121

I wonder if all the little BYU grads working in CA that donated to yes on 8 will hurt their firms' business, and whether this will affect recruiting at that wretched TTT.

elie - "east side"??? are you sh*tting me? that's manhattan. you want "east coast" for your comparison.

Wow, if all those Republicans & Christians are so up in arms about banning gay marriage for destroying traditional marriage, I am sure they will go for an amendment banning divorce next, since divorce actually destroys traditional marriages. . .

112, 113, 116, 119:
According to the gay lobby, almost every key historical figure was gay: Jesus Christ (you know, that horrible symbol of hate, oppression and bigotry?), Geo. Washington, etc.

83:
"Nobody LIKES abortion, but it is a necessary and essential right."

You have to be kidding me. This country is filled with lobbies like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc. that "loves" abortion. They love it so much that they repeatedly stand up against minor and reasonable attempts of states to provide pamphlets that mention the adoption route, etc. It seems to be these organizations' primary goal to send as many fetuses to the abortion clinic as possible.

As for whether or not the original abortion poster is male or female, the point is not whether or not his child will be aborted. Some people think about more than themselves. And to sit back and allow millions of lives to never even get a chance to draw breath seems like a much bigger affront to society than for a bunch of Californians to vote against gay marriage.

If I ever walked through one of these No on 8 (they need a new name, 8 already passed) protests, I'd create a sign that said "would you rather have been aborted?" Because I bet 98% of the people protesting for gay marriage voted against the parental notification prop.

128- I am now pro-abortion in the hopes fewer people like you will be born.

118,

No one reads block quotes. If you do, you, sir, are wasting your time. Elie is dumb.

Signed,
105 (No on 8 Supporter)

My god. This whole debate is frustrating.

First, does anyone read history anymore? Hell, even take a freaking look at Wikipedia before writing bogus shite? Marriage did not evolve for reproductive purposes, 107. It evolved to control the transfer of property. The whole reproductive argument is judeo-christian in origin, and it's as weak today as when it first was made.

Second, despite what some of you believe, you cannot be supportive of gays and unsupportive of same sex marriage rights. Separate but equal does not work. And if you think gay marriage "is not the same thing" or gays should have "civil unions" instead, then I have a news flash for you: you are making a judgment that gays are less than you--that their unions are not as valid as yours. That's bigotry, prejudice, whatever you want to call it. (and please don't reference Elton John in argument. Internal gay "politics" are different).

Further, same sex marriage proponents are not "bigoted" against religion. That's horsesh*t. We're not challenging your right to be religious--we're challenging your efforts to enforce your religious view(s) of the world on us.

Finally, I am so sick of the popular vote argument. Our schools were integrated and we were ensured our personal liberties (e.g. contraception, abortion, "sodomy," opposite sex marriage) all by "activist" courts. Don't you remember that the federal courts had to FORCE desegregation. We forget that today.
In all honesty, its sad to suggest that we'd leave to "the people" the right to determine whether our state constitutions grants all people--including sexual minorities--the right to marry the person of their choice. Hell, you could be on the opposite end of that popular vote one day.

FUCK, FUCK, FUCK. I want to write reasonably, but I just can't. This makes me livid. I don't want anything but to live my life with my HUSBAND without your intervention. How is it that your religious beliefs get to control my rights?

Gay people are born gay. Letting them marry does not "turn" others gay.

How can voters support ignorance over intelligence and truth?

131: When same sex marriage proponents disrupt church services with slogans like "Jesus was a homo" I'm pretty sure the intention is to offend Christians, not to support equality.

The reason separate but equal didn't work for schools was a practical matter, no two schools could ever really be equal. It is however possible for civil unions to be identical to marriage in everything but name.

-122

128 -- I take it, then, you would favor laws making it mandatory to donate organs to your children? Since you seem to have no problem with forcing women to put up with pain, suffering, and permanent changes to their physiology all in the name of letting teh babiez live, I assume your compassion for these poor little babiez continues past the point where they're indistinguishable from a tadpole, and surely you wouldn't go the misogynist route of insisting that only WOMEN'S bodies should be put to the involuntary service of children. Withholding extra kidneys from children can in some cases make them die. How many selfish mothers and fathers out there insist on silly things like bodily integrity when there's a chance that harming themselves could save their children? We need to put an end to such callous, hateful, pro-death behavior!

122 -- I'm a feminist and I actually like my religion (Christianity btw) pretty well. Oh noes! Which card is getting revoked??

134: How about this, a ban on abortions except where the health or safety of the mother would be at risk or where the pregnancy is the result of rape?
You can't make the argument that we should be forced to give up our organs, as I think organ donation would also fit the "health or safety" exemption.
It would effectively only ban abortions in the cases where the abortion is used as an insurance plan in case primary birth control (if any) has failed. Getting pregnant is a risk you run when you have sex, even when you use birth control. You know about the risk and have no reason to complain that you got unlucky.

And just because I really hate crappy logic: withholding organs does not make anyone die. The underlying illness makes them die. Withholding organs fails to save them. But for a few exceptions, our law doesn't require you to save anyone, but does say you can't kill them.

The only effective argument for abortion rights is that the fetus is not a person.
Person's right to bodily integrity > Non-person's right to life.
But, Person's right to life > Non-person's right to bodily integrity.
Just ask yourself, do you think it's okay to ban third trimester abortions (keeping in the usual health and safety exception)? Why? It's probably because you think at that point the fetus is a person.

81, I'm offended that you can impose YOUR visions of a gun free society and a high tax society on ME.

let me break this down:

Marriage between a man and a woman is the only natural companionship. The anatomy just doesn't work any other way.

We can allow unnatural marriages, but that opens the door to endless possibilities.

The question becomes how wide you allow that door to open. The more its opened, the more society will grow "tolerant" of marriages once thought impossible. Slippery slope, I know, but in this case it works. Don't kid yourself by thinking gay marriage will not lead to sanctioned polygamy, incest and pedophilia down the road, whether it be 10 years or 100 years.

American families are being destroyed enough as it is, we should leave them alone.

137,

Gay adults are people - not animals - not children.

Your argument is the exact one used by the religious right to prevent interracial marriage.

When you accept the fact and truth that some people are born with an homosexual orientation - that it is not a choice and not a lifestyle and not a threat to you - then gay marriage will be scary or strange to you.

We have been down this road as a nation many times.

I guess it would not be called a struggle for civil rights if people like you didn't exist.

Ignorance, stereotypes, misinformation and outright lies about gays cannot - and will not - win out in the end. I believe this nation is greater than that.

137:
Agree all the way.

-100

137 and 139,

Gay people are not child molesters any more than an heterosexual man is a rapist or molests little girls.

Gay poeple want the civil right to marry - not the right to have a church bless or perform the ceremony.

Gay people want the civil right to marry their partners - not to marry their brother or sister or a child or an animal.

If men and women have the right to marry will that not eventually lead to a man marrying two women?

Let's outlaw heterosexual marriages then.

Your bigotry reveals a fundamental lack of understanding re: the fact that a small percentage of people are born with an homosexual sexual orientation. It is biological - just like skin color - just b/c you can not see it on the outside does not mean that it is not an innate characteristic.

137 and 139,

It will be interesting to see how many of the bible beaters will be anti-abortion once an embroynic screening test for sexual orientation is available.

138:

So any adult should be able to get married? Whether related or retarded? How about to multiple people? Who is to say only adults should get married? For the past 09235709823543 years humans typically got married around the age of 13. What’s wrong with a 10 year old marrying a 90 year old if they are in love? What if they don’t even make love but want to get married? These are all “civil rights” issues, they just have not gotten the traction that homosexuals have gotten. Will gays destroy the country? No. Will the dilution of marriage, and therefore the family, destroy the country? Yes. Just like any other law, any other moral issue, the line must be drawn somewhere. I challenge you to draw a line better than the citizens of California just enacted: that only one unrelated nonretarded male can marry one unrelated nonretarded female.

142,

Children are not emotionally mature enough to marry - they alos cannot support themselves - and they are vulnerable b/c of their age.

Gay adults exist - you can either accept that or not - that is up to you.

Gay people are, by definition, not romantically or sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

Should they remain on the fringes of society - in the shadows - less than? That is the issue.

Allowing gays to marry will actually stregthen gay families and will also reduce the number of sham and broken marriages b/t gays [living in the closet] and straights.

I know of several marriages that ended in divorce b/c one of the spouses was gay but was living in denial and shame over that fact - no doubt aided by people with your mentality.

Being gay is a biological fact for some people - it is not a choice and is therefore NOT a moral issue.
It IS a biological issue.

Thanks for providing 0 evidence that you are born gay. Anyways, according to liberal (your) logic anything we are born with is natural and therefore good. This makes perfect sense because liberals are the ones trying to prevent abortions when the baby is born with defects.

Did I just say being gay is a defect? I think I did.... but instead of killing humans with defects (like liberals do), we let them into society and love them the best we can but do not let them screw it up by giving them rights not intended for them (like we currently do).

Why is hate speech against Mormons condoned across the political spectrum?! Democracy is about a free market of ideas, and you don't always win. Gays lost this round, the Mormons will probably lose the next. But...can't we all just get along?

144,

Evidence that people are born gay? There is a mountain of it [not to mention empricial data] - IF you respect science.
For those on the religious right - that is a BIG IF.

145,

I know what you mean - the hate spewed towards the Nazis and the KKK is unjust. It is undemocratic and chills free speech.

Give me a break. Being gay is biological and NOT a choice. The Mormon belief system IS a choice.

You really don't get that???

Hey 138,

What's with all the talk about retarded people? RETARDED PEOPLE CAN MARRY. There's no IQ test required to obtain a marriage license. So can FELONS.

So yes, we lot mentally handicapped people and even child molesters and murderers marry, but it would be unnatural to let gays marry.

How pathetic of you.

144,

Evidence that people are born gay? There is a mountain of it [not to mention empricial data] - IF you respect science.
For those on the religious right - that is a BIG IF.

145,

I know what you mean - the hate spewed towards the Nazis and the KKK is unjust. It is undemocratic and chills free speech.

Give me a break. Being gay is biological and NOT a choice. The Mormon belief system IS a choice.

You really don't get that???

I know people who admit to being gay BY CHOICE.

Ask Lindsay Lohan...

135: it isn't crappy logic, it's only a different philosophical view of life. Western thinking favors the view that active and passive immorality are distinguishable. That's a perfectly fine view, but it's hardly the only valid one. Withholding an organ and getting an abortion have the same end result (in the minds of people like you -- though not in the minds of the medical community, which sensibly does not value a microscopic organism the same way it values a child). Saying that all you're doing is withholding life-saving treatment, as though that's somehow any better than killing someone with your own hands, is the coward's way out. But hey, you go ahead and keep feeling better than all those sluts out there who can't keep their legs shut. I mean, that IS what this is really all about, right? "Don't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant." Okay, then YOU don't talk if you don't want to sound like a retarded asshole.

And, genius: EVERY pregnancy threatens a woman's health, just like every organ donation threatens a person's health. So, hey, I am totally for a completely pointless and silly law saying no abortion except where the mother's life or health is at risk. Because, um, that's EVERY TIME SHE IS PREGNANT.

Here's another one for you. Let's take your argument that a fetus is a "person" and let's even grant that your coward's-way-out biased, masculinist philosophy of morality is a perfectly acceptable basis for differential treatment of women. If a fetus is a person, it's capable of criminal acts. Like, say, trespass. Or rape. If someone is trespassing on my body or raping me by penetrating my insides, you bet your ass I have the right to kick him out. If my exercise of my legal rights against a criminal results in harm to that criminal, that's not my fault. That's the criminal's fault. So, see, even if a fetus is a "person," its right to exist ends where its body inserts itself into mine and refuses to get out.

And you call MY logic "crappy"...

I have paid for at least 3 different Mormon girls' abortions.

149,

I have known hundreds of gay people in my life and have NEVER met one that was gay by choice.

142: how about this line?

One unrelated nonretarded PERSON can marry one unrelated nonretarded PERSON.

Uh oh. Sounds like I found a bright line rule that's just as easy to enforce as yours...

146:
Did you just compare Mormons to Nazis and the KKK?

It's that kind of out-of-the-mainstream that has a few "No on 8" voters in California now reconsidering their votes. All of this unrest is not helping the cause.

151--the logic in your last paragraph breaks down when you realize that if the fetus was conceived by any act of voluntary sex, you invited that person inside of you, hence he/she has license to be there, and you aren't justified in the killing...

booya!

155,

Mormons are not like Nazis or the KKK - they are like segregationists or white supremacists.

I stand corrected.

By point is - intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance - its called standing up for the principle of equality under the law and treating people born gay with respect. Mormons have disrespected and hurt gay people. They deserve the scorn gays are giving them right now.

Why would someone who already has a right fight to deny that right to others?

146--your post is far more bigotrous than anything any of my Mormon friends did in support of prop 8....

"So, see, even if a fetus is a 'person,' its right to exist ends where its body inserts itself into mine and refuses to get out."

A fetus inserts his or her body into yours, as if your body had nothing to do with creating that fetus?

156, sure, if we created an entirely new law based on the legal fiction that someone who has sex has consented to everything that could possibly follow from the sex, including, say, transmission of HIV from a partner who did not tell you he or she was infected.

I think we can all agree that such a legal fiction would be incredibly bad public policy.

151-
You were trying to be clever and cheeky in the last long paragraph of your post, but in reality you were being an idiot.

A fetus is committing a "trespass"?

With logic like that, I can understand how 128 would think that there are people out there who love abortion. You must be one of them.

158,

Calling Mormons who supported prop 8 bigots is not bigotry. It is standing up for the priniciple of equal treatment under the law and respect for people born gay.

Standing up to disrespect and bigotry is called being prinicipled - NOT BIGOTRY.

I am so sick of the religious right in this country - as well as the religious fundamentalists in the Middle East.

They use documents written thousands of years ago to justify their worldview in 2008. Its insanity.

157--will you (or somebody!) please tell me how Mormons (or anyone else opposed to prop 8--52%of CA aren't LDS!) are akin to white supremists/segregationists.

As a black man, I get offended whenever gay rights people attempt to equate their struggles with those of my forebearers. Somebody tell me without mincing words--what is a gay couple being deprived of other than the symbollism of a name?

Don't you dare pretend to be persecuted when you're really not. Gays in San Fran are persecuted?! Please! Give me a break. Look up African-American history for the true meaning of persecution.

Or Mormon history, for that matter.

Calling a Mormon a Nazzi is bigotry. Period.

162,

Why single out Mormons?

So anyone opposed to gay marriage is a bigot now?

Is Obama a bigot?

161, the fact that you find the notion ridiculous belies the absurdity of trying to talk about fetus as though it were human. I'M not the one trying to give the thing human rights. But if we're gonna give it human rights, it has human responsibilities too. Like the responsibility not to commit crimes.

The idea of a fetus committing a crime is ridiculous not because forcing a woman to give birth is not a trespass on her body, but because a fetus IS NOT THE SAME AS A HUMAN BEING.

See, I am only pointing out where YOUR absurd thinking takes us. If you don't like where it leads, that's a problem with your thinking, not mine. I don't think a fetus can commit a trespass because A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.

Get it?

163,

Sorry you are offended.

I am offended when black people oppose gay civil rights. It makes no sense. Fortunately most educated, intelligent black people support gay civil rights. Sexual orientation, like skin color is innate.

At least black people have not had their own families and friends disown them the way gays have.

"Fortunately most educated, intelligent black people support gay civil rights."

168 just called at least 70% of blacks uneducated and unintelligent...

166,

Obama is wrong on this issue. He is right on many other issues though.

I guess if you are not gay - you don't fully understand.
I can respect that.

Gay people have lead invisible lives in many respects.
It is difficult to describe unless you have been in that situation.

We are very fortunate to live in a 1st world country and in a democracy. But there is nothing wrong with fighting to make it better is there?

if a mormon disagrees with gay marriage, he's a bigot

if a black man disagrees with gay marriage, he's "just wrong on this issue."

that seems fair.

169,

And many people on this blog have called gay people child molesters, immoral, and destroyers of civilization.

I didn't realize that this is what it meant to be born with an homosexual sexual orientation.

163 here. Still nobodyanswering my question?

"Somebody tell me without mincing words--what is a gay couple being deprived of other than the symbollism of a name?"

163, it is unbelievable to me that as a black man--one who faces prejudice every day of his life--you can't see this. What's the difference? The difference is that I'm told every day that my relationship is not as valid as yours in the eyes of the law. I'm told every day that I'm not as good as a straight man by virtue of the way that I was born. I'm told that I don't deserve the same rights as you do. I'm told that my family is defined in the eyes of the law by the will of the people of the state I happen to be in at the time.

If it's only about a word, explain to me then why are so many people up in arms about gays "marrying?" If it's only about a word, why did the State of Arkansas bar gays from adopting? If it's only about a word, why does Va. have a law that prevents any sort of civil contract between two consenting same-sex adults that may confer similar benefits to marriage.

Not persecuted, huh? No, not the same as slavery or Jim Crow of the Holocaust, but there is persecution. I can't marry the man of my choosing. I can't visit him in the hospital without a power of attorney. Despite our time together, i can't inherit without be taxed like we're strangers. F*ck, I can be fired in much of the country for being gay. And I sure as hell can't walk down the street in much of the country just holding his hand.

No, it's not the same, but there are parallels. Don't be so blinded by your hatred that you can't see them. You're a lawyer (or will be). You job is to draw the analogy. And on that point...the San Francisco analogy is ridiculous. Are you going to tell that blacks in this country are not discriminated against b/c many live together in Oakland, Compton and West Philadelphia? Try harder, my friend.

This is about gay. You are afraid of gay. You think gay is nasty. That's all fine and good. You can. I'm not going to change your mind, and I don't care if you don't like it. It's my life--not yours. The point is that you are choosing to discriminate against a minority group based upon your preconceived notions about them. That's discrimination, that's bigotry, that's just wrong.

173,

Hundreds of laws, integration into society, and the support that heterosexuals take for granted.

What is it to you if a committed gay couple gets married and takes on those rights and responsibilities?

Are you threatend by that? Uncomfortable?

Too bad. Plenty of people were uncomfortable with interracial marriage - you'll get over it.

Gays are people, citizens, taxpayers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, teachers, doctors, lawyers - they deserve equal civil rights. They should not have to live in the shadows and like shameful people b/c they were born with a different sexual orientation that they did not choose.

163,

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/atf/cf/%7B7A706B3A-165F-4950-9144-2FC92FE4D8D1%7D/LETCARING%20ORG-FOM%20FACTS_MARRIAGE%20MARRIAGE%20V%20DP%20FINAL.PDF

174,

Good post. Too bad its necessary.

Issues like gay civil rights really let you see other people for who they are - small, insecure, threatened, ignorant, hateful, mean.

That is what this is about - small hearts and small minds - a lack of empathy - an inability or refusal to understand your fellow man.

163,

Seriously. How would you respond if tomorrow the State of California decided that Asians, Whites, Latinos and everyone else could marry, but Blacks, well, you can only enter into "domestic partnerships." Would you object? Why? It confers the same benefits. It's only a word, right?

It's easy to discriminate when you're in the majority, isn't is?

176,

Thanks for posting that link showing the legal rights that come with marriage.

Many people who oppose gay marriage do not even understand the legal significance of marriage.

Instead of just saying - "I don't know" or doing the research - they act as if there is no difference b/t civil unions and marriage.

If you don't know or understand something - be man or woman enough to say so.

It is ignorant to pontificate about things you do not know or understand.

173 - without mincing words, they are being deprived the equal protection of the laws, as forbidden by the California state costitution. It may be shocking to your mind, but that in and of itself is sufficient to invalidate the separation of civil union and marriage.

I'm used to explaining this to my non-lawyer friends, but I was under the false impression that the people who read this blog are either lawyers or law students. Either should probably know that the Supreme Court has already declared that "separate but equal" cannot survive equal protection analysis because separate is never equal. It creates stigma, which in and of itself is a sufficient injury.

If you are really interested in the rationale behind all of this, someone above provided the citations for the three state Supreme Court cases that found that a state must provide marriage for homosexuals and that civil unions were an insufficient remedy.

There's a couple great SCOTUS cases you might try reading: Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas.

180,

Good post.

However, the disconnect b/t those who support gay rights and those that do not comes from the fact that some people refuse to believe the overwhelming scientific and empirical evidence that homosexuals are born that way.

Often that refusal to accept this evidence is due to their religious beliefs.

I heard Rep. Sally Kern interviewed on the floor of the GOP convention. She said that being gay must be a choice - b/c God would never let someone be born gay and then condemn them through the bible.

Seventeen years ago this was published. Mother of Christ, why can't they get over it already.

Published: December 17, 1991, NYT

A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that homosexuality has a genetic basis, researchers say, though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

The study, published in the December issue of The Archives of General Psychiatry, adds to evidence that sexual orientation does not result from a maladjustment or moral defect, one author said.

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers," said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, "which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on." By "unrelated," Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.

"The genetically most similar brothers were also the ones most likely to be gay, by a large margin," he added.

The study examined 56 identical twins, 54 fraternal twins and 57 adoptive brothers recruited through advertisements in gay-interest publications.

Identical twins are genetic clones, having developed in the womb from a single egg that split after being fertilized by a single sperm. Fraternal twins develop simultaneously from two separate eggs fertilized by two separate sperm cells, making them only as similar as non-twin siblings.

"This is the first real genetic study of sexual orientation in about 40 years," said Dr. Bailey, whose co-author was Dr. Richard C. Pillard, a psychiatry professor at Boston University School of Medicine.

Dr. Bailey estimated that the degree of the genetic contribution to homosexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent, depending on varying assumptions about the prevalence of homosexuality and how well the sample represents twins in the general population.

Gregory Carey, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Colorado, called the work very important. "I'm not terribly surprised at the conclusions," he said. "I think they're very well founded. Some of the earlier evidence suggested there was genetic effect, but the studies were not well done. This is something that really sort of clinches it."

There are people who vehemently believe that the earth is only 4,000 years old - including the GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin.

So how can you talk sense to these people re: the biological cause of homosexuality?

They are irrational.

176,
That is a pretty weak list, because that list is really comparing traditional heterosexual marriage with gay domestic partnerships. All the stuff about state-to-state recognition is invalid because of DOMA.

Not 163

It's shocking that people aren't interested in joining a cause after its supporters call them irrational, stupid, bigoted, fucking morons. Just shocking.

182 - Just so I understand, you're using an article about a study that states:

"other factors like social conditioning may be important"

"the genetic contribution to homosexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent"

as proof that homosexuality is 100% genetic and not influenced by any other factors?

I think most rational people understand that genetics plays a part in homosexuality, like it plays a part in a person's weight. What seems to be lacking is the study that concludes that homosexuality is completely determined by genetics and environmental factors play absolutely no role (something that I think is pretty well established for race).

I'm not saying this other study doesn't exist, I admit that I don't follow the medical literature closely on this subject, but I can say that the study you cite doesn't exactly seal the deal for you.

186, I don't think anyone here has claimed that being gay (or being ANYTHING) is one hundred percent biological with no social factors whatsoever.

And 30 to 70 percent is not the same as being genetically predisposed to being overweight. It's far more similar to being genetically predisposed to having a high IQ. Yeah, there's a chance you could be screwed up enough as a kid that your IQ is stunted, but chances are that, absent unusual circumstances, you'll wind up smart.

And when it comes down to it, we really don't have a whole lot of control over either our genetics OR how we're raised; regardless, people are hardly choosing to be gay. They are gay as the result of some combination of genetics and upbringing, just as most of us are straight as the result of both genetics and upbringing.

And, no, that obviously doesn't mean that having gay parents has much of anything to do with being gay. The overwhelming majority of gay people were raised by straight parents.

187, I agree with you. I think people are gay as the result of some combination of genetics and upbringing (or other environmental experiences). I also agree that for many, probably the majority, the environmental factors are far enough outside their control as well so that it's not really much of a choice for them at all.

I don't think, though, that this is the message that the gay activist community is pushing. When they say "I was born this way" they are saying that environment plays no part whatsoever. There seems to be a real reluctance to acknowledge any role that the environment plays in the outcome for any individual, as if this will weaken their position.

I think this is part of the problem in getting the two sides of the issue together. Both sides depart, to one extent or another, from the reality of the situation. One side adamantly proclaims that it's 100% biological and the other side is just as adamant at proclaiming that it's all, or nearly all, environmental. FWIW, my own opinion is that it is mostly biological but that environmental factors do play a part, in some individuals more than others.

-186

188... um... WHO CARES???

The bottom line is, there will never be an answer to the question of nature or nurture (for ANY human characteristic). That doesn't change the fact that gays deserve basic human rights.

The only reason gay people keep pointing out that they are born this way is because of the bigots who act like being gay is some kind of "lifestyle choice," as though you choose to be gay like you choose to live in New York City. This kind of thinking is just plain idiotic. The rallying cry that "we're born this way" isn't meant to be a full philosophical synopsis of the situation, complete with all the nuances attendant thereto. A cohesive rendering of the issue would hardly make for a good soundbite. It's a retort to the idiots. If you have an issue with the retort, try looking at the sheer stupidity of the thinking that invited it.

Since we agree that it isn't a lifestyle choice, then, the issue's kind of moot. So, moving on...

-187

How about the human characteristic of race? You're telling me the jury's still out on whether black people are born that way or if they get turned black by their environment?

The whole point the gay activists are trying to make is that homosexuality is identical to race, completely genetic for everyone, no environmental influence at all. The claim that this argument is made only because it's simple and a good soundbite is pretty weak. We're countering their lie with our lie?

You're saying that when the activists are in front of the cameras, they scream "we're born this way" but in their quieter, more introspective moments they explain to people how the environment really does play a part and not everyone really is "born this way"? Somehow, I doubt that's happening.

How can you think that this issue doesn't matter? Like it or not, it's one of the central questions in this whole debate.

Sure, let's make fetuses responsible for any crimes they commit. Now if I remember from bar review correctly, every crime, even strict liability ones, require a voluntary action. The fetus cannot be liable for criminal trespass, since it has not taken any action, and isn't even capable of voluntary actions. At best you might argue it is liable for battery when it starts to kick.

And no one thinks when you have sex you consent to getting pregnant. But you'd be a damned fool to think you have consented to exposing yourself to the risk.

190, how on earth can it possibly matter? Are you saying that it's only "okay" to be gay if it is one hundred billion percent biological? That's just plain stupid. It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion or political affiliation, and those are almost zero percent biological.

Also, no, race is not one hundred percent biological. Environmental factors influence both how you look (e.g., sun damage, age coloration) and how you choose to identify yourself racially. Nothing is one hundred percent biological. NOTHING.

I firmly believe that sexual orientation is 100% biological.

All scientific studies to date strongly indicate this - not to mention empirical data.

It does not make sense to me that the environment plays any role. Sexual attraction is too basic and fundamental to be influenced by environment.

How do you account for all the brothers who grew up in the same environment yet one is gay and the other is not.

I firmly believe that sexual orientation is 100% biological.

All scientific studies to date strongly indicate this - not to mention empirical data.

It does not make sense to me that the environment plays any role. Sexual attraction is too basic and fundamental to be influenced by environment.

How do you account for all the brothers who grew up in the same environment yet one is gay and the other is not.

I agree with the IQ analogy. Sexual orientation is innate like IQ.

193/94, who you're attracted to is influenced by all kinds of factors, including the people you grew up around, the ideals of beauty presented by the media, and people you've dated in the past. That some aspects of physical attraction are generated by social interaction doesn't have anything to do with its validity. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the legitimacy of homosexuality is dependent on it being completely biological. To do so is tantamount to acknowledging that, if it were even a little bit socially-influenced, it would be somehow "wrong" to be gay. There's nothing wrong with being gay, any more than there's anything wrong with being Christian, or Republican, or Democrat, or atheist, or a tomboy, or an opera singer.

The humor in this is that the anti-gays would never, ever acknowledge that they could be "gay" if they were brought up in a different environment, but they suggest that LGB folks could be "straight," if they were. Ridiculous. It's got to go both ways. (no pun intended).

So...there is evidence to suggest that there is a genetic component. Like all other complex traits, there is not a single gene that is expressed in heterosexuals but not expressed in homos. It's probably additive like height or intelligence (meaning...the more genes that lean one way, the more likely you are to lean that way).

In any event, there is also evidence to suggest that there are hormonal factors at play, too. Some studies show that rats are more likely to have offspring that exhibit "homosexual" behavior, if, for example, a fetus of one sex is surrounded by fetuses of the opposite sex. (Imagine: rat uteri are like pea pods). Also, there is evidence to suggest that pregnant animals (and I don't remember what animal was studied here) are more likely to have offspring that exhibit homosexual behavior if the mother is seriously stressed during pregnancy. The belief is that the hormones released control brain development.

I'm ranting, but what the hell. People argue this stuff without having any understanding of science. It's nuts. All human fetuses begin as female. That's the default. I think it's the mammalian developmental default. The fetus becomes male if certain hormones are expressed during certain stages of development. Why doesn't it make sense that the fetus could develop as homosexual if certain hormones are expressed during development?

Why don't people accept that there is evidence of homosexual behavior in just about EVERY animal species studied? That suggests to me that it is a norm not an aberration. It is a norm amongst populations--human and non-human. Moreover, there's even evidence to suggest that amongst animals homosexual pairing INCREASES when there is an unsustainable population surge. Hmmm...maybe that's mother nature's way of dealing with too much breeding.

197:
I will acknowledge that, had I been abused as a child, lacked a father figure, or was exposed to deviant behaivor at a young age, it is possible I could have ended up gay. Hope I wouldn't go that way, but it is possible.

198,

Your post reflects a 1950s myth.

I had a strong frather figure, was never abused and I am gay. Same for my friends.

There are however many heterosexual males who were raised ny single mothers.

It is biological. Nothing else makes sense

198,

Your post reflects a 1950s myth.

I had a strong frather figure, was never abused and I am gay. Same for my friends.

There are however many heterosexual males who were raised ny single mothers.

It is biological. Nothing else makes sense

198,

Is your name Ralph Reed?

198, you're pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Do you still believe that minorities have smaller brains than whites? That's the same kind of disproven crap you're spouting.

196 - Bravo.

Amazing how all the discussion about "environmental factors" and you are the only one to correctly identify that what studies mean by this is primarily hormone levels of the mother when pregnant.

197 - The experts on behavioral psychology universally agree that homosexuality is not a behavioral trait. In other words, it is not caused by behavioral stimuli (this is why APA removed homosexuality from its lists of abberant behavior). So whether you were abused as a child PLAYS NO PART IN YOUR SEXUALITY.

Homosexuality is 100% biological. The studies almost universally point to a combination of genetic and hormonal markers.

Of course, as pointed out above, it doesn't matter. We ban discrimination based on religion and political affiliation, both of which are entirely chosen.

It is not the burden of the party claiming discrimination to explain why they shouldn't be discriminated against, once a pf showing of discrimination is established. The burden is on the gvt to show why the discrimination is justified. The level of scrutiny applied by the court will depend on who is being discriminated against. Good Christ people, go back to law school and take a Con Law class.

199-202- it looks like 198 was trying to support your argument, why all the hate?

192 -

"Also, no, race is not one hundred percent biological. Environmental factors influence both how you look (e.g., sun damage, age coloration) and how you choose to identify yourself racially. Nothing is one hundred percent biological. NOTHING."

You're kidding, right? Your position is that 2 African America parents can have a child and, due to hormone levels during pregnancy or how much sun the child is exposed to, that child can end up being something other than African American?

I don't know why it's so hard for you to consider, but there are actually some things in this world that are 100% biological. 2 Caucasian parents will produce Caucasian children 100% of the time.

I don't care how much of a tan Eminem gets or how much he "self identifies" as African American, his race doesn't change. He was born a Caucasian and he will die a Caucasian.

Race isn't determined by how you look or how you feel, it just is.

It's verifiably untrue statements such as this one that undermine the cause you're trying to promote and cast doubt on any other claims you try to make.