I don't know if Arkansas passed a similar proposition or not, but more importantly Florida did. Good for the Yes on 8 people. I really wish the No on 8 people would just wait a little while and put another proposition on the ballot and do it better this time. Going through the courts is a chicken way to do this.

Shut up, Elie. You're a stupid man.

The constitutional amendment is itself unconstitutional? I'm not sure how this argument works. Unless they are saying that all propositions with this procedural history are flawed.

Third!

Second.

Californians: Does ACLU's position have any merit? Is there a part of the CA Constitution which says this about initiatives that will change the "underlying principles?"

Did they file in federal court? If not, what does article 3 have to do with this?

a copy of the petition is available here:

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37709lgl20081105.html

the legal argument is essentially that Prop 8 constitutes a constitutional revision rather than a constitutional amendment.

This just shows how the ACLU does not respect the people. THE PEOPLE govern and the people voted. Going to the courts for all your 'rights' is not right. Anyways the case barely won the first time it went to court, it won't win this time. The CA Supreme Court would lose credibility and come on, that's the most important thing to any justice.

"expect" for when the ACLU thinks voters get it wrong?

HELP US LAT, YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE. this is terrible.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

I'll let someone else with more time do the research, but my understanding is that there are two ways to amend California's constitution. The initiative process, requiring only a majority vote, cannot "revise" the constitution, it can only add or clarify. For "revisions," the process is different - it requires passage in the legislature first (perhaps by a super-majority vote) before being put to the vote of the people.

So, yes, a constitutional amendment can itself be unconstitutional if not duly enacted according to the amendment process spelled out in the constitution itself.

This argument has legs, and I believe the California Supreme Court anticipated this argument in its decision announcing a "fundamental right" of same-sex couples to marry. This ruling sets up the "revision" argument.

Additionally, the same court that made the ruling will ultimately rule on this lawsuit. The Prop 8 battle is not over, not by a long shot.

The ACLU respects democracy, expect for when the ACLU thinks that voters get it "wrong."

ITS SPELLED EXCEPT, DAMN IT

The ACLU does represent the people, including myself.

Wouldn't the better argument be that proposition 8 violates the U.S. constitution's "equal protection" clause? It's been awhile since I studied con law, but seems to me that a state constitution can't trump the federal constitution. Has any litigation ever challenged gay marriage bans under the federal constitution? I would imagine that a federal court's analysis of the issue would be the same as the California Supreme Court's analysis previously was, otherwise there wouldn't have been talk about needing an amendment to the federal constitution to ban gay marriage.

"The ACLU respects democracy, expect for when the ACLU thinks that voters get it 'wrong.'"

High quality snark to throw at an organization that has been dedicated to the counter-majoritarian mission of protecting minority rights for decades. What are you gonna do next, pick on Greenpeace for not wanting to get oil out the ground?

You suck.

Whatever, 9.

The courts have always been a backstop to the tyranny of the majority. If it weren't, we'd still have segregation, anti-miscegenation, and sodomy laws. You'd think you'd be used to it by now.

"The people have spoken." What a lame legal argument.

So I wasn't going boycott on Friday but now I am. Seriously, WTF?? Arkansas did not pass a ban on gay marriage -- the state did something way more offensive.

DO YOUR RESEARCH (or a simple google search).

Arkansas didn't ban gay marriage this year...we did that in 2004. That wasn't enough, mind you. This year we had to stop "cohabiting couples" from adopting or fostering children.

Arkansas' Initiated Act 1 was billed as anti-gay by the nutty Christian right wing proponents, which explains why it passed. We sure do hate the gays in the South.

16:

No way I'd want to be in federal court if state law arguments can take care of this.

16 - do you really want the current Supreme Court to decide that issue? Maybe once it gets there the bench will have changed a bit, but going the SCOTUS route seems a bit too risky.

That said, I'm not entirely sure the lawsuit in the first place is the best way to go about this. I firmly oppose(d) Prop 8, but this is setting some troubling precedent. Any group that gets pissed off enough can defy the will of the people, no matter how ignorant they are?

Anyone know the procedure for petitioning the people to revoke Prop 8 sometime in the future?

22:

Defy the will of the people?! Oh, horrors! Please, the "will of the people" is not unlimited.

16,

The federal court system is too tricky at this time. To go that route would permit taking this all the way to SCOTUS and that would affect every state in the union. Unfortunately, I don't think the SCOTUS or the country is ready for that case.

16,

The federal court system is too tricky at this time. To go that route would permit taking this all the way to SCOTUS and that would affect every state in the union. Unfortunately, I don't think the SCOTUS or the country is ready for that case.

16,

The federal court system is too tricky at this time. To go that route would permit taking this all the way to SCOTUS and that would affect every state in the union. Unfortunately, I don't think the SCOTUS or the country is ready for that case.

Won't all you fags just get over it. The people have spoken. It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

22, if Prop 8 is ultimately found to have been properly enacted, a simple ballot measure to repeal it should be sufficient (like prohibition). Heck, we Californians could be voting on this issue in every election hence!

16,

The federal court system is too tricky at this time. To go that route would permit taking this all the way to SCOTUS and that would affect every state in the union. Unfortunately, I don't think the SCOTUS or the country is ready for that case.

Are gays allowed to vote now too?

WTF

Elie,

It is unfortunate that you are presenting the news of the ACLU lawsuit in such an inflammatory way -- and without even acknowledging the valid legal question that it poses.

What has happened to the separation of church and state?
From a purely legal perspective, "marriage" in the eyes of the state is nothing more than a contract between two people. Why would you seek to limit the rights of two adults to enter into a contract?
It is not the same thing as "marriage" in the eyes of God, Jebus, or whoever/whatever. Why do people forceably foist their religious beliefs on other people?

It seemed like a good chunk of people in line to vote weren't even well informed. I met people that thought voting yes on Prop 8 meant voting FOR gay marriage.

So much money came in from Utah to promote proposition 8 that the amount of misleading advertisements was absolutely disgusting.

If a proposition is going to have such the effect on a state constitution should money from a foreign state even be allowed to buy so much advertisement?

Prop 8 was more a result of what the people of Utah wanted more so than what, i believe, the people of california wanted.

18- we'd probably have those things in some states but not others today. possibly no states. you can't force things on people. that's not democracy. there's no human right to sodomize

Screw you, Elie.

You can't be credibly sarcastic when it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

34,

You can't force things on people? I always thought it was the other way around -- i.e., since when can an unpopular group be stripped of a fundamental right by a simple majority of voters? (And the court has already concluded that it's a fundamental right -- there's no going back.)

I'm with 3 on this. You're an idiot, Elie.

24 - the SCOTUS isn't ready? Do you mean that the SCOTUS would decide something that you don't like? That doesn't mean it isn't ready. My word, and you all think we're bigoted.

32, two same-sex adults can enter into that contract. It's just that the state and the majority of society calls it a "registered domestic partnership" instead of "marriage". You and everyone else in the minority are free to call it "marriage", just don't make the majority change their own definitions and call it "marriage."

Why do you foist your own newly-created semantic definitions on other people? Most people think burritos aren't sandwiches, but if you think a burrito is a sandwich good for you. That doesn't mean you should get the California supreme court to hold that everyone should accept burritos as sandwiches.

It's amazing how the No on 8 supporters are so ignorant that they think Proposition 8 actually takes away substantive state rights besides a mere label.

Elie is one of those losers I wouldnt even rub my boobs against. Hope Winters

33: More money came from in California than from out of California, and by a wide margin, for both sides. The No on 8 group had MORE money than the Yes on 8 group - I don't know if they used it as well. And the No on 8 group got more money from outside the state as well. So if you outlawed out of state money, the situation would likely have been very similar if not the same.

Also, if with all that advertising on both sides people didn't know what they were voting for, then they are too stupid to vote. Not that they don't have a right to vote, but they'd do everybody a favor by not voting since they obviously can't figure out the difference between anything.

20 -- There's a difference between "hating" gays and being morally opposed to their lifestyle. A big difference. The nutty homosexual left wing doesn't seem to think that others are entitled to their conflicting beliefs.

23. If a group went to court to invalidate bans on gay marriage, they would be right to do so and would (hopefully) win. However, such an approach has a tendency to piss people off (activists judges and all that) and lead to more short term disharmony and tension.

Don't get me wrong. If the only way to legitimize gay marriage was through the court system (as was the case with segregation), then I would fully support it. I just would prefer to look at other, more unifying, measures first. Plus, the ACLU annoys me.

Did someone mention a boycott? is that really going down? ATL of the world unite

To all you folks talking about "the will of the people":

"The people" of California chose long ago to restrain their own ability to change their state Constitution in radical ways. From the brief: "the requirement that a revision to our Constitution may be accomplished only by legislative submission to the voters or a constitutional convention represents a restraint that the people themselves have imposed upon proposed changes to the state Constitution that are especially significant or far reaching."

What does the Art. III have anything to do with this?

Direct democracy does contradict constitutional principles. The Cal Supreme should do away propositions all together.

The separation of Church and State does not mean that people with a religious background and faith can't vote. MOST of our criminal legislation was at least one time morally based. (Of course we criminalize all kinds of stupid things now that have no moral relevance.) Most people's morals come from a religious faith (or at least they traditionally did). This is not unconstitutional but the way the founders set everything up.

Plus their is not "separation of church and state." The 1st Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Where in that does it say Church and State shall be separate. That is a fiction created by liberals. The Constitution only prohibits the State from establishing a religion or really respecting one over another. This is a far cry from a wall between the two.

What a shallow legal argument from sore losers.

44, not sure what your point is.

43: they can have their "conflicting beliefs." all i ask is that they allow me to enjoy the same rights that they have.

40: nice strawman. vurritos? well done.

Prop 8 gives me the right to hate gays. Just ask the Black Panthers guy over there. He will tell you the same thing.

47 - Do away with propositions? From a liberal? What happened to the will of the people and hating the electoral college and all that? Oh, wait, you lost this one so it would benefit you. Got it. My bad for being confused.

I think the "layperson" argument is this: If this was 1930, and "the people" passed a proposition for a constitutional amendment banning Latinos from marrying Whites, "the people" would have spoken - would we stand for this? If it was 1950 and "the people" passed a proposition for a constitutional amendment banning Blacks from marrying Whites, "the people" would have spoken.

"The people" have a history of using money and rhetoric to pass laws that, in hindsight, we find outrageous and discriminatory. The legal challenge is warranted. Here, California's constitution has an equal protection clause. The California Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right. This Proposition amends California's constitution so that it basically becomes: Equal protection for all, except if you're gay and want to get married. Prop 8 is basically changing the EP clause for one group of minorities.

Despite how you may feel about gay marriage, this is a slippery slope. If Propositions are able to amend the constitution in this way, what's to stop another majority group to raise more money to amend the California constitution, which currently guarantees an equal and free public education to all California children, to say that Latinos or Blacks or homosexuals should not have this right?

We have courts for a reason. If "the people" were allowed to make the rules, there'd still be poll taxes on Blacks in the South, American citizens of Latin or Hispanic descent would be arrested without cause in the West, and I'm sure there's a state somewhere that would keep a law on the books denying women the right to vote.

The sooner folks realize that Lat ain't coming back the quicker they'll come to grips with their miserable lives. Face it, Elie is here to stay! This blog is not a democracy, ATL Idol notwithstanding. You think the posts suck? You think the blog has spiraled into the abyss? So sad, too bad. Just move on, buddy. Find another site to keep you entertained. You have zero entitlement here.

Yeah. I mean, "the people" are always right and those courts are always anti-democratic and wrong if/when they disagree with "the people." But see Brown v. Board of Education. Heh.

You are indeed ignorant, 53. Both poll taxes and womens' suffrage came from democratic, not court, action. It's called the Voting Rights Act and the 19th Amendment.

But kudos on being very wordy...

54- Elie

40 -

if you put yourself in a gay person's shoes you would understand that "marriage" is more than a term and separate is NOT equal. Would you be willing giveup your right to "marry" someone and replace it with the right to enter in a domestic partnership?

And please explain how allowing gays to define their relationships as marriage forces or changes your definition? They are asking for the right from the State not asking your approvale ... you know the State that they pay the exact same taxes to as everyone else.

I was on board with eliminating the laws criminally punishing sodomy, but this has gone way too far. Prop 8 passed because even the ultra liberals have recognized the need to draw a line in the sand between tolerance for and active encouragement of something abnormal that most people find perverse. Homosexuals should be ashamed of themselves for equating their so-called "struggle" with blacks or women -- immutable, identifiable groups that were actually repressed, not just denied fringe benefits. Come on homos! You made your choice, deal with the extremely limited legal reprecusions of it! Think long and hard about what you want: a legitimate family with the legal benefits that come with it, or sexual gratification from a member of the same sex. I'm not saying you should choose the first one, but stop expecting the rest of us to give you a trophy and a parade for choice two.

And by the way, spare me the lame cop out about how it's "not a choice" because you've "had these feelings since 4th grade." Maybe so. Alcoholics "have a feeling" too. So do the morbidly obese. And compulsive smokers. And pedophiles. The law shouldn't bend over backwards to extend special benefits to help them satiate their inclinations for booze, food, nicotine, or prepubescent boys. And it shouldn't bend over backwards to reward you for sexual attractions either. No offense -- I'm not "hating" on it, but you have to admit it's not normal and not worthy of encouragement.

Now that the gay rights movement has achieved important levels of acceptance and tolerance, it has turned into a gay encouragement movement. But the only thing driving it is the overly empathetic sentiment of modern America that "everyone is perfect," "nobody's choice is better than anyone else's choice," and "people have no control over their subconscious desires." Right. Wake me up when we're all man enough to admit that we each make imperfect decisions and suffer from abnormalities in our own ways, AND that there's nothing wrong with society implementing incentives to reward that which is morally, socially, or economically desirable. Don't get all bent out of shape about society expressing mild disapproval of one thing that you prefer.

*Gets off soapbox*

This is stupid. Yes, the people of california spoke. I live in the crazy liberal bubble that is coastal california, but if you go inland there are many more conservatives that knew exactly what they were doing in voting for prop 8. Should I have the RNC sue on my behalf because I didn't like the outcome of the election even though Obama won fair and square?

Fighting for women's rights or for desegregation or inter-racial marriage isn't the same as condoning gay marriage. If everyone were to become gay and marry then there would be no more procreation and human life would end. Such is not the case with anything else that this country has progressed on. It's an extreme example but take from it what is obviously a basic argument.

No on 8 people should just suck it up and try again next election. This country/my state is getting more liberal by the year and probably will be able to pass an amendment next election to undo what was done this year.

I agree with 54. All the Elie haters should STFU. He's not that bad.

56 -- 53's point is right on beside the part at the end w/ constitutional amendments. But the amendment process is slow and you can argue it was an awful shame women had to wait until the 19th amendment to vote !! if the court could have done it earlier, wouldn't this had been better?

So 33's blaming his beff on losing Prop 8 on the Mormons?! You've gotta be kidding me! You're giving us way too much credit. Besides, Prop 8 opponents from out-of-state funneled in TONS more cash than the handful of Mormons living in UT w/enough cash to spend it on CA's politics.

oh yes please... let's have lots of activist judges that go around doing things for the legislature because they are just not getting to it fast enough for our standards.

Prop 8 to 190?

59 - jerks like you are evidence enough of repression. Equating homosexuality to alcoholism, smokers, pedophiles?? Homosexuality is natural and not a choice: it occurs throughout the animal kindgom and has been through all of human history. You no more choose your sexuality than skin color.

And what about Matthew Sheppard and similar incidents? What about laws forbidding gays to be teachers? There is a long history of discrimination against homosexuals, and Prop 8 is just another example.

47, amen.

52, do you even live in CA?

Know why CA's budget crisis keeps recurring? Just look at their initiatives. Around half the budget is mandated by initiatives. How can you expect the legislature to balance a budget when they can't control half of it?

If not eliminate it, then raise the standard for entry. Every tom, dick, and harry can get something on the ballot. Just look at the recall election for governor a few years ago to see the election laws are outdated.

On another note, anyone else think it's kinda funny CA voted against gay marriage and against limits on abortion on the same ballot?

This is like some homo Obama site now, isn't it.

13 is right.

Proposition 8 is a revision to the CA constitution and not an amendment. The Yes on 8 crowd will have to try again. This time they'll have to convince 2/3's of the state to agree with them.

"The initiative process, requiring only a majority vote, cannot "revise" the constitution, it can only add or clarify."

Didn't the simple words of Prop 8 just clarify that California would only consider as valid a marriage between a man and a woman?

62: No way. It wouldn't have been better. It would be better coming from the people. Any right I have I would prefer to come from the people (you know, the ones who created the government and from which all governmental power comes). Would I take a court, sure. But democratic legitimacy is much better than forcing down the public's throat or up their ass.

40:

Educate yourself. Married people have certain substantive rights that aren't afforded to people in domestic partnerships. This is a fact. Get a library card. Read a book.

I think it's too early to call that Prop 8 passed, but since it seems like it will pass, i support this lawsuit. The Supreme Court needs to say once and for all that strict scruitny applies to laws that discriminate against gays. That sort of a decision will hopefully lead to the striking down of Prop 8 and the Arkansas and Florida provisions as well.

i really don't understand people who are opposed to gay marriage. Is it hurting you personally for gays to have the same rights as straight couples? No, I don't think so. And don't give me the crap about it destroying the sanctity of marriage. I think the ridiculously high divorce rate in this country already managed that. Or it being unnatural. Cars are "unnatural." Pacemakers are "unnatural." Just because something is "unnatural" doesn't make it evil.

And no, I don't really care what the Bible says. I shall direct you to this West Wing scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI for why it's silly to follow everything the Bible says.

73: gender discrimination (e.g., women getting admitted to VMI) gets intermediate scrutiny . Why on earth would laws that limit something that's never been a fundamental right get strict scrutiny?

Gay marriage = gay divorce = more work for lawyers

It's not 2/3 of the voting public for a revision. Per the ACLU complaint, it's 2/3 of the house + senate to get the measure on the ballot or to a constitutional ratification process.

71 - it wouldn't have been better for women to be able to vote before 1920.??? Good thing they had to wait for men to vote on it?? You are an idiot.

74: gays have the exact same rights as straight couples: a gay man or woman can marry a single, non-incestuous person of the opposite sex. Anything more would be creating new rights.

Let me first say that I supported Obama over Hillary in the primaries, voted for him in the general election and think that was the most important thing ever and I'm happy on merit as a gay Californian.

That being said.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings /2008/11/prop-8-and-the.html.

Prop 8 would have lost if Hillary were the nominee instead of Obama based on voting patterns and turnout of Black voters in California.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRN

Black people: You owe us gay people BIG TIME.

66 -- So typical. Calling me a "jerk" because I object to one aspect of your personal lifestyle. I'm sure there are a lot of things about my lifestyle that you'd object to, and I don't think you're a "jerk" for disagreeing. It's a shame that the a gay rights proponent can't articulate a more intelligent, reasoned argument than the "Matthew Sheppard card" (because there are a lot better arguments in your favor out there). But I'll respond to your platitudes and strawmen nevertheless.

1. I never said it was a conscious, deliberate choice. But neither are any of the other examples I listed. More specifically, neither is a sexual affinity for blondes, Asians, tall chicks, or women with big boobs. The point is, just because it's a "predisposition" doesn't mean that it's deserving of special recognition or protection under the law.

2. I sincerely doubt that even you are dumb enough to honestly believe that anything in my previous post even remotely condoned beating or murdering gays. Hell, I even said that I was in favor of eliminating laws that criminalize homosexuality. My point is precisely that this RARE example is what constitutes "repression." Emphasis on rare. But even Matthew Sheppard isn't an example of repression by the government --- it was simply a crime. And the criminals who did it were punished for it, as they rightly should be.

66- Is there scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic, or "natural" as you say. Other animals do it? Is that your proof?

59:

Honestly, what's the percentage of people that looked at the length of 59's comment and decided to skip it? 97% For fucks sake, if people cared that much about your opinion, you'd probably be writing for a newspaper or magazine. But you're not. So keep it short. That's all.

Here is how to solve the problem: States should not be in the marriage business (straight or gay) --- leave that to religous institutions. All current marriages will be reclasified as civil unions. Civil unions can be formed by any two consenting adults regardless of gender. Civil unions will have the same rights (e.g., inheritance, next of kin, etc.) as marriage did before the enactments of civil unions. PROBLEM SOLVED.

I don't undertsand why the gay rights movement wants marriage. Isn't marriage a government stamp on your personal life? I though the gay rights movement (and the ACLU??) wanted government out of our lives. And isn't marriage an institution of religous systems which have historically been hostile towards homosexuality? Why would you want this institution to be a part of your life? (Oh right, its about the economics -- see above for civil union solution.)

The back story on Prop 8 in the SF Bay Area is that the measure was behind by 10 points until a grade school teacher took her students to City Hall to see gay marriage because it was a good "teaching moment".

People were pretty ambivalent about the measure before that dumb ass move--which was widely reported nationally and locally on the TV news. O’Reilly even had a segment on it. The rest is history.

74--It's fine that you don't care what the Bible says, that's your right. But when you deny someone else their right to care what the Bible says, then you've gone too far.

The problem with gay marriage is that it's being used as a weapon to undermine religious liberties and freedom of conscience.

32, You are wrong about this:

"From a purely legal perspective, 'marriage' in the eyes of the state is nothing more than a contract between two people."

If that were the case, then there would have been no debate, because California law already provides the same contractual-type rights via domestic partnerships. Marriage is different. It is the institution that provides the stability and obligations intended primarily to benefit children. That is the only reason governments should sanction and support marriage. If the issue is only about two people, not children, then governments should stay out of it.

Supporters of Prop 8 believe that governments should support and encourage circumstances where children have a married mom and dad, because in their view, that is best for children and society.

Also, so long as gay unions are legally different (even in name only) from marriages, religions feel safer from the inevitable challenges by gay activists asserting that churches should lose their tax exempt status if they treate gay marriages differently from straight marriages.

83 -- You watch a lot of MTV don't you?

72,
Get your own library card. Read the California Family Code.

“domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections , and benefits” as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5

Yes, democracy can get it wrong, and democracy should be ignored and even actively derided when it gets it wrong.

This is one of those instances. Unlike some people, I don't blindly trust the will of the people, especially when they're people from CA.

Best of luck to the ACLU -- American heroes is what they are.

"where children have a married mom and dad, because in their view, that is best for children and society. "

IN THEIR VIEW? Is this even up for debate? Surely even the gay rights activists aren't arguing that it's not better for kids to have a normal family.

90- who decides when democracy gets it wrong? I agree with you, but who decides when the democracy is right and when it is wrong? You? Me? Natural Law? uh oh ...

Allow me to translate post 90:

Yes, democracy can [DISAGREE WITH MY PERSONAL VIEWS], and democracy should be ignored and even actively derided when it [DISAGREES WITH MY PERSONAL VIEWS]

This is one of those instances. Unlike some people, I don't blindly trust the will of the people, especially when they're people [WHO DISAGREE WITH MY PERSONAL VIEWS]

Best of luck to the ACLU -- [PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH MY PERSONAL VIEWS IN THIS INSTANCE] is what they are.

79--I know it's not a legal right, but I would like all my friends, gay and straight, to be able to marry who they love. currently, my gay friends can't, even though I as a straight person can. That just seems unjust to me. That being said, I'm perfectly fine with 84's view. Actually, I really like it--I'm not quite sure why the state got into the business of marriage anyway. It is traditionally a religious thing, and I'm fine leaving it there.

-74

Marriage to whom or what you choose is not a fundamental right. Can I marry my sister? No. First cousin? No. A man and a woman at the same time? No. Two men? No. A pet? No. A corporation? No.

Why not, you ask?
Marriage has always been about creating stability for children and society. Society has made a moral judgment

Jeez- you homophobes can't have it both ways. The burrito/sandwich bullsh*t is the best example- if there are burritos and sandwiches, and the state's giving out both for free, saying that some people are not entitled to is discrimination. Either marriage and domestic partnerships are the same (they're not) and thus why spend millions of dollars to prevent gay "marriage" when there's already gay "marriage" or they aren't, and in that case it's discrimination. How about eliminating state supported or recognized "marriage" altogether, make everyone enter into "domestic partnerships" and leave marriage to the churches etc? No? Why not? Because marriage and domestic partnerships are fundamentally different (in their out-of-state recognition for example), despite how much everyone wants to protest that they are not.

Regardless of your view, I would think that anyone would think it's fair to call a foul when a group of people (with at least 1/3 of their funding from out of state) tries to make an end run around a constitutional requirement so they don't need as large a majority as they would otherwise...

80, I came to the same conclusion this morning when analyzing the election results by county. If you compare how Prop 4 did with Prop 8 (especially Los Angeles County), and account for the extra black and hispanic turnout, I strongly believe that Prop 8 would not have passed had Hillary Clinton been the nominee.

Additionally, Hillary would have won the election (although not likely to have won Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina).

Obama's California legacy = Prop 8. He has a moral duty to address that.

Marriage to whom or what you choose is not a fundamental right. Can I marry my sister? No. First cousin? No. A man and a woman at the same time? No. Three men? No. A pet? No. A corporation? No.

Why not, you ask?
Marriage has always been about creating stability for children and society. Society has made a moral judgment that these unions would not promote stability for society and for children. For now, society has made the same moral judgment about gay marriage.

If it were a fundamental right, then I would be allowed to marry as many people or whichever people I want. And maybe even non-people.

91- actually they do argue that it makes no difference to a child whether he has a mom and a dad or two dads, or two moms. One argument is that sure, likelihood of the children growing up to be homosexual themselves is greatly increased, but that is seen as a benefit to the child.

70, according to the Munger Tolles / ACLU petition I just read, Prop 8 does not merely "clarify" anything - it significantly infringes upon the equal protection clause since the California Supreme Court already ruled under that clause that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. A proposition can no less remove that right for gay people than it can remove the right to marry for interracial couples. To do that, you need to follow the more restrictive process in Article XVIII. This is to prevent a "temporary whim of the majority" from taking rights away from minority groups.

89:

Not true. For example, notwithstanding the language in the FC 297.5, gay couples can face major challenges when one partner becomes sick or dies. Partners are not guaranteed the right to visit their loved-one in the hospital. This is merely one example - there are many more differences, but I'm not going to list them all. Like I said, all of this information is available at your local library. You should check it out next time your picking up a burrito.

Are you serious 91? There have been tons of independent studies of children growing up in gay and lesbian households and they do just as well, if not better, than those not. In fact national groups (like the National Association of Social Workers, Pediatricians groups, etc have consistently filed briefs on this point).

Children in gay and lesbian families are almost always wanted, planned for, and often fought for. I have two wonderful boys, and by the way, our family is just as NORMAL as any other out there- they just happen to have two moms. Two moms that love them, care for them, planned and sacrificed for them. I know plenty of kids being raised by heterosexuals who would be better off in our family.

96 -

No on 8 had millions more out of state dollars then Yes on 8.

Your analogy is wrong. The state is giving out sandwiches (the right to marry a person of the opposite sex who is an adult and not a close relative). Gay people want burritos (the right to marry someone of the same sex). The government's decision to keep giving sandwiches to everyone, but burritos to nobody, is not discrimination.

I would like all my friends, gay and straight, to be able to marry who they love. currently, my gay friends can't, even though I as a straight person can. That just seems unjust to me.

It seems "unjust" to you because you're probably under 30 and you've probably grown up listening to MTV tell you that EVERYONE IS ALRIGHT and IF IT FEELS GOOD, DO IT!! Wrong. There are "better" and "worse" choices in this world. Being gay isn't evil. It's not criminal. But - face facts - it is "suboptimal." We can debate all night about the degree to which that is true. The conservative Christians will tell you it's VERY suboptimal, and deride me for suggesting it's anything less than evil. The ultra left wingers will deride me for suggesting it's anything less than *ABSOLUTE PERFECTION*!!! But the truth is, it's abnormal, and society shouldn't be actively encouraging it. Society SHOULD be encouraging families. A lot of the societal problems that we're currently asking the government to solve for us have arisen concomitantly with the downfall of the family unit. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality, per se. There are just more and more heterosexual people out there who reckless choose to bring kids into this world without two stable parents, or who selfishly give up on maintaining a family unit after the kids are born. THAT is the issue we should be exerting our breath on, not the triviality that is "gay marriage."

87 - there is zero chance that churches would lose their tax exempt status over not performing gay marriages. There's no difference between refusing to perform those and refusing to perform, say, a marriage between a Jew and a Catholic. I'm sure there are churches out there that wouldn't perform an interracial marriage. Those are religious issues (though arguably bigoted ones) and the states and feds have always kept out of that.

98, the slippery slope argument fails miserably here. There is no fundamental right for you to marry your sister because the California Supreme Court ruled in the Marriage Cases that the right extends only to two non-related adults of legal capacity. In California, the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the state consitution, not you. If you want to marry your sister, I suggest you file a lawsuit under the California equal protection clause. I seriously doubt we'll see many people lining up to support that one.

There's just no other way to put this. Elie is a jive turkey.

Why are people so stupid on this issue? Unless you are a homosexual, then you shouldn't have a dog in this fight; their marriage is, at worst, a moralism externality for you. Please calm down and face the fact that you can't impose your will on other people.

103- it's all in your description - the state is giving out sandwiches - the right as a consenting adult to marry another consenting adult of your choice to whom you are not related. They offer burritos (the right as a consenting adult to be a domestic partner to another consenting adult of your choice to whom you are not related) to everyone, but gay people who want sandwiches- no way.

How about this? Once those making the "it's for the kids" argument agree that everyone who gets married must plan to have kids or show the financial ability to adopt (and undergo fertility treatments if they haven't had kids, say 5 years into the marriage), force all couples who have kids not to get divorced until the kids are 18, then talk to me about marriage being about the kids. Better yet, spend some time with gay families, and tell me that the kids in those families arent entitled to the same rights that other kids have (because denying marriage to their parents does impact them and deny them rights too)

102 -- No doubt that you and your partner probably make better parents then a lot of the dysfunctional heterosexual parents out there. I'm not disputing that. My comment was only partly geared at the distinction between straight and gay couples. It was primarily geared at people selfishly bringing kids into or creating single parent homes (or even dual parent homes suffering from other dysfunctionalities). Every study tells you THAT puts the kids at a huge disadvantage.

Nevertheless society shouldn't strive to actively encourage homosexuality, and adoption laws that consider homosexuality as a "minus factor" seem perfectly rational to me. If I was a state legislator I don't know that I personally would write such a factor into state law, but that's why we have 50 states working as laboratories . . . and why a federal constitutional amendment re: gay marriage is ridiculous.

84 presents the ideal solution. Interestingly, this is exactly the solution C.S. Lewis, (Christian apologist or child-corrupting mouth breather, depending on whether or not you are Phillip Pullman) articulated in response to the problem of divorce.

Marriage is a dead institution. Why gays and lesbians would want to lash themselves to this sinking ship is beyond me.

106 -
Your argument is ridiculous. It amounts to saying "Marriage is what the Supreme Court says the constitution says it is (except when the people change the constitution, then it is what I say it is)."

The "I doubt many people want to do it" argument doesn't apply to all of my examples. What about polygamy? What about the desire of a bisexual person to marry one person of each sex? How will your Supreme Court distinguish those?

109 - false analogy. It's like their giving out a turkey club and calling it a sandwich for straight couples and a burrito for gays. The point is that it's still a turkey club.

Although according to some other poster above, the civil unions didn't afford identical rights as a marriage. This problem can be solved, however, by ascribing civil unions the same rights as a marriage.

Marriage as a traditional social institution is based strictly on gender bias.

If you try to include same-sex unions into the definition of marriage you preclude gender bias. This in turn destroys the institution.

This is all a moot point anyway though. Marriage as a social institution died when permanency was removed.

If people were really concerned with preserving the "institution of marriage" they would be focusing on moving towards permanency of the union, not excluding individuals who also value the institution.

89 - definitely gay.

100: 70 here, Loving took away any state's option to proposition away interracial marriage and was based on finding that deciding with whom to procreate was a fundamental right and heterosexual marriage was the preferred vehicle to exercise that right. Again, I don't see how equal protection applies since as 79 said, gays have the exact same rights as straight couples: a gay man or woman can marry a single, non-incestuous person of the opposite sex.

112 -- Amen. Ironically, not only are they lashing themselves to the ship, but using the fact that it is sinking, in part, to justify being allowed to do so. I do not support extending legal recognition of marriage to homosexuals. But whether or not individual states choose to do so, the BIG problem is that heterosexuals are rejecting the family unit. It's easy to see why; marriage means giving up a lot, and expending a lot of effort. Just think back to your college days? Was it easier to share a dorm room with a roommate, or have your own suite? Now the financial motivation for marriage has almost virtually disappeared for women. And people are having fewer and fewer kids. So why get married if you don't need a partner to support you or help raise children? You can come and go as you please and have sex with as many different people as you like. It just becomes a problem when people get set in their selfish ways and then decide they want to bring a kid into the world without the benefit and stability of two parents. That's what's causing real damage to our society, way more than gay marriage.

If Ellie supports the bashing of the ACLU, he's a better man than I thought.

Governments sanction and encourage marriage because the people believe that having a married mom and a dad is best for kids.

You respond, "Not all married couples can have kids." And, "Many homosexual couples make much better parents than some heterosexual couples." These are true statements. But society still (rationally) encourages what it has adjudged to be the ideal -- kids should have a married mom and a dad -- even if the ideal is not met in many cases.

104, if you think society should be exerting it's energy on preserving stable families, I'm fine with that. But I happen to think gay families are perfectly "stable" and that there are a lot of children out there waiting to be adopted who could use a loving family, even if it happens to be same sex. But of course, I'm under 30, so clearly what I think is "normal" shouldn't count according to you. But here's the beauty of society--it changes. And I'm pretty sure that by the time I'm 80, society collectively won't think gay marriage is "abnormal". Just remember society collectively used to think that blacks as a race were inferior and that women were best suited in the home and therefore shouldn't be working. Personally I'm quite happy that society no longer considers working women "abnormal."

Each child should have the right to a mother and a father in their life. Unfortunately we can't make parents be a) good parents or b) even stick around. But we can try our best to set the system up so that kids have parents of each sex. Just because parents fail doesn't mean we should abandon the attempt. Kids have rights too.

"And I'm pretty sure that by the time I'm 80, society collectively won't think gay marriage is "abnormal"."

That's exactly the problem; and exactly why most people oppose legalizing gay marriage. It's a classic slippery slope concern.

But I'm not sure that you really meant to say this. If you're arguing that it won't actually be abnormal 50 years from now, that would seem to cut against gay marriage to me. Do we WANT more and more instances of homosexuality in our society? Because that's what it would take for it to become "normal". Right now maybe 2-3% of the population is homosexual. That, by definition, is abnormal. I oppose legal recognition of gay marriage, but not even I think that it would necessarily increase the number of homosexuals, at least not significantly. So it would still be "abnormal" -- just like interracial marriages are still abnormal today, decades after being legalized.

Your working women analogy is suspect. In the first place, having more and more working women has partly contributed to the downfall of the American family unit which in turn leads to children who are less cared for and less educated and generally more disadvantaged. I'm not saying a woman's place is in the kitchen. I doubt my wife will be sitting at home knitting after I get married (at least not as long as we're without children). But I am saying that women - and society as a whole - give up something by choosing to work. This whole "working mom having it all" thing is a myth. Take an economics course and flip ahead to the chapter on "opportunity cost." Your whole analogy illustrates that there can be negative effects of broadsweeping social change. It's not all "positive" in the end, just because it's "progressive" at the time.

Speaking of revisions - I'm offended this idiot keeps changing spelling in posts after they've been brought to his attention by irate readers. Put the cookie down and proofread!!!

you are perfectly welcome to stay home and raise children. I, however, would prefer to work. Don't put the burden on the downfall of the american family unit solely on women choosing to work. Men are perfectly capable of raising children. I happen to hate children and would be a terrible mother.

But I digress. I disagree completely that homosexuality being seen as "normal" would lead to increased instances of it. I suspect we fundamentally disagree on something--I don't think you choose to be gay. I think it's a largely biological basis for whatever sex you're attracted to. Therefore, I don't think approving of gay marriage would somehow cause the homosexual population to increase. I suspect you feel differently.

And I just noticed that you implied interracial marriages are still considered abnormal. At least, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant society at large still thinks it's abnormal, not you personally. And I completely disagree. I'm from the deep South (backwoods Georgia), and, for the most part, even people there no longer find interracial marriage odd.

why is it a kid's right to have a mom and a dad? what evidence shows that that's preferable to say, two moms and a known donor? or two dads and a key non-related female role model? You can speculate. But most o the credible research doesn't support it.

of course you could also speculate that having two parents of the same color is better, that having two college educated parents is preferable, that having parents who make six figures is preferable, or having two parents neither of which who work 80 hour weeks is preferable. But that is insufficient reason to deny fundamental rights to one segment of the population in the name of saving the "children."

Oh yeah, as has been pointed out here, and society also once thought that it was preferable that races be educated separately. And not intermarry. But there was no legitimate compelling reason for discriminatory laws then, just as there isn't any for the laws now. Just cuz society thinks it, dont make it true.

Oh and by the way, it's not like gays and lesbians aren't having children because they can't get married- just like for every other demographic out there, it's no longer a requirement. In fact, as an earlier poster said, denying parents the right to marry hurts their children!

Mother nature seems to think kids need a mom and a dad. Mother nature doesn't seem to care about the race of the mom and dad.

126-
1. You assume that marriage is a fundamental right that can't be denied in the name of saving the children. In actuality, it is a benefit conferred by society for the sake of the children. So your argument fails.
2. People vote based on their experience. Most people have experience either having or being moms and dads. They seem to be of the mind that it's important. Also there is plenty of credible research on their side.

If you're against gay marriage, don't get one and shut the #@$% up.

I second 17 and 35.

125 -- No, I explicitly said that I do NOT think that legalizing gay marriage would necessarily lead to much of an increase in homosexuality. My point was that it WOULD NEED TO in order for gay marriage to become "normal." By definition of the word! Nothing that occurs in 2-3% of the population is "normal." It is "abnormal" by definition. You're confusing "normal" with "socially acceptable." Homosexuality has already become socially acceptable, for the most part. I know a lot of people who oppose gay marriage, but none of them (that I know of) have any animosity towards gay people. Even though I personally don't believe that legalizing gay marriage would lead to a large enough increase in homosexuality to make it "normal," that is essentially the general slippery slope concern -- society shouldn't be passing laws designed to *encourage* homosexuality.

Your second point further illustrates your confusion over the meaning of the word "normal." Not to go all Scalia on you, but Dictionary.com defines it as "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural." I'm using it in the standard/common/usual/regular manner, as opposed to the "natural" manner. Whether or not you view homosexuality or interracial marriage as natural, they are both objectively "abnormal" in society. Not that being abnormal is inherently bad. The abilities to hit a golfball 400 yards, swim at a world record pace, and score 230 on an IQ test are all abnormalities.

Half the commenters in this thread are anti-gay bigots, pure and simple.

This lawsuit will prevail; Prop. 8 will be declared invalid; gay marriage will reign in CA; and, at some point down the road (15 years? 20?) a majority of states in our formerly bigoted, homophobic country will allow gays to marry. Like most of the innumerable "rights" (civil, women's, children's, etc.) on which we (forward-thinking intelligent people) have to had to battle conservatives and the status quo, we will be vindicated.

But think of the hundreds of thousands of hours wasted in these battles that could have gone to endeavors not consisting of, e.g., trying to persuade a group of bigots that children fare just as well being raised in a gay household than as in a straight one (see, e.g., http://pedsinreview.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/9/354).

Conservatives: give us our time back! You are a drain on our minds.

I'm afraid if they permit gay marriage my two effeminate sons will become gay and get married to men. I mean, if given the choice, who wouldn't prefer to marry another dude? (uh, was that out loud?)

-- typical Prop 8 supporter.

122 said: "Each child should have the right to a mother and a father in their life. Unfortunately we can't make parents be a) good parents or b) even stick around. But we can try our best to set the system up so that kids have parents of each sex. Just because parents fail doesn't mean we should abandon the attempt. Kids have rights too."

++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's put 'er to a vote -- who thinks this person is either "likely," or "very likely" mentally retarded?

Aye.

132 -- So the ONLY justification for opposing extending legal recognition of marriage to homosexuals is "homophobia"?

I think he means abnormal in the sense of rare or uncommon - not wrong or bad.

132 -- "You are a drain on our minds."

It doesn't seem that way because none of you seem to actually consider any of the arguments against gay marriage; you just spout off a bunch of rhetoric about "homophobia", "fundamental rights" and "equal protection" -- blindly ASSUMING that homosexuals are some sort of immutable group like foreigners or minorities, deserving of special protection. Well that's the entire argument!! So convince us. What makes your desire to have sex with someone of your own gender anymore deserving of legal recognition and special protection than my affinity for tall, athletic women with big breasts (as opposed to short, fat women)? Why does it violate equal protection simply to deny homosexuals the slim legal benefits of marriage, but not to prohibit pedophiles from acting on their sexual desires? Granted, your sexual deviancy is victimless. But nobody is trying to criminalize it. From an equal protection standpoint, the analysis is the same. It's ridiculous for gays to try to classify themselves along with immutable minorities. Sexual orientation is a choice (albeit a subconscious one), not an immutable badge identifying you to the world.

113 - no reason to call my argument (at 106) ridiculous. There can be no dispute that the law is what the (California) Supreme Court says it is. Here, the CA Supreme Court has spoken and determined that the fundamental right to marriage extends to two non-related adults of legal capacity and not to incestuous couples or polygomous marriages or any other group on the slippery slope.

If you believe that the right to marriage in the California Constitution extends to polygomous groups, then by all means find a group willing to get married and file a lawsuit. I suspect you will lose for many reasons people smarter than myself will articulate (many of whom seem to be employed at MTO judging from the petition), two of which are:

1) polygomous groups are not a suspect class while homosexuals are in California, therefore rational basis and not strict scrutiny applies; and

2) there is a rational basis to prevent polygomous marriages due to the power dynamic (high domestic abuse) and women's rights, among others.

This is why the slippery slope argument in favor of Prop 8 is just wrong.

And I second 132.

137, see 106 and 138. Pedophiles are not a protected class, nor are men who like attractive women.

If you think you deserve to be a protective class, file a lawsuit and see what happens.

"1) polygomous groups are not a suspect class while homosexuals are in California, therefore rational basis and not strict scrutiny applies"

The slippery slope has begun. If gays are really a "suspect class" in California, then it's only a matter of time before an alcoholic challenges drunk driving laws for infringing on his fundamental rights. He didn't make a conscious choice to become an alcoholic! It's completely natural. It's not abnormal! Who is society to judge him?? And it violates equal protection to put his liberty at risk every time he gets in the car, when other non-alcoholics are not subject to the same risk.

You can't say that homosexuals are a "suspect class" without opening the floodgates to every subconscious tendency and inherent predisposition known to mankind.

137 -- My point is precisely that homosexuals are not (under federal law) or should not (as the case may be in California) considered any kind of "class." Classes must be defined by immutable characteristics if they are to mean anything.

141 - well there's where we disagree. I believe that homosexuality is an immutable genetic characteristic no different from race. At this time, the California Supreme Court (but not the U.S. Supreme Court, yet) agrees with me. I suppose this could change with different justices, but I believe the science on this issue is only getting stronger.

140 - alcoholics, like pedophiles will never be a suspect class. They are not a discrete and insular minority, and gays don't kill people by driving. There is no slippery slope here.

I'd just like to point out that this proposition was supported by the majority of CALIFORNIA -- generally one of the most backwards, extremist, ultra liberal states in the union. Imagine what this indicates for the rest of the country as a whole. I think this means that the gay activists have finally gone so far that society is starting to realize that we can tolerate and accept homosexuals without praising and encouraging their behavior -- and there is nothing wrong with that.

131--Actually, you're wrong about the definition of "normal." There are plenty of physical variations that occur in 1-3% of the population that medically are considered to be "normal" variations.

142 -- I agree that this is THE fundamental source of disagreement, not just between you and I, but separating the entire country. If science ever reveals some gene correlated with sexual orientation, then I will concede that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic deserving of special protection. But that hasn't happened, and isn't likely to. I think that sexual desire is a single, linear continuum. Sexual orientation isn't anything special. It's just like other inherent preferences for height, weight, skin color, etc. Gender is just another variable. They are all subconscious predispositions that we exercise little direct thought over.

Just like alcoholism and pedophilia.

Of course, there are much greater justifications for resisting inclinations towards alcoholism or pedophilia than for resisting homosexual inclinations. I'm not saying homosexuality is as intrinsically bad as these things. I'm just saying you can't rationally consider one to be an immutable characteristic without lumping in the others. And for that reason alone, it is dangerous for society to tell ourselves that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Doing so is just a step closer to completely writing off everything we say or do as the result of subconscious/biological forces beyond our control. And when we stop accepting personal responsibility for every aspect of our lives and personalities . . . well, that's when we have much bigger problems than gay marriage to worry about.

144 -- As I clarified in a previous post, I was using "normal" in the regular/average/common/standard sense, NOT in the "natural" sense.

132 here, again.

137: Go read In Re Marriage Cases (CA) or Goodridge (MA) or Kerrigan (CT) for the answers to your questions.

gay

147 -- Cites please and I will.

Sorry, faggots.

- Tim Hardaway

In re Marriage Cases: 183 P.3d 384
Goodridge: 798 N.E.2d 941
Kerrigan: 2008 Conn. LEXIS 385

151 -- tyty

You know, I was surprised when my law school had an unexpectedly low asshole quotient. But I see that's not the case for the legal profession as a whole...wow, so this is where all the douchebag lawyers are...

153,

Actually, all the nice kids from your law school become douche bags when they come here to anonymously post. That's how teh internets work.

153 is naive.

154 is intelligent.

People in person aren't people online. I bet you don't go to a top school, 153, because otherwise you would have realized that fact.

Society doesn't have to "encourage" homosexuality ! it happens, it is completely natural. There are gay singles, couples, and families out there doing exactly the same thing as straight people every day. Why do people care so much about who people other are sleeping with? What happened to good old just MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. this country is so f*ed up about sex and marriage.

145 -- (assuming you're a man). I'm asking this honestly as a gay person: did you choose to be straight? Are you only 100% sexually attracted to men, have been your entire life, and you fall in love with men -- but then at some point you chose to go for woman? you decided to be heterosexual?

Because that is what it would be to me. It is not a choice. It isn't like I want to have sex with woman or fall in love with them - it has never happen, i have never done anything with woman other than really uncomfortable exploring in my teens. I am 35 years old.

Do you really think this is a choice? you need some gene map to show you?

145 -- (assuming you're a man). I'm asking this honestly as a gay person: did you choose to be straight? Are you only 100% sexually attracted to men, have been your entire life, and you fall in love with men -- but then at some point you chose to go for woman? you decided to be heterosexual?

Because that is what it would be to me. It is not a choice. It isn't like I want to have sex with woman or fall in love with them - it has never happen, i have never done anything with woman other than really uncomfortable exploring in my teens. I am 35 years old.

Do you really think this is a choice? you need some gene map to show you?

145 -- (assuming you're a man). I'm asking this honestly as a gay person: did you choose to be straight? Are you only 100% sexually attracted to men, have been your entire life, and you fall in love with men -- but then at some point you chose to go for woman? you decided to be heterosexual?

Because that is what it would be to me. It is not a choice. It isn't like I want to have sex with woman or fall in love with them - it has never happen, i have never done anything with woman other than really uncomfortable exploring in my teens. I am 35 years old.

Do you really think this is a choice? you need some gene map to show you?

145 -- (assuming you're a man). I'm asking this honestly as a gay person: did you choose to be straight? Are you only 100% sexually attracted to men, have been your entire life, and you fall in love with men -- but then at some point you chose to go for woman? you decided to be heterosexual?

Because that is what it would be to me. It is not a choice. It isn't like I want to have sex with woman or fall in love with them - it has never happen, i have never done anything with woman other than really uncomfortable exploring in my teens. I am 35 years old.

Do you really think this is a choice? you need some gene map to show you?

Per usual, the comments in this thread ignore the substance of the post. See here for a more "enlightened" discussion by Prof. Volokh: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1225923130.shtml

Former Thelen partner Tom Glascock (aka Glass Cock) here, telling everyone to be concerned only with where you put your glass cock, not where your neighbor chooses to put his glass cock.

157-160: I have made two emphatic points in all of my posts tonight. (1) All aspects of sexual desire in general (including orientation) are nothing more than arbitrary points of degree along a linear continuum. For these purposes, there is nothing separating homosexuality from any other sexual predisposition, whether it be an affinity for tall women, muscular men, little children, or beastiality. (2) No sexual predisposition results from *conscious* choice.

However, this does NOT support granting special legal protection to homosexuals, because there is a difference between subconscious inclinations -- which we as human beings must wrestle with and, in many cases, control -- and immutable characteristics like gender or race.

Simply put, there is no way you can argue that your "orientation" is some "immutable characteristic" deserving of special legal protection, if you're unwilling to let pedophiles argue that they are a suspect class - and alcoholics, and serial killers who hear voices and do what they say. I trust that you're intelligent enough to see that this does NOT imply that homosexuality is equated to alcoholism, pedophilia, or serial killing. But, like all sexual inclinations, it shares a common thread with all of these things: the dangerous potential to be recklessly explained away as something beyond our personal control. The only difference is the justification for trying to control a particular inclination. But that bears on whether we choose to criminalize something -- not whether it is considered "immutable." Nobody is arguing that homosexuality should be criminalized. But until the extremist left wingers (and yes, the ones proposing radical new social change are appropriately labeled "extreme" - not the mainstream majority who opposes it) can put forth a cogent argument to explain how to safely write off sexual orientation as something entirely beyond personal control without dangerously writing off every other sexual inclination and, indeed, every other subconscious human predisposition.

I love how 163 is acting like it's point, set, match with his argument.

163: Please do us a favor and provide a legal basis for your assertions. I eagerly await some legal substantiation of your proclamations.

my god, the underlying issue really is simple: no one is being stripped of a right. any gay man or lesbian woman can marry a person of the opposite sex. to analogize it to banning interracial marriage is dubious and offensive. marriage as a fundamental right has little to do with the actual definition of marriage.

obviously, a same sex couple should have every right possessed by a heterosexual couple.

but does a same sex couple have a "fundamental right" to be called a heterosexual couple? get over it, and try to understand why some people might not want to redefine a term so others can make a vindictive point.

Summary of all posts:

Yes on Prop 8 supporters attempt to put forth rational arguments.

No on Prop 8 supporters call everyone who disagrees with them bigots, closet gays, and dumb.

This is a normative argument, not a positive argument. The only "legal" aspect is its conclusion: homosexuality is not the type of "immutable characteristic" that should be subject to special legal recognition/protection. Although it has not been widely articulated, I believe this argument represents a fundamental problem that mainstream America has with the gay marriage movement. It's not necessarily moral or religious grounds for many of us; it is a pragmatic concern about accountability and personal responsibility.

Summary of 166:

A bigoted, closeted, dumb gay.

-No on Prop. 8 supporter

fair trade: let the gays marry, but kick out the illegals and stop letting them in.

doesn't the absence of absolutes, and the delusional, postmodern, moral relativism you endorse mean that i can kill you and rape your wife/partner if i find the right justification?

168 just pwned 166

59:
Your post was dead on. It wasn't too long either like someone said. It was outstanding.

59 - haven't we chatted online before? are you Hippobottomus on AOL?

59: You tell them. By the way, Loving v. Virginia was totally wrong too. I mean, a lot of people thought interracial relationships were wrong.

Why should the courts encourage white women shacking up with black guys? I mean, white women should just be attracted to white men and black men to black women. Why should the courts care about BS feelings and choice. It's just chemicals.

See how ridiculous you are?

www.fireeliemysTTTal.com

59, props.

173, All women have a natural slot for which men of any color have a natural insert. The pieces fit. Sodomy is akin to forcing the a square peg into a round (one way exit) hole. The pedophilia analogy is closer than the mix race apology.

pedophelia is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon in the animal kingdom as well... (why do people reach puberty before 18?)

anyway, the country is becoming more and more liberal... the days may come when all grade school kids will be taught from "King and King" and other alternative life style trainers... the gay community can then celebrate the rebirth of ancient roman/pre-christian morality.

but not on my watch. not if I can help it.

on another note, as marriage gets degraded, what's the point of having marriage based tax incentives?...
single attorneys could enter into temporary marriages with young college students... doesn't take anything more than a contract... there's money to be made for both parties. think about it.

added props to 59.

Assuming that most of us here can be considered members of the "legal community," I must now go laugh at Scalia's comment that there is some sort of gay conspiracy in the legal community. No, Justice Scalia, do not fret, ignorance is alive and well in the legal community.

Because, you know, gay marriage is just like... pedophilia. Er, consent? Contract between adults?

176: "single attorneys could enter into temporary marriages with young college students... doesn't take anything more than a contract... there's money to be made for both parties. think about it."

Define it as a K between TWO (and not more) consenting adults.

And, have you not heard of trophy wives, sugar daddies/mamas, Hugh Hefner...?

176 here, 178, you misunderstand me. I really was thinking it would have been good for me financially to enter into some sort of arrangement like that... I'd have saved tens of thousands in taxes since I started working!

but the whole marriage/divorce stigma is there.... but, hey, it's going away pretty darn quick! Soon maybe I can marry my hamster (it's a joke, but you can run with it, I can take it).

speaking of "trophy wives" what's so wrong with polygamy if everyone is consenting? It seems one trophy wife is never enough for the men who collect them...

I'm still looking for that sugar momma who can save me from this 9 to 2(a.m.) grind...

Polygamy (polyandry) is also natural in a portion of the animal kingdom. So is rape. I'm not sure the "natural" argument is a winner.

I'm Pro Elie. Anti hate.

59 -- I hope your still reading these posts. Your my hero. You summed up alost all my thoughts on the issue without the explitives that I would sully the board with. Thank you!

59 -- I hope your still reading these posts. Your my hero. You summed up alost all my thoughts on the issue without the explitives that I would sully the board with. Thank you!

What a steaming load that snarky line that was. The ACLU's mission is not simply to 'protect democracy,' but to stand up as a voice for minority populations when the majority starts to trample their rights.

If we start perverting state constitutions to single out groups, we're going to start down a very slippery slope. Imagine if we could subvert the courts with petition drives to get around Brown v Board of Education, Griswold v Connecticut, or the Scopes Monkey Trial (all ACLU cases, I should mention).

Even if you don't agree that gay couples deserve access to the same rights afforded married straight couples, they at least deserve the right to fully litigate their case. Bad form, ATL. Shame on you.

Apparently lawyers do not keep up on the latest scientific research. The science is that homosexuality has a significant genetic component. People who are arguing that gays make the choice to be gay are wrong as a scientific matter. People who argue that gays should "control" the "inclination" as a moral matter, would I assume be okay with a constitutional amendment banning straight fornication, since the Bible says its wrong and your straight desires are merely genetic dispositions that should be controlled. Or perhaps all blue-eyed baby should be forced to have brown eyes. Or all Downs Syndrome babies should be eradicated since it is a genetic mutation and the only way to control it is to get rid of it.

As far as the argument that gays should be happy with "civil unions" as opposed to "marriage", I ask people to consider the euphoria in the African-American community over the election of Barack Obama. The fact that Obama won did not change anything overnight, but it was a symbol of social validation. American society, as a whole, had finally broken down the highest barrier of racism and welcome the African-American community into the upper echelons of political power. Validation is a strong thing, particularly when it is preceded by a long period of shame and lack of acceptance. Of being told you are not "normal", that you aren't good enough. Shedding that shame is a difficult process, and often entails others telling you that you are in fact good enough, that you belong. Gay marriage is our Barack Obama -- it is our being welcomed into the great tent of America. But the flaps are closed to us still, and the shame continues.

"Arkansas passed a measure to prevent gay men and lesbians from adopting."

You mean, passed a measure to prevent unmarried couples from adopting.

By the way, the significant difference between marrying your dog or polygamy and same-sex marriage is the proven genetic component to same-sex attraction. The real slippery slope is not that recognizing same-sex marriages will lead to recognizing other forms of marriage, it's that legislating against a genetic trait that harms no one will lead to more legislation against that which we cannot change because of genetics, and that harms no ones (but is not "normal").

- 185

185 -- I'm the OP from last night who started most of this with post 59. I've repeatedly admitted that if/when science establishes that homosexuality is "immutable" in the same sense as race or gender, then I will concede my arguments no longer hold water. Yes there are a million different surveys that will tell you a million different things -- just like the fallacious study that erroneously indicated pre-segregation black children had a worse self-image than white children, which was relied on my Brown v. Bd. of Educ. because its purported result supported the progressive result desired by the Court.

I'm open minded. I'm receptive to decisive scientific evidence indicating that sexual orientation = race = gender. But the fact is, it hasn't been found yet. I admit there may be a genetic "component" to it, but the point of my argument is precisely that pedophilia, alcoholism, obesity, etc. ALL might have genetic components to them! That doesn't make them immutable or deserving of special legal status.

And BTW here's why I suspect no scientific evidence of sexual orientation will ever be found: SEXUAL ORIENTATION CHANGES!! It's not static! Many people vacillate back and forth between homo, hetero, and bi-sexuality. Look at 19 year old college girls! Look at married guys who come out at 40! Look at prisons! You telling me the high rate of homosexual activity in prisons is due to some immutable, genetic change that occurs to inmates? Hell no. It's the product of environment and circumstance.

Sorry gays. You have many rational, viable arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage. But immutability of sexual orientation is NOT one of them. It happens to be by far the strongest one, so I understand why you're so desperate to play the card. But facts are facts. It doesn't hold water.

Here's my question for the gay community: When and why did convincing the world that there is absolutely no fundamental difference between homo and heterosexuality become so important to you? I feel sorry for all the gay couples crying in California right now about their "marriages" being taken away. I really do. But this whole idea is a pretty new concept, and homosexuality has been around for a LONG time. So have you all been completely miserable without legalized marriage for the past 2,000 years? Can't you be happy with yourselves while nevertheless admitting that having a pretty significant abnormal trait distinguishes you from mainstream society in certain, limited ways?

How can this be a fundamental change to the Constitution?-

Up until 6 months ago, same sex marriage was not recognized under the CA Constitution.

All this proposition did was restore the status quo ante.

To argue same-sex marriage is fundamental to the Constitution is quite absurd -- given that it was put there put there by judicial fiat. Courts do not have the power to fundamentally alter the Constitution (or to alter the Constitution at all for that matter).

If the CA Supreme Court were to hold that Prop 8 fundamentally alters the Constitution, it would implicitly be recognizing that their decision that imposed same-sex marriage also fundamentally altered the Constitution. This impict recognition would be an acknowledgement that their action itself was unlawful.

188 - You are pretty ignorant. Try to distinguish sexual behavior from sexual orientation. Straight people can have gay sex experience under special circumstances. That, however, does not mean they are attracted to the same sex. Sexual orientation cannot be changed, and this has been proved by empirical study.

166 is clear and succinct.

168 is a bigoted, (un?)closeted, dumb gay.

Half our country fought for slavery during the Civil War. Did not make it right.

188 -- The fact is that opposite-sex attraction is genetic. The fact is also that same-sex attraction is genetic. While the particulars of the genes involved (there are many, and they overlap) are still being sorted out, there is not dispute to either claim. I'm not sure what it would take to convince you -- the only difference between orientation, race and gender is that you can verify 2 pretty easily by sight. The other takes affirmative action for other to verify (but not to exist). And that's the real sticking point with you.

Is it ALL genetic? Perhaps not. But is it really an all or nothing proposition. What percentage does it have to be? Obama is only 1/2 black and his environmental factors were decidely white, so can we say that he could have chosen to be white? The fact is, that the genetics and any environmental factors are beyond our control. There is no choice for us. At all. And that is beyond dispute. I did not wake up one day and say I choose to be a faggot. Just like Obama woke up one day and chose to be black.

There is no more providing gays with a special legal status in recognizing same-sex marriage as there is in recognizing opposite-sex marriage. The only difference is that the majority has the genetic markers for opposite-sex marriage and of course they vote themselves the special legal status.

As far as sexuality being fluid being proven by gays coming out at 40, you don't get it. Gays don't come out until they are 40 because they have been shamed into the closet for 40 years.

As far as being happy with ourselves? Look at the words you and others on this board write. Can gays really be happy with ourselves when we have to read and encounter such invective every single day, from childhood through death? It's easy to say that one should find validation from within when you are constantly being validated by society on a daily basis without even recognizing it -- when you got married to your opposite sex partner and your friends and family celebrated it, when you had your first child and your friends and family celebrated it, when you got laid for the first time and your friends celebrated it, when you talk to the partner about what you did with your wife or girlfriend this past weekend and the partner does not look down uncomfortably because you acknowledged you were gay.

why is polygamy wrong if everyone is a consenting adult? why don't more homosexuals stand up for the rights of radical mormons to marry who they want? (why do these groups keep hurting each other? is there some sublimated tension going on...)

why is government even involved in marriage at all? this is the more important question.

also, as far as gayness not being "immutable", please show be the reputable scientific research showing that you can change your sexual orientation. there is none. that is why it was declassified as a mental disorder in the 1970s, the exact opposite it true. it's immutable.

-- 185, 193

102: Social Workers and the AMA? Those are two of the most liberal groups out there. My personal experience does not bear out your conclusions.

BOYCOTT ATL

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH.

BOYCOTT.

SEND A MESSAGE TO LAT AND HIS ADVERTISERS!

193 -- You make many fair points, but you're dead wrong that the immutability of sexual orientation (or any other aspect of sexual desire) has been objectively established. I understand that it makes it easier for you to understand who you are and justify your preference by believing this, but that's exactly my problem with this cop out. Despite all your valid points, your argument completely ignores that fact that it would sweep in just about every other subconscious predisposition held by humans. The point of my argument is that it's damaging to society to tell ourselves that things like pedophilia, alcoholism, or morbid obesity are "immutable" simply because of genetic components. Homosexuality, in and of itself? Not quite so much. I concede that. But this slope isn't just steep and slippery; it's a sheer cliff.

Finally, I'd like to point out that 99% of the "invective" in this thread has been directed at people espousing MY position! "Homophobe"; "bigot"; "moron"; etc. The gay rights movement was important when it was about vindicating the repressed. It has, to a very large degree, achieved that. The discussion on this thread isn't throwing around anti-gay slurs (I haven't read every post, there may be a few isolated exceptions). But now the movement has become something sick and misguided, seeking to cast guilt on society for anything short of open and enthusiastic encouragement of the gay lifestyle.

BOYCOTT ATL

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH.

BOYCOTT.

SEND A MESSAGE TO LAT AND HIS ADVERTISERS!

Lat, seriously, I have this blog on my feed and I'm taking it off today. Some of these other writers are deplorable. I'll read the WSJ Law Blog instead until you exert some control over the madness.

There's a ton of evidence to suggest that most men also have a genetic predisposition (we can even say they are genetically programmed) for liking multiple women. You see this every time a married man has an affair or even looks at that nice piece of @$$ over his gf's shoulder (you bros know what I'm talkin' 'bout)

This has been established in study after study! If men could get away with having tons of hot wives (and could afford it) many, if not most, would. Look at the pre-Christian rulers of the world who had that opportunity.

Why does everyone ignore the posts on polygamy? Why is it so wrong? Shouldn't they have the same rights you advocate for gays?

Why are gays PC, but polygs so not?

I think polygs should Boycott ATL!

DUDE, WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WITH A GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO LIKE THEIR KINSFOLK? THAT'S BEEN A WAY OF LIFE IN PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. THE STATE SHOULDN'T REGULATE WHETHER A MAN SHOULD MARRY HIS SISTER. THEY SHOULD JUST REQUIRE MANDATORY CASTRATION FOR THE WELLBEING OF THE CHILDREN.

199 - let's filp things - YOU prove to ME that sexual orientation is mutable.: change yours.

With all the comparison to polygamy -- honestly, who cares about polygamy and why is it considered so bad? What are the arguments against it other than it is not "normal" ? I think so what if a man & 2 woman want to get married - what do i care? I have no interest in doing that but I just because I don't think it's right doesn't mean I should tell other people how to live, it doesn't affect me. I know polygamous situations also are indicative of other kidns of abuse & control, but outlaw the abuse & control. Honestly, live at let live - this is freedom and that is American. I don't really see how it would work in a 'marriage' system where all the laws are deisgned fof 2 people, but why does everyone jump on so quickly to say it is wrong?

Sooooo... BoycoTTT ATL TOMORROW!

Silly faggot . . . dix are for chicks

199 -- I'm just coming into this discussion, so please let me know if you've already addressed this, but as to your slippery slope argument, there's a basic difference between, just to take one example, pedophilia and being gay. The first, when acted on, results in grave harm to others, while the second does not. Even if pedophiles claimed to be a suspect class under the equal protection clause, they would still lose a challenge to anti-pedophile laws under the equal protection clause because such laws would survive even strict scrutiny - the states have a compelling interest in keeping children from being abused. By contrast, there is no compelling interest in not allowing gay people to marry each other - there isn't even a rational basis for doing so.

Elie, how dare you criticize the ACLU?! I'm so sick of this blog's conservative bias.

To all who are comparing gay marriage to the oppression of blacks, Loving v. Va., and the Civil Rights Movement: do you find it all ironic that 70% of blacks in California and 71% of blacks in Florida voted FOR the gay marriage bans?

Apparently it isn't the civil rights issue everyone says it is.

210: Many whites might vote to ban interracial marriage. Since when does 'majority rule' determine the content of basic human rights, regardless of the electorate?

Yay to 132! I completely agree. I was talking to a friend yesterday who said "I have to really watch myself that I don't sound like I'm waiting for all old people to die." The point being that he really is just waiting for racist/bigoted/conservative/stupid people to die and the percentage is just a lot higher in the older population.

When I'm 80 I'm sure my grandkids (assuming us "career women" are allowed to have kids, an assumption I'm beginning to question after reading these comments) will think I'm an old fuddy duddy too and terribly conservative. Unlike many, however, I hope I'll still have an open mind.

Oh, also, 140? You're a moron. We don't punish people for being alcoholics and drunk driving, we punish them for getting behind the wheel of a car and potentially KILLING someone. Are you even a lawyer? There's definitely a case on point that I have no desire to spend my time looking up.

211: Whites opposed the gay marriage ban in California.

Blacks, who were clearly not pleased with white liberals equating gays to blacks, voted for it overwhelmingly.

re: To all who are comparing gay marriage to the oppression of blacks, Loving v. Va., and the Civil Rights Movement: do you find it all ironic that 70% of blacks in California and 71% of blacks in Florida voted FOR the gay marriage bans?

yes - it is ironic and I wonder if most of those people even thought for 1 second what the world would be like if this country had to vote on black or latino marriages back in the day.

205: Agreed.

Maybe we should stop legislating morality. It's the same argument I have with religious nut-bags all the time, "without religion people would do so many more bad things!" No, we wouldn't. I don't believe in god and I think you're a credible idiot for doing so but that doesn't mean I'm out there lying. cheating, stealing, etc...even if I AM a lawyer!

215 - haha, i couldn't agree more with you or 205.

Am I missing something? I don't see how, because we're comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage (Loving), but 70% of blacks in California voted for the ban somehow this ceases to be a civil rights issue?

No offense intended to anyone, but are blacks the new arbiter of civil rights for all groups because they had to fight for their own?

You cannot by amendment pass something into the Constitution that would CONTRADICT something already in the constitution. We couldn't by initiative put something in the Constitution permitting religious discrimination, for example. So, assuming that the CA Supreme Court found a specific right in the constitution (which is certainly implied by the In re Marriage cases), there is a legitimate argument that this initiative is a revision to the constitution (which has a different process) rather than simply an amendment to address an issue previously not addressed.

218:
There may be an argument, but it isn't legitimate.

State law avenues are dead ends for the No on 8 crowd. Complete pipe dreams. Their only shot now is to ask a court to hold that the U.S. Constitution protects gay marriage.

Please sign the petition to repeal Prop 8:
http://www.petitiononline.com/seg5130/

219 : The argument is legitimate. When the Constitution provides 2 ways to make changes- amendments as small changes and revision as greater changes, each with separate requirements (a revision requiring more than 50% vote of the people) -- there is a real argument as to which kind of change this is. The argument is not whether Californians can change their constitution, it is that some changes are so fundamental they require more than a majority vote and is this one of them? Under CA law we are talking about 1) a fundamental right (marriage) and 2) a suspect class (homosexuals). This is the same as if the amendment said blacks could not vote (federal issues aside). The answer is not clear to the question of whether this the kind of change that is an amendment or a revision? The court will decide.

219 : The argument is legitimate. When the Constitution provides 2 ways to make changes- amendments as small changes and revision as greater changes, each with separate requirements (a revision requiring more than 50% vote of the people) -- there is a real argument as to which kind of change this is. The argument is not whether Californians can change their constitution, it is that some changes are so fundamental they require more than a majority vote and is this one of them? Under CA law we are talking about 1) a fundamental right (marriage) and 2) a suspect class (homosexuals). This is the same as if the amendment said blacks could not vote (federal issues aside). The answer is not clear to the question of whether this the kind of change that is an amendment or a revision? The court will decide.

Thanks 220 for the Repeal Prop 8 petition link.

God Hates Mean Laws

Re: 220:

The petition is retarded. It's addressed to the Governor, who already spoke out against 8 and who has no authority to override the constitutional amendment.

Furthermore, it is just a cut and paste of the (failed) No on 8 campaign's talking points, and doesn't even request any action. It reads like a plea to the Governor to vote against the measure as if [1] he was undecided and [2] today is Monday, Nov. 3.

This petition needs to be rewritten entirely before I can support it.

220 - get back to your glory hole.

220 likes gay porn.

anyone else think 59 etc is a closet gay?
193, you said a lot of what I was thinking after reading this in one sitting.

189, You're an idiot. Stay in law school or think about a different career. The Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution. What they say it is is what it is. Lord.

Obama was elected by a tyranny of the majority, therefore ACLU should fight his election.

199, do me a favor today. Pledge to suck a dick every day for the next week--anyone's but your own, of course. When you're done, come back and tell me how fluid your sexuality is or how your heterosexuality is not "immutable." That I'd like to hear.

It's really easy to sit in judgment when you have no understanding whatsoever about those you're judging. Perhaps, if you're so "open minded," you should get a gay friend. Then sit down with him and ask him why he does what he does.

I don't think you're a closet case. I just think you're misguided. And please don't talk about how you and your friends have no problems with gay people. That's akin to the old "I'm no racist, but...[fill in the blank]". If you had no problem with gays, you wouldn't be saying that they don't deserve the same things as you. [And, please, for the love of God, don't say they can marry someone of the opposite sex. How would you feel if your government told you that you can't marry the woman you love, because she doesn't have a penis].

No...onto the analogizing. Yes, the LGB struggle is not the same as the Black struggle. We generally can hide; Blacks can't. Their repression was (and is) much greater than ours. BUT where the struggles do coincide is in the reprehensible treatment that both groups receive from their respective majorities. The prejudgment. The attacks based on fear that are justified by "reason" or "logic" and in many cases the Bible.

No one has asked you to embrace the gay community and accept it as "normal" (though by your definition, I guess the US Asian, Latino, Black and Native American populations are not "normal"), what we have asked is that you recognize that we are your neighbors, friends, brothers, sisters and co-workers. We go home to our significant others and children every night, just as you do. We have families that loves us, friends that adore us and people who rely on us. But as we live our lives every day, we're told...you're ok but not so ok that you should be equal.

You can't understand it. You never will, but you can try. Look at your sister the next time you see her or your best friend, or that one woman you're madly in love with but never can have. Look at them and tell them how much you love them, but you just can't see how they would be equal, if they chose to date/love/fuck someone of the same sex. Or imagine your Mom telling you that.

I really just don't understand it. It's fear, but we've not moved far enough along to recognize it.

I knew this gay alcoholic guy who got wasted at a gay bar and passed out overnight behind the dumpster after hooking up with some other dude (not me). He got severe frost bite and had to have his feet and fingers amputated. Now he is a member of a protected class.
Oh how the floodgates have opened up!!!!

I knew this gay alcoholic guy who got wasted at a gay bar and passed out overnight behind the dumpster after hooking up with some other dude (not me). He got severe frost bite and had to have his feet and fingers amputated.
He is a member of a protected class.
Oh how the floodgates have opened up!!!!

Homosexuality is an abhorrent and deviant practice that has slowly gained acceptance because of its vocal and militant supporters. While we can all love the sinner, the sin should not be encouraged by the state. The people of the state of California recognized this basic fact.

The gay community does itself a disservice to liken itself to the civil rights movement, the Jews in Germany, or the internment of the Japanese in WWII. It cheapens those noble struggles all in the name of foisting abnormal sexual practices on the rest of society.

Homosexuality is an abhorrent and deviant practice that has slowly gained acceptance because of its vocal and militant supporters. While we can all love the sinner, the sin should not be encouraged by the state. The people of the state of California recognized this basic fact.

The gay community does itself a disservice to liken itself to the civil rights movement, the Jews in Germany, or the internment of the Japanese in WWII. It cheapens those noble struggles all in the name of foisting abnormal sexual practices on the rest of society.

230- well said. There are probably always going to be people like 59, 233, etc. All we can hope is that society becomes more enlightened and certain people cling less desperately to the beliefs that give them some sad sense of identity. You know what's abhorrent? Cheapening the love two consenting adults have managed to find against all odds in a shitty world by calling it "deviant" and a "sin" (a word that has no place in a discussion about civil rights) Sure, its not the norm. Do you want to "encourange" homosexuality? I would say no more than you want to "encourage" heterosexuality. We should all be encouraging our children to embrace who they are so they can grow up to be healthy, adjusted individuals, not people who live agonizing lies (how about talking to a person whose spouse has come out of the closet after years of marriage and see what they think about that idea). There will always be plenty of heteros around to continue overpopulating the world, so concerns about encouraging homosexuality and dwindling the population are just pathetic excuses.

Again, I think the majority will come around and in the meantime, there are tons of people who are behind the gay community and will continue pushing for change (even my normally conservative mother, product of a strict Catholic upbringing, gets teary eyed to think that gay couples cannot marry for such moronic reasons). While I am straight, I can't stand having morality disctated to me or anyone else from the blatantly religious right. Keep those Bibles where they belong

235's sheer contempt for Muslims, Catholics and Evangelicals, or anyone else whose religion helps shape their morals, is patently obvious.

Isn't it ironic that those who oppose gay marriage do so with love and kindness, while those who oppose religion do so with hate and anger?

236,

Did you go to Karl Rove school or what? Disagreement is not contempt. And, yes, the Fred Phelpses of the world and their ilk that covered California on Tuesday do all their work with love and kindness. The real irony is that it's the religious that judge and repress. Jesus and Allah have been so co-opted by religious factions whose teachings have only a tenuous relationship at best to the tenets their prophets taught, that's it hard anymore to find practiced the peace, love, generosity and kindness that permeates our great religious texts. It's truly disheartening.

What you don't see my friend is that we don't just your choice to be religious. We judge your choice to impose your moral values on us. Their yours, not mine. Don't encroach on my rights. We have a secular country for a reason, and it will be restored.

We will win. It is war. Your rule is over. Ours shall begin. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.

199 - I disagree. There was recent research showing that testosterone levels in a woman's womb during pregnancy have an effect on the sexual orientation of a child. Moreover, as I pointed out in 196, every reputable scientific study done on the subject has shown that attempts to change one's sexual orientation fail. Thus, it is immutable.

As far as pedophilia, as I mentioned above, if an immutable genetic trait harms no one, such as being gay, then why should we legislate against it? Pedophilia obviously harms people. As far as obesity and alcoholism, if California passed an amendment that marriages between obese people or between alcoholics are unconstitutional, would you not object? Would it matter if research shows there is a significant genetic component to obesity and alcoholics? I would think yes on both counts.

Otherwise, a lot of marriages on this thread would obviously have to be dissolved.

- 193

Frankly, the most important argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is proscribed in the Bible.

The Bible is still the foundation of the religious tradition of this country -- whether you like it or not.

Doubt it? Why do Presidents still swear on the Bible? Why is Obama forced to defend his Christianity/church in order to get elected?

People have used arguments from the Bible to opress Blacks, but they're really contrived. Nothing concrete in the Bible saying Blacks or other ethnic groups are worse than whites, and, quite frankly, it is pretty obvious that Jesus wasn't caucasian.

The argument for subjection of women is also not enshrined in the Bible. There are certain roles that women are not supposed to have (i.e. pastor), but nothing that says they can't be gainfully employed and have non-church leadership positions.

The Bible, however, is very clear about God's opinion of homosexuality and homosexual behavior.

Frankly, many Christians are OK letting gays do what they want in the closet. They just don't want themselves or their children to be exposed to openly gay conduct/society.

Therefore gays' struggle is fundamentally different from that of blacks (and other minorities) and women. Even if you take a majority, there will always be a virulent minority that believes you are polluting their children. This won't ever change.

Homosexuals aren’t the only ones that can't get married. There are other unions that society has declined to encourage. Currently, cousins are not permitted to marry. Why? Is it because society hates cousins? Are we bigoted and judgmental against those cousins that just want to be together and live in peace?

No, it’s because their unions have a tendency to produce children that our society has deemed to be less than ideal so we don’t encourage them. Why, then, should society promote unions that, by their very design, produce no children at all? Society certainly has no interest in acknowledging and celebrating my love for another individual, regardless of how important those feelings are to me personally.

What homosexuals are seeking is an acknowledgment from the state that their unions are identical to heterosexual unions and should be promoted and encouraged in the same way. Society voted and disagreed. That’s it.

16, 21, 22, 24, etc... Please go back to Con Law again for a quick refresher.

States are free in their constitutions to grant further or different protections to citizens than are granted by the us constitution. It's not a question of going into federal court -- the CA Supreme Court is the final authority on what the law of CA is. The us supreme court could not even hear the case. The equal protection claims made by the plaintiffs in In Re Marriage and the current petition are based on the fundamental right to marry - under the CA constitution - without regard to sexual orientation. There is no such right under the federal constitution because, for all the arguments listed above, the us supreme court has (rightly) not defined homosexuals as a suspect class (which used to be reserved only to discrete and insular minorities).

As a matter of CA law, and believe me I hate to say this, I think the ACLU is exactly correct in its argument. Clearly there is a fundamental right (as of May 2008) that is being infringed upon. Based on the CA supreme court cases that have interpreted the difference between an revision and an amendment under CA law, it appears to be almost a no-brainer that Prop 8 amounts to a revision to the CA constitution.

It drives me batty that the courts have again usurped the will of the people by spitting in their faces in May by creating a "fundamental right" when 61% of the people of CA clearly did not think any such right existed, and now will (rightly) crush the people's amendment to the CA const. I guess the Yes on 8 folks will have no choice but to start the revision process, but since the Legislature is involved it will likely take many years even to get a draft out of committee. Yes on 8 is fu*ked.

On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds that it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Proposition 8 supporters challenged the revised ballot title and summary on July 22, 2008, contending that Attorney General Brown had inserted "inflammatory" language that would "unduly prejudice voters against" Proposition 8. On August 8, 2008 the California Superior Court turned down the legal challenge, affirming the new title and summary, stating "[t]he title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California.

235 here- 236, where did I say anything about having contempt for people whose religions shape their morals? My only contempt is when they try to force their morals in a manner that hurts or represses others (which is one of my biggest problems with my inherited catholicism- I cannot accept the church's treatment of women as anything but offensive). I am very quick to recognize the value of religion in shaping morals- although I am absolutely a lapsed catholic and don't believe in any particular organized religion, if I have children, I would consider raising them Catholic, or some other form of Christian or even something entirely different, because I do think there is some value to that. Take that as you will

I don't oppose religion when it serves a positive function, but when it is the cause of bigotry, fear and hatred, and is really ignorance veiled as something else, well then, how is that ok? If people cling to their religion so desperately that they are threatened by anything other than what they believe, I think religion has then crossed a very inhealthy boundary. And yes, that is when I have contempt for such people- because it is sad and pathetic and makes me think their beliefs are fragile. If you believe so strongly in your faith, then what other people do with their own lives should not threaten you

Why won't the anti-gay religious admit that you just hate the fags b/c you think it's icky? It's different and you just don't like it. Perhaps that's b/c you really don't think of yourself as prejudiced...buy you are. You hate people just because they are different than you. But that sounds like too much like other prejudices, and we need to avoid that!

All you otherwise reasonable people do is hide behind a book to justify your bigotry. So...the Bible's the full word of God, right? You ascribe to all of its pronouncements?

This is my favorite. Check out this West Wing clip. All of the Biblical citations are legit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

Interesting, huh, that there are Biblical teaching that ALL OF US can agree are outrageous. Hmmm...and all of us can disregard THEM.

Christians out there, please quote for me ANY words on homosexuality ascribed to Jesus. 239, why don't you try? I'll give you a hint: there are NONE. THERE ARE NONE! On an issue that the religious right has made their corner stone, JESUS SAID NOTHING. (Sure, the Old Test. does, but watch that West Wing clip again). Does that shock you??? Jesus had much to say about adultery and divorce, yet none of you are out there picketing to repeal the divorce laws or criminalize adultery in your States. It's amazing that the "religious" lobby contends that we're brainwashing people, when they play Swiftboat all night long.

The intellectual dishonesty that many of you exhibit regarding this issue is just reprehensible. Yet, there is no way for us to counter it, because you cloak it in "faith." I was raised Catholic, and it's just as apparent in that church. Catholics say their religion forbids gay marriage so they don't support it, yet they have premarital sex, use contraception and divorce all they want. Hmmm...sounds like we've made a choice as to which rules to follow and which to ignore, because we can't admit that it's a choice.

You may be able to demonize us, but know that we're your brothers, sisters, friends, cousins, hell, maybe even your parents. God willing one day someone you love will come out to you, and you'll see how hurtful you are. You'll see it in the eyes of someone you love. But if that does not happen, in due time you will be replaced by a younger, smarter generation of accepting people, and you'll be seen by the world the same way we view our racist grandparents--you'll be pitied and your views will be disdained.

We don't live in a country that discriminates, but many continue to think that discrimination against gays is ok. We will stand up taller; and we will win this struggle. 40 years after Stonewall, we've finally seen that we can't be complacent any longer.

Elie, normally I stick up for you, but this is just plain shitty reporting. Read the freaking petition - skim it, at least - before you cover it. Maybe you would learn a thing or two about what it actually says, which might affect how you present it. That is YOUR JOB.

ACLU's press release doesn't do a good job of explaining their claims. You could say that they therefore deserve uninformed coverage, but that would make you a lazy, lazy fake journalist.

From the commentary I read, I find it hard to believe that you people are college-educated, much less members of the Bar.

From the commentary I read, I find it hard to believe that you people are college-educated, much less members of the Bar.

From the majority of the commentary above, I find it hard to believe that you people are college-educated, much less members of the Bar.

In response to 230 --

You say:

199, do me a favor today. Pledge to suck a dick every day for the next week--anyone's but your own, of course. When you're done, come back and tell me how fluid your sexuality is or how your heterosexuality is not "immutable." That I'd like to hear.

It's really easy to sit in judgment when you have no understanding whatsoever about those you're judging. Perhaps, if you're so "open minded," you should get a gay friend. Then sit down with him and ask him why he does what he does.

I say: Cry me a f'in river about "sitting in judgment" or the purported "immutability" of your sexual orientation. I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested you "straighten up and try to fly straight." Having read all 250 posts in the past 30 minutes, it's clear that the Prop 8 proponents are simply concerned with the deleterious effects of promulgating this b-s "I can't help it, it's who I am! I'm not responsible for anything I say/do!" attitude that is infecting EVERY aspect of society nowadays.

Nobody cares if you change or not! But personal *desire* to change is not *ability* to change. Sure, you have a STRONG predisposition toward your sexual orientation. Just like I do towards mine. But that doesn't mean either one of us are members of some special "class" akin to blacks or women. It just makes us HUMAN.

So your preference is atypical and society rationally deems the majority preference somewhat preferable and deserving of special legal recognition to a limited extent, because the majority preference is REQUIRED FOR THE PERPETUATION OF OUR SPECIES. BIG F'IN DEAL. Get over it! It's not just "rational," it's the most logical thing I've ever heard in my life.

If you'd put the bullhorn down and quit shouting HATE! HOMOPHOBE! long enough to listen to what the other side is saying, maybe you'd see that there YOU'RE missing something here. There is no general animosity or antipathy towards who you are; only towards your sense of self-entitlement and the arrogant expectation that society implement broadsweeping, fundamental changes simply to make it "easier" for you to live your life by more explicitly condoning your lifestyle so that you can avoid any modicum of feeling "left out." Well F you and the horse you rode in. Not because you're gay, but because you think that being gay somehow makes you special.

I'm straight. Will I ever get married? Who knows. Sometimes I doubt it. You know why? Because I can't ever see myself being monogamous with one person. For all I know, casual dating and hooking up could be my chosen lifestyle well into my 30's, or maybe even my 40's. That's my sexual preference, and it's no less "inherent" or "immutable" than your sexual orientation. But you don't see me chastising the structure of the American family, demanding that the government change it in order to make it easier for me to reap the same (admittedly tiny) fringe benefits that my monogamous, married friends have. Because I'm secure enough in myself to recognize that even if God didn't craft me in 100% "optimal" fashion, I can still be happy in society, living under rules designed to foster and promote different lifestyles than my own.

No one is repressing you. No one (with a few exceptions, but they are so small and far between as not to be the issue here) is "hating" on you. The majority in California has spoken, and they said: We think legitimate families are something special and preferable, and marriage should recognize that. So stop accusing the whole world of being out to persecute you, and stop whining about the 3 seconds of mild discomfort caused by someone being caught off guard when they find out you're gay. We all have deeply personal things that differ from the societal norm, and might cause awkwardness or a slight stigma. That does not make us all special classes. Your trivial preference for the same sex is no more important than my friend's preference for European women or my other friend's preference for tall women or someone else's preference girls with huge breasts. Get over yourselves gays and move on with your lives, and please let the rest of society move on with ours. I think you'll be quite pleasantly surprised to find out that you can be entirely happy and live an oppression-free life in California without the legal right to marry.

And maybe -- just maybe -- if you stop accusing everyone who rationally disagrees with your lifestyle preference of being objectively wrong or motivated by hate, then you'll find more and more straight friends. Right now you're alienating us with your hypocrisy.

I don't think you're a closet case. I just think you're misguided. And please don't talk about how you and your friends have no problems with gay people. That's akin to the old "I'm no racist, but...[fill in the blank]". If you had no problem with gays, you wouldn't be saying that they don't deserve the same things as you. [And, please, for the love of God, don't say they can marry someone of the opposite sex. How would you feel if your government told you that you can't marry the woman you love, because she doesn't have a penis].

No...onto the analogizing. Yes, the LGB struggle is not the same as the Black struggle. We generally can hide; Blacks can't. Their repression was (and is) much greater than ours. BUT where the struggles do coincide is in the reprehensible treatment that both groups receive from their respective majorities. The prejudgment. The attacks based on fear that are justified by "reason" or "logic" and in many cases the Bible.

No one has asked you to embrace the gay community and accept it as "normal" (though by your definition, I guess the US Asian, Latino, Black and Native American populations are not "normal"), what we have asked is that you recognize that we are your neighbors, friends, brothers, sisters and co-workers. We go home to our significant others and children every night, just as you do. We have families that loves us, friends that adore us and people who rely on us. But as we live our lives every day, we're told...you're ok but not so ok that you should be equal.

You can't understand it. You never will, but you can try. Look at your sister the next time you see her or your best friend, or that one woman you're madly in love with but never can have. Look at them and tell them how much you love them, but you just can't see how they would be equal, if they chose to date/love/fuck someone of the same sex. Or imagine your Mom telling you that.

I really just don't understand it. It's fear, but we've not moved far enough along to recognize it.