The Moment of Truth for Same-Sex Marriage in California
In about 15 minutes or so, the California Supreme Court will issue its decision in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in that state. The decision will be posted on the court’s website at 10 a.m. Pacific time (or 1 p.m. Eastern time). We’re putting up this post now, to get the discussion going, and then we’ll update once the decision comes in.
Update (1:10 PM): The court’s website is still down, but there’s this from the San Francisco Chronicle: “The California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 by a 6-1 vote but ruled that the same sex marriages performed last year can stand.”
Update (1:15 PM): The Los Angeles Times has this write-up, which notes:
The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.
Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May….
Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the court’s sole Democrat, wanted Proposition 8 struck down as an illegal constitutional revision.
So much for Justice Moreno as a possible U.S. Supreme Court justice (although, having missed out on the Souter seat, he’ll probably be too old anyway when the next vacancy comes up).
Update (1:20 PM): Here is a link to the court’s opinion (PDF).
Background and links about the case, after the jump.
From CNN:
The court will rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the controversial measure banning same-sex marriage that voters approved in November.Its opponents want the amendment nullified. They say the proposition alters California’s Constitution and, therefore, under state law, is a revision that requires a constitutional convention.
Attorneys for the opponents also say the proposition, which removed the “marriage” label from same-sex unions, effectively deprives same-sex couples of a fundamental right guaranteed them under the equal-protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.
The court will also pass upon the validity of the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place after the California Supreme Court’s first round of decisions allowing same-sex marriage and before the passage of Prop 8 in November 2008.
For more background, see this helpful Q&A from the Los Angeles Times. And check back in a bit, when we’ll have details about and a link to the court’s ruling.
Update (1:30 PM): As noted in the updates above, the court upheld the validity of Prop 8 — i.e., upheld the ban on same-sex marriage — and also upheld the validity of the already-completed same-sex marriages.
Here is a link to the court’s opinion (PDF).
Supreme Court of California [official website]
California high court expected to rule on same-sex marriage [CNN]
Q&A: California Supreme Court to issue Prop. 8 decision today [Los Angeles Times]




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
who cares
What does the Republican Party think about this, Lat? How about the Federalist Society?
Domocrats
The Federalist Society (1) has many libertarians and (2) is very supportive of states doing their own thing.
Who cares? Uh, the 18,000 same-sex couples who could be relegated to second-class citizenship?
We need to allow gay marriage. The economy could use the extravagant spending on gay weddings. If you think daddy's little princess blows money on a wedding, just wait until you see how much a designer and an interior decorator blow on a wedding.
And if gay men are stupid enough to want to actually have marriage legalized for them, let them at it. Morons. They have the perfect situation as it is.
This decision will have little relevance. California in time will just pass another proposition that amends the constitution to allow gay marriage.
Of course their website is crashing now from all the traffic.....
This would never happen inn Fort Worth.
3500 sq ft wife and a Lexis, losers!
Let me see if I get the irony here. CA Supreme Ct. web site link broken along with institution of marriage. Hmm.
SF Chronicle websitre says: "Court: Prop. 8 Upheld, Existing Same-sex Marriages Valid"
hey #9 - it's a LEXUS…you search with a Lexis. So as a native Californian, I wish you and your worthless state all the best.
Besides, we drive BMWs out here.
Direct link to the opinion:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF
Ban upheld. Existing marriages are valid. ATL is late on this one.
The God-Emperor’s fish speaker warriors will rejoice if their unions can be legitimized.
LA Times is reporting Prop 8 upheld
12 - if only you had a 3500 sq ft wife, you'd know that you are an idiot.
Oh #12. To take the bait and to do it in such a douchey way makes #9 a double win.
14 - No, refresh your browser.
Plessy v. Ferguson lives!
well the people voted, and the courts upheld it. so now everyone can STFU about prop 8. the issue will be up for vote the next time around, and the result will be different, as the demographics now favor gay marriage. yawn.
This post is gay and therefore highly susceptible to the Texas Big AIDS.
Please moderate 22.
Too bad, so sad. Marriage is for normal sex, not the backdoor kind.
The merits of homo-rights aside, today is a great day for the power of democracy and the rule of law.
Elections have consequences.
It is beyond me how 2 consenting adults choosing to get married, even though they are the same sex, has any effect on me or my marriage (or anyone else or their marriage). People who voted against gay marriage in California probably aren't very bright.
In 1857, the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision, which overruled a popularly-enacted law (the Kansas-Nebraska Act). Its divisive decision caused a huge backlash and prompted a constitutional amendment (14th Amendment) to override the decision. Many opponents of the constitutional amendment blamed its passage on blacks and other minority groups. The Supreme Court acquiesced in the amendment, and the popular will prevailed.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court handed down the In re Marriage Cases decision, which overruled a popularly-enacted law (Proposition 22). Its divisive decision caused a huge backlash and prompted a constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) to override the decision. Many opponents of the constitutional amendment blamed its passage on blacks and other minority groups. The California Supreme Court acquiesced in the amendment, and the popular will prevailed.
The historical parallels are striking.
24: then you'd have to invalidate millions of marriages between heterosexuals that engage in the backdoor kind, moron.
@27 Something else happened between Dred Scott and the passage of the 14th amendment...somebody else help me out here.
#9, you have a "3500 sq ft wife"? Maybe she should consider going on a diet.
#27,
Picking and choosing much? Differences are far more prevalent than the similarities.
29, you're right. Dred Scott supporters prompted a civil war before the amendment to override it could be passed. In re Marriage Cases supporters only vandalized and protested a few Mormon churches when the amendment to override it passed. We have come a long away.
its a simple matter of: the people have spoken
@28
The invention of the steam engine?
@29
The invention of the steam engine?
33: Except the people are moronic. They are arguing over semantics. Don't call it "marriage" call it a civil union? Who cares what it is called? I'm married. People of the same sex being married has zero effect on the "institution" of marriage. Except in the minds of not very bright people.
@28
No wait, no wait. The invention of the Gatling Gun?
~34
31, you're dead wrong. Both cases involved legal issues and both resulted in opinions by judges after reading stuff and hearing oral arguments.
the historical parallels are striking.
hell yeah! I love me some married brown eye spellunking!
I could careless about whether gays get married. If they feel the need to shackle themselves to the tax and economic burdens, have at it. What boggles my mind is the state is staring at 20 billion in debt and this is the big news.
@28
Hmm, maybe Kansas becomes a state?
~34
@28 - Waterproof lube?
@28
Or Kansas? Or Minnesota? Or Nebraska? Or Nevada? Or Oregon? Or West Virginia?
C'mon, enlighten me!!
~34
31, the procedural histories look pretty similar to me.
@28
I think I know. It was the great war: The Second War of Italian Independence
What, you don't know it? Perhaps by its aliases, a/k/a Franco-Austrian War, a/k/a Austro-Sardinian War, a/k/a Austro-Piedmontese War.
~34
29,
Stephen Douglas famously said that "Buggery is not a national right," during the debates with Abraham Lincoln?
All the gays should be sentenced to death, by Snu Snu.
Is male douching gay?
@28
I got it!!!! Benjamin Cardozo was BORN, first hispanic jusice of the Supreme Court! That totally explains the 14th Amendment.
I'm good at riddles.
~34
Even under originalism/textualism - equal protection means precisely that. We may have lost this battle, but we'll win the (culture) war.
Conservatives ruin everything...the S.Ct., the WH, DC...
Good, the will of the people was upheld. These left wing bloggers are so full of themselves for being failed attorneys.
Make the gays play Unbeatable Banzuke. If they win, they can get married.
What's amazing is Moreno could find a "good faith" effort to dissent. An unconstitutional Constitution? W T F
If you criticize the guy who commented about the 3500 sq ft wife and Lexis, you're new to this site and shouldn't comment. Just read for awhile and you JUST MIGHT get the inside jokes. Stop being that guy.
50, does "equal protection mean precisely that" for black and white firefighters seeking promotions?
55 - No, lingering effect of white hegemony call for 1000 years of penance by the entire white race in order to level the playing field again.
Didn't you get that memo?
50
What about the Slaughterhouse Cases?
Reading from filehandle failed at lib/MT/FileMgr/Local.pm line 141.
The important question to ask is why should the state formally recognize a relationship between 2 private individuals? Oh yeah, it's something about how the state has an interest in propagation of society. Any other stated interest (i.e. "civil" rights for the gay couple, formal recognition of 2 individual's love for each other, etc.) necessarily leads to a state of chaos as there would then be no principled basis to prevent a man from marrying his sterile sister, a man from marrying 2 women, 3 women marrying each other, etc. Thanks in advance to all of the "tolerant" progressive folks who will be sending their love my way.
We wouldn't be in this mess if Hussein OBAMA and ACORN hadn't cheated and stole the election.
We'd all be in better shape if the election hadn't been fraudulently stolen from John S. McCain!
How do I know Republicans will win in 2012? Because we already won in 2008!!! We just need to work harder to prevent you socalists, minoritees and perverts from STEALING the election.
The Tea Party Movement is real (despite your pervert jokes)!!!
What would the post-Rodney King style riots equivalent to this decision be? Anyone? Anyone?
You dumbocrats are a bunch of retardad morans!
You guys are welcome to the votes of all these faggots and hispanics, and other "empathetic" people.
We'll be running a political party for REAL AMERICANS designed to protect the interests of AMERICA! Not your guys' terrorist supporting plan to turn us into Europe!
Gay marriage is an affront to G-d, and you dimocrats will pay for ignoring that!
What's so bad about Republicans understanding that a country can't be great without being in line with G-d's divine will?
Nothing, that's what!
And you guys won't be laughing so hard at Sarah Palin when she's your PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!
How did redneck highschoolers find this website? I'm looking at you, 60 and 62.
Ya'll have the internets out thur in the cun-tree? I'm impressed!
59 is exactly right on the merits of gay-rights.
55, you are a racist for expecting even a single black firefighter to have studied hard and be capable of reading at a 10th-grade level.
It's a "race-neutral" decision if you throw out the results of the test and thus screw over all the races. If the City of New Haven had thrown out the test because otherwise too many blacks would have been promoted, that would have been a race-neutral decision too. Sotomayor knows the change we can believe in.
63,
Being a socialist pervert doesn't make you smart, it just makes you damned!
You laugh all you want, were the ones going to protect USA from all your affirmative action, homosexual sin, and actions against America!
You want the 'spic Justice marrying dykes and making me pay for their health insurince? You go to hell (literally) with that socialist bullshit!
62, I'm not a moran! Your a ideiot!
oh wait I forgot these:
!!!!!
59 is wrong. It is NOT propagation of society (as in, biological offspring).
The historical point of marriage was to provide legal protection to non-working spouses and children so they couldn't be left destitute if the working spouse decided to leave.
The prevalence of two-income households may have destroyed this incentive for everyone (though one income households are still very common, so I don't think so), but as long as gay couples adopt children (or have surrogates) and one spouse chooses to not work or only work part time, then the EXACT SAME MERITS APPLY to gay and straight marriage.
67,
I will pray for you when your in hell!
Thankfully, most REAL AMERICANS believe in the Christian values this nation was founded on!!!!!
68, then why is marriage not allowed between close relatives? If a working brother is supporting his non-working sister, doesn't the sister deserve some sort of legal protection if the brother decides to leave? Do you want to leave women destitute?
69 is a fake. He is probably a left-wing hack trying to make all Prop 8 supporters look like intolerant, Bible-thumping idiots with bad grammar. If you are real, number 69, do your cause a favor and shut up.
Unbeatable Banzuke for every one of them gays!
Hmm, I think 60, 62, 66 and 69 are real (and are likely the same person). I mean, did you see all those exclamation points and misspellings? Very convincing. Makes me want to donate to Westboro Baptist Church.
27,
In 2008, a bunch of morons voted for an ill-equipped, dangerous, demagogue named Barry to redistribute wealth and run this country into the ground while he smiles and plays with a new dog. What is your point? There won't be a country in which to remedy same-sex discrimination after Team Huss'biden.
I wonder why the Cal Supremes didn't just decide this on promissory estoppel grounds. Wouldn't that have been more reasonable?
59
"necessarily leads to a state of chaos as there would then be no principled basis to prevent a man from marrying his sterile sister, a man from marrying 2 women, 3 women marrying each other, etc..."
I don't understand why this is a problem. If two or more adults want to marry, why should the state be involved? How is it a state of 'chaos?' It sounds like a very stable situation to me.
There is no legitimate state interest to prevent incest, polygamy or bigamy. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
60 62 66 69 = the thinking/intelligence level of 75% of republicans. LOL
No wonder the party is crumbling. They can't come up with any new ideas so they just come up with new schoolyard names. Sad.
70,
If your point is correct, then why are sterile people allowed to get married?
At the end of the day, there is no magical single rationale for why our Government acknowledges marriages. There are a lot of different reasons why, but no single reason.
71/73/77,
Just because you are G-dless or can't deal with the TRUTH that a country must be good with G-d to be a great country, doesn't mean that I am not real.
Believing there is no Jesus that died for our sins, no sin, and no morality may be easier for you, but even the state of California has shown that these REAL VALUES matter to REAL AMERICANS.
If I am fake, then how come you homos and perverts lost in California?
Repent your sins. I will pray for you.
79: I don't believe in Jesus and I'm a pervert. What should I do?
Being a Gay is as unAmerican as apple pie and Canadian bacon.
#80 - Hang out with Kash and her asslobster.
It hasn't even been that long since the U.S. did away with anti-miscegination laws.
The same tired arguments were used against inter-racial marriage:
-it's against tradition and history
-it's against the bible (God marked the separate tribes and cast Nod's people away b/c wanted the races separate, etc.)
-let the states decide!
Just like then, it will be an exercise of patience and endurance to defeat this bigotry.
The religious crazies may have a strangle hold on the Republican party, but they have lost the mainstream and, if anything, are helping to create a new secular America by turning moderates away from organized religion.
77 - Anyone who uses the abbreviation "LOL" doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, especially when it's used incorrectly.
79, I would tell you to get off the internet and go back to your trailer, but you are doing so much harm to your Republican brethren with your looney God talk and 6th grade education, I just don't want you to stop!
Btw, if the rest of you haven't seen the Westover Baptist Church stuff on youtube, you should definitely check it out. There are seriously crazies out there like this.
gurgle gargle gurgle gargle gurgle.
Sounds of a gay wedding
Doesn't LOL mean lots of love?
85 wants you to believe I'm a crazy fringe person, but ignores the fact that Proposition 8 passed by more than 4% in CALIFORNIA!!!!
G-d still matters to Real Americans. Now that people see what you dumbocrats and socialists want to do to turn America into France, you'll lose the next election too!
The real irony here is that the blacks who have 70% of their kids out of wedlock are the ones who took away the right of gays to get married. What is it that black people have against marriage?
wait wait wait, does this mean evolution is a myth? Someone please explain.
78, because it's hard to figure out who is sterile and who is not, and a searching inquiry would be an offensive invasion of privacy. Advances in medical technology are also helping people previously thought sterile.
But it is fairly easy to tell which couples are same-sex or siblings.
85-Precisely the reason that the person writing such jibberish is in fact one of your kind. By the way, way to tip-off your actual complete lack of tolerance.
83 you are an idiot. There aren't enough Republicans in California to carry Prop 8. It was the black Democrats who took away your fundamental rights. Put the blame where it belongs.
America to France!!!!
Plessy v. Ferguson lives!
gwaa gwaa gwaaaaaaa!
Good one, 89. Class act you are.
If you bothered to read something sometime, you'd learn (eventually - I know it's tough for you) that race was not determinative in the voting for Prop. 8. There was a much stronger correlation between supporters of Prop. 8 and increased age: younger blacks voted against Prop. 8 as much as younger whites did. This vote wasn't about race.
What would the post-Rodney King style riots equivalent to this decision be? Anyone? Anyone?
Wait, you have to be tolerant to be a Democrat? Screw this, I'm joining a party where I'm free to hate the people I envy. Yeeeehaw!
I just came on my secretary's keyboard.
As a Californian lawyer, I am ashamed by this decision. California has always been proud to welcome the homosexuals, and this decision confuses between what the state can recognize vs. what we, as individuals, can do. This should have been a heightened scrutiny case.
If this gets appealed to US Supreme Court, I doubt the decision would survive.
There are a lot of gays in San Francisco and LA.
This just exposes the truth about the Democratic party that it is just a loosely connected group of special interest voters - blacks, hispanics, white unioners, greens/gays, sell out former hippies, and do-gooder housewives. The blacks hate the hispanics and gays, the hispanics hate the blacks, white union workers hate everyone else, and the hippie sellouts pretend to like the blacks, hispanics, and blue collar union guys but really hate the blue collar guys and only like the blacks and hispanics as long as they stay in their place.
Justice Moreno showed amazing sack. He risked any future promotions/appointments (I know he's probably too old of SC, but before this dissent maybe he would have been appointed to 9th Cir.) for doing what is legally correct, and not simply following the will of the people (which is not the job of a judge).
If you believe in evolution, you hate Jesus and probably eat babies.
And the housewives love the blacks, hispanics, and gays as long as they don't move in next door.
97, and how much more did older blacks vote for Proposition 8 compared to older whites? Why oh why did you leave this little fact out?
Blacks voted almost 70% for Proposition 8. If we assume your claim of racial parity among the young is true (which I doubt), that means far more than 70% of older blacks voted for Proposition 8. Is there a difference in voting based on race?
You mock religion because you are scared of the consequences of your sinful ways.
When G-d's judgment comes, no amount of mockery or accusing the righteous of being fakes will save you. Repent and live according to G-d's laws, or we will all suffer for it. Just ask New Orleans what happened the day of their big gay pride parade (Hurricane Katrina, that's what!).
You dumbocrat socialists act like everyone agrees with you, but most people beleve in G-d and living proper!
I am turned on by the smell of men's locker rooms.
Am I a Democrat?
108, When is G-d's judgment coming? Shit, I didn't know about this. Please advise.
108, 69, and so on... your schtick is up. Go back to MoveOn.org and get to work. And by the way, to spell God, you need to hit the "o" key. (It is a couple of keys to the left and one row down from the dash).
I think we have a bona fide religious crazy rather than a faker.
I've only known extreme fundamentalists to go so far as to not spell "God" b/c of the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain.
111,
You can keep your weak dime store faith that wilts when it is inconvenient.
I believe in G-d. Do you? All I am doing is reminding people that G-d's judgment is not some abstract philosophical concept. G-d strikes down those that transgress against Him and hell is real.
You lefties mock if you want. Like I said, we faithful trounced you on the vote for Prop 8.
111, you should piss off with Colin Powell and other so-called moderates that only believe in what the latest polling shows. This is a real struggle for the future and morality of our country, so excuse me for pointing out that when the BIBLE says something is an abomination, there are CONSEQUENCES to doing it!
53% of Hispanics also voted yes on Prop 8. To all the (single) gays out in CA it's pretty clear that the blacks and Hispanics are pulling up the ladder behind them and not letting you have the same rights that you fought so hard for them to have. Ironically, if the Dems didn't have a black candidate running the black voters would have stayed home in sufficient numbers to allow the more tolerant white voters to defeat Prop 8.
75~ FTW!
113 - any examples of people being struck down for transgressions? What does striking down mean?
107-
The black community is fairly religiously conservative and to a degree homophobic. Having said that, I bet there is a higher correlation between religious commitment and support for Prop 8 than any other specific attribute. Due to this commitment, many white religious leaders/followers (since you seem to want to make this about race) specifically targeted the black/Hispanic community in CA.
This is so stupid, saying that gay marraiges can be banned, but those made before the "official ban" are valid. Talk about not wanting to decide the case on its real merits.
107-
The black community is fairly religiously conservative and to a degree homophobic. Having said that, I bet there is a higher correlation between religious commitment and support for Prop 8 than any other specific attribute. Due to this commitment, many white religious leaders/followers (since you seem to want to make this about race) specifically targeted the black/Hispanic community in CA to pass Prop 8.
Wow, 112, you need to get out more. FYI, many, many Jews also type/write "G-d" rather than spelling it out. Does that make us "extreme fundamentalists"?
G-d speaks in CAPSLOCK, because stuff is more PERSUASIVE that way.
on a related note, I think Justice Werdegar uses italics far too often in her concurrence.
117/119, didn't black religious leaders/followers also tell their black communities to pass Proposition 8? And why does the "targeting" even matter since each black voter made his or her own independent voting decision? Blacks aren't responsible for the outcome of their votes because they were lobbied by some people in another race?
It's laughable that you're trying so hard to not admit that black voters were significantly responsible for Proposition 8 passing, and trying so hard to shift their responsibility to other races.
118 - I think you're confused. The "real merits" of the case lay in whether or not the amendment was properly passed. Did you even bother reading the opinion? There's a difference between being unhappy with the *effect* of the outcome of this case, which I am, and being unhappy with the outcome. The issue raised by the plaintiffs was whether or not Prop. 8 brought a change to the CA Constitution that was properly brought through the ballot process, not whether or not CA should allow gay marriage.
I know this is frustrating, but I think people are getting really caught up in the emotional aspects and not seeing the legal details of today's decision for what they really are.
120,
Jews generally don't rant about their "Christian" beliefs, so it would be fairly obvious to most that our crazy wouldn't be a Jew.
I'm surprised you needed that explained to you. Seemed pretty obvious.
No, 124, I don't need that explained to me, but thanks for the condescension. I wasn't saying that I think "our crazy" is a Jew. 112 wrote "I've only known extreme fundamentalists to go so far as to not spell "God" b/c of the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain." All I did was point out that there are others who use the same spelling, as 112 couldn't seem to imagine otherwise.
Because the California constitution is so ridiculously easy to amend, I'm starting a petition today to repeal the state equal protection clause altogether. After this decision, leaving the equal protection clause in there is a joke. There is no point to an equal protection clause that can be waived in any particular instance by a bare majority. If we're going to live under the tyranny of the majority, at least we can be honest about it and stop pretending that there's equal protection under the Cal. Const.
103 is dead on.
Soon most will be dying of the AIDS anyway, so it will all even out.
Quato
i was thinking the same thing. start a petition that says that mormons can't get married. or maybe illegal aliens. or black people. all you need is 8% of the total number of votes that were cast in the last gubernatorial election. there must be at least that many gay people in california willing to sign.
91 - So you are saying that the best way to make classifications is based on traits that are easily seen with the naked eye, i.e. those that define a discrete and insular group? I thought there was a little rule or something against that?
Also, the medical advances used to help sterile heterosexual couples conceive are also used to help homosexual couples conceive. So, your point is meaningless.
101, you are ashamed by the decision because California has always been proud to welcome the homosexuals? Just because they are not allowed to get married does not mean they are not welcome.
Note to the "G-d"-loving REAL AMERICAN: You'd be a lot more believable if you'd quote bible verses to support your claims. Please repost all comments with adequate footnotes and citations.
-- G-d is my c-pil-t
To 20 and 27, and the rest seeking to make a comparison to Plessy:
Gays aren't equal. They're evolutionary duds. The value of your relationships is zero. Your feelings of love to each other and of equal worth aren't sufficient to warrant marriage, which at any rate is not a "protection" of the law. Any attempt to find a disconnect between the language of the 14th Amendment and state analogues is a fraud.
Elie, you can delete/"moderate" my post, but I defy you to find one honest scientist who says a biological predisposition to same sex sexual behavior doesn't make these folk back of the pack.
To 20 and 27, and the rest seeking to make a comparison to Plessy:
Gays aren't equal. They're evolutionary duds. The value of your relationships is zero. Your feelings of love to each other and of equal worth aren't sufficient to warrant marriage, which at any rate is not a "protection" of the law. Any attempt to find a disconnect between the language of the 14th Amendment and state analogues is a fraud.
Elie, you can delete/"moderate" my post, but I defy you to find one honest scientist who says a biological predisposition to same sex relationships doesn't make these folk back of the pack.
what has da world come to, women be doing women. dees foos would be straight as an arrow if dey spent one night with the T. No lady can resist a good ole fashioned T-boning, even da lesbians.
129, those would not be legal. You apparently missed Con Law I, in which the professor explained that race and religion are protected classes under the US Const. (but not sexual orientation). eek, i just used parentheticals!
129, those would not be legal. You apparently missed Con Law I, in which the professor explained that race and religion are protected classes under the US Const. (but not sexual orientation). eek, i just used parentheticals!
Leftards like to say "We won, get over it" to decent Americans who object to Obama's assinine policies.
Well, the People -- and Courts -- of California have spoken. So, they won, get over it, gay boys.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
122-
I am not saying that there isn't an issue that-if you are liberal @ least-in the black community. Correct me if I'm wrong but did I not mention the homophobia that is rife in the black community? I merely wished to point out that your racial discourse is not particularly conducive. The Hispanic majority voted for Prop 8 and religious white mid-westerners poured tons of money into the Prop 8 debate-whereas liberal and gay groups did not bother to campaign amongst the conservative minority groups. The common thread is religious conservatism and not race.
Those queers should shut their mouths and deal with it. The people of California voted against gay marriage and the courts upheld the vote. Why is this surprising? It's not as though the court shut down the gloryholes or bathhouses.
you know, the Bible usually speaks in parables. However, there is one verse that is not a parable:
"WOE TO YOU LAWYERS"
By the way, most people do not want gays to marry because they will then adopt children and program them to be gays and lesbians.