Look in the box at the far right side of the page. There it says “Number of Positions: 7″ There’s the four-to-three ruling. :) Hope this helped!

Had you have had your ideas held to than: blacks would not be able to marry whites, and would be separate but equal!

Again: The whole movement is about Taxation Without Representation. As a gay individual I DO NOT have the same rights as Straights! If you want to discount my taxes: perhaps we could come to an agreement. Do I or people who are for this want to go into the churches and change them by law? No. No more than any Christian should want to march into a Synagogue and demand that they change their practice. Do Jews and Christians have differences? Yes. Do Jews and Christians and Muslims and Buddhists get lessor or more benefits due to their “lifestyle”? No.

LEAVE RELIGION TO THE RELIGIOUS. THIS IS ABOUT TAXES! THIS IS ABOUT SEPARATE NEVER BEING EQUAL.

As much as I happen to think the gay lifestyle is sinful, and while I don’t think the definition of marriage should be changed… maybe there are some lawful rights (as with partner inheritance when a will isn’t available, or ability to serve in the military) which they ought to be accorded, and are being used to discriminate against them.

It’s not a matter of trying to say both sides are equally right, or even trying to compromise, but I think what your site has helped me see is that it’s about fairness, and recognizing that the other side may still have a point even if overly wrong. And just because they’re on the other side, doesn’t mean we should stop making sure their constitutional rights aren’t being damaged in some way.

again i’m sure someone already cleared this up but im too lazy to look

You’re right; sometimes the majority is wrong; but in this case, I don’t think so.

Just so you know: tolerance is NOT acceptance. tolerance is the ability to be amicable and courteous to someone even though you don’t agree.

Anyways, Prop 8 passed. I’m very very happy it did so. It’s stupid how there are so many protesters right now, especially attacking the LDS community. They are literally saying “the constitution is unconstitutional” *facepalm*

The vote could have gone either way, it was a 50/50 chance of passing or failing. It was totally fair. Its their fault they don’t have enough supporters on their side. It’s their fault if they didn’t do enough “positive reinforcement” to help win voters. All their violence and anger only caused more people to vote against them. They are the ones who dug their own grave, I say live with it…

No rights were “lost”. They got 6 months of being able to get “married” and have it called “marriage”. But the rights were the same as if it were a civil union. Now, its back to the way it was, and the way it always has been. The entire country (besides Massachusetts) is on the same page.

Look all over the internet, and you will find only ONE case of a Prop 8 supporter doing any of the sort back.

Homosexuals and “No to Prop 8″ People: If you want people to accept you as equals, accept you getting the same rights, treat you with respect, or even LIKE you, this is NOT how you do it.

Just seeing how you treat other people over the matter makes me want to “hate” you, or “take your rights away” as you put it, when you clearly don’t deserve them…

And thanks for posting this video about Prop. 8!! I am so tired of hearing negative stuff, it’s nice to see things presented in such a lighthearted but truthful and informative way!!! Video on my friend!!!

“But, many others stay, and try to lead “moral” lives to the greatest extent possible.” – I applaud that even if it seems a bit contradictory. People should always try to do the best they can with what they have.
.
“Obviously, it’s pretty hard for a gay or lesbian person to ‘wait’ when access to the institution of marriage has been blocked, and outside Massachusetts and California, has always been blocked. So it’s a false premise” – I know, but it would serve to demonstrate how serious they were about the institution of marriage.
.
“It relies on an ethnocentric and prejudiced value judgment about superior expressions of sexuality and morality” – By that I assume you mean the common morality by which society establishes its laws.
.
“And by the way, why don’t you try to pass a proposition forbidding extramarital sex and we’ll see how much traction that gets – but, oh yeah, that just proves your point that we’re engaged in a culture war, right?” – And how much values have changed. . . exactly.
.
“There are gays and lesbians who do remain virgins until they find their true loves and they do and have waited (as long as possible – if marriage is never an option, then at least until a deeply committed relationship), and now that marriage is a possibility, some will undoubtedly wait for it.” – You haven’t really substantiating this in any way, but If they do, good for them! I applaud exclusivity in sexual relations, even homosexual ones. That is more morality for you. I remember reading somewhere that lesbian couples were fairly monogamous, but that gay men had numerous partners often within the same month. That would throw into question how much a committed relationship such as marriage would be likely to mean to them. But I don’t need to pursue that line of argument. It is better to take people one at a time.
.
“I bet that given some time with the existence of the possibility of marriage being a reality, the institution will have a “domesticating effect” on many gays and lesbians” – If Prop 8 goes down in flames, I certainly hope domestication is the order of the day.
.
“Maybe this should be a reason for you and your wife to change positions and oppose Prop 8″ – No. The far-reaching moral consequences are not worth it. But if it fails to pass I wish them all the domestic tranquility in the world. ?.
“It is no more than a modern Inquisition” – No small amount of exaggeration there.
.
“Prop 8 hurts California by writing discrimination into law and taking rights that exist away from people only to the pleasure of religious fundamentalists.” – Pleasure? If you only knew how wrong you were. I’m repeatedly making a morally relevant argument against a seismic shift in society that is incredibly easy for the opposition to demagogue and argue from emotion and you think that is fun? I hate doing it and I wish it wasn’t necessary. But I’ll do my best to oppose judicial fiat and convince my fellow citizens not to lightly abandon the traditional institution of marriage.

You wrote:

1) Women’s Suffrage DID pass nationally. (See the Nineteenth Amendment.) It passed, as is necessary to make an Amendment to the Constitution,

I originally wrote:

Had the decision for women to vote gone to a national referendum it would not have passed for it was never a national majority opinion. Most western states were in favor, having already granted women that right. Most eastern and southern states would not agree to such a thing and the population at the time was, well, in the east and south.

Which is the truth. Women would never have been given the right to vote had it been put to a national referendum at the time. As I wrote, the western states had already given women the vote while the vast majority of the US population was in the north east and south, places that took quite some time to come around…. like long enough for it to come before Congress, but only after 75 years of fighting for it.

If a poll was taken that lasted 75 years then yes, giving women the vote would have passed. But that’s not practical nor actual.

You wrote:

2) A majority of the community DID vote to give blacks equal rights — twice. (See the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-fourth Amendments.) This is a point that cannot be stressed nearly enough: The will of the majority of the people, expressed in the adoption of FOUR Amendments to the Constitution was and is that Equal Protection under the law should be granted to every citizen of the United States, regardless of

My original post said:

Had Alabaman’s been asked to vote to give blacks equal rights with whites in 1963, how do you think that would have turned out?

Which you have not refuted.

You wrote:

3) Virginia has the most interesting history in regards to the issue of slavery. I’m not sure where they would have stood in 1863, but I do know that before the war, public sentiment was generally opposed to slavery in Virginia. In fact, because of this opposition, most people at the time thought that Virginia

I originally wrote:

Had Virginia been polled in 1863 about slavery, how do you think that would have ended up?

And you post has not refuted that with any specificity.

Jeff

PS: I’m just hoping the Brothers Winn have come to their senses on this one and seen the bigotry in their position.

You seem to not be aware of group selection, homosexuality is common in mammalian species, and appears to provide a population control mechanism, but the genetic mechanism which creates homosexuality is not selected against, it is selected for, because populations with homosexual members grow in a more controlled manner.

All of your subsequent false conclusions follow from your misunderstanding of the mechanism of group genetic selection.

“You can play the “genetics made me do it” card if you like.”

You appear to be playing that card with heterosexuality, there is no difference. If you claim that sexuality is a choice, and therefor deserves no privileges, therefor heterosexuality is a choice, and people who choose it should not be give the arbitrary and significant legal and economic privilege of marriage.

The only truly constitutional(federal) response to the “gay marriage” issue is to realize that the problem is not that a particular minority want access to the same privileges as the majority, it’s that the state is meddling in religious affairs. The government should immediately withdraw all privileges extended to people on the basis of their married status. If the government won’t acknowledge gay-marriage I object to them acknowledge straight marriage, and my reason is the same as yours, I don’t support, and don’t want to be forced to pay for the straight lifestyle and its flagrant indoctrination of our children.

Re: 2 Harms
First, whoever suggests that gay families are “less harmful” are wrong, as you point out. Gay families are no more and no less harmful than any other kind of family. They are harmful gay families, harmful single parent families, harmful so-called traditional families. The percentage is no different from any one type of family to another. Data don’t support you here.

Second, you don’t cite any of these sources that tell you that gay relationships are dangerous for children. I would love to hear about them.
I recommend a recent tome titled Socialization in the Context of Family Diversity: Handbook of Socialization, Theory and Research. The editors are Grusec and Hastings. It was published by Guilford Press in 2007. It’s ISBN is 1593853327.
Unless you’re raising children in a lesbian family on an Amazonian Island untouched by malekind, you cannot escape gender socialization. It comes through media, it comes through every person you ever meet, it comes from your own biology. Families are your support system and to suggest that they only good form of child rearing occurs when you have a man and woman is completely and utterly untrue if only because the so-called traditional family is a modern conception and has always been the minority of families. Historically and psychologically the statements you make here are false.

1. IMMUTABILITY
.
Immutability is definable, and in fact defined simply as those characteristics that cannot be changed, such as race, national origin, or gender. Despite some claims to the contrary made by certain other posters, race is not something a person can change (no matter how much bleach or dye he may use), nor is gender as defined by the courts (the courts use chromosomal gender — legal gender “changes” were accomplished, not through the courts, but through a weighing of opposing moralities in the LEGISLATURE), and “allienage” is best understood in terms of national origin.
.
Now, it is true that government cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, but this has little if anything to do with “suspect classifications,” despite the Courts dicta-affected hyperbole to the contrary. If you wish to find the basis for the protection of religion, open your Constitution (state or federal — something the Court ought to consider doing next time). Religion is protected under the First Amendment, as incorporated against State Governments via the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Were that all that was offered on the subject, that would be sufficient. Not to be outdone, however, California has an equally vigorous protection of religion all its own:
.
“Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” (Cal.Const. Art. I sec. 4)
.
“Suspect classification” is not needed to protect religion; it is explicitly protected in California’s Constitution (and it’s PAGE ONE READING — how do you miss that?). Immutability has never been a factor necessary for a determination of unlawful state religious discrimination, thus the Court was plainly disingenuous to abuse that concept in support of its anti-constitutional decision. Allow me, please, to disabuse you of any such notion.

“Courts make law all the time, let’s not pretend like that’s not part of their historic role.” – Oh well, there goes separation of powers. Or I guess I should say there went separation of powers. You will recall that courts making the law was my working definition of an activist judiciary. So, what you are saying is that we have had an activist judiciary that has been overstepping their constitutional authority for a while now. I couldn’t agree more. Courts shouldn’t make law. Their rulings establish precedents by which similar cases are likely to be judged. That why the CA Supreme’s ruling on homosexual marriage is the paragon of judicial activism — it threw out the very recently settled law of the land, created law requiring compliance by other branches of government, and turned common law upside-down.

“The legal system is based in the Constitution of the United States, Laws and Treaties. The Declaration of Independence is a nice document with historical significance but absolutely no legal significance, at all, whatsoever, period.” – Right, I agree completely, except that that is not the way it is in practice. Remember, the Constitution explicitly protected slavery. The principles of the Declaration of Independence were invoked by abolitionists to emancipate the slaves and amend the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence has been cited frequently in judicial opinion too. It is a “founding document” and the legal system tends to use it as such.

“I won’t address your religious arguments . . . these have absolutely no bearing, significance or weight in discussing the purely civil secular matter of marriage in California.” – If you think they are religious arguments, then you have missed the point. I argue that society and it’s laws are founded on a common sense of morality. The concept of what is just or unjust, virtuous or vice are moral judgments. People running around telling everyone not to make moral judgments is ludicrous. Society is one great big commonly-held moral judgment. What they are really running around saying is “Let’s redefine societal morality to tolerate my behavior, and if you won’t I’ll call you names”.

The United States and even the State of California were founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and moral principles. Anyone who wants to deny that is lying. Those principles do not condone homosexual behavior never mind gay marriage. Anyone who cares to deny that is lying. So the foundation of our law and moral principle in this country does not approve of gay marriage. A great many people have altered their sense of what is moral since then. The ones running around saying, “Let’s redefine societal morality to tolerate my behavior” over the last 30 or 40 years have found some people to support them, intimidated others, and made others so tired of hearing about it that they are generally apathetic. Prop 8 is a barometer for how much society’s morals have changed. My sense of what is moral has not changed. Many other people’s has. We are about to find out just how much the general public’s sense of morality has changed in the last few years since Prop 22 passed.

“I will say that G-d is not the source of our rights in the United States or California” – That’s a pity. It puts you somewhat at odds with the founders of our country. But I believe the point they were getting at was that rights are not granted by the government. Government is coercion. It does not create natural rights. It can only limit them. When the government “finds” new rights they invariably come at the expense of someone else’s. You may wildly misinterpret what I am saying here. That will depend on how you define “rights” and your idea of the role of government.

“I have not chatted Him (G-d) up lately about His stance on Prop 8.” – Why not? If you believe in such a being and He has power enough to create the earth, mankind, etc, He ought to be aware of the situation and able to answer you in some way. If you don’t then Prop 8 is a pretty insignificant bit of law in a great big universe and life is really short.

“It would prove G-d’s fallibility if He were our source of rights because undoubtedly they have changed drastically throughout our history, indicating they were not perfect to begin with.” – Rights haven’t changed at all. People are not perfect, government is made up of people and has limited those rights in imperfect ways from the beginning. But you are right in that this leads very quickly into a different discussion, which I would be happy to undertake some other time.

“These Justices are 6 out 7 Republicans and Republican appointments, and they tend to generally be a very conservative court. (So stop representing them as small group of freakish liberal San Francisco judges that did something so wicked and unfathomable).” – I don’t care in the slightest about their party affiliation and I never said anything about them being freakish or from San Francisco, so please stop putting words in my mouth. Thank you very much. I reserve the right to call throwing out Prop 22 a liberal / progressive ruling, because that’s exactly what it was. If you search the forum thread you will find that YOU are the one who keeps mentioning San Francisco. Russ mentions SF in passing, since he used to live there. You say you are tired of people calling them freaky SF judges . . . so . . . stop doing it already!

“If the voters got together and passed by majoritarian rule . . . ” – No one can do anything about being Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, or an Orange Umpa Lumpa. Choosing to have sex with someone of the same gender is not an immutable characteristic of humanity, period. If there is a physiological or psychological basis for same gender attraction that does not make homosexuality immutable anymore than a genetic predisposition to alcoholism makes someone a drunk. It is the choice that makes the difference. We are our choices after all.

“Same sex marriage will not harm you, your relationships, or society. . . Why not try to attack the “real” “problem” by making it harder to dissolve marriages. . .” – You try to make a point and then give me the evidence to refute it. The rise of “gay rights” has accompanied the slide of traditional marriage. Suggesting that I turn a blind eye to gay marriage and focus on keeping married couples together is a bit like suggesting that I concentrate on fixing a broken window while someone is pounding on my front door with a fire axe. They are both obviously problems and societal morality issues but one of them seems to be just a bit more urgent. Society has lots of problems (in my opinion). Isn’t it a bit of a false premise to suggest that I can only care about one of them at a time?

My wife brought up an interesting point that you may care to comment on. She was wondering if there could be found any two homosexuals who loved each other and believed in marriage so much that they waited, virginity intact, for the State Supreme Court to approve gay marriage before giving themselves to each other. Heard of anyone like that? That was what marriage was designed to be. That was the standard for thousands of years. It also shows just how far we have fallen from our founding principles.

“Pepperdine Law School is a religious school that is founded on Christian values and requires students and faculty to abide by Christian morals and philosophy” – More evidence for my case of sliding morality. Thanks.

“Citing Massachusetts as a counter point is deceiving because that is a different state with different laws.” – Different states, different laws? Not a law to be found. Judicial fiat is what you are talking about. The rulings were similar. Can one reasonably expect the results to be different? We’ll see what you have to say about it below.

“I would also submit that while teaching Kindergartners about sex is inappropriate” – I assume you meant appropriate, since the rest of your comment claims that same sex should be accepted as a cultural norm and it is entirely appropriate to teach children what is normal, right? It does weaken your claim a bit that school curricula wouldn’t change when you go out of your way to say that you, as a opponent of Prop 8, are all in favor of doing just that. You also provide the grounds for doing so. If gay marriage is normal, why wouldn’t you teach it? Therefore, No on 8 will lead to a de facto change in school curricula. No on Prop 8 doesn’t change it directly, but as you have just demonstrated it will certainly change it indirectly. So who is really lying, the Pro-Prop 8 ads or you?

“But in any case, that’s what individual school districts will decide and they can teach whatever they want irrespective of Prop 8″ – So local school districts are autonomous and no one is trying to make them teach “alternate lifestyles”? Harvey Milk Day? SB 777? AB 394? AB 14? Are you willfully ignorant about this? How could anyone claim with a straight face that school districts have any kind of independence when it comes to homosexuality issues? Maybe your face wasn’t straight when you wrote that.

“It’s not democracy in action when proponents are using extortion and threat tactics to bully opponents.” – In my own little corner of California, I have seen two Yes on Prop 8 signs stolen. I have heard from friends and family (2nd hand info) of all sorts of sign stealing, slashing and property damage, but I have not gone to look at it first had. All of the No on Prop 8 signs that I have seen in the community are still in place. All of them. By way of the news, I have heard of numerous first amendment violations. One incident involved a public school teacher inciting students to commit criminal misdemeanors. There is plenty of intolerance on both sides, too much really. My experience says it has been greater on the side of Prop 8′s opponents, but your experience may vary.

“My list of groups opposing Prop 8 was not meant to dissuade anyone from fact checking or making reasoned voting decisions.” – Then why bother unless you are going for some kind of bandwagon advertising approach? When I learned logic fallacies, that was one of them.

“It is not wrong to factor in where money is coming from on both sides, and where and why certain groups oppose Prop 8.” – Wrong? I don’t know, but it doesn’t make a valid argument. The proposition is what it is. People will support it or oppose it for their own reasons. If Abraham Lincoln or Charles Manson were all in favor of something that doesn’t make it a good or a bad idea. Singling out organizations who are in favor of Prop 8 and misrepresenting their reasons for supporting it can be persuasive, but it isn’t logically valid.

“It is wrong for religious doctrine to control secular government and secular law.” – Like I’ve been saying. It is not about religious doctrine, it is about public morality, and if the public sense of morality doesn’t control the law, what does?

“The many religions of the U.S. are not monolithic on this issue, and even within the Mormon church there is debate whether their drive in support of Prop 8 is acceptable.” – More evidence of the moral slide I’ve been talking about. Thanks.

“Your thoughts about “natural families” are not supported by experts who have done multi-decade and highly reliable studies. I’ll take the APA analysis over your personal and untested thoughts.” – Thanks, I haven’t had a laugh like that in a while! I have the nation’s founding Judeo-Christian principles, the basis of most of our law, mankind’s proven, over thousands of years, world-wide, independently arrived at consensus on the family, the fundamental unit of society, on my side and you trump that with a multi-year APA study. If you will step back a moment and try to be a bit more objective, you’ll realize that this isn’t just my idea on how society ought to work. Thanks for the laugh though. Thanks the “experts” for me too. I wish they could go start a colony on a habitable planet somewhere and I could look in on them after a few thousand years to see how they were doing. Unfortunately, my curiosity is not sufficient to allow social engineering experiments of that scale on this planet unopposed. I have to live here.

“Again, Prop 8 only hurts many and benefits no one!” – Prop 8 doesn’t hurt anyone and benefits everyone. Hate and discrimination have nothing to do with it. Law and morality have everything to do with it.

P.S. I’m still waiting to hear what specific legal rights are being denied to gay couples under California’s civil union law.

The argument to sue a religious organization because they choose not to recognize your mariage is not right. They are religious. You CHOOSE to belong to that organization or not. In order to belong you need to abide by said requirements…it’s your CHOICE. They aren’t forcing you to be part of their religion, they aren’t forcing you to do anything, but to come in force them to marry you? That’s over the line.

If I wanted to get married in a Greek-Orthodox Church I would have to be baptized in their religion…but I don’t go out and sue them because I can’t be married by them…

Be wary…the moment you start legislation that crosses that sacred line of separation of Church and State we start taking HUGE steps backwards.

Do I have an issue with Gay people? Nope…just their lifestyle choice. I acknowledge them as good people and they deserve to be treated as people, they are for heavens sake, but that doesn’t mean I condone their lifestyle.

There’s a simple saying that I think we could all apply here to any situation in life: “Just cuz you can, doesn’t mean you should.” So, next time judges, when you are faced with peer pressure to overturn popular opion (IE the people’s point of view and elected view) remember: “Just cuz you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

Just my thoughts, just my 2 pennies.

Again, Prop 8 only hurts many and benefits no one! Don’t write hate and discrimination in the Constitution. Please Vote No on 8.

I admit I am reluctant to comment on this video. However, I appreciate this video (so I’ll go ahead and comment anyways). It sparked discussion. It took a topic that has been floating around and gave it an outlet. I’m sure that the Brother’s Winn appreciate everyone’s comment, whether they are in agreement or not. It’s clear that this topic has passion from both sides, people will believe what they want to because of their own moral compass, and who am I to tell them that they are wrong? That is what democracy is supposed to be. Whether someone is misinformed, emotional, backed by religion, not backed by religion, tolerant, intolerant, for or against Prop 8, most opinions can not helped but be formed by a person’s experiences, and in that case, there is not a “correct” view to take.

I’ve heard it said that you can make some people happy some of the time, but you can’t make all people happy all the time. So the gays in California were unhappy about the vote. This happens to many people, but as an Americans, we have to understand the way our government was set up. If the majority of the people do not agree with something, they get their way, to the chagrin of those for it. I say, if gays wish to see change they have the right to fight for it. Rally support at the voting poles, and do so in a respectful manner. No, I do not support gay marriage. On my own moral grounds, I cannot. Do I believe that it was wrong for the Supreme Court to step in and change what the people had already decided? Yes, but only on the principle that if 61% of voters decided to define marriage as between a man and a woman, then who is to say that they cannot vote and have their vote matter? At very least, a revote should have been done to confirm the belief of the Supreme Court. If, truly, public opinion had changed, then it would show in voting. That is the way that democracy is supposed to work.

The evidence(yeah like all of it) suggests that sexual prefrance is biologically determined, just as having asian apperance is. The fact that more gay people pass as straight then asians as white does not change the underlying arbitrary basis for inequality.

Being out, or pretending to be straight, those are choices, They are simply different strategies on how to be gay in our society, simply because you can’t tell by looking that a person is gay does not mean that it is something they can change.

Would you feel it were just if you were excluded from many of the benefits of civil society unless you decided to supress a strong biological urge, and pretend to have an urge which you don’t have, and even find distasteful?

The point of the show was basically “oh no activist judges”, do you feel that way about the 1948 dicision? Does your opinion change at all, given that discriminatory laws are often repealed through judical process?

The Cable act did just that, it was the law in California.

In 1948 the equal rights of Asians to marry was reinstated by court decision. In Perez vs. Sharp, the California Supreme Court ruled against anti-miscegenation laws, stating that they were based on racial distinctions that were “by their very nature, odious to a free people.”

This is how this usually happens, the court was doing its job in 1948, and in 2008.

Don’t like that Asians(gays) have the same marriage rights as whites(straights)? Well, taking away peoples rights is a pretty shitty thing to do, I certainly hope that this attempt at mob rule fails.

I’ll keep this short. Constitutions and courts are anti-majoritarian. That’s how the Framers invisioned them, and that’s how they should be. And when the People votes in an initiative, it acts as super-legislature, so in that sense, a court should be able to check it, the way judicial review checks any other law passed by a legislature for constitutionality. If we are talking about the federal constitution, it would take a whole lot more than a simple majority to erase Article III. And while it’s debatable whether Californians could do that by initiative in this state, it would be incredibly foolish for them to do so. There’s so much more nuance here – but I’ll keep this one short. If you really believe that a majoritarian mob should be able to oppress any minority, at any time, without any checks – well, thankfully that’s not the country in which we live and I am grateful for that.

I’m afraid that I lost you on your argument. Even supposing that 100 percent of the “homosexual community” voted in a state wide election, the community would represent what, maybe 5 percent of the entire statewide electorate, maybe even less. Is it really a fair argument that because lesbian and gay folk are often associated with liberal movements, that it’s ok to strip them of fundamental constitutional rights (i.e. access to secular, civil marriage) just out of spite because of the assumption that many of them would vote for gun restrictions and pro-environment legislation?

Just to be clear, there is no one centralized gay identity politic or voting agenda. Lesbian and gay people exist in every race, religion, creed, political affiliation, and neighborhood. There are plenty of gay republicans, fiscal and social conservatives (gun owners, hunters, and polluters) just as there are many gay democrats, fiscal and social liberals (supporters of Brady Bill type laws and conservation policies). If it would make a difference in your vote, I’d be happy to introduce you to many gay and lesbian republicans, gun owners, business people, and conservatives. Check Andrew Sullivan – a prolific conservative writer who identifies as Libertarian and would probably agree with you on more issues than you’d think. Whatever your reason for voting the way that you do – I hope dearly that you wouldn’t vote yes on 8 just because you assume that all gays in California vote against your interests when the time comes.

And as far as the minority overruling the majority by circumventing the voting system:
When the majority (mostly out of animus or a discriminatory history/tradition) oppresses a minority by keeping it inferior and denies it rights – it is the place of our courts, their constitutional responsibility, to do equitable justice and make sure that the minority receives rights, access, and representation.

It’s not like the minority (lesbians and gays) are oppressing the majority and forcing their will on the majority. Lesbians and gays want to live in peace, to have the same secular civil rights as all other citizens. Their marriages do nothing to harm or interfere with heterosexual couples, heterosexual marriages, or heterosexual enjoyment of life. A same sex marriage has no negative impact on heterosexual marriages.

On the other hand, a same sex marriage helps lesbians and gays stay in committed relationships with financial and legal support, obligations, and responsibilities. Marriage benefits children that are raised in same sex households. Marriage allows lesbians and gays to be happy. Same sex marriage has no impact on people who are not lesbian or gay. To write a constitutional amendment that benefits no one and only harms thousands of devoted couples and thousands more children whose parents are denied dignity, civil rights, and happiness – that’s just wrong.

And Guin:

The minority is not imposing its views on anyone. Would it be ok for the majority to pass a law (from animus and a discriminatory history/tradition) that says lesbians and gays (a minority) aren’t allowed to attend the same schools, work in the same offices, drink from the same water fountains, attend the same parks, have access to the same institutions as members of the majority? Under any circumstance would passing such a law be acceptable to anyone on this forum? (Really, would anyone here support a law like that?) Would it not be the role of a court, interpreting the equality provisions of the constitution to step in and say that such a law is unconstitutional and that the minority should have access to the same institutions as the majority?

That’s what we’re talking about here. Civil marriage – a secular, government sponsored institution – should be available to same sex couples just as it is to opposite sex couples. Any house of worship that wants to solomnize such a union – great. Any house of worship that opposes such a union – great. Some religions recognize same sex unions, others don’t. Some religions recognize divorce, others don’t. That doesn’t matter.

A synagogue will never lose tax exempt status because it doesn’t marry two Christians. A Catholic church will never lose tax exempt status because it refuses to marry divorcees. A Mormon church will never lose tax exempt status because non-Mormons can’t enter their temples or be married in interfaith unions. Religions can discriminate all they want – governments cannot. And when a majority of the people comes together in a statewide initiative and acts as a super-legislature, not every law it passes is a good law or a constitutional law. Propositions can be unconstitutional. Prop 22 was – even though at the time the majority of voters supported it. That alone does not make it right.

Just as it would be wrong for the majority of Californians to reinstitute bans on interracial marriage, or to create a holy Sabbath day that all Californians must observe, or to come together and create separate (and inferior) institutions for any minority group, so too is it wrong for the majority will to strip rights and access to civil institutions away from lesbians and gays.

When the will of the majority oppresses a minority – the courts have to step in and undo that will. That concept might seem undemocratic – but that’s why we don’t live in a true democracy, and that’s why we have survived this long. We don’t want it to be ok for the majority will to oppress a minority group. In the annals of history, the only societies that have done this have been recorded in infamy. Laws and constitutions should give and protect rights, or restrict freedoms for all people equally. They should never pick out a minority and block it from the enjoyment of liberties all others in the majority can access.

Don’t vote for 8 just because you’re mad at the supreme court or want to play a game of civics. Vote for it only if you truly believe writing discrimination into the constitution and taking rights away from a whole segment of the population benefits you personally somehow. And if that’s the case, I’d love hear how that is. If a constitutional amendment won’t directly benefit you, but will directly harm others, you should not vote for it.

Vote no on Prop 8 – it’s hurtful, it has no secular purpose, it discriminates, it’s wrong.

Mob rule is a bad thing.

Judicial activism is defined in several ways. What seems most activist to me is when court rulings make law rather than interpret it.

It is funny that people are spending so much time talking about the “right” of homosexuals to marry. What does the United States legal system consider to be the source of these rights? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights. . .” Oh dear, not only is one of the founding documents of the nation (Declaration of independence) talking about God, it says that he is the source of our rights. So the question must be, does God grant homosexuals the right to marry. If you go with the country’s Judeo-Christian founding principles, that would have to be a “No.” In case you haven’t heard much from God recently, check out my post below for more information on the basis of laws, governments, and societies.

There are many things I could say about the nature of the California Constitution and amendments to it. I’m not sure “sacred” is the best word to describe it. In any case, four judges had a much easier time changing the law than getting another majority of California voters to approve another law limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

People making the case for gay marriage often state categorically that it causes no harm and does not “directly” affect anyone. During jury selection a lawyer asked my father what he thought about “victimless” crimes. His answer was that there are no victimless crimes, just crimes where the victims are too numerous to count. Now don’t anyone get flustered because I mentioned gay marriage and crime in the same paragraph. If you ask an individual if gay marriage will harm them directly they will probably say no, because they can’t think of any way that it would. But will gay marriage have an effect on society as a whole? Of course it will. Will that effect produce any negative consequences for society as a whole. I believe it will and I believe it has already been demonstrated to do just that (again see my post below). That fundamental change in society will affect all of us directly whether we realize exactly how or not.

Arguing that Prop 8 does not produce any consequences for school curriculum, Church tax exempt status, etc. is one of the sneakiest kinds of lies; it is a half-truth. The strict wording of Prop 8 does not include or strike any text from the education code. That is technically correct. However, educators in Massachusetts have already used the judicial fiat that legalize gay marriage there to teach gay and lesbian relationships to Kindergartners with no parental notification or ability to opt out. If it has already happened there why should anyone believe that it will not have a similar effect in California? It seems like a virtual guarantee to me. So the Prop 8 ads are not lies. They are stating what the effects of failing to pass Prop 8 are certain to be. The falsehood is on the side of No on 8 here.

You lists of groups against Prop 8 mean less than nothing to me. You lament poor decisions by uninformed voters following mass produced voting guides on the one hand, while on the other you encourage everyone to vote against Prop 8 because the teachers unions say so. I say study the issue and vote your conscience and let the ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League go their own way. The Mormon church has taken a stand on Prop 8 and they have every right to, but did you also know that they even though the church has taken a position on Prop 8 the members of the church are not told how to vote on it. They are asked “to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.” I looked it up (http://tinyurl.com/4bgehj). Gay marriage is a moral issue and law and morality have a good deal going together (again see my post below).

“This nation was founded on concepts of separation of church and state.” First of all, that “wall” is in a letter of Jefferson’s, not the Constitution. Second, I believe the intent was to prevent government from interfering with religion and not to prevent religion from having any influence in the laws of the land. The founding fathers understood the importance of morality in a well ordered society and encouraged church influence. . .

“That wise Men have in all Ages thought Government necessary for the Good of Mankind; and, that wise Governments have always thought Religion necessary for the well ordering and well-being of Society, and accordingly have been ever careful to encourage and protect the Ministers of it, paying them the highest publick Honours, that their Doctrines might thereby meet with the greater Respect among the common People.” – Ben Franklin.

In other words, religion makes good people, good people make good societies, and good societies make good government.

?”Many other religious people don’t deserve my tolerance” – That is the funny thing about tolerance; it depends to a great extent on what you consider virtue or vice. No one should tolerate evil or injustice in the world, but what people consider evil or unjust will vary depending on where their own moral compass points.

“Once religious people tell me what I can or can’t do. . . ” – The key word here is “people”. They may be religious, but they are people, and they have as much right to have their say in government and society and the morality that steers it as you do. If you can be for gay marriage because that is your idea of a well ordered society, they can be against it for the same reason. They aren’t having any greater effect on how you live your life than you will be having on them.

“Many Christian religious denominations, Reform and some Conservative Jewish communities, Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, and other religions want to marry same sex partners. Other religions do not.” – They don’t call it the Culture Wars for nothing! The fact that there are an increasing number of religious groups that have abandoned traditional marriage shows the direction public morality has been taking of late. Ultimately, people will decide or perhaps just go along with a certain definition of what is moral and that will determine the legal outcome. Like I said in my post below. . . If there is a God and he bothered to outline his system of morality in the Bible (or anywhere else since most of the world’s major religions teach similar values), then embracing homosexuality as a cultural norm is likely going to provoke Sodom and Gomorra Part II. If there is no God (or he doesn’t take a very active role in human affairs) but nature has things figured out pretty well, then homosexuality isn’t the best plan either. If it is genetic, it should be a very difficult trait to naturally pass on to offspring. But if neither of the above is true, then it doesn’t matter what anyone does because we’ll all most likely be dead tomorrow anyway.

“The government should not and I believe cannot force them to do so if it is against their doctrine.” – Unfortunately, certain other people don’t see it that way and will attempt to restrict freedom of thought, speech, and exercise of conscience and religion in the name of homosexual “rights”. The video highlighted a few lawsuits where that has already occurred. The courts are being used to intimidate people and force them to violate their consciences. Very wrong indeed.

“It hurts loving, devoted couples. IT HARMS CHILDREN” – Won’t someone please think of the children?! Sorry I had to (chuckle). I’ll say what I said before. I think natural families are the ideal system and they have worked for a long time. Men and women each have important roles in producing and raising children which seem to strike a natural balance. Keeping men and women together in a stable, exclusive relationship (i.e. marriage) each concerned and contributing to their children’s development seems to be in the best interests of society. I think society’s laws should reflect and encourage that.

“Let loving and devoted couples – good parents to thousands of children in California – be happy, have access to the same legal protections and dignities as other loving, devoted couples and parents.” – California has very liberal civil union laws. Exactly what legal protections are gay couples missing out on?

Just for fun. If marriage is a right, why did I have to apply to the government to get permission to exercise that right? The DMV handbook (shudder) says driving is a privilege not a right. Drivers are licensed. Marriages are licensed (that’s what this whole thing is about). Wouldn’t that mean marriage is also privilege? Don’t ascribe that particular bit of logic to me. That is your government at work.

Now the minority is imposing their views on the majority.And calling the majority intolerant for not wanting to change their views.

Is that about gist of it????

The link you posted was from a Focus on the Family publication. They’re not overly fond of gays and lesbians amd support therapy in an effort to try to cure homosexuality. The APA thinks such practices do more harm than good, so I’m a tad skeptical of articles that come from them. Just my opinion though. (shrugs)

To avoid missing the forest for the trees – my reference to the mob is really not all that controversial. It’s a common way of expressing the idea that sometimes purely majoritarian societies allow the will of the majority to suppress the rights, participation, or freedoms of minorities. This is frequently referred to by scholars, historians, political theorists, etc. as tyranny of the majority or mob rule. As historical and contemporary reference points: African slavery in the U.S., decimation of Jews in Germany and throughout Europe by the Nazis and their cohorts, mistreatment of women by the Taliban and certain fundamentalist Islamic nations (just to name a very small few instances where the majority mob oppressed the minority). So in a sense, I did mean the mob in a pejorative way, but because it was a distraction, perhaps I could have rephrased in some sugar coated euphemism not to offend anyone’s fragile sensibilities.

And to be clear – I do not refer to people with whom I disagree as a mob. I mean the idea more generally to criticize the notion of a purely majoritarian system that lacks controls intended to protect minorities. That was the genius behind the Founder’s vision of three co-equal branches of government. What the Founders may not have intended, but very quickly accepted, was the notion that courts can throw out legislation when it is unconstitutional. In Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall famously wrote: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” Since the early 1800s, the concept of judicial review has been a part of our legal system. Courts are not activist just because they throw out bad legislation – either because it is unconstitutional or because the basis behind it was purely discriminatory, the result of animus, or decided by illegal means. When courts throw out bad legislation, they are doing their job and upholding their obligation under the constitution. In fact, Justice Scalia is the most activist of all Supreme Court jurists if you count the amount of federal legislation he has tossed. Courts exist, in part, to protect minorities from majoritarian rule.

As to the numbers – yes, when talking about a constitutional amendment, a sacred document that should be worth more than the paper it is written on, it makes a difference how many people cast votes. This is especially true when we’re talking about taking rights AWAY from some people (a minority) by a slim majority that is neither directly benefited nor harmed by that minority’s enjoyment of those rights. It is completely incomprehensible that California allows constitutional amendments by simple majorities. There is a reason the Founders made it so difficult to amend the federal Constitution – requiring super majorities and intensive referenda. Now prop 22 was only statutory and not a constitutional amendment. However, at the time 4.5 million voters voted for it, 3.0 million voted against, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 30.0 million people did not express an opinion through suffrage. We’re talking about access to a fundamental right here. Taking your logic to its extreme – if only 2 people out of 38 million vote for something and only 1 person votes against, should that mean that those 2 people get to decide for all 38 million simply because they represented a majority of the voters. I’m suggesting that might not be the best idea, or the best way to run a government. And while I agree that we will never have 100% public participation in our system, it is troubling that 15% of the electorate can have the power to take away fundamental rights from a minority within the state. Especially when one considers all the problems in California’s initiative system where many people vote without being informed, don’t read the voter bulletins, don’t understand the far reaching implications of policy choices, are often told how to vote by community groups without conducting their independent and intellectual analysis, and most importantly are misled by partisans in the process: examples with regard to Prop 8 are the filthy lies spread by proponents that have been countered by every legitimate fact checking source. For instance, neither the victory nor defeat of Prop 8 will have any consequence with regard to what kids are taught at schools nor churches tax exempt status. Yet, proponents of Prop 8 have been flooding the airwaves with millions of dollars of ads, in addition to print, brochure, and website ads repeating these lies in order to scare prospective undecided voters. That’s the real shame. California’s teachers, nurses, every major newspaper, many progressive clergy, and a very long list of other individuals and groups are calling Prop 8 out on these divisive tactics. But No on 8 also recognizes that it won’t reach everyone to repudiate the lies, and so undoubtedly there will be people voting for 8 as a result of them – should it be ok for minorities to lose rights simply because some people who voted for that loss were intentionally misinformed or confused; does that possibility not strike on some level as unfair and wrong.

For these very long reasons, I believe it is wrong to amend a constitution by a simple majority to take rights away from people. That is not why constitutions exist and it is not the philosophy on which our country was founded.

Russ:

Spare me the sir nonsense. And call me a bigot and other childish insults all you want, but you don’t know me and your personal attacks have no meaning for me.

I referenced Mormons in particular because while Mormons only make up roughly 2 percent of California’s population (or in the neighborhood of 700K individuals), a whopping 40 percent of the money financing yes on 8 has come from them – much, if not most of it, in fact from out of state. I have no problem with Mormons or their beliefs – they can love or discriminate whomever, whatever, and as much as they want. It was not too long ago that Mormon doctrine saw African Americans and Native Americans as inferior because of their darker skin and discriminated against these groups with regard to church hiring, leadership positions, and accepting of sacraments. But you know what – I don’t care. Let them discriminate within their church. It’s their prerogative, they are entitled to it, and neither I nor the government can or should be able to say anything about it.

On the other hand, when a religious group tries to do its missionary work by converting secular government and laws to suit its doctrine, then I have a right and an obligation to stand up to that. This nation was founded on concepts of separation of church and state. This was a brilliant idea intended to protect the church from the state as well as the state from the church. Now I agree that our legal history with regard to this separation is ambiguous and arguments can be made all over the map about what that wall between the two means. However, many scholars believe, and I agree with them, that the wall should be solid, not porous.
And yes, I believe some believers are spiteful – not all, but certainly some. When I read about individuals barely surviving in this economy donating their entire lifesavings to this issue – to taking away other people’s rights without a direct benefit to them – I have to question why someone would do such a thing. A secular, state sanctioned, same sex marriage might disgust a fundamentalist religious believer, but it does not affect that person or that person’s relationship(s) at all whatsoever. So why give that much money. Why of all the causes in this world that need help would this be the 1 issue someone would choose to take up.

And in referencing religious fundamentalists, I was not exclusively talking about Mormons. I have no qualms calling Fred Phelps and his clan any number of negative words. When you go around making it your religious duty, your entire life’s work, to protest gay and military funerals, etc. because you hate certain people whom you’ve never met – you have problems and I don’t feel the need to respect, dignify, or affirm your inherent worth. Many other religious people don’t deserve my tolerance – fundamentalist Baptists who would bring back stoning to death certain “mortal sins” if they could (again, not all Baptists, I believe the vast majority of them are loving, peaceful, and well intentioned), Islamic fascists who believe it is honorable to commit homicide by suicide bombings, or who believe it is acceptable to blame women for rape and throw acid at their faces for dishonoring their husbands, radical religions that some would deem cults who commit mass suicides to welcome the end of days, so forth.

I have plenty of respect for people of faith and most religions. But I do not believe that has to be a blanket policy in order for me to not be a bigot. And I also believe religion should be a private relationship between communities of people and individuals and their deities. Once religious people tell me what I can or can’t do or with whom I can or can’t associate, or once religions cross the church/state divide and start to dictate what a secular government should do to be in accord with their doctrines – then yeah, I have a problem with that. And it’s not because I am a bigot.

My analysis of Loving and Perez was not weak – though it might have been short. Immutability is a grey area – it actually is NOT required under Equal Protection analysis. For instance alienage and religious affiliation are not immutable. Maybe in your reading of the Cal. S. Ct. decision you missed this discussion:
“We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that it is appropriate to reject sexual orientation as a suspect classification, in applying the California Constitution’s equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not “immutable.” Although we noted in Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, that generally a person’s gender is viewed as an immutable trait (id. at p. 18), ***immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes.*** California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 123, 128; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 156, 161-162), and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].) (emphasis added by boredalum inside asterisk for emphasis).

Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment. (Accord, Hernandez-Montiel v. I.N.S. (9th Cir. 2000) 225 F.3d 1084, 1093 [“[s]exual orientation and sexual identity . . . are so fundamental to one’s identity that a person should not be required to abandon them”]; Egan v. Canada, supra, 2 S.C.R. 513, 528 [“whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs”].)

As far as political powerlessness – sexual orientation is on par or less well represented than women, non-white races, and people of faith. There are clearly fewer gays and lesbians on any level of government or in the courts than those 3 groups. The Cal. S. Ct. was right on in its analysis. And under Perez – it was absolutely the correct decision under California Equal Protection analysis.

Finally – the only religious institutions that have a legitimate stake here are those religions that DO recognize same sex unions under their doctrines. Why do you choose one religious group over another to paint with your broad brush strokes. Many Christian religious denominations, Reform and some Conservative Jewish communities, Buddhists, Unitarian Universalists, and other religions want to marry same sex partners. Other religions do not. The government should not and I believe cannot force them to do so if it is against their doctrine. Again, I believe in a rigid separation of church and state. I believe that no matter where or how a couple is married, they must still get a secular state marriage license from the county clerk in order for the relationship to be recognized (notwithstanding common law marriages and the issues that come with those). A church can no more be sued or required to solemnize a same sex marriage as it would be to hire a rabbi or imam to serve as clergy. If any aberrations of this principle have occurred, that would be wrong and I would take as strong a position on it as I have on this issue.

And just to be clear – here is what the California S. Ct. also said:
“[A]ffording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Prop 8 only does harm, not good. It takes away rights from people. It hurts loving, devoted couples. IT HARMS CHILDREN – because whether you like it or not, same sex couples raise families and most of them are great parents who provide loving and supportive homes to their children. But when parents are treated differently under the law, children suffer. And if you say that same sex couples should not be able to get married or have children because they can’t procreate – then single adults can’t be parents either, senior citizens can’t marry or adopt, neither can heterosexual couples with fertility problems, and heterosexuals who want to marry for various reasons not including having children shouldn’t be allowed to marry either. And to the millions of children in foster care or waiting to be adopted all across the world and in need of warm, loving homes – well, I guess screw them too, right.

There is no compelling secular reason to justify excluding same sex couples from civil marriage. There is not even a legitimate rational reason that passes the laugh test. The only reasons out there are purely religious or have roots in religious doctrine – and those come from only a certain group of religions, but by no means are all religious denominations monolithic on this front.

Amending a constitution to take rights away from people – adding an amendment to a constitution that serves only the purpose of discriminating and harming people with no benefit to anyone – is wrong, it makes no sense, it sets a horribly dangerous precedent, and it’s bad for California.

Please Vote NO on prop 8.

Let loving and devoted couples – good parents to thousands of children in California – be happy, have access to the same legal protections and dignities as other loving, devoted couples and parents.

Check out the list of people and groups that oppose prop 8! These include:
Gov. Schwarzenegger
Senators Obama, Biden, Feinstein, and Boxer
Speaker Pelosi
Mayors of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco
Every major California newspaper
League of Women Voters
All Six Episcopal Dioceses; Board of Rabbis of Southern California (including Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox rabbis); too many religious organizations to list;
Anti-Defamation League
ACLU
NAACP chapters
MALDEF
Various pan-Asian groups
California Teachers
California Nurses
United Farm Workers
California Pediatricians
California Psychologists
You know what – the list is way too long, see for yourselves:
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/who-opposes-prop-8

Please Vote No on 8

Thanks for questioning my intelligence of the English language. Thanks for the clarification of my message. Yes, I do agree with you on the last part response. It’s a moral imperative to protect and bolster our children with love, respect, and acceptance. Our children should grow knowing it is okay to be who they are. They should grow up in a world living honestly, proud, and happy with values in hard work, contribution to community, and respect. They should know the world the around and not limited to a old outdated system that fears change. But of course that would mean a change in culture and we as Americans fear change. Ask your average Joe Plumber what country begins with the letter U. and you’ll be in for a surprise. Our culture is becoming stale with sense that we are the center of the universe with no knowledge any alternatives. But oh well. Maybe the next world? yeah the spirit world. God Bless this country.

More or less a “Ruckus” as in causing people to voice their opinions on, since it’s such a polarizing issue.

It seems odd they’d go from ICE, PMS for me, Glowing fish to… Gay Marriage.

I am quite impressed at how well behaved the internet can be, though. :) (Too bad the youtube comments for the same video can’t be as civil :[ )

On April 1, 1998 at The Palmer House Hilton in Chicago, King called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood”, King stated. “This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”

She has even linked the Civil rights movement herself to the GLBT rights movement:

In a speech in November 2003 at the opening session of the 13th annual Creating Change Conference, organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, King made her now famous appeal linking the Civil Rights Movement to the LGBT agenda: “I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. … But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”

And lastly her thoughts on same sex marriage/civil unions:

On March 23, 2004, she told an audience at Richard Stockton University in Pomona, N.J, that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. King denounced a proposed amendment advanced by President George W. Bush to the United States Constitution that would ban equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. In her speech King also criticized a group of black pastors in her home state of Georgia for backing a bill to amend that state’s constitution to block gay and lesbian couples from marrying. King is quoted as saying “Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage.”

Sorry for the long post I just wanted to post what she had actually said.

Successful Troll Successful?
Was the point of this “episode” to just cause a ruckus?

Now, we have to be clear on this point: What you are seeking here is NOT Equal Protection. It’s more of a “substantive” equal protection. You want the law to reach a particular result, so you are imposing on the law a certain substance, which is most certainly not found within it, in order to achieve your ends. That is intellectually disingenuous and dishonest. And it’s the same thing the Court attempts to do.

Moving now to the Constitution of California: In order to have a violation of Equal Protection under the laws of California, in addition to having some showing of discrimination (not hard to show; all laws discriminate — even taxes discriminate against the rich, etc.), against a politically powerless group (which, let’s be honest, a politically powerless group in California homosexuals are not), the characteristic upon which the discrimination is based must be “immutable.” READ the Majority Opinion in In re Marriages, the Court itself determined that homosexuality was NOT an immutable characteristic (such as race and gender) — which, as an aside, among several other things makes the opinion of In re Marriages utterly arbitrary and unconstitutional — Without each of those prongs being met, Equal Protection under the California Constitution is not implicated.

The Court in this case is hardly the bastion of the rule of law you would pretend it to be. Rather, it is imposing its own policy preferences over the law it purports to apply, and the declared will of the majority.
.
Lastly, it is a bold-faced lie to pretend that religions and the religious do not have a major stake in this issue. One might assume that the First Amendment’s Right of Association would trump any California state laws, but see Pruneyard; California laws have trumped before. Under those laws, if a Church refuses to perform a marriage that the state has sanctioned, they can be sued (and, judging by the common trend, I think they would likely be sued). Among the remedies available to the courts in cases of these suits is a removal from the Church of its license to perform any wedding, or the removal of its tax exempt status. Perhaps YOU are simply misinformed, but I am guessing you are again being either utterly dishonest or disingenuous.

P.S. there sure are a lot of 22′s around here. *hint* i sure would like to join them *hint*

If there is a crime problem, one solution is to put everyone in jail. No people free on the streets means no crimes can be committed. Problem solved. However, is the means(throwing everyone in jail) justified because the crime problem is solved?

Had the decision for women to vote gone to a national referendum it would not have passed for it was never a national majority opinion. Most western states were in favor, having already granted women that right. Most eastern and southern states would not agree to such a thing and the population at the time was, well, in the east and south.

Had Alabaman’s been asked to vote to give blacks equal rights with whites in 1963, how do you think that would have turned out?

Are you suggesting that blacks should not have the same rights unless a majority of a community voted to give them?

Had Virginia been polled in 1863 about slavery, how do you think that would have ended up?

Civil rights are of a different nature than whether to build a highway or sell a piece of municipal land, they’re in an entirely different galaxy.

Civil rights are not to be had by a poll, whether a plebiscite of an opinion poll. They are based on what is *right under the Constitution* and Constitutions should not be used to withhold rights from one group over that of another. I can show you examples of those that did but the nations who embraced them are generally just chapters in history books.

So Brett, you take away the ability for gay couples to marry in California and sooner or later someone comes along and takes away your ability to do something you feel is inherent to your existence. Fair is fair, no?

Lastly, you boys say you’re not homophobic but your reasons for supporting a movement to deny equal rights to people were, well, weak at best and specious at worst. Giving an example of once being gay-bashed to show your open-mindedness fails when placed in comparison to the reasons stated to stand against equal rights for your friends, business associates, family members and neighbors.

If you can prove that when gay men or women join together in a state sanctioned, permanent relationship that you will be personally harmed, I’d like to hear about that.

I hate when people keep referring to 4 activist liberal judges in San Francisco to underscore the idea that somehow the May 2008 decision was an act of legislative activism from the bench. These were 4 California Supreme Court Justices (most of whom are generally conservative and republican) who were doing their job actively, not activistly, by interpreting the California Constitution, and just happening to sit in San Francisco – one of their several locations throughout the state.

People’s memory is so myopic. Could you imagine if someone made the argument today that Loving v. Virginia, overturning bans on interracial marriage (or it’s California equivilant decades prior in Perez v. Sharp), was a form of unnacceptable judicial fiat? Or if Congress today passed a federal amendment banning interracial marriage – despite the S. Ct. opinion and the suspect classification that race gets under federal law. Well that’s exactly the case in California – the Cal. S. Ct. found that marriage is a fundamental right, that sexual orientation is a protected class, and that under Due Process and Equal Protection same-sex couples must have access to the same fundamental rights as opposite sex couples.

Also, the yes on 8 side is blatantly lieing. Prop 8 has nothing to do with school kids or religious institutions. And it would be worse for kids, because whether proponents like it or not, gay couples will keep having and adoptiing kids and it would be better for those kids to live in recognized and legally protected households. Separate but unequal institutions would do more harm to kids than good. Also, whether prop 8 passes or not, teachers are at liberty to teach, according to the education code, anything they want about alternative families – and California parents have the right to remove their kids from classes where controversial family and sex issues are taught. Nothing about this or churches’ tax exempt status in any way, whatsoever, is affected by prop 8. Anyone saying otherwise is either misinformed or lieing in order to manipulate people’s emotions.

And as far as lawsuits – yeah, that might be right, maybe there are too many of them on unnecessary issues. But, lawsuits should be filed when core fundamental rights are at stake and when the political process fails. Also, prop 8 has nothing to do with whether more or less lawsuits will get filed.

Here, it’s debatable whether the political process failed. The legislature passed pro-same-sex-marriage laws twice and both times the governor vetoed them saying it should be up to the S. Ct. to determine the issue. That’s often left out of the debate. More importantly, amending a constitution or taking away civil rights by a simple majority vote of the popular mob is antithetical to our fundamental legal structure. Constitutions and laws should protect minorities, not allow the mob to overwhelm them.

I could keep going on – but I think you get the really obvious issues involved here. The speaker on that video was funny and articulate but deceptive, and skilled at creating a smoke screen with regard to some of the important and unaddressed issues. And his characterization of public opinion and the will of the majority was off – as will be determined on Nov. 4. Yes, 4.5 million people voted for Prop 22 in 2000. But this state has something like 38,000,000 people – so 4.5 million can hardly be said to represent the entire will of the state. And that shouldn’t matter – the mob majority in this country could do a lot of really bad things in curtailment of liberties and constitutional rights – that’s why courts and constitutions exist to serve as a check. Prop 8 benefits no one but religious fundamentalists who should not be able to cross the church/state barrier and dictate secular state policy. It only hurts people by stripping away civil rights from certain groups, and does more harm to children who live in same sex households than anyone else. Laws based in animus or religious doctrine should never be constitutionally recognized – and that’s so fundamental that any rationale, open minded person should be able to recognize it. Somehow though, that idea didn’t get into the video while a subliminal message about the gay agenda did.

Here’s how people should vote on 8:

Ask would a yes vote:
Have any real direct positive/negative impact on me?
Would it have a direct real negative/positive impact on someone else?

Ask would a no vote:
Have any real direct positive/negative impact on me?
Would it have a direct real positive/negative impact on someone else?

When put in those terms it is pretty clear – voting yes ONLY hurts others: loving, devoted, same sex couples and their children, families, and friends. A yes vote does not directly benefit anyone. It only directly hurts others.

Voting no on 8 maintains people’s constitutionally recognized rights, treats people equally under the law, and does not hurt anyone. Churches should be free to discriminate whose relationships their religions recognize. Mormons should be free to keep gays out of their churches. Reform Jews should be free to have gay and lesbian clergy and to solomnize same-sex unions under Jewish law. But what we’re talking about is secular, civil marriage. Not religious marriage. And as long as the state calls the relationship marriage for opposite sex couples, it should have the same name for same sex couples. Creating separate institutions has no legitimate secular reason, and on the other hand causes real harm to loving same sex couples and their children.

Passing a constitutional amendment to strip a group of people of rights and dignity, especially when done by a simple majority vote, especially when most of the financial backing for it comes from out-of-state and by religious groups, namely Mormons, is wrong headed and mean spirited. Just think of the precedent that would be set by the ability of a simple majority, financed by spiteful religious groups, to strip fundamental rights from people by writing discrimination into a constitution. It’s wrong. Even if you aren’t sure how you feel about people of the same sex getting married, a constitutional amendment like prop 8 is just wrong, it’s scary, and it’s not good for California.

Please vote No on 8.

This is primarily a question of can unelected, unrepresentative judges imposing their policy preferences on the majority of Californians, in opposition to the laws and Constitution of the state? It is secondarily the question of whether a litigious minority seeking to destroy the liberty of the people by attempting to force them to accept the minority’s “lifestyle” as being morally equivalent, when it is not. Those are the issues this vote turns on, and the things I hope people consider.

Over here there too has been recent up-roars about gay marriages. While currently here two people who love each other of the same sex or of altered sexual orientation are not allowed to marry, they are allowed a civil partnership, which as far as I can find out, allows them equal rights and benefits as a married couple.

Unlike where the brothers Winn live, there hasn’t been a huge push to make a civil partnership the same and under the same “banner” as marriage is. simply because the rights between the two (marriage / civil partnership) are the same.

On the contrary to popular belief between a lot of people who know me, I am not against gay partnerships, if someone falls in love or is only attracted to someone of the same sex, I can not and will not stand against that. I for a time when I was in sixth form (16-18 years of age) had several gay friends, of different sexes.

But equally as a christian, and I was brought up as a christian because my parents ran a church, I too have chosen to believe, not because of propaganda but simply because I have chosen too. I do disagree with people “marrying” one another if they are of the same sex, and I disagree with people being gay. I won’t apologise for that and the reason that I disagree is because of my faith. As a christian I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and along with it, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Cliche I know, but equally in leviticus it clearly says that partnerships between same sex couples is forbidden.
Admittedly it doesn’t say it in those exact words, but depending on which version you read it will be pretty close.

One of the key things I learnt as being a christian, is that you love your neighbour as you would love yourself and that simply means that you do start to argue and be unkind to someone who lives next door to you, or someone at your workplace / school etc, simply because you wouldn’t want the same behavior show or done towards yourself. In that sense I would never persecute or harm someone because of their belief or sexual orientation, but equally in the free speech civilisations that we live in, I have the right to disagree with someone else’s belief of sexual orientation.

In terms of people suing churches simply because they would not marry a gay couple is in my opinion ludicrous, because the church, christianity in fact is not the only religion in the world and as far as I can find out there are no other faiths in the world (please comment on this if i’m wrong and I will apologise if that is the case) that have allowed gay marriages to happen.

Just in england in fact there have been several gay bishops that are partners and still preach the word of God. Now I’m not saying that they do not believe in God themselves, but I would love to know what version of their bible that cuts out all the parts on homosexuality.

Like I have said, christianity and the church is not the only faith in which people believe, in fact if you combine all of the faiths and beliefs that do not believe in gay marriages and where within that faith it is frowned upon. The percentage of people who are not included within that spectrum is only 14.72% of the worlds population. Now to me, thats a pretty small percentage of people infact of the 6,750,000,000 people thats only 98,000,000 which leaves 6,642,000,000 of people who disagree on a spiritual level in gay marriage which is a huge amount.

So why is it, that people are suing churches for not marrying gay couples, but not other faiths, like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, I’m not saying people should start and sue other faiths for not changing one of their core belief’s, but what I am saying is the church and christianity as a whole has come far further in terms of allowing people to have different sexual beliefs in recent years and a lot of other beliefs have.

I equally am not saying that other beliefs should change what they believe to accommodate the more modern and liberal society that we live in.

All I simply want to say is that here in England and equally in America, people have the Right to believe in what they choose to believe in. So why are people bitter and arguing over faith issues, when the real issue is allowing people who love one another to have the same rights as people who are legally “married”

If here in England people are allowed the same rights in a ‘civil partnership’ as a couple who are ‘married’ surely it doesn’t matter if the names are different to please both sides of the camp, those who don’t want people who are gay to be ‘married’ but also allows gay couples the right and freedom that comes with marriage by having a ‘civiil partnership’

I agree with the bothers Winn there are many religious institutions and faiths that will never change one of their core beliefs on homosexual marriage, and if the gay community can not tolerate that, how can they expect them to be tolerated back. “love thy neighbour as you would love yourself”

I find it funny when I hear people argue that same-sex marriage is OK, but polygamy is wrong, or “communes aren’t marriage.” Well, why not? I think that we should let the churches have the term “marriage” (mostly because you aren’t going to get them to stop calling it that anyway) and let them worry about who they will and won’t marry (forcing them to “marry” people is anti-freedom, IMO) and we should create another term (how about a “domestic corporation”) that is any number of consenting adults coming together to create a household or community for the purpose of “pursuit of happiness” (or however you describe why people get hitched). This “domestic corporation” would have the same rights as a “civil union” in that it will allow for inheritance between partners and children of partners, and will have the same kind of tax benefits (or penalties, depending on where you live).

There, 232 words and I’ve solved the world’s marriage problems. World peace is next…

But back on point. How is that you tell gays to be tolerant of radical religious institutions. Maybe you should tell that to Matthew Shepard. You made it appear as if all homosexuals want to invade and obstruct religious institutions. You made it seem that homosexuals take legal action and sue at every chance they get. Well taking LEGAL action and suing for recognition and equality is better than being silent. It is better than seeing what is unfair and being treated as a second class citizen. Thank God my rights to take legal action have not been taken away.

I gotta say this is by far the most outlandish video. Yes, you, Brothers Winn, have your opinion but I am disappointed on how misleading and on sided you can be on this topic. You made no effort on how same-sex marriage would give FULL rights to same sex couples. You antagonized the California Supreme Court that overturned Prop 22. You made it as if we should fear our government. The judges simply interpreted Prop 22 as unconstitutional. Remember Loving v. Virginia (1967) the US Supreme Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″, unconstitutional. Should we fear reform for the better, for the integrity and goodwill of our fellow citizen, no. No, we should welcome change for the equality and mutual respect for each other.

I don’t see taking children to same-sex social events as it will expose children to the world around them. It teaches children that we are different yet equal and have the will to live free and proud. Yes, the government should have an initiative to expose children to different cultures and lifestyles. It is part of a learning process – children are learning about social and cultural lifestyles.

Americans are ignorant we see only one side and no other. Maybe if there where an effort to include cultural understanding in the educational institution then our children won’t be as dumb as us and have to deal with our problems. Then there will be peace. Yes, we had the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. But that just made everyone equal it did not emphasize the need for cultural equality. America(ns) is dominate and ignorant. Why do you think we have a War in Iraq, because we don’t see the value in their culture. We quickly convict minorities to place them in jail. We bash and mock gays with disgust.

I did not like your presentation of the topic. Your way of protest is odd. You sport a ‘support Prop 8′ sign in your lawn because you feel your rights are being voilated by the supreme court? Or is that you are against marriage between same-sex couples? It’s okay, you have your right to opion. It’s just annoying when you protray your bigotry with an ugly smile. “Suing people to get your way” with rainbow lettering is NOT cool. WTF mate – I thought you guys were cool. Now you mock homosexuals? What’s next? WhatYouOughtToKnow’s OJ Simpson Case, Barak Obama as the First Black President(btw he’s half white), etc. Some chaos. Maybe should stick to topics other than social and cultural issues.

Tolerance DOES NOT go both ways in your context. As human individual we should not have to tolerate intolerance. We should not be silent in fear of retaliation. We should not have to tolerate unfairness. We should not have to tolerate anything that makes us less than. The lamb does not willingly lay with the lion. The lamb knows that he is lunch and sees the lion̵