GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/05/26/ca-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8/trackback/

  1. Good news.

    Comment by Ignatius — May 26, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - May 26, 2009

  2. Good news for the rule of law.

    Now let the discussion of how to appeal the ammendment begin.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 26, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - May 26, 2009

  3. I just hope those fighting for same-sex marriage simply re-group, and put in on the ballot again.

    I want to get married.

    But I’m not going to hate and be mean to those who voted for Prop 8.

    Comment by Valerie — May 26, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - May 26, 2009

  4. Valerie,

    That’s the spirit that’s needed. May I pry and ask a question? Why do you want the government recognition that comes with it? If it’s to have access to the benefits that the government offers to married couples I understand (and why I support ‘fred’) but I’m curious to hear your reasoning.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 26, 2009 @ 1:18 pm - May 26, 2009

  5. Uugghhh now I’m going to have to deal with protesters blocking the streets again.

    Comment by OutliciousTV — May 26, 2009 @ 1:19 pm - May 26, 2009

  6. I haven’t seen the decision, but I expect it will be victory for relatively-correct legal reasoning. The “revision vs. amendment” argument offered by Prop 8 opponents was bogus.

    And as a gay marriage supporter, I don’t mind taking the “loss” here. Since State licenses for things (marriage, fishing or whatever) are inherently privileges NOT fundamental rights, we need to get gay marriage by democratic means: by winning at the ballot box, or in legislative votes. I’m confident that my side will win eventually, that way. And getting privileges the wrong way (by fiat) only breeds painful and unnecessary social conflict.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2009 @ 1:32 pm - May 26, 2009

  7. 1/2 good news. Too bad the “justices” simply can’t wrap their heads around the idea that the actual law is more important than their personal desires.

    Only men and women can be married in the State of CA. If your spouse is not of the opposite sex, then you’re not married.

    So I guess teh voters of CA can take home two messages from this:

    1: When the State Supreme Court really screws up, you can reverse them.
    2: CA SC “justices” are power hungry jerks who won’t take that reversal well, and so will fight it any way they can. (Thus the totally meaningless “these 14,000 people are still “married”. What, exactly, does that mean? Civil Unions give all the benefits of marriage that teh State can give.)

    Comment by Greg Q — May 26, 2009 @ 1:32 pm - May 26, 2009

  8. Great observations, Greg (#7).

    I’m glad the Court respected the will of the people. And I agree that it is clear what The Gays need to do now.

    I only fear that coming trashing of Mormons and African-Americans doesn’t get in the way.

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 26, 2009 @ 1:38 pm - May 26, 2009

  9. GayPatriot » CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8…

    Trackback from PunditKix.com…

    Trackback by PunditKix — May 26, 2009 @ 1:40 pm - May 26, 2009

  10. I’m still mad about Kris vs. Adam. I’ll have to catch up to this one.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 26, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - May 26, 2009

  11. And it’s already started.

    Not everyone outside the court was upset with the court. Yana Kulinich was with a group of students from American River College in Sacramento who drove in to support Prop. 8.

    “I’m really happy that Prop. 8 was upheld, but I was just told by somebody that she’s going to harass me until the day I die,” Kulinich said. “Now I’m really concerned for my safety.

    “I didn’t expect that,” she said. “I’m shaking right now.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2009 @ 1:53 pm - May 26, 2009

  12. OK, now that the CA Supreme Court has rendered its decision, I’m calling on all gay activists in the Golden State to resist a replay of those horrid demonstrations & get their fannies to Sacramento & start lobbying. Unlike back in November, you have models now. Vermont, New Hampshire (hopefully), New York (again hopefully), or how about yours truly–Maine. There are 40 Senators & 80 Assemblymembers that you need to start flapping your gums to–NOW! Lobby, lobby, LOBBY!

    Comment by Jimbo — May 26, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - May 26, 2009

  13. Emotion has completely bitch-slapped reason among my friends, gay and otherwise, in Los Angeles. They seem to forget that this is the same body that effectively legalized gay marriage a year and two weeks ago by overturning Prop 22. Nevermind the frightening precedent that would have been set had the court overturned Prop 8.

    Hopefully after the caterwauling is over, they’ll turn to the task at hand: engaging in thoughtful dialogue with The Other and winning some hearts and minds to the cause.

    Comment by Ronnie Gipper — May 26, 2009 @ 2:10 pm - May 26, 2009

  14. Live by the sword of democracy, die by the sword of democracy.

    Comment by Seerak — May 26, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - May 26, 2009

  15. Yes, I saw the ARC people at the SF courthouse this morning, celebrating Prop 8. My favorite sign they were holding was, “Gay = Pervert”. No surprise that ND30 immediately believes their plantive cry that they’re being oppressed or harrassed; it’s not like they’ve learned to play the victim card or anything, nor that rightwing gays would immediately buy into it.

    Comment by torrentprime — May 26, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - May 26, 2009

  16. This is a great decision. ‘Ace of Spades’ has some insightful analysis. The will of the majority of Californians could not be overruled twice by activist judges. As homosexual couples, we can obtain every legal right that married couples have if we simply fill out the legal forms (right of hospital visitation, etc). The liberal gay militants have built their arguments on straw and finally the voters are rejecting their propaganda.

    Comment by Ben — May 26, 2009 @ 2:34 pm - May 26, 2009

  17. Actually, I would be perfectly happy to call Jason Statham my legal domestic partner. I’d be happy to call him my roommate. I’d be happy to be two friends sharing expenses who need legal rights to make it work. I’m happy with what CA already offers. I have no desire to get married. History shows that homosexuals don’t get married–they form fiercely loyal, monogamous relationships that are based on pure love and not society’s expectations. That’s what I want. Marriage–yecch. That’s a woman thing.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 26, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - May 26, 2009

  18. Call democratic allocation of *privileges* (not rights) a “sword”, prove that you are an anti-democrat at heart.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - May 26, 2009

  19. The libertarian in me says government should not dictate these matters.

    What if I want to marry my brother? Gay incest should be legal.

    What if I want to marry my dog. Beastiality is legal in Germany (but not beatiality porn)

    What if I want to marry both my brother and my daughter? I had a Vas, I can’t have kids, why not?

    The law should be consistent. Otherwise you “oppress” me.

    Comment by GP — May 26, 2009 @ 2:43 pm - May 26, 2009

  20. Most people bitching about the decision today (based on what I’m reading) would rather give all decision-making to The Government and becoming wards of The State anyway.

    Their arguments are infused with ignorance and emotional stupidity, not logic, law and reason.

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 26, 2009 @ 2:51 pm - May 26, 2009

  21. Jimbo — I hope your call is heeded. I doubt it.

    Let the lynching of “anti-gay” Mormons and African-Americans begin by The Gays. *sarcasm off, hopefully*

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 26, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - May 26, 2009

  22. My favorite sign they were holding was, “Gay = Pervert”.

    As I have said countless times before, torrentprime, why on earth shouldn’t they think that? When you have people arguing for teaching gay sex to five-year-olds, that taking toddlers dressed as sex slaves to sex fairs to “show off” for adults is an “educational experience”, and against age-of-consent laws, all the time insisting that people who disagree are “homophobic”, you make it extremely clear that to be gay is to support perversion.

    What amuses the hell out of me is how clueless you are. You honestly believe that people ignore the fact that you support teaching gay sex to five year olds just because you ignore it, and you expect people to react to the leadership of the gay community calling a woman a “dumb bitch” and a “cunt” on TV with the same claps and cheers as you do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2009 @ 3:01 pm - May 26, 2009

  23. [...] GayPatriot » CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8 [...]

    Pingback by Anger, Leadership and Change « Law Dork, 2.0 — May 26, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - May 26, 2009

  24. surprise that ND30 immediately believes their plantive cry that they’re being oppressed or harrassed; it’s not like they’ve learned to play the victim card or anything, nor that rightwing gays would immediately buy into it.

    GPW, would you please immediately publish torrentprime’s IP address? Since he insists that having your house, your employer, and everything else picketed is not oppression or harassment, I think it’s only fair that we pass all of his vital information on to ARC so that they can go to work treating him the same way that he and his fellow gay-sex liberals treat others.

    Now, TP, let’s see if you like the game when other people play it. Let’s see how you like having white powder mailed to your office. Let’s see how you like having your house vandalized. Let’s see how you like being stalked in public places and having people yell “shame” at you constantly. Let’s see if you like having your place of employment barricaded and people outside demanding that you be fired.

    [GP Ed. Note - This comment has been edited due to violation of community terms of conduct.]

    Remember, you have stated that NONE of these constitute “oppression” or “harassment”. Say one word and you will completely expose the fact that you and your fellow gay-sex liberals are complete and utter hypocrites who are practicing against others that which they whine about when practiced on themselves. Furthermore, you legitimize it being done to you as well.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - May 26, 2009

  25. [...] Gay Patriot — specifically Gay Patriot West, who lives in California — approves of the decision and hopes that lesbians and gays who are disappointed will find ways to be civil toward the opponents of their equality to create grounds for persuading them to support marriage equality in the future. I am troubled by the court’s support of majority rule in limiting equality for minorities, but I agree we must be civil about it. [...]

    Pingback by California state Supreme Court rules in favor of Prop 8 — Cynthia Yockey — May 26, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - May 26, 2009

  26. The reax from the Gay Left is RICH with irony.

    “We oppose the laws we don’t like and want to shred the Constitution (of our state) to fix it.”

    Um, isn’t that precisely what the Left accused Bush/Hitler of doing for oh-I-don’t-know-how long?

    ROFLMAO.

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 26, 2009 @ 3:28 pm - May 26, 2009

  27. “Seems the court finally gets the idea of judicial restraint:
    Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

    Un, no, sorry GPW. The Court does not give a damn about judicial restraint. They just know that they could not get away with legislating from the bench twice because this case involved an initiative passed by the electorate. If they had struck down Prop. 8, they know that they would then be facing impeachment. The foregoing paragraph from the opinion is more accurately the Court sucking up to the gays and begging for their forgiveness because they couldn’t do more to help further their cause. The language about “setting aside their own personal beliefs and values” is their way of communicating that they think gay marriage is totally awesome but they are really scared of pitchforks, public disgrace, and unemployment.

    Comment by Sean A — May 26, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - May 26, 2009

  28. Disappointing but based on what I’ve read of the decision it seems to be constitutionally sound. The “will of the majority” had nothing to do with this nor ever should when it comes to court rulings. Expecting the courts to take “will of the majority” into consideration rather than doing their job as interpreting the constitution is just as much “judicial activism” as liberals are criticized for.

    I questioned whether Prop 8 was a revision or an amendment based upon the CA Constitution, which seemed to me to be the former and not the latter. However, the highest court in that State has just now settled this, as is their job under their constitution. From the examples they cited it does seem to have precedent.

    Now let the repeal efforts start. Same-sex marriage will come to California one day, it will just take more time and more comprehensive approach that for starters takes into consideration some of the fears expressed by opponents. Hopefully these repeal efforts will be conducted with far greater wisdom than the Prop 8 opposition was. I also hope many of those disappointed over today’s ruling do not set back these repeal efforts even further with more juvenile behavior.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2009 @ 3:44 pm - May 26, 2009

  29. I also hope many of those disappointed over today’s ruling do not set back these repeal efforts even further with more juvenile behavior.

    Way too late. Teh stupid has already started.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - May 26, 2009

  30. I found a hilarious quote in a story at breitbart.com that I feel I must share:

    “Also in the crowd gathered at City Hall, near the courthouse, were Sharon Papo, 30, and Amber Weiss, 32, who were married on the first day gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.
    “We’re relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love,” Weiss said.
    “I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens,” Papo said.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E32U80&show_article=1

    Yes, you read that correctly. Papo is “very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens.” BWAH-HA-HA!

    Comment by Sean A — May 26, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - May 26, 2009

  31. “The “will of the majority” had nothing to do with this nor ever should when it comes to court rulings. Expecting the courts to take “will of the majority” into consideration rather than doing their job as interpreting the constitution is just as much “judicial activism” as liberals are criticized for”

    The majority make the Constitution, so the judges are taking the will of the majority into account when they pay attention to said document. Something they do less and less frequently I’m afraid.

    Comment by Sam — May 26, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - May 26, 2009

  32. Only men and women can be married in the State of CA. If your spouse is not of the opposite sex, then you’re not married.

    Not quite. For the next two years, no same sex couples can get married. But the same sex couples that were already married before Prop. 8 are still married.

    Hopefully these repeal efforts will be conducted with far greater wisdom than the Prop 8 opposition was. I also hope many of those disappointed over today’s ruling do not set back these repeal efforts even further with more juvenile behavior.

    John, amen to that. I’m sure there will be unfortunate behavior on both sides, especially soon after the decision. But hopefully, better heads will prevail this time.

    Actually, I would be perfectly happy to call Jason Statham my legal domestic partner. I’d be happy to call him my roommate. I’d be happy to be two friends sharing expenses who need legal rights to make it work. I’m happy with what CA already offers. I have no desire to get married.

    Then I have great news Ashpenaz. Even if Prop. 8 was overturned, or when same sex marriage happens in California in two years, or in your state, you don’t have to get married.

    Comment by Pat — May 26, 2009 @ 4:14 pm - May 26, 2009

  33. “We’re relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love,” Weiss said.

    Which is simply false. Anyone can still marry anyone, in terms of the 2 people looking each other in the eye and making a commitment. As for the public/legal aspect of it, well CA still has a very good civil-union law for gay couples.

    I have a local friend who gay-married his husband last year. This morning I congratulated him sincerely on still being married, and reassured him that he didn’t have to worry about the rest of us in CA because the State still has protections for us. He expressed a depressed, negative feeling anyway. Some people are like that: they have great lives, and yet are determined to cast themselves in the victim role! I shut up, rather than take it away from him; maybe in 6 weeks or months or years, he’ll figure it out.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2009 @ 4:15 pm - May 26, 2009

  34. Ok, mean thought just occured to me.

    The 18k in California are married, but the constitution states that marriage is only recognized as being between a man and a woman.

    Does that mean the state can’t grant them a divorce?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2009 @ 4:23 pm - May 26, 2009

  35. So the rabid anti-homosexual majority got its way. Well what does one expect of such a majority when they receive their inspiration from a homo-phobic president.

    Comment by bill — May 26, 2009 @ 4:26 pm - May 26, 2009

  36. ILC, I agree with what you’re saying. It sounds like things are pretty good for your friend, and no worse today than it was yesterday and even before Prop. 8. And I would have kept my mouth shut too.

    It seems like it could be more than that. Maybe he’s not just thinking of himself, and feels for others that were about ready to be married. Another way to look at this. Imagine the following. Suppose the court banned all marriage, but said those who are married, can remain married. They may feel bad for their children who, although can get a nice civil union or domestic partnership, but can’t get married. It’s possible your friend feels similarly.

    Comment by Pat — May 26, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - May 26, 2009

  37. Suppose the court banned all marriage, but said those who are married, can remain married.

    But that’s not a fair analogy. Try the following. Suppose the *People* eliminated the State marriage license, but after first providing a Civil Union law to replace it; and the Court said those who have the State license, can still have it, and that the Civil Union law will still be available as well for those who don’t have it, while the People re-consider the issue and probably reverse themselves. It’s still a bad situation, or something to be fixed – but nothing to be depressed or negative about.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 26, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - May 26, 2009

  38. Valerie: “I want to get married.”

    Go ahead; nothing’s stopping you. There are doubtless many preachers or priests who will officiate over the ceremony. You can flip a coin with your SO as to who wears the wedding dress if there’s an argument.

    The thing is, the state of California has decided that it won’t issue you a marriage certificate. That’s because there’s nothing in your marriage of interest or importance to California as a whole. That’s not to say individuals within California – and outside, for that matter – won’t be happy for you. But the purpose of marriage under the state is to establish inheritance and family succession of property rights. These don’t apply to homosexual relationships. If you want to leave everything to your partner write a will. If you want her to make medical decisions give her a medical power of attorney. If you want to change your last name to hers, *do so*. All the forms are available online.

    The only difference between two heterosexual women sharing a domecile and two homosexual women sharing a domecile is who has sex with whom. Prop 8 in effect directed California to turn a blind eye to the bedroom and, trust me on this, you really want to keep it that way. They’re broke and eventually it would occur to them that you should be filing at the higher Married – Joint Income instead of Single, just for starts.

    Comment by Orion — May 26, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - May 26, 2009

  39. Livewire, Lol! Don’t worry the divorce attorneys won’t lose any money on that one – they’ll find a way.

    I think Gabriel Malor over at Ace is spot on. of course he’s a lawyer and sees things through legalese.

    And now for the hard work, getting a reasonable proposition to overturn 8 and then working hard for the next 2 years to change hearts and minds.

    What is even more important than that, since CA has a very good civil union law is to get working on Civil unions on the Federal level. With the Dems in control of everything, you’d think they could work that small issue into their agenda.

    Comment by Leah — May 26, 2009 @ 4:48 pm - May 26, 2009

  40. The majority make the Constitution, so the judges are taking the will of the majority into account when they pay attention to said document. Something they do less and less frequently I’m afraid.

    Only in the sense that the CA Constitution allows amendments by majority vote and that the CA Supremes found Prop 8 to be a proper amendment, not an improper revision. If the CA Constitution had a 3/4s or 2/3′s requirement for amendment, the “will of the majority” wouldn’t mean squat in their ruling – nor should it. Otherwise you are advocating turning the CA Supremes into another legislature where such will of the majority rightly comes into play rahter than being the interpretative body it’s supposed to be. This may seem to be a minor point but it’s one I believe is crucial. I do not want courts basing their rulings on polls or sticking their finger in the wind. I want them to do the jobs they were constitutionally assigned: basing their rulings on interpretations of the constitution. Actually Gabriel Malor put it better than I over on Ace of Spades.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - May 26, 2009

  41. And now for the hard work, getting a reasonable proposition to overturn 8 and then working hard for the next 2 years to change hearts and minds.

    Indeed. I was very upset with how this went until very recently when the efforts in Maine & Vermont provided some important examples on how to approach this. While I think the explicit wording for religious exemptions are redundant given the US 1st Amendment, I’m not opposed to them as they help clarify the issue and also restating our basic rights in legislation ain’t a bad idea anyways… ;-)

    Comment by John — May 26, 2009 @ 5:04 pm - May 26, 2009

  42. “The Court does not give a damn about judicial restraint. … If they had struck down Prop. 8, they know that they would then be facing impeachment. “–Sean A

    No way would California’s legislature, dominated by Democrats of the extremist left wing sort, would impeach any justices who chose to strike down Proposition 8.

    Perhaps you meant that the voters would mount a recall campaign to remove such justices, Sean A. I doubt such an effort would succeed. I clearly remember the attempts to recall the notoriously out-of-step Jerry Brown appointee Rose Bird failed despite her high name recognition, polling negatives, and public knowledge of her record. (This fact comes as a shock to almost all Californians, especially to the kids in my local state college’s California Government classes.)

    To spare everyone thinking “oh yeah? you remember wrong, Micha!” the effort of firing up their favorite search engine or wiki, here’s what did happen: Rose Bird eventually was turned out by the voters but not by a recall action. Eventually her term on the court ended and she was on a regular election ballot for reconfirmation by the voters for another term. Then the voters said “no” and she was out.

    Here’s the bottom-line practical politics question that instantly measures how big a career risk those California State Supreme court justices would have taken had they declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional: Can you name the justice now sitting on California’s high court who most often legislates from the bench? (For those of you who aren’t residents of North America’s wealthiest Third World kleptocracy, name the one on your own state’s court.) Oh, you can’t? I didn’t think you could. No public name recognition means no chance of defeat at the polls, not without a grazillion-dollar campaign anyway.

    Fellow Californians, remind me again of all the big-money donors who financed Prop. 8. Not many, were there? The big dough was against it. Nope, I doubt the justices were frightened by the thought of losing their spots. (And even if they did, there would be little real downside for them. They’d end up in high-paid law school professorships at one University of California campus or another.)

    I’m glad the court found its way to doing the right thing this time.

    Comment by Micha Elyi — May 26, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - May 26, 2009

  43. The more I read I read it, the more shrewd the ruling comes across. Or political.

    All couples have access to the exact same rights under California law and no majority has the right to hold a referendum to take those away. A majority can though hold a referendum to alter the name under which a minority uses to access those rights, but not the rights themselves. Which are guaranteed.

    The more I read it, the funnier it gets. After a lot of expense, The Mormons and others won the use of the term “marriage” for a few more years. The Rights of marriage, those went gradually to DPs over time in the civil code and were finally guaranteed by both last year’s and this current ruling. So it’s a hollow victory for the Prop 8 backers.

    It’s not going to stop the fighting and the arguing, though. This is as much a battle over the metaphor as much as it is the contents of that metaphor. We’ve won the the rights and, in the case of 18,000 Californians, have also won the use of the adjective. The final piece is only a matter of time.

    Comment by Jody — May 26, 2009 @ 5:51 pm - May 26, 2009

  44. Yes, I saw the ARC people at the SF courthouse this morning, celebrating Prop 8. My favorite sign they were holding was, “Gay =  Pervert”.–torrentprime

    Oooh! That must really hurt the feelings of the faction whose most common tactic is to cry “homophobic” in imitation of the Soviet Socialist regime’s tactic of smearing dissenters with false accusations of mental disease and clinical insanity.

    I love those kids from American River College. They’ve got spirit and put up with a lot of harrassment from certain professors, staff, and the P.C. clique who write the school paper. The threats feared by the student quoted earlier in #11 by North Dallas Thirty are real.

    Many of those students are children of immigrants from the former Soviet Union and its captive satellite countries. I wonder if the faux-psychiatric accusatory language commonly employed by militant homosexual activists was what energized those students into active opposition.

    Comment by Micha Elyi — May 26, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - May 26, 2009

  45. [...] Gay Patriot: I believe the justices made the right decision this time. The decision was 6-1. Now, the issue is developing a strategy to repeal the state constitutional provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And to do so in a manner which respects those who favor that definition. [...]

    Pingback by Proposition 8: Upheld. But: Legal Gay Marriages in the Golden State Are Still Legal. | Little Miss Attila — May 26, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - May 26, 2009

  46. I want a civil union which is the equivalent of marriage. I don’t have to, or want to, call it marriage. Homosexuals don’t get married. We don’t have to co-opt a tradition which was not designed for us. We can honor the uniqueness of relationships by calling them partnerships or covenants. We can honor the history of homosexual relationships by not selling that history out to mimic straight people.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 26, 2009 @ 6:38 pm - May 26, 2009

  47. I am very happy to find this website. Until now I was under the impression that all the anti 8 people were hysterical and irrational people of the “We can throw a bigger tantrum than you” ilk. That’s all we see on TV. Keep up the good work.

    Comment by bobbiebill — May 26, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - May 26, 2009

  48. I vehemently disagree with the decision, but part of me is relieved because I really want a win with the people and not simply a court or even legislature imposed equality. Now we have an opportunity in 2010, and this time we can do it the way Harvey Milk’s coalition did it in 1978, by taking the campaign inland.

    Of those over 65, 67 percent voted for Prop 8. Only 45 percent of those under 30. I don’t mean to seem morbid, but there are only going to be fewer of one class of voter and more of the other. Prop 8′s days are numbered.

    Comment by Eric V. Kirk — May 26, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - May 26, 2009

  49. In my book the hallmark of honest and respectable Jurisprudence is when the court thinks a law is bad, but recognizes that not everything odious is unconstitutional (for example, Justice Thomas’ dissent in Lawrence v. Texas).

    I don’t care for the policy, but I prefer a bad result on solid ground than a good one on shaky ground. The former encourages the defeated to re-group and work to change the framework promoting long term and sustainable change. The latter becomes a legally and politically vulnerable talisman that overtakes the debate (i.e. Roe v. Wade).

    PS forgive me if someone else made this point; I was not about to read through 46 comments before saying this.

    Comment by Pink Elephant — May 26, 2009 @ 6:53 pm - May 26, 2009

  50. In my opinion, the CA Supreme Court only recognized partial judicial restraint. Why not invalidate the existing gay marriages? These gay marriages were not supposed to be legal to begin with. The court improperly created the right. They should have at least defaulted to civil unions with those gay marriages rather than legitimize a faulty court decision.

    Comment by Anon387823 — May 26, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - May 26, 2009

  51. no small number of people seem to have the position:
    A) No constitution should prevent something I want to do.
    B) Anything that makes me angry can’t be constitutional.

    those seem to be the ones advocating the torches & pitchforks method now

    Comment by dts — May 26, 2009 @ 8:06 pm - May 26, 2009

  52. I never expected the CA Supreme Court to overtun this. They’ve always been hesitant about overturning these “prop” votes. I am heartened by 2 things though:
    1) The ruling did not dis-enfranchise the already existing same-sex marriages and
    2) The dissenting opinion specifically mentioned equal protection under the law.

    The prop system is one of the most ludicrous forms of allowing citizens to pass reforms in their state. The framers of the US Constitution were very careful to make certain that the constitution could not be changed by a mob mentality. Unfortunately, this idea didn’t extend to states. Here, by a slim 4% difference, the people who voted on this made the decision.

    38: If what you say is true, then why doesn’t CA stop granting special rights via marriage licenses for everyone?

    I still find it funny that all these groups that are allegedly working to protect marriage seem to solely go after the same-sex marriage issue. They seem to have no interest in this like pre-marriage counseling/compatibility testing, abolishing/weakening easy divorce laws, etc.

    8: So you don’t think the Mormon church is anti-gay? Ever talk to a gay person who is / was a mormon? My experience shows that those folks would disagree with that opinion.

    Comment by Kevin — May 26, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - May 26, 2009

  53. [...] there’s my two cents. GayPatriot and William Jacobson have some good commentary, [...]

    Pingback by Prop 8 Upheld « bright line rules — May 26, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - May 26, 2009

  54. #50, I’ll say it again, Legal is not moral. In the United States courts do have the right to make a final decision on the legality of an issue. Last year CA supreme court ruled that because of equality – gays should be allowed to marry. From June 17 2008, gay marriage became law in CA.

    Anticipating this decision a group of citizens used the legal CA proposition option and created Prop 8. Which simply stated that marriage would be between a man and woman in CA constitution.

    Until Nov. 5th, when prop 8 passed by a majority of Californians. Gay marriage was legal. After that date – no more.

    So the No on 8 folks challenged in the Supreme court. Their claim, that prop 8 was not an amendment, but a revision – which needs legislative input. No mention was made about the legal marriages that took place between June and Nov.

    The judges looked at the law and came to the conclusion, that Californians have the right to amend their constitution via propositions. But there wasn’t any requirement in prop 8 to invalidate the existing marriages.

    So sure, it looks funny, it may not make sense, but it is LEGAL.
    There are those on the Yes on 8 side who are upset with this, but they wrote the prop before the original court decision. Their omission is the gain of 18,000 couple.

    In my mind those couples now have an obligation to calmy and reasonably go out into the community and be an example of why gay marriage should become the law of the land in CA.

    Comment by Leah — May 26, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - May 26, 2009

  55. #53. Your timeline is faulty…. “Anticipating this decision a group of citizens used the legal CA proposition option and created Prop 8. Which simply stated that marriage would be between a man and woman in CA constitution.”

    There was no anticipating. Prop 8 was on the ballot way before the CA Supreme Court made gay marriage legal via non-judicial restraint. The Prop 8 folks argued for stay on their court decision until after the Prop 8 vote. The stay was rejected.

    Comment by Anon387823 — May 26, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - May 26, 2009

  56. In my mind those couples now have an obligation to calmy and reasonably go out into the community and be an example of why gay marriage should become the law of the land in CA.

    Can you imagine the pressure on them from friends if any of them start thinking divorce?

    Comment by Eric V. Kirk — May 26, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - May 26, 2009

  57. The judges looked at the law and came to the conclusion, that Californians have the right to amend their constitution via propositions. But there wasn’t any requirement in prop 8 to invalidate the existing marriages.

    I’m not sure that was the question they decided on. As I read it, they continue to maintain that all California couples, gay and straight, must have access to the same laws under the equal protections and privacy parts of the CAC. That was part of their ruling last year.

    Because DP laws give gays couples those rights, it didn’t matter that the 8 campaign removed the name from the use by gay couples — it didn’t remove the rights. Therefore, all other questions about fundamental revisions of the CAC were moot. In their eyes, gays have exactly the same access to all rights under the California Constitution that straight couples have.

    Unless I’ve misread the decision , it really is a hollow victory for the Yes on 8 side. The only thing they won was a change in nomenclature, not a change in the rights which underly that name.

    Personally, I would still prefer the “marriage” term for gay unions under Civil Law as well. But if there’s no legal difference between the two, the my ire is tempered by the notion that we’re still protected and still have access to all of our rights. The name thing — that’ll be here soon enough. Day by day, the 8ers are passing into history.

    Comment by Jody Wheeler — May 26, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - May 26, 2009

  58. Can you imagine the pressure on them from friends if any of them start thinking divorce?

    It will happen. The couple who was at the forefront of the gay marriage issue in Mass. filed for a divorce 2 years after getting married. These two women had been together for about 15 years and had a nine year old child.

    Maybe it was the fight that kept them going, once they got what they ‘wanted’ they must have figured out they didn’t have much in common after all.

    Comment by Leah — May 26, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - May 26, 2009

  59. Bingo, Leah.

    And that’s a lot of what this is about; gay-sex liberals need to feel oppressed. Their real disdain for marriage is made patently obvious by their leadership.

    But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:

    “Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.’”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2009 @ 8:59 pm - May 26, 2009

  60. It’s not representing equality, it’s representing selfish activist agendas. Fighting for superiority mislabled as “gay rights” and “equality” has now created yet another class separation in the gay AND straight community. Now we have 18,000 in California who are married and have the benefits that married couples have, yet are likely to never have children, which is why the state recognizes marriage, to honor and reward those who can procreate. Now no one else is equal to these supreme gay couples who are going around on their high horses saying they were right to marry when they could. I am not impressed with any of it. They are elitist pigs.

    Comment by time to burn the gay flag — May 26, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - May 26, 2009

  61. [...] Gay Patriot — specifically Gay Patriot West, who lives in California — approves of the decision and hopes that lesbians and gays who are disappointed will find ways to be civil toward the opponents of their equality to create grounds for persuading them to support marriage equality in the future. I am troubled by the court’s support of majority rule in limiting equality for minorities, but I agree we must be civil about it. [...]

    Pingback by Pulp Friction: California SSC Rules in favor of Prop 8 by Cynthia Yockey « Autographed Letter Signed — May 26, 2009 @ 10:14 pm - May 26, 2009

  62. [...] GayPatriot » CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8 The real test to see if gay marriage advocates have learned the lessons from their failure to [...]

    Pingback by Daily Pundit » Ignore the Bigots — May 26, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - May 26, 2009

  63. Personally, I would still prefer the “marriage” term for gay unions under Civil Law as well. But if there’s no legal difference between the two, the my ire is tempered by the notion that we’re still protected and still have access to all of our rights. The name thing — that’ll be here soon enough. Day by day, the 8ers are passing into history.

    NDT has the details, all I know is that CA Domestic partnership has been on the books since the late 90s’ (If it was later than that, I’m sure someone will correct me).
    I know one couple that took advantage of it, but never saw any mention of it when gays came out demanding equal rights.

    Now that 8 is being upheld in CA, you suddenly wake up and decide that maybe having DP isn’t so bad after all.

    Also, if your attitude towards people who support traditional marriage is as hateful as it appears from your comment, please stay home.
    We need to change minds, not solidify them into thinking the gay community is only made up of angry sore losers who only know how to demonize the opposition, rather than debate them seriously.

    Comment by Leah — May 26, 2009 @ 11:45 pm - May 26, 2009

  64. Leah – I don’t have the details, but I remember there being a symbolic DP law in CA in the mid 90s, which was gradually strengthened until it was made equivalent to marriage within the last few years. You’re right, a lot of gay couples in CA turn up their noses at it. Some of them say “Separate is not equal” and “We’re holding out for marriage equality”, but unfortunately, in so doing, they are also showing that they want marriage for the symbolism, rather than because it is a serious practical need *for them*. The couples that actually need marriage / legal protections avail themselves of whatever they can get.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 27, 2009 @ 12:17 am - May 27, 2009

  65. (and rightly so)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 27, 2009 @ 12:18 am - May 27, 2009

  66. The problem is, Leah, that the vast majority of the gay community IS made up of angry sore losers who only know how to demonize the opposition.

    One should remember that the gays you meet here are a distinct minority — and, as we see from our constant parade of drive-by trolls, a hated one, loathed by the vast majority of gays as “Jewish Nazis”, “kapos”, “Labarberas”, and the other pleasant names they like to give us.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2009 @ 12:22 am - May 27, 2009

  67. can we stop with the “judicial activism” meme now?

    Comment by Bart M — May 27, 2009 @ 1:57 am - May 27, 2009

  68. [...] CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8 [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Decision Day Rally in West Hollywood - Preliminary Report — May 27, 2009 @ 2:07 am - May 27, 2009

  69. Leah, DP has been on the books in CA for several years, but it was only within the last year or so that it covered all of the same rights as a marriage certificate. And it was the Court’s decision of last May, reiterated in today’s ruling, that no matter the “name” attached, rights for gay couples under California law must be equivalent to those of straights.

    Most of the couples I know of who got married last year had DP agreements. They took the time to end those agreements so they could get married, as you can’t have both. Those same friends were concerned that, should their marriages have been overturned today, they’d have to go back and refile to get DP agreements.

    I’m not suddenly saying having DP isn’t so bad, merely noting what the Court has upheld — and how empty the Prop 8 backers victory is. I’d prefer the collection of rights be called the same for gays and straights, be it DP, Marriage or WackyMombuWamba. That legally there’s no difference is some solace with all of this. That the symbolic name will come within a few years soothes the rest of the way.

    As for changing minds, we already have. Break down the voting patterns of pro- and con- Prop 8 supporters and age was the deciding factor. The younger the cohort, the more behind “gay marriage” you get, black, white or Hispanic. Besides, when nine-year-olds are organizing gay marriage rallies, the “war” has already been won.

    Comment by Jody — May 27, 2009 @ 2:08 am - May 27, 2009

  70. 38: If what you say is true, then why doesn’t CA stop granting special rights via marriage licenses for everyone?

    Well…lessee…maybe because marriage as currently defined is of value to the continuation of society, and homosexuality isn’t? So it’s in the State’s interest to promote one and not the other? It can be argued that we don’t do enough to protect and encourage marriage because it’s useful in promoting a secure and stable society. There’s never been a argument advanced to support homosexual relationships beyond, “Because I wanna.” That argument frankly puts homosexuals in the same category as tea-cup poodle breeders. Tea cup poodles may be cute but there has to be a better reason than, “because I wanna” to expend society’s (limited) resources to support it.

    Comment by Orion — May 27, 2009 @ 3:25 am - May 27, 2009

  71. I think the problem that the No on 8 people didn’t want to admit to was that the public tends to get ticked off big time when something they don’t necessarily agree with is shoved down their throats by judicial fiat. That is why Prop 8 won.

    If you want to change it without alienating potential allies, your best bet is to a) go the legislative/ballot route, and b) quit getting into people’s faces about how much you hate them for voting for/supporting Prop 8. Stories of No on 8 advocates harassing people to the point where they are forced to resign from their jobs will not win you any support among the general public.

    One other thing: Even though some states now recognize same-sex marriages, the Federal government does not. The Democratic majority in both houses of Congress means you might well have a chance to do something about that. You might want to consider that.

    Comment by Steffan — May 27, 2009 @ 3:58 am - May 27, 2009

  72. #70- that’s the kind of big government that conservatives should abhor, one that decides what people do and don’t do in their bedrooms

    Comment by Bart M — May 27, 2009 @ 4:27 am - May 27, 2009

  73. 72.#70- that’s the kind of big government that conservatives should abhor, one that decides what people do and don’t do in their bedrooms.

    There is nothing in Proposition 8 that tells you what you may or may not do in your bedroom. Seriously: read the bill. The worst thing that you can say about Prop 8 is that California has voted – overwhelmingly – not to hold a parade to celebrate what homosexuals do in their bedrooms.

    Comment by Orion — May 27, 2009 @ 6:46 am - May 27, 2009

  74. 66: Exactly where do you get your facts and figures? “The vast majority”? Puh-lease.

    Comment by Kevin — May 27, 2009 @ 7:14 am - May 27, 2009

  75. But that’s not a fair analogy. Try the following. Suppose the *People* eliminated the State marriage license, but after first providing a Civil Union law to replace it; and the Court said those who have the State license, can still have it, and that the Civil Union law will still be available as well for those who don’t have it, while the People re-consider the issue and probably reverse themselves. It’s still a bad situation, or something to be fixed – but nothing to be depressed or negative about.

    ILC, it may not be a fair comparison, but that was not quite my point. Sure, most of us here, whether for or against same sex marriage, prefer that it happens through the legislature, or through the people directly. So, even if we change the situation to be analogous, many straight people, even those who can remain married, will not be happy with their children, friends, etc., only allowed to have DPs or civil unions, even if they are equivalent to marriage. Sure, they can try to change to laws back, but in the meantime, you would probably see some ugly behaviors that will make the actions of some of those after Prop. 8 pass look like a picnic.

    Can you imagine the pressure on them from friends if any of them start thinking divorce?

    Erik, I think most people are seasoned enough to realize that opposite sex couples get divorced too without an outcry to eliminate opposite sex marriage. But sure, there will be angry people opposed to same sex marriage that will highlight the bad.

    It’s not representing equality, it’s representing selfish activist agendas. Fighting for superiority mislabled as “gay rights” and “equality” has now created yet another class separation in the gay AND straight community. Now we have 18,000 in California who are married and have the benefits that married couples have, yet are likely to never have children, which is why the state recognizes marriage, to honor and reward those who can procreate. Now no one else is equal to these supreme gay couples who are going around on their high horses saying they were right to marry when they could. I am not impressed with any of it. They are elitist pigs.

    Burn the flag, sorry that this is making you so angry. No one is asking for superiority here. I think that childless gay couples are not asking for anything more than an opposite sex married couple who is infertile or choosing not to procreate, while a gay couple who wants to adopt is not asking for anything more than a married couple who adopts children.

    Sure, the ability to procreate has been one of the bases for the state to recognize marriage. But the state and the people have decided to not only allow infertile couples and couples who do not want children to marry, but also encourage it. Now more and more people like to see the same extended to same sex couples. By the way, we can do all the data analysis we want with the Prop 8 vote, but one thing is clear. An overwhelming majority of people who voted against Prop. 8 are straight persons. Go figure.

    Well…lessee…maybe because marriage as currently defined is of value to the continuation of society, and homosexuality isn’t? So it’s in the State’s interest to promote one and not the other?

    Orion, I’ll believe that when you discourage all couples who do cannot or will not procreate from marriage with the same fervor.

    What is even more important than that, since CA has a very good civil union law is to get working on Civil unions on the Federal level. With the Dems in control of everything, you’d think they could work that small issue into their agenda.

    I agree Leah. And once again, I got a mass mailing regarding the court decision from HRC. Still nothing about pushing Obama and Congress on DADT and federal civil unions.

    Comment by Pat — May 27, 2009 @ 7:21 am - May 27, 2009

  76. Orion, I’ll believe that when you discourage all couples who do cannot or will not procreate from marriage with the same fervor.

    Failure to encourage is not the same as discouraging.

    Again, this argument depends on claiming that the tiny, tiny fraction of heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of procreating are somehow equivalent to the 100% of gay couples who cannot procreate.

    As soon as Pat is willing to admit that being gay is a biological dysfunction like infertility is, then he can equate gay people to infertile heterosexual couples.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2009 @ 11:13 am - May 27, 2009

  77. Besides, when nine-year-olds are organizing gay marriage rallies, the “war” has already been won.

    BS, that is simply parents using their kids as tools – in the worst way. Like putting obscene tshirts about President Bush on their babies.

    9 year olds don’t have a clue what marriage is, they don’t know what equality is. To me that is almost as bad as the “dads’ who dress their little girls as sex slaves and take them to Folsom st. Children are not a prop to be abused for the parents pleasure!!

    btw, give those 9 year olds another 6 years and they’ll rebel against their parents like all teenagers do – and won’t you be surprised that suddenly they may not find gay marriage to be an issue of importance to them at all.

    Comment by Leah — May 27, 2009 @ 11:18 am - May 27, 2009

  78. Again, this argument depends on claiming that the tiny, tiny fraction of heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of procreating

    100% of couples where the woman is over 70. That is a “tiny fraction”?

    …are somehow equivalent to the 100% of gay couples who cannot procreate. As soon as Pat is willing to admit that being gay is a biological dysfunction like infertility is…

    So then, are you calling the natural process of aging, and/or the natural status of being aged, a “biological dysfunction”? I probably wouldn’t. But, if you are, then clearly there is no stigma to the term – indeed, there is hardly any meaning left in the term, at that point – so sure, I (for one) will go along with putting gayness on roughly the same level.

    Long story short: Gay couples are, in fact, reproductively equivalent to infertile heterosexual couples.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 27, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - May 27, 2009

  79. [...] and GayPatriot: You’re wrong. They err’d so very badly when it comes to state [...]

    Pingback by It’s May, almost June! - Rising up from the Ashes — May 27, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - May 27, 2009

  80. 100% of couples where the woman is over 70. That is a “tiny fraction”?

    Actually, the world record is age 70. :)

    Furthermore, ILC, one has to remember that not all married couples at the age of 70 got married at the age of 70. What you’re more correctly referring to is couples who get married for the first time at age 70 or above, which is an even more miniscule fraction. Furthermore, because the limit for the amount a married couple can receive from Social Security is lower in most cases than the amount the two people involved would receive as single individuals, the government actually disincents marriage for those over the age of Social Security eligibility.

    But, if you are, then clearly there is no stigma to the term – indeed, there is hardly any meaning left in the term, at that point – so sure, I (for one) will go along with putting gayness on roughly the same level.

    The point is this, ILC; for a heterosexual couple to be unable to procreate regardless of will or desire is not biologically normal. For a gay couple, it’s completely normal. That is a very stark and fundamental difference, especially if one views marriage as a means of protecting and perpetuating that which provides society’s continuation.

    Put differently, homosexuals could not exist without heterosexual couplings, but heterosexual couplings will exist regardless of the presence of homosexuals. That alone makes it obvious that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different, and provides perfectly acceptable legal grounds for differentiation between the two.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2009 @ 12:34 pm - May 27, 2009

  81. Actually, the world record is age 70.

    (shrug) 100% of couples where the woman is over age 71, then. My point remains.

    Also: if you want to talk about “tiny fractions” and “biological dysfunctions”, then let’s talk about a much much lower age, namely age 45. Fertility (not infertility) is a “biological dysfunction” in couples where the woman is over age 45, because only a tiny fraction of women over that age 45 are fertile: http://www.sharedjourney.com/articles/age.html

    not all married couples at the age of 70 got married at the age of 70.

    So what? A large fraction do. My dad’s retirement community is a hotbed of NEW marriages. (The previous spouse died, etc.)

    for a heterosexual couple to be unable to procreate regardless of will or desire is not biologically normal.

    No. For a heterosexual couple to be unable to procreate is biologically *normal*, where the woman is over age 45. See previous reference.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 27, 2009 @ 1:05 pm - May 27, 2009

  82. GPW, you are unbelievable. I suppose we should treat those who hate blacks and other minorities with respect because their racist, bigoted views disagree with ours. Well you are wrong. Even Ted Olson, who basically was responsible for the horrific placement of Bush (don’t start in on me telling me that I hate Bush) is joining forces with progressives to support the repeal, yes the repeal of Prop 8. From the Huffington Post I believe here is Olson:

    “I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions,” Olson told me Tuesday night. “I thought their cause was just.”

    I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California. “It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution,” Olson said. “The constitution protects individuals’ basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

    So stop being a traitor to your own people, GPW.

    Comment by NJLiberal — May 27, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - May 27, 2009

  83. Wow, such bile.

    So, NJ, since you disagree with the court’s decision of the rule of law and the ammendment process, can I call you a ‘traitor to your country’?

    Comment by The Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - May 27, 2009

  84. Failure to encourage is not the same as discouraging.

    Thanks, NDT. I’ll remember that.

    Again, this argument depends on claiming that the tiny, tiny fraction of heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of procreating are somehow equivalent to the 100% of gay couples who cannot procreate.

    Maybe for you the argument depends on your faulty logic. And perhaps for others, who don’t have any other argument. And, as ILC said, it is not a “tiny, tiny fraction.”

    As soon as Pat is willing to admit that being gay is a biological dysfunction like infertility is, then he can equate gay people to infertile heterosexual couples.

    What ILC said. Furthermore, NDT, if it’s important for you to consider yourself a biological dysfunction in order to kiss up to anti-gay persons, or whatever your motivation is, go for it. As for me, I couldn’t care less about that label. And it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

    Put differently, homosexuals could not exist without heterosexual couplings, but heterosexual couplings will exist regardless of the presence of homosexuals.

    Yeah, so what?

    That alone makes it obvious that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are different,

    Then I’m assuming you argue that heterosexual couples who procreate are different than heterosexual couples who can’t or don’t.

    and provides perfectly acceptable legal grounds for differentiation between the two.

    I suppose. I mean, people can use what ever biases or faulty logic they want. We’ve had plenty of laws that from, say 100 years or so, and look at it now, see how asinine the laws were, and the reasoning to justify those laws. Time will tell if the ban on same sex marriage will also be seen as based on faulty logic.

    Comment by Pat — May 27, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - May 27, 2009

  85. It’s simple, Livewire. Those who would go out of their way to ensure that a group of Americans are prevented from being treated equally are bigots, plain and simple. Are you calling Ted Olson a traitor also? Don’t forget that Coretta Scott King equated the equality struggle of gays to the civil rights struggle of the 50′s and 60′s. And the supreme court can be wrong as well. Don’t forget Plessy v/ Ferguson, Livewire.

    Comment by NJLiberal — May 27, 2009 @ 3:04 pm - May 27, 2009

  86. BS, that is simply parents using their kids as tools – in the worst way. Like putting obscene tshirts about President Bush on their babies.

    9 year olds don’t have a clue what marriage is, they don’t know what equality is. To me that is almost as bad as the “dads’ who dress their little girls as sex slaves and take them to Folsom st. Children are not a prop to be abused for the parents pleasure!!

    Leah, I’ll agree with you on the last point. In fact, to me, it’s criminal behavior. But parents do instill values on their children. For example, we baptize children, have first holy communions, and have children participate in other religious rites, before they even have a clue what religion is all about. Doesn’t seem that much different than a 9-year-old kid who says he supports same sex marriage, or opposite sex marriage for that matter.

    But I agree with you on your next point.

    give those 9 year olds another 6 years and they’ll rebel against their parents like all teenagers do – and won’t you be surprised that suddenly they may not find gay marriage to be an issue of importance to them at all.

    That’s just about true about any value instilled into children by their parents.

    Comment by Pat — May 27, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - May 27, 2009

  87. Those who would go out of their way to ensure that a group of Americans are prevented from being treated equally are bigots, plain and simple.

    Unfortunately, NJ Liberal, if that’s the standard to being a bigot, then it is also true for our current president and Congress.

    Comment by Pat — May 27, 2009 @ 3:07 pm - May 27, 2009

  88. Thank you Pat,

    And as usual, NJ Liberal misses the point. 1) I disagree with Ted Olson’s methods, just as I disagreed with the court annulling 22 2) He’s the one calling GP a ‘race traitor’ (for lack of a better term) That he feels the constitution and its ammendment process is to be discarded when his wittle feelings are hurt shows how childish his mindset is.

    Of course, NJ Liberal is bigoted but too cowardly to admit it, since he never took up my challenge, echoed by Pat to explain how it is bigoted to want a legislatively established institution for same sex relationships, yet NJ Liberal isn’t ‘bigoted’ to keep polyamourus or incentious couples from ‘being treated equally’.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 3:58 pm - May 27, 2009

  89. Pat,

    I think, in the ‘state has an interest to recognize marriage to support reproductive couplings’ arguement, we can take couples that start/become infertile as ‘loopholes’ that no one finds worth closing. Does that make legalistic (if not common) sense?

    Comment by The Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 4:01 pm - May 27, 2009

  90. Livewire, it does. First of all, just to be clear, I would not support banning marriage for straight couples who cannot or choose not to have children, even if same sex marriage or civil unions do not happen.

    I perfectly understand what you are saying about loopholes. The thing is, not only are we saying that we don’t want to ban opposite sex couples who are infertile or choose not to have children from marrying, we encourage it. In other words, I have never heard anyone say, “Gee, I don’t want to ban 70 year olds from marrying, but don’t these people realize that marriage is for procreation, and they obviously can’t procreate, so they should decide for themselves not to marry?”

    The state and the people have deciding that, while children are important in marriage, there are other interests in having people marry. I’m simply saying that it would benefit all to give gay couples the choice of marrying as well. But obviously, that’s up to the whole legal process whether this happens or not, and where.

    Comment by Pat — May 27, 2009 @ 4:25 pm - May 27, 2009

  91. Pat, teaching your children your values and pretending that 9 years old organized a pro-gay marriage protest are two very different things,.

    It wasn’t the 9 year olds who organized anything, the parents did, and put the kids up front with words in their mouths.

    I was accused by a liberal friend of ‘brainwashing’ my kids because I taught them my values. When I pointed out to her that she was doing the same thing, the conversation stopped, because of course she was teaching values while I was only brain washing.

    In our society, adults want to stay kids forever, but they are forcing our children into the adult world almost from birth.
    Children should not be props in any kind of political activity. That goes both ways, I don’t want Churches parading them out at anti gay marriage rallys and I certainly don’t want enlightened liberal parents pretending their children are anything other than props when they protest Prop 8 or sing a “dear leader” song to Obama before the elections.

    Another thing, kids don’t care about equality, they are narcissistic little brats, it takes a lot of good parenting to teach them to be honorable decent human beings. I know, I raised three of them, hardest thing I ever did in my life.

    Comment by Leah — May 27, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - May 27, 2009

  92. I understand, and agree with the ends (a recognized institution for same sex couples) it’s the means that we quibble on :-)

    Comment by The Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - May 27, 2009

  93. #88 Oh, here are the right-wing canards, ‘multiple’ marriages and incest. No one who is an advocate for gay marriage is promoting so-called multiple marriages. We simply want to marry the person we are in love with, plain and simple.
    So you don’t think that the people who wanted to prevent blacks and whites from marrying were bigots, please. All this is why gay conservative is an oxymoron.

    Comment by NJLiberal — May 27, 2009 @ 4:54 pm - May 27, 2009

  94. No NJ Lib, you still haven’t explained why you’re not a ‘bigot’ for not wanting to keep polyamourus or incentious couples from ‘being treated equally’.

    After all, you’ve said that anyone who would want to keep anyone from being treated equally is a bigot. So I’m calling you one. By your own terms.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - May 27, 2009

  95. No one who is an advocate for gay marriage is promoting so-called multiple marriages.

    Obviously you didn’t read the Beyond Marriage manifesto that I cited, in which it specifically demands marriage recognition for “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”, or the ACLU national policy that clearly states that the ACLU considers bans on plural marriage to be unconstitutional.

    Tell us, NJLiberal; why did you tell such an obvious and blatant lie?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - May 27, 2009

  96. >So stop being a traitor to your own people, GPW.

    NJ, GPW is a friend of mine. He’s not operating out of a place of malice or self-hate. “Traitor ” arguments don’t really fly. I disagree with him vehemently on a great many issues; we’ve exchanged words about misreadings, selective interpretations, even naiveté. But he’s not operating out of some kind of psychological deficit. Philosophical difference, yes. Annoying, perhaps. Wrong? That’s what debate is about.

    I can’t say the same for other people who post here, though. :-D

    Comment by Jody — May 27, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - May 27, 2009

  97. >BS, that is simply parents using their kids as tools – in the worst way.

    No, Leah. Issues of fairness is the hallmark of a nine-year olds development. Read the research. Have a 9 year old or work with some. It’s a very important theme in their life. So sure, while some parental involvement must have occurred, I highly doubt it this was all instigated by his parents.

    And while yes, teens do frequently rebel against parental values, it’s not quite to the degree or kind that you suggest, which is more a TV driven interpretation than anything else. It’s a consistent finding of research that younger groups are far more accepting of gay people than older groups.

    Acceptance of gays is a generational shift. It’s a testament to the success of the gay rights movement. When we stopped being the boogeymen in the closet and started being the friends, neighbors and family, the struggle for equality went our way.

    Comment by Jody — May 27, 2009 @ 5:50 pm - May 27, 2009

  98. Interesting blog and good to see that there at least some reasonable homosexuals who understand that the idea of two men or two women getting married is simply preposterous. The court’s decision affirms the natural order as expressed so appropriately by California’s voters last fall: true marriage will remain between a man and a woman. As for the counterfeits that liberals are pushing on the country, we can only hope that the country sees the light and elects a real conservative like Huckabee or Palin to put a hold on such nonsense.

    Comment by Desertcon — May 27, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - May 27, 2009

  99. Hadn’t heard much about a 9 Year old organizing a Gay Marriage rally but ended up with a couple of things from Google. . .

    Ethan isn’t giving up. He’s sticking with it for the same reason he hatched this idea in the first place: He thinks it’s wrong that his neighbors, who are gay, can’t get married. “I just didn’t think it was very fair that people couldn’t get married just because the person they wanted to get married to was the same gender as them,” Ethan says.

    “I was just like, ‘Mom, I want to do a rally for marriage equality…’ My teacher thought it was going to be a rally in front of the school, but I told him it was going to be in front of the Capitol.”
    http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/05/_meet_ethan_hes_9.php

    The idea first came to Ethan thanks to his neighbors, a lesbian couple he described as “the nicest people in the world.” He didn’t think it was right they aren’t allowed to get married.

    From there, Ethan resolved to support gay couples. He approached Mindy Barton, legal director for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado, to gain support.

    “He already had a lot of it figured out,” Barton said. “There was no doubt Ethan was going to put together a rally on the steps of the Capitol.”

    The only question for Ethan was how to get a permit, which he couldn’t do himself because he is so young. Instead, it was filed under the name of his teacher, Kyle Kimmal.

    Those from the other side of the argument were also impressed with Ethan’s efforts, including state Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield.

    “You have to admire his compassion and initiative,” Mitchell said. “I’d like to think that someday he’ll understand the issue is a little more complicated.”

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12387580

    But other things that came up about 9 year olds. . .

    If you really want to know how to meet girls, snuggle up to a clever little book written by 9-year-old love guru Alec Greven. . .How to Talk to Girls

    but there is even a story out there about a young 9 year old girl in Brazil who had to abort two twins, after being raped and impregnated by her step father

    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12387580

    Comment by rusty — May 27, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - May 27, 2009

  100. 95-96
    Absolute bullshit. You so-called ‘conservative gays’ are perfectly willing to let a straight, homophobic society dictate how we live our lives. And I repeat, don’t keep repeating the right-wing talking points about plural marriage. Plural marriage is illegal and no doubt you are taking something the ACLU (the most hated organization of conservatives) completely out of context. I don’t remember the ACLU jumping to defend Warren Jeffs. You are loosing ground here. First Steve Schmidt (the campaign manager for John McCain who most of you probably voted for) has been joined by Ted Olsen in defending the rights of gays to marry. You associate with known homophobes (like the GOP to name one) so go ahead, keep betraying our community. Oxymoron, I say.

    Comment by NJLiberal — May 27, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - May 27, 2009

  101. Plural marriage is illegal and no doubt you are taking something the ACLU (the most hated organization of conservatives) completely out of context.

    Try actually reading the link; it’s rather hard to take out of context something that is posted on the ACLU’s own website.

    I don’t remember the ACLU jumping to defend Warren Jeffs.

    Funny, everyone else does.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - May 27, 2009

  102. You so-called ‘conservative gays’ are perfectly willing to let a straight, homophobic society dictate how we live our lives.

    Please. You and your fellow leftists, NJLiberal, don’t even call Louis Farrakhan homophobic. You support and endorse FMA supporters who are Obama Party members. You have orgasms over your Obamamessiah who states that marriage is a “sacred bond” that only should be for a man and a woman. For someone who is against “straight. homophobic” society, you certainly spend a lot of time kowtowing to it.

    First Steve Schmidt (the campaign manager for John McCain who most of you probably voted for) has been joined by Ted Olsen in defending the rights of gays to marry.

    All that shows is that even Republicans can be squishy opportunists.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - May 27, 2009

  103. louis farrakhan is homophobic.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — May 27, 2009 @ 8:32 pm - May 27, 2009

  104. So, are we agreed that NJ bigot is willing to keep people from being treated equally? Though it’s funny to watch him squirm.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 27, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - May 27, 2009

  105. >Absolute bullshit. You so-called ‘conservative gays’

    Heh, heh. I’m not a conservative gay. It’s actually very funny that you said that. If you read upthread, you’ll see that I support gay marriage. I actually think that, federally, under Equal Protection grounds, that we don’t have civil marriage is wrong. Argued that around here before. Usually until the crazies come out and it just becomes a chore to keep up.

    My point was, I respect Dan’s opinion. I don’t agree with it. I also don’t agree with calling someone a traitor in debates like this because the definition doesn’t apply. Having a difference of opinion in how to advance a cause, even if its wrong, even if its profoundly wrong and ineffective , isn’t the same thing as betraying a cause.

    Comment by Jody — May 27, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - May 27, 2009

  106. [...] GayPatriot » CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8 [...]

    Pingback by Thinking about California’s Supreme Court Decision and Prop 8 | Herd Watching — May 27, 2009 @ 11:57 pm - May 27, 2009

  107. I’m Henry the eighth I am
    Henry the eighth I am, I am
    I got married to the widow next door
    She’s been married seven times before
    And every one was an Henry
    She wouldn’t have a Willy or a Sam
    I’m her eighth old man, I’m Henry
    Henry the eighth I am

    Second verse same as the first!

    Comment by American Elephant — May 28, 2009 @ 4:39 am - May 28, 2009

  108. (almost as repetitive as liberals with their bogus arguments AND more productive!) :)

    Comment by American Elephant — May 28, 2009 @ 4:41 am - May 28, 2009

  109. Interesting blog and good to see that there at least some reasonable homosexuals who understand that the idea of two men or two women getting married is simply preposterous. The court’s decision affirms the natural order as expressed so appropriately by California’s voters last fall: true marriage will remain between a man and a woman.

    Why is it preposterous, Desertcon? Or is it just saying so your only argument?

    Anyway, your last statement is true in California, for about two more years, that is.

    Comment by Pat — May 28, 2009 @ 7:25 am - May 28, 2009

  110. Hmm, either Desertcon is a) ignorant, b) a troll or c) an astroturfer.

    What the court did was affirm (over their personal distaste) was that the people have the right to ammend their constitution. This is a case where the ammendment may not be ‘right’ to some, but it isn’t a revision.

    This is the danger of empathy in judges. We don’t need Judge Oprah. We need judges who understand that the law isn’t ‘nice’ or ‘naughty’ it’s Law.

    Pat,
    Thanks again for being on the blog’s comments. We may not agree on all things, but it’s nice to have a civil argument ;-)

    Comment by The Livewire — May 28, 2009 @ 8:59 am - May 28, 2009

  111. Thanks, Livewire. Same here.

    I vote d) all of the above. :-)

    Comment by Pat — May 28, 2009 @ 10:15 am - May 28, 2009

  112. Orion, I’ll believe that when you discourage all couples who do cannot or will not procreate from marriage with the same fervor.

    Failure to encourage is not the same as discouraging.

    Again, this argument depends on claiming that the tiny, tiny fraction of heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of procreating are somehow equivalent to the 100% of gay couples who cannot procreate.

    Homosexual couples can procreate: Just not with each other at the moment. But you’re correct; the failure to encourage marriage does not mean we should break it worse than it already is.

    What I’ve really been getting at is that homosexual unions are really personal decisions: the State has no interest in these and no need to encourage or endorse them. I’ve asked this question on and off for years and never gotten a satisfactory answer: “What’s in it for me – the State, that is – to grant a marriage license?” The answer for heterosexuals is fairly straightforward: The two-parent nuclear family unit with a mother and a father has been shown to be far superior in rearing good citizens than any alternative to date. Yes, there are functional “non-traditional” families but these are the exception rather than the rule. No, we don’t support “traditional” families as well as we should. We could (and should) do better).

    When I pose this question to homosexual activists I get a variation on one of two answers: (1) “Because I wanna!” or (2) they blow whistles and scream obscenities. Neither is a particularly attractive argument. If they ever come up with a third I’ll be glad to hear them out.

    Comment by Orion — May 28, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - May 28, 2009

  113. Orion, my point is not to argue whether a nuclear family is the best argument for raising children. So, let’s agree to that. The point is, why is it okay for opposite sex couples who have no intention of having children to marry, but not same sex couples?

    What I’ve really been getting at is that homosexual unions are really personal decisions

    No more so than heterosexual unions.

    When I pose this question to homosexual activists I get a variation on one of two answers: (1) “Because I wanna!” or (2) they blow whistles and scream obscenities. Neither is a particularly attractive argument. If they ever come up with a third I’ll be glad to hear them out.

    If that’s your experience, so be it. All I can tell is that almost all heterosexual couples get married because they “wanna.” And if you think you’ve heard gay persons “blow whistles and scream obscenities,” it will be a picnic compared to the whistle blowing and obscenity screaming that you would hear if opposite sex couples were stripped of marriage.

    But I’ll try to give you answers different from 1) and 2). “Traditional” marriage has been modified for years. Sure some for worse, but most for better. While the basis of marriage as we know it may have been for having an optimal environment for children, it has become much more with that. We encourage, and should continue to encourage people to settle down with someone they love. This includes couples past childbearing years and couples who have no intention or unable to have children. Again, this is not something we do to avoid micromanaging couples’ decisions or abilities to have children. We still encourage and applaud these couples when they get married even when we know they are not going to have children. I’m saying that we should encourage same sex couples to do the same. And, of course, we should absolutely discourage gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex (can we at least agree to that?). The same benefits to the state for allowing opposite sex couples to marry, even if they choose or can’t have children would also apply to same sex couples. Or are you saying that marrying opposite sex couples who don’t have children provides no benefit?

    Comment by Pat — May 28, 2009 @ 1:01 pm - May 28, 2009

  114. Or are you saying that marrying opposite sex couples who don’t have children provides no benefit?

    Generally, yes. But we cannot predict with nearly the degree of certainty that a heterosexual couple will or will not have children that we can with a homosexual couple.

    The primary purpose of marriage is, as Orion correctly points out, to provide the best possible environment for children. Serendipitously, the environment that is best for children also happens to be one that discourages irresponsible behaviors that are bad for society. However, one look at heterosexual marriage, especially in minority communities, should be proof enough that it by itself is not sufficient to discourage irresponsible behaviors that are bad for society, and that there are far better and more effective means to encourage responsible behaviors than simply handing over a marriage license.

    The problem here, Pat, is that, having thrown out religion, sneered at morality, and preached pure hedonism as a worthwhile goal, the gay community has systematically dismantled the most powerful means of curbing irresponsible behavior and is now trying the excuse that a piece of paper will make them behave in a fashion that is good for society. In short, you are trying to argue for extending marriage based on what is at best a secondary benefit and proven to be highly ineffective to a group of people for whom the primary benefit of marriage is completely irrelevant.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - May 28, 2009

  115. When I pose this question to homosexual activists I get a variation on one of two answers: (1) “Because I wanna!” or (2) they blow whistles and scream obscenities. Neither is a particularly attractive argument. If they ever come up with a third I’ll be glad to hear them out.

    If that’s your experience, so be it. All I can tell is that almost all heterosexual couples get married because they “wanna.”

    But I – donning my All-Powerful/All-Knowing/All-Wise State Hat – just said I don’t care about the “I wanna” argument: I do however see a benefit in heterosexual marriage in that these tend to produce lots and lots of little taxpayers/good citizens in the long term. A homosexual marriage produces nothing to the State except perhaps the sales tax on the wedding cake. Again, the state/society sees no real benefit from homosexual couplings; why should it encourage these? The best you should realistically aim for is tolerance. The day you vow eternal love and companionship to your same-sex partner before friends and family and government-sponsored ninjas rappel down from the rafters to bundle you off to Oral Roberts University for reeducation I’ll agree there’s a problem.

    And if you think you’ve heard gay persons “blow whistles and scream obscenities,” it will be a picnic compared to the whistle blowing and obscenity screaming that you would hear if opposite sex couples were stripped of marriage.

    But as I’ve said repeatedly heterosexual marriage is in the best interest of the state/society so that ain’t gonna happen. A society that doesn’t value marriage – the traditional kind – has dismal prospects. Europe has basically abandoned marriage as a worthwhile goal: Europe has a birth rate of 1.7 children per couple and that’s only because they’re counting in the Muslem subpopulation with its 3.2 children per couple birth rate. If homosexuals think they have it tough now, wait a couple of generations when Europe is under Sharia Law and all the (abandoned) churches are converted to mosques. What you’re talking about is a society committing cultural suicide. Homosexual marriage is (at present) a matter of vast indifference to the future of our society and the only way it becomes important is in a negative sense, if the birth rate for whatever reason plummets.

    Eventually, if we develop technology to the point that we reproduce over the Internet (basically ordering our next generation from Babies.com), the question becomes moot. Society enters a new and unpredictable future. In 200 years my descendents, delivered fully grown from the factory w/o sex organs because these aren’t needed any more, will look back on this and wonder what all the fuss was about. It wouldn’t be the future heterosexuals envision but it certainly won’t be one that homosexuals look forward to.

    Comment by Orion — May 28, 2009 @ 7:01 pm - May 28, 2009

  116. #110: Ah, the personal attacks begin. Oh well, I’ll not respond in kind.

    #109: Two men marrying is preposterous because the general point of marriage is to provide an incentive for a stable male-female union from which the next generation arises and can be nurtured to adulthood. I don’t see this from the same-sex marriage crowd rather, as another suggests, it’s more of a case of “I wanna have all the benefits and oh BTW, my spouse and I, once we get married have agreed that a little fooling around on the side will be part of our arrangement.”

    As for California, it’s no slam dunk that Prop 8 can be repealed in two years and there are few if any other states on the horizon for your side.

    Comment by Desertcon — May 28, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - May 28, 2009

  117. >What the court did was affirm (over their personal distaste) was that the people have the right to ammend their constitution.

    It also upheld that all of the rights of marriage must be made available to gay couples and straight couples, equally. It can be called something different, but it has to be the same.

    >As for California, it’s no slam dunk that Prop 8 can be repealed in two years

    True. But it’s pretty likely it will be within five years. Eight at the outside. The demographics in California between those who are oppose gay marriage and those who accept it are changing that fast.

    The decision this week was a pretty hollow victory for the 8ers. It’s like getting the house but nothing within the house, including the piping, electrical work and carpeting.

    Comment by Jody — May 28, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - May 28, 2009

  118. this is also up at ‘the way forward’

    just for fun. . . .

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

    Comment by rusty — May 28, 2009 @ 11:40 pm - May 28, 2009

  119. Thanks for that, Rusty. That was cute and apropos. I know Keith. I’ll have to send him a note about that.

    Comment by Jody — May 29, 2009 @ 12:34 am - May 29, 2009

  120. Pat: Or are you saying that marrying opposite sex couples who don’t have children provides no benefit?
    NDT: Generally, yes.

    Okay, NDT. We have pinpointed our disagreement in this matter. Thanks.

    But we cannot predict with nearly the degree of certainty that a heterosexual couple will or will not have children that we can with a homosexual couple.

    In light of your comment above, I see why this fact is relevant to you. Since I see the value of marriage whether or not a couple can or choose to procreate, that fact is completely irrelevant to me.

    The problem here, Pat, is that, having thrown out religion, sneered at morality, and preached pure hedonism as a worthwhile goal, the gay community has systematically dismantled the most powerful means of curbing irresponsible behavior and is now trying the excuse that a piece of paper will make them behave in a fashion that is good for society.

    I guess our gay communities are different, NDT. Most of the gay people I know are just as religious as straight people. Further, they are, in general, no more or less hedonistic than straight people.

    And I agree that simply having a piece of paper is not going to curb certain behaviors. It has to be more than that. I’m looking to have a culture of marriage for straight and gay persons to want to emulate. I have no illuisions that same sex marriage is going to eliminate gay promiscuity. Or even lessen it immediately. I’m looking at the long term. Nothing has been proved yet as you suggest. We haven’t had same sex marriage that long. We haven’t had a culture in which gay children growing up can see that they can get married as their straight brethren can. We still have a culture, unfortunately, where, still too often, gay children are excoriated for being gay, or hide their sexuality, try to play it straight and enter a sham marriage, etc. We’ve got a ways to go. It’s not just about the piece of paper, as you say, but it’s a good start.

    Comment by Pat — May 29, 2009 @ 8:49 am - May 29, 2009

  121. Ditto to the first part of what Pat said.

    For the second part: You both have points. I can see NDT’s point. Gay guys in our area (we live in the same metro area) tend to be hedonistic. I can’t speak about the lesbians, and it’s dangerous to generalize from personal experience, but my experience is that even the guys who would claim to be settled and/or religious have ‘charming’ tales of infidelity if they think their listener is sympathetic, will approach men for 3-ways, etc. I referred to a married friend earlier: he is faithful to his husband – that I know of – but he has a hedonistic past, and tells me of ongoing porn usage that he hides from his husband. I don’t know what to make of that; but for the record, very many gay guys in my area will defend and promote porn as ‘harmless’ and that isn’t true. I don’t think gay marriage will magically improve any of that. What I think it will do, once it is firmly established in law, is what it always does: provide a known, civilized path for those men (and women) who choose to accept it.

    We haven’t had same sex marriage that long. We haven’t had a culture in which gay children growing up can see that they can get married

    Exactly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 29, 2009 @ 9:54 am - May 29, 2009

  122. NJ Liberal, you are way off. GPW and most who share their opinions on here are not traitors to their “people”. On many issues we have the same goals just different ideas of how to reach them. That is healthy and the only way positive change can happen is when we work together. Don’t mean to sound all hallmark but the simple fact is that it’s true.

    There are certainly some who are as hateful, if not more so, than those who oppose our lives but they are the minority. I had to laugh at the whine from the biggest basher this side of Fred Phelps about the names he is called. The real conservatives should be insulted by his nonsense.

    Comment by a different Dave — May 29, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - May 29, 2009

  123. NJ Liberal, you are way off. GPW and most who share their opinions on here are not traitors to their “people”.

    “Freedom is irrelevant. Self determination is irrelevant. You will comply.”

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 30, 2009 @ 6:31 am - May 30, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

1.706 Powered by Wordpress