Larry King Live debate on Prop 8/same-sex marriage: Stephanie Miller nails it

August 18, 2010

by Adam Bink

Here’s former Air America host Stephanie Miller (who just came out), Maryland pastor Harry Jackson who led and lost the fight against DC’s marriage equality law, radio host Dennis Prager, and San Francisco District Attorney/Democratic nominee for California Attorney General Kamala Harris last night on Larry King Live.

Part one:

Part

Check out the interaction starting at about the 4:03 mark of the first video. In response to a question from King regarding a comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, Prager comments:

There is nothing in common between race and gender… it is dishonest to compare race and gender. No one of different races is different. I am identical to a black, to a yellow, to a red. I am not identical to a woman, there’s no comparison. We have men’s rooms and women’s rooms. We do not have black rooms and white rooms. We once did, and that was evil. It is not evil to separate sexes, it is evil to separate races… race and gender have nothing in common.

Stephanie Miller hits it out of the park in response:

Dennis, it is the same in the sense that it is separate but equal. I don’t understand how you could not say that’s the same thing. To say, we’re gonna let black people marry white people, [but] we’re not gonna call it marriage like you’re real people. It is separate but equal, it is not American, and it is not constitutional… we don’t give rights to mob rule. What if we put slavery to a vote in the South?

Prager’s argument is a more refined version of “homosexuality is a choice, where race is not, so they have nothing in common” but the point remains the same, and it’s why folks like Maggie Gallagher can’t stand it when Loving v. Virginia is brought up, and I think Stephanie’s response- that separate but equal is separate but equal, period- is spot on.

Filed under: Videos

304 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Freddy  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:17 am

    scribing

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:29 am

    subscribing

  • 3. Alan E.  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:30 am

    I love her new dream =)

  • 4. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:44 am

    subsubsubscribing, I guess

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 5. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:48 am

    I watched last night. I thought that Kamala Harris stated why LGBT citizens should have equal marriage rights perhaps better than I have ever heard anyone express.

    She had an effect on pastor Henry Jackson. You could see it. Not that he changed his mind, but you could literally see it in his face that he took in what she said, as he sat their spouting off the reasons that LGBT citizens should be denied equality – oddly, all the very same reasons he was once denied full citizenship.

    I was so impressed with Ms. Harris. What a smart, compassionate, intelligent woman! She is running for Attorney General of California, and I hope every LGBT citizen in California will get out and vote for her.

    I see a wonderful ally in Ms. Harris. And an ally that does not get caught up in the politics that marriage equality has been turned into, but remains firmly planted in the belief that America MUST honor its Constitutional promise of equal protection. She is the real deal.

    We must vote this woman into office. She understands what this is all about, and I truly thank her for what she said on Larry King last night. I will remember it always.

  • 6. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:51 am

    OMG. Just watched the first video. Jackson is so disgusting. He compares the fight for marriage equality to a gun being directed at his father's head for supporting the right to vote?

    I have more respect for the bigots when they rant about their biblical beliefs. At least they're being honest, but this guy is a reckless, anti-gay lunatic, and he isn't honest about it. He's one of the worst!

  • 7. Breaking the Silence  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:51 am

    Sounds to me like Mr. Prager has some trouble with the meaning of the word "identical." Or else means it in such a limited sense, it's rendered virtually meaningless…To rational folk, anyways. ;)

  • 8. Santa Barbara Mom  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:51 am

    Could someone help me out? I understood that if the proponents can't prove they have stand, then Judge Walker's decision will stand. But I have read since then on these threads that if the proponents don't have stand, then the trial is basically negated. Is there any truth to this? I'm sleepless in Santa Barbara.

  • 9. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:53 am

    subbity subscribing

  • 10. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:54 am

    He is very, very, very, very, very, very interested and invested in upholding the stifling gender roles that never served anyone besides heterosexual men to begin with.

    I actually felt a bit sorry for him when it was all said and done.

  • 11. Dave in ME  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:59 am

    I am not able to play these clips right now, but I am not sure how Ms. Miller's response addresses Mr. Prager's point as listed in the text of this post. If he's having an issue with comparing gender and race, how is using an example of race going to prove anything? We need to use fewer examples that involve race and more that address other issue. I like the example that was mentioned here a week or so ago: "What if Californian voters passed a law limiting families to 2 children"? I

    These people don't get the comparison of race to teh gay, so why keep using it? They don't get it!

    Dave

  • 12. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:00 am

    I just started watching the video, but when I got to the part where Prager said "it means gender doesn't matter", I said, "Absolutely right!" Because it's true — gender doesn't matter. Biological sex is real (though it's complicated and not the binary construct that most people see it as). Gender is bullshit, and does much more harm than good. The sooner we can get rid of gender roles and gender expectations, the better. And marriage equality will be a big step in that direction.

    —Josiah (straight married house-husband, financially supported by doctor wife)

  • 13. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Random thought, do most people understand the difference between gender, sex, and sexuality? In the second interview, L.K. asked grey hair if he was the same gender as a gay man, he immediately answered yes. How does he know?

    The mid-evil crowd seems to use the word gender interchangeably with sex.

    We need to support national sex education to teach kids about these essential, everyday human traits.

  • 14. Don in Texas  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:04 am

    It seems to me that your apprehension is unwarranted.

    If the 9th circuit rules that the Proponents do not have standing, it means that they do not have standing to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. It has nothing to do with their appearance in Judge Walker's District Court trial.

    Walker granted permission for the Proponents to intervene in the case because the State of California and the named defendants declined to support Proposition 8. That does not mean that they were ineligible to appear at the original trial.

  • 15. elliom  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:05 am

    Just cought this on BTB:

    Dr. Laura Announces End To Her Radio Program http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/08/18/25509

    Isn't amazing how they like to call our love hate and their hate love?

  • 16. Tom B.  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:08 am

    IANAL, but a proponent of a ballot measure can intervene in the initial trial, since they don't require Article 3 standing in it. However for an appeal, only the initial defendants (Schwarzenegger, Brown, etc) are technically allowed to bring an appeal to the higher court. Am I about right on this?

  • 17. OldCoastie  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:09 am

    the latest dodge by the H8ers is that if they don't have standing to appeal, then they musta not had standing as defendant intervenors and that somehow negates Walker's ruling… but that is not true. The standards are different for appeal.

    It is meant to instill fear…

    If they don't have standing, what it does mean is that the decision only applies to California and that the reach of the decision will be more limited… the decision becomes more advisory and not so much precedence.

  • 18. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Gimme feedback :D

  • 19. Mark Billingsley  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:14 am

    I'd love for every pro gay-marriage pundit interviewed on TV or radio to ask their "opponent" one siple question…well, two. First, are they married. If so, ask them how their marriage has been effected since Mass. and Calif. and foreign countries have allowed gay marriage. Ask them if their marriage has been redefined. Ask them if their marriage has been destroyed because their gay neighbors have been allowed the right to marry. This basic question, if answered truthfully, will be all we need to know about the issue. I am heterosexual and getting a divorce. We destroyed our marriage, not gay people.

  • 20. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Me, too. Great note to end the show on.

  • 21. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Buh-bye, "Dr." Laura, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

  • 22. Brett  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Perhaps off-topic, but here's something I've been wondering about.

    1. If this case ends before a showdown in SCOTUS, will AFER/Olson and Boies file a lawsuit in another state to try and push this all the way up to SCOTUS? To be honest, I feel very happy with these guys representing us all, and I'm not sure there's anyone more qualified. It'd be a shame to lose them as the primary legal resource in this fight.

    2. Suppose standing is denied to the DIs in the 9th circuit and the Walker ruling is therefore upheld: If a suit is filed in another state such as Oregon, and there is a loss on appeal in the 9th circuit or SCOTUS, my understanding is that it does not implicitly overrule the ruling for CA unless it's specifically stated in the order. Is this correct? My reasoning being that CA has accepted the original judgement without appealing it. My understand is also that a judge in the federal court (not the appeals court) hearing the case in that circuit should give deference to the Walker ruling as well.

    I'm happy for the CA folks, and any win is a good win — but at the same time, I live in Georgia and feel like my only hope is a SCOTUS ruling some day. My partner and I are engaged, and I'd like to think that can actually mean something some day. In the mean time, I have to live with a sense of fear of all the negative situations that are possible that marriage would protect us on.

    Since I don't seeing us adopt until we have those protections, we've done the next best thing — rescued a 3 year old German Shepherd. He's our first "kid" for now. :)

  • 23. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Yep. There's a lot of education that needs to be done on this subject, across the board.

  • 24. Dave in ME  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:20 am

    I think that's a much better strategy than comparing race and homosexuality all the time. Many people today might not know any gay people and may not have experienced racial issues, but asking pointed questions about THEM might make it a more real issue to them.

    Dave

  • 25. Santa Barbara Mom  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:21 am

    Thank you so much, that is a perfect explanation. And thank you Tom and OldCoastie ~ I'll put that fear to rest. This site has become the only "news" that I follow because I know I can trust the sources.
    I don't post often, but I am reading at all times of the day and night. And like you, I'm trying to be patient but it's hard when you want something so badly.

  • 26. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:22 am

    You are correct. And the Supreme Court will be hard pressed to make a 'special exception' for this without showing their bias.

    They have in the past ruled very specifically and multiple times regarding Article III standing.

    If SCOTUS 'invents' a reason that their previous rulings regarding Article III standing do not apply to this case, they will be CLEARLY showing their own bias toward this case.

  • 27. Nathan  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:23 am

    Of course gender matters. That's why women only earn around 77 cents compared to the men's dollar. (/sarcasm)

    I wonder what he thinks about marriages where the woman works while the man stays at home to take care of the kids. Is that still ideal? Are the mother and father's genitalia that important to providing the child with a good home?

  • 28. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:24 am

    Finished watching the Larry King segments. I suppose that Stephanie Miller and Kamala Harris were too classy to point out how ridiculous it is that Larry has been able to marry seven times, but a gay or lesbian couple who have been together for decades can't get married. When Bishop Jackson was talking about "the institution of marriage" I couldn't help but think that Larry King's marriages are a lot further from the ideal of marriage than that of a committed same-sex couple.

    And speaking of "the institution", I'm beginning to think that anybody who talks about marriage as an institution ought to be locked up in one. :^/

  • 29. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:25 am

    Indeed, the anti-gays are trying to manipulate this via the media. And so far, the media has seen fit to grasp onto the 9th Circuit's decision to not allow same-sex marriages during the appeal, because it makes for better, more drama-filled TV.

    The television media has all but ignored the standing issue, instead choosing to show the usual footage of broken-hearted gay couples waiting at city hall for a piece of paper.

  • 30. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I don't know if there is truth to your standing question. I'm assuming you've read that from V. Amar's legal analysis. According to him, this route is a possibility.

    Conversely, I can't imagine Ted Olson allowing this to happen. He will see to it that the box of facts that Walker compiled will be used, I hope.

    I'm not a legal expert.

  • 31. Sheryl  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:30 am

    The one thing I wish would have been countered was the Catholic church closing their social office in MA. What was not pointed out is that they were not forced to close their doors because they did not want to adopt children to gay parents BUT because they accept public funding they CHOOSE to close the doors rather than refuse public funding. As far as I know, the LDS church still has social services in MA. Because it is a part of the religious institution and does not accept public funding, they are free to continue to discriminate under freedom of religion. When public funds are accepted, that right of freedom of religion is given up.

  • 32. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:32 am

    To straight people, marriage seems to boil down to penis and vagina. No other components seem to matter.

    Sorry if that offends some, but that seems to be their main argument.

    But you must consider that we are dealing with people that choose to treat the gay children they created in this manner. They feel that they have a right to do so. That they have a right to be limiting the freedoms of the very gay children they themselves created. So I am not really sure how one reasons with folks capable of this kind of treatment toward their own offspring.

  • 33. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:33 am

    Brett,

    I don't know what Olson and Boies will do if/when this case ends, but I do know that they have been dedicated to ending marriage discrimination. They may continue, but I think that it would be a good question to e-mail to AFER.

    On your second point, you are correct, to an extent. It depends on how broad the 9th Circuit's ruling in that case would be. It is possible that a 9th Circuit decision based on Oregon's ban would be narrowly limited to the circumstances in Oregon. But we simply don't know and there would be risk.

  • 34. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:34 am

    I forgot to mention one more thing — a judge in a federal court could consider Walker's ruling persuasive authority. However, no deference need be given to Walker's ruling by other federal district courts.

  • 35. Santa Barbara Mom  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:39 am

    That's correct, Sheryl :)

  • 36. elliom  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:40 am

    OK, I have to say, I'm getting a little miffed about the whole "marriage as an institution" thing as well. It implies that marriage is this strictly defined, monolithic structure. It looses the double definition of marriage:

    1. A social contract between two individuals and the state (plus the fed, by extension) — this is accessable to every citizen, and is covered by constitutional law.

    2. A religious sacrament — this is only accessable and applicable to those who practice that religion, and only if that religion deems them worthy. Gov't has no control over this via 1st's Non Establishment clause.

    IANAL, but, come on. This is basic 5th Grade Civics. And they just don't get it.

    Guess that answers "Are you smarter than a 5th Grader?"

  • 37. HunterR.  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:40 am

    Hello SBM, I'm also an Santa Barbara and I have seen your intelligent post in the past.
    I also read something about it. I'm so utterly confused that my brain is about to explode! But as Lisa Bloom put it in CNN, "IS THE EVIDENCE, STUPID!"
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/17/bloom.prop….

  • 38. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:41 am

    AMEN!!

  • 39. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:41 am

    UGH…subscribing :-)

  • 40. MJFargo  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:52 am

    It's a good example of how the "institution of marriage" has changed. But the minute you say "race" people–in this country–get defensive, stop being rational and shut down.

  • 41. JC (1 of the 18,000  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:52 am

    Clear explanation of the "standing" issue by Howard Mintz of the San Jose Mercury News, if any confusion remains: http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexmarriage/ci_158…

  • 42. Alan E.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:06 am

    There is some cry about 1st amendment rights being denied to her. I think she has used up her allotted time limit for hate speech. Anyways, there is no infringement if her advertisers don't want to give her money causing her money pool to plummet.

  • 43. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:06 am

    really important point Sheryl, it's like a spoiled kid saying if you do that, I'm taking all my stuff and not playing at all.

    Glad to hear the Gov't put some stipulation on the discrimination in order to recieve the funding. (faith based initiatives)

    So these faith based initiatives have created a situation where the churches forgo the use of their own money and resources, and have become dependant on gov't funding.

    It's like punishing everyone for being put in a situation to not discrimiate, If it was a genuine ministry to the people to begin with, they will find a way to continue it. That is part of their madate as a church commuity, to minister to their community.

    Would be interesting to know if this service was being provided by the Catholic Church in Ma prior to recieving any funding from the gov't.

  • 44. Andrew Martinez  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:07 am

    UGH. Pragner perpetuated the lie about the Catholic charity being "kicked out" of Mass. I had thought the media in general had gotten this straight that it was not at all that they were shut down, they chose to close down because they didn't want to abide by the law.

  • 45. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Again with the implication that ALL straight people think alike? Really?

    To those who oppose the idea of marriage equality, marriage seems to boil down to penis and vagina. Not ALL straight people boil marriage down to penis and vagina. If that were the case, Prop 8 would have passed with a far larger margin than 52% to 48%.

    In case you haven't been reading the comments on this site for months, you might want to check them out. If you do, you'll notice that there are a lot of people out here who ARE straight and who ARE married (or are in committed relationships) — and who are passionately committed to securing marriage equality for ALL. We were crying with joy along with you when Walker's decision came down. We were crying with despair when we heard that the 9th Circuit was going to keep loving couples from getting married until this whole issue has been hashed out in appellate court.

    How dare you imply that those of us who are fighting for marriage equality actually buy into the NOM arguments?!

  • 46. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:16 am

    I agree that it's extremely difficult to reason with people who are genuinely and actively homophobic, the sort (as you say) who would reject their own children if they turned out to be gay, lesbian or bisexual. But there are also a lot of straight people who either simply haven't thought about marriage from an equality standpoint, or who reflexively defend "the institution" as exclusively between a man and a woman because "that's the way it's always been". (We know that's not true, but that's another argument.)

    What I'd like to see is more discussion of all the different dimensions of marriage — its duration, its dissolubility (or lack thereof), and so forth. Whenever people start talking about how same-sex marriage would threaten the "sanctity" of the institution, I want to ask them how they feel about the legality of Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage, or that godawful Fox reality show that was supposed to end in a wedding (was it Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire?). To me, those "marriages" are far more offensive and damaging to "the institution" than any gay or lesbian couple I know could ever be. And yet I wouldn't make them illegal, because I believe that people need to be free to make their own decisions about marriage.

    I'd like to see Bishop Jackson, or Maggie Gallagher, or any of that crowd explaining why marriages like these, or Larry King's, deserve legal recognition, but Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon's 55-year union does not.

  • 47. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Oh, and nightshayde is right that you really shouldn't lump all straight people together with opponents of marriage equality. It's counter-productive, because you offend and potentially drive away straight allies like nightshayde and me.

    Remember that 48% of California voters voted against Prop 8. There's no way that 48% of California voters are LGBT.

  • 48. Anonygrl  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:20 am

    To be fair, the reason mainstream media is not dealing so much with the issue of standing is that most of their viewers would require the fine education we all have gained HERE to understand it. It is not an easily explained point, and the media has a minute and a half of airtime or six inches of column space to get the point across before they have to move on to whether Brett Favre is going to retire or not.

  • 49. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Good points, elliom. Some of them "just don't get it" about the "double definition of marriage", as you put it — but I think that for other marriage equality opponents, creating the impression of marriage as an eternal and unchanging monolith is completely intentional. They know that marriage has changed across cultures and times, and that the civic aspect is different from the religious aspect — but they pretend that the Ozzie and Harriet ideal has some fundamental, eternal, transcendental reality. That's the intellectual dishonesty that really pisses me off.

  • 50. phillykarl  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:28 am

    When Prop 8 supporters claim that SSM will destroy marriage and harm society, they cannot divulge the true reason for their opposition – that allowing SSM will make being gay seem normal, and that their children will be exposed to this "perverted" view of gay normalcy This is what they cannot tolerate – will never tolerate.. They believe with 100% certainty that homosexuality is a perversion of nature and a sin against God. End of story. " The Bible says it – I believe it – that settles it" is their mantra. They claim that they love gays and want them to have every legal right except the word marriage – but the fact is that few of the organizations opposing SSM have done ANYTHING to further civil rights of the LGBT community, and many (like Focus on the Family) want to return to the days of the anti-gay sodomy laws. This fight has NOTHING to do with protecting marriage. NOTHING. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fight against integrating the LGBT community into society.

  • 51. Gil  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:29 am

    understand that ultimately we want the SC to rule in our favor, but I think a dismissal based on lack of standing is the most likely compromise, because everybody wins in this scenario:
     
    -          We win in California, which is HUGE
    -          The prop 8 defendants would spin it as a win because they didn’t lose on the merits, and they could blaim Schwartzenegger and the “activist judges”
    -          The 9th Circuit wouldn’t have to decide on the merits and therefore apply the decision to other states, limiting it to CA
    -          The SC wouldn’t have to face the issue head on, punting it to another time
     
    As much as I’d love to see our friends in the red states being able to marry, I think between a win in CA and a potential devastating loss in the SC, I’d take a win in CA anytime, because it would be a game changer in the long run. I don’t think Kennedy would assume the burden of overturning all the amendments single-handedly, it’s just too much at this point. In 5 to 10 years, yes, but not now.

  • 52. Reuben Walton  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:30 am

    Phillykarl, very concise assessment of the mindset of these people. Good job.

  • 53. Alan E.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:37 am

    "I’m not a legal expert."
    "I am not a [insert type] lawyer"
    "IANAL"

    Probably the most useful phrases on this site. Pretending to know something and shoving your point as if you have some superior training on this exact subject is something a lot of people try to do on other sites with comments (especially news pages). I feel comfortable saying "I am no expert, but it appears to be this way and here's why."

  • 54. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:37 am

    I started to watch this last night and just couldn't listen anymore. All the same blah blah blah. Puuuhleeze. At least with these videos I can skip all the familiar talking points and hear what the two women have to say. :)

  • 55. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Anonygrl, I agree that television news is always going to do a poor job on a story like this. But JC links below to a good article from the San Jose Mercury News that explains the standing issue clearly and fairly (as far as I can tell, since IANAL).

    It's a good example of why we still need newspapers, or at least professional text-based media. There are some subjects that visual media just can't cover as well as what we used to call "print media". It doesn't need to be on paper, but it does need to be in text — and for a general audience, it's good if there's a source that most people can agree is trusted, reliable and objective, which usually means professional. If we lose newspapers, I don't know what's going to fill that vacuum.

  • 56. Alan E.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:39 am

    To straight people, marriage seems to boil down to penis and vagina. No other components seem to matter.

    Sorry if that offends some, but that seems to be their main argument.

    I am deeply offended that you chose to call them by their "science" names. The more polite think is to call them a *wink wink* and a hoohoo. Also, naughty parts would be acceptable, but only outside of church.

  • 57. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:39 am

    I can't answer 1, and 2, but congratulations on your engagement. That seems to be a common phenomenon in unequal states. Two of my best couples live in Miami, and they've adopted the same status. They're waiting for legal equality. Unfortunately, the gays in Florida are so afraid to stand up. The religious reich is overly controlling there. In 2002, a voter referendum on Miami's human rights ordinance failed by 1000 votes.

  • 58. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:45 am

    @phillykarl, you're right, and this is what "think of the children" comes down to — they're terrified their children might think it's OK to be gay. We need a good, catchy slogan or ad campaign to counter that. Statistics seem to show that parents of children under 18 were most prone to the Yes on 8 ads changing their minds. The ad about the little girl who "learned in school that she could marry a princess" probably scared a lot of people.

    It's wrong not to give people rights because children might learn about those rights, but that's how some of these people think.

  • 59. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Gil, I agree. We can't assume we would win at SCOTUS, as much confidence as I have in Boies and Olsen.

  • 60. GAYGUY  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:47 am

    what does "scribing" mean?

  • 61. Alan E.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Exactly Anonygrl. It's easy to forget that some of us have been following since Day 1, and to fill that time, we have decided to learn as much about this process as we possibly can. I liken it to a teacher who knows a lot more about the subject but has to pick and choose which pieces to give his/her students based on their prior knowledge and skill level.

  • 62. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Olson and Boies were sure right aobut one thing. They said that no mater the decision this trial would raise the discrimination against GLBTs into a National Dialog/Discussion.

    During the trial hardly and MSM wrote about it, if they did it was a little blurb. Now with Judge Walkers sweeping decision that in fact H8tros are in fact just legislating their perceived moral superiority against GLBT couples and their families, now we are getting the national dialog and national attention that we need to move forward.

  • 63. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:48 am

    As an aside, I watched a news report (can't remember the station – CNN?) shortly after Walker issued his ruling on the 4th. The reporter was interviewing a lawyer, one of their regular legal correspondents. The lawyer said something like 'the ruling was based on the facts unique to California, that the right had been extended and then taken away, and that was why Prop 8 was unconstitutional.' It was SO obvious that the guy hadn't even read the decision! So, even lawyers' opinions aren't always reliable. I think this tends to happen more on TV than print report – that "must have instant news" phenomenon. But I take everything I see or read with a grain of salt.

  • 64. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:50 am

    It's short for "subscribing" — you have to leave a comment in order to subscribe to the other comments. Some of us subscribe, then read, so don't yet have anything meaningful to say about the post.

  • 65. Alan E.  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:51 am

    It's like subscribing, but instead of making it a lesser (sub) form of scribing, some people give it equal status to all writing forms. No one has the right to vote on the writing status of scribes.

  • 66. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:51 am

    The free market at its best. :)

  • 67. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:53 am

    Yep. It comes out when they start talking about children being "exposed" to "that". If they really cared about LGBT people, they would realize that it's OK for kids to know that they exist, and are as normal as anybody else.

  • 68. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Once again, late to the party. But I'm here finally.

  • 69. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:59 am

    It's also an underhanded tweak on the Pharisaical views of the religious right, since Jesus was always condemning the scribes and Pharisees for getting hung up on religious legalisms that didn't matter instead of the important stuff, like loving your neighbor.

  • 70. AlexD  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:00 am

    I watched the video and I have to say I was very disappointed with Mrs. Harris.

    When asked, point-blank, whether it mattered that the parents were of different genders or not, she did everything she could (it seemed) to avoid answering it (I had to listen very hard to see her finally answer the question directly at the end – "they're identical").

    All that avoiding makes it seem like she agrees that the parenting isn't as good and made her look shifty.

    I was desperately waiting for either of the two women to just say not "the most important thing is that they're loving"(which is true) but that the studies have even shown that the gender doesn't matter(which is also true and takes the point farther).

    It just feels like such a wasted opportunity.

  • 71. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:02 am

    yes, finally the issue has risen to the status of a public debate, and now we have the opportunity to clarify what is at stake, constitutional rights, and equality, which affect everyone,

  • 72. Robert  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:02 am

    I find the Cry "But what about the children?!?!?!" to be a smoke screen. I am so SICK of that being thrown at us. What about the child who is gay being raised to think that it is constantly wrong or that there is something wrong with them!? If they were really and truly concerned about children it would be a no brainier. Love them as they are.

  • 73. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:03 am

    Robert, I agree completely, but it's a smoke screen that works and we must combat it.

  • 74. Steven  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Trish, where did you hear that? "persuasive Authority" A judge can rule that a law is unconstitutional in a state or federal court…………

  • 75. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:07 am

    You guys are threatening the sanctity of traditional word usage!

  • 76. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Trish is right, other courts are free to look and see how other courts have ruled on an issue, even if those decisions are not binding on them. If they find the reasoning persuasive, they may cite them, and if they find the reasoning unpersuasive they may try to distinguish the circumstances of the case before them or the law of their jurisdiction.

  • 77. Marlene  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:14 am

    What made me glad I wasn't drinking something was when "Bishop" Jackson whined about the minority forcing an opinion on the majority!!

    OMFG you stinking hypocrite!!! Do you not know that you just said the SAME complaint racists gave when Dr. King was forcing the south to face Jim Crow, AND when the Loving decision was handed down!!

    Once again we have a prime example of the oppressed how becoming the oppressor!!

  • 78. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Here's a good article in The Reporter (focuses on California law). "9th Circuit Panel for Prop 8 Appeal Won't Be Known for Months" http://tinyurl.com/22jmq5q
    It requires free registration; here's some of the info:

    As to what panel will hear the appeal the week of Dec 6, the court typically assigns cases about three months before argument. It won't be publicly announced which Ninth Circuit judges will hear the case until a week before oral arguments.

    It also includes this discussion of the Arizona case.

    "Arizona voters amended the state constitution in 1988 to declare English the state's official language.

    The district court found the amendment unconstitutional. The governor, who had been lukewarm about the measure from the start, declined to appeal.

    When sponsors of the ballot initiative moved to intervene so that they could appeal, the district court ruled against them, saying that their lack of Article III standing was their insurmountable hurdle.

    But the Ninth Circuit disagreed. In an opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the court held that the sponsors of the ballot initiative could intervene.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, deciding the case 9-0 in 1997, thought the Ninth Circuit had 'lost sight' of the limitations of federal courts to decide definitively on the meaning of state legislation.

    'We thus have grave doubts whether AOE and Park have standing under Article III to pursue appellate review,' wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg."

    There may be a bit more to this case than the reporter discusses. I STILL haven't read the whole case, but will do so this morning.

  • 79. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:19 am

    Steven, it's just the distinction between "binding" authority and "persuasive" authority. Binding authority is a court decision that a lower court must follow unless they can show that the facts and circumstances of the binding case do not apply. Persuasive authority is a court decision that does not bind the new deciding court but that another court may consider if they find the reasoning persuasive. That means that a district court in Oregon is not required to rule the same way that the district court in CA ruled on any issue, but may consider the ruling in making its own ruling.

    The above analysis has nothing to do with whether a federal district court or state court is hearing the case. In either of those circumstances, the Walker decision, if it stands alone after dismissal by the 9th Circuit, would be persuasive authority.

  • 80. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:22 am

    as a sbling in this exact type of family scenario, I am obligated to continue to point out this discord, much to everyones dismay, they think we are a perfect god fearing , loving, family, except for me, of if only I'd shut up and just pretend everything was fine, just not bring up the discrimination the church imposes on me, they wouldn't have to look at it,

    this is the very personal part of the struggle that remains, after all I am married, and in social situations which we are thrust into, so that we all sit looking at each other, they are very pleasant to my husband.

    but we go out of our way, to avoid those situations. cause the reality is way too uncomfortable. I know throughout my life I was learned to deny, and lie, and hide, but I just don't do that any more.

    My families religion and beliefs want their interpretation of the bilble to be right, and they want me to act accordingly.but it isn't happening. I'm a bad son, my poor mother.

  • 81. Brett  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Here's the interesting thing about the paradox these folks create.

    If they believe being gay is a choice, and they feel that their child hearing in school that it is legal for boys to marry boys or girls, and for girls to marry boys or girls, then do they have so little faith in their parenting that they doubt they raised their child to make the right choices? You can't shield your child from every message in the world that you perceive as negative, you can only do the best to teach them to rise above it. Additionally, if it were a choice and you've raised your child well enough not to make the supposed choice, what is wrong with your child being tolerant of those who have made that choice? Aren't they still supposed to love the sinner, not the sin? So, it sounds like their hatred in this case is really their own insecurities in parenting and fear of something they don't understand.

    If they believe being gay is not a choice, then shouldn't they want their potentially-gay children to be exposed to positive messages so they can have good self esteem and be happy about who they are? Wouldn't they want their children to be caring towards someone else who is gay if it wasn't their choice? If they don't, then it seems like they don't really love the person that they created and brought into the world.

    Seems pretty simple to me: either have faith in your ability as a parent and let your child hear about things you disagree with, or support your child no matter who they become. In both cases, gay marriage is the right.

    I believe I had no choice in being gay, only a choice in coming out and letting myself be who I am.

  • 82. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:24 am

    I wish equality proponents would steer the conversation back to the basic issue: we have an identifiable minority (based on an inherent trait) in this country denied a legal status that, were they not part of that minority group, they would have access to with no problems. Where in the United States do we convene a tribunal to decide if two people would make better parents than another couple before issuing a marriage license – or even evaluate if they're going to have children, or adopt, at all? Harris did a good job on this for the most part, I especially like the point that marriage rights are not a zero sum game, but she needed to shut Prager down on that line of reasoning.

    And hey, you guys didn't tell me that the Gay Agenda™ includes legalizing prostitution! At least, that's what Harry Jackson says. I think everyone there realized that was so beyond the pale it wasn't worth replying to.

  • 83. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:26 am

    Kathleen, I still haven't read the entire case, either, but it's worth also mentioning that the case was dismissed on other grounds (the plaintiff had quit her job with the state by the time the case got to the SCOTUS), and that the analysis in the ruling of the standing issue is not necessarily binding.

  • 84. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:32 am

    I know I'm such a usage anarchist (a direct consequence of embracing sexual anarchy). :)

  • 85. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Kathleen:

    I saw that CNN piece, too. It was with CNN's chief legal consultant, Jeffrey Toobin.

    He presented the stay by the 9th Circuit as the most dreadful thing that could have happened to LGBT citizens, completely skirting any of the issues of the actual case. Never once mentioning the Article III standing issue, but instead choosing to create a sense of drama around the issue.

    It was really rather vile, I thought, and as an attorney and a CNN consultant, just very, very bad performance on his part. I lost a lot of respect for him on that day and will likely not listen to him in the future as he was clearly more interested in the hype than in the actual case.

    I expected more from CNN. They stooped to Fox News levels with that one…

  • 86. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:36 am

    Poor, poor little Skeletor.

    Her right to treat others badly has been trampled.

    Poor little her.

  • 87. Marlene  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:36 am

    Not going to happen for the forseeable future, Bolt. When you have an enraged religious reicht drooling over taking over school boards through stealth and deception, or coming out in droves to protest if the board's curriculum doesn't goosestep to the abstenance-only line.

  • 88. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:38 am

    @AlexD, watch that video again, I thought Mrs. Harris did a good job with that question, but it ended too quickly, white haired guy gives the scenario choice of placing children with OS couple or SS couple, which would she choose, she said , and she has exprience with this, that there is much more to the question, than simplifying it between those two choices, there are many more factors to take into consideration, for the sake of the children, making the issue of OS vs SS irrelevant.

  • 89. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:41 am

    you know better than to do that, nightyshade.

    But if you are straight, it is laughable for you to complain about gay people painting straight people with the same brush.

    I said 'straight people' under the blanket that 52% of you, THE MAJORITY, saw fit to remove existing rights from people.

    I have indeed been here since day 1, and you seek to devalue me by suggesting that I feel that every straight person is the same, when that was not my point at all.

    However, all heterosexuals do in fact belong to the group of individuals that have taken it upon yourselves to be voting on my rights. Whether you vote FOR or AGAINST my rights matters not.

    It is your voting on them at all which cast heterosexuals in a hugely immoral light.

    That's all.

  • 90. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:41 am

    I've been having a very interesting discussion on Facebook with a friend who's in law school. With his permission, I'm going to post it here, slightly edited for ease of following the conversational flow. I'd be very interested to hear whether our legal scholars (Kathleen, Ann S. and company) agree with my friend's take.

    It started when I posted a link to this CNN article on Facebook. My friend Michael commented:

    Unfortunately, the author of this article oversimplifies the question of the standard of appellate review. See, e.g., Bryan Adamson, Critical Error: Courts’ Refusal To Recognize Intentional Race Discrimination Findings as Constitutional Facts, 28 Yale Law and Policy Rev. 1, 16–17 (2009).
    ______________

    In sum, when a trial court articulates findings of constitutional, ultimate, legislative, or sociological facts—mixed statements of law and fact—it does more than make ordinary, objective factual determinations. If one imagines a “law” (as articulations of rules and norms) at one end of a continuum and “fact” at the other, mixed statements of law and fact can lie at any point on the continuum. Thus, what Professor Henry Monaghan observed in one of the more influential articles on constitutional facts is quite apt: Fact and law are really not “static, polar opposites” but exhibit a nodal quality as “points of rest and relative stability on a continuum of experience.” As facts move along the fact-law continuum, they begin to take on characteristics more akin to legal rules or norms. Simultaneously, appellate standard of review choices move along the continuum to exact greater scrutiny of factual determinations. To characterize a finding of intentional race discrimination as a constitutional or ultimate fact is to move it towards “law.” Similarly, to characterize implicit bias as a legislative or sociological fact implicates a standard of review other than clear error. Although framed by a trial court as facts found, such pronouncements should be deemed as either law declaration or assertions seeking some normative recognition as law. Because of the normative implications of such conclusions, appellate courts are empowered to reevaluate the evidence in order to support or refute their validity. Given the well-established role of appellate courts to “say what the law is,” appellate courts should engage in heightened review of such facts.

    Judge Walker accordingly (and quite scrupulously) hedged his bets. See the footnotes in his opinion—"To the extent any of the findings of fact should more properly be considered conclusions of law, they shall be deemed as such," Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C09-2292, slip op. at 54 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2010), and "To the extent any of the conclusions of law should more properly be considered findings of fact, they shall be deemed as such," id. at 109 n.3.

    I replied:

    That's very interesting and informative, Michael. …. So, if Judge Walker's findings of fact are heading towards law in the continuum you mention above, the appellate court is likely to reconsider them. If they do, would they base their new considerations exclusively on the evidence presented in the trial, or would the Prop 8 proponents be allowed to introduce new evidence (as it looked to me like they were trying to do in their appeal filing)?

    Similarly, how much will it matter in the appeals court that the proponents presented such a flimsy case (in terms of evidence and testimony, at least) in the district court? It seems to me that the proponents' case rests heavily on precedent and "common sense", while the plaintiffs' case rests heavily on evidence and testimony. If that assessment is correct, which is more likely to be persuasive in the appeal?

    Michael:

    Just to be clear, I would be briefing for Plaintiff-Appellees. But the standard of review question is not going to be as simple as fans of Judge Walker (including myself) might hope.

    To the extent that mixed findings of law and fact are subject to de novo review, in reviewing such findings an appellate court can t…ake judicial notice of so-called "legislative facts"; that is, facts of general significance not particular to the case in question. These could include, for instance, data and conclusions from scholarly studies and other publications, whether or not they were considered by the trial court. The appellate court would not hear new testimony from witnesses—if further fact-finding of this kind were required the appellate court would remand the case back to the trial court (not likely to be an issue here).

    As for Judge Walker's opinion, most of the facts are actually not likely to be seriously disputed. A few key ones probably will be, however, including:

    "34. Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents"

    (insofar as this is to be taken as a comprehensive definition of legal marriage—proponents would add some qualifications).

    "48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions"

    (which depends, of course, on whether one accepts proponents' argument that one of those characteristics is the at least hypothetical possibility of producing biological offspring through intercourse).

    "58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians"

    (proponents will deny this, arguing that the law differentiates between relationships, not between individuals).

    "61. Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to codify distinct and unique roles for men and women in marriage"

    (a very big one: in essence, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation equivalent in this context to discrimination on the basis of sex?).

    You are duly warned: these are just a few unresearched stabs at the surface by a not-yet-qualified law student. This case is complicated both substantively and procedurally, and is only likely to become more so.

    Me:

    … [W]hat's your view on the issue of whether the proponents have standing for appeal or not?

    Michael:

    I doubt that they do. Apart from the appeal of the denial of Imperial Valley's petition to intervene, the proponents main argument seems to be that because the California state courts recognized their role as intervenors in the state-court proceedings, this establishes that California law authorizes them to represent the people of the State of California in the federal courts. Seems doubtful to me; there is fairly strong dicta against this and only tangential precedent to support it.

    So is Michael's take accurate? He's a very intelligent guy and I've got a lot of respect for him, but as he says he's only a law student.

  • 91. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:42 am

    This is among many of the reasons I'm pro-equality.

    I firmly believe that sexual orientation is not a choice. You can choose to live in a way inconsistent with your sexual orientation, but I don't think people should ever have to do to so (or feel that they have to do so).

    I don't know yet whether my little girl was born straight, lesbian, or somewhere in-between. I'm pretty sure she's straight, but I know she could be making up stories about her imaginary boyfriend because she thinks that's what's expected of her. I may not know the truth for many years — and that's ok.

    I know that if she comes out to me at some point in her life, I won't have to backpedal and make an about-face about my opinions regarding sexual orientation. She'll know that I've supported her all along — and if she happens to be straight, she'll know I've been fighting for the rights due to her GLBT friends since before she was born.

    Most importantly, she knows that I will always always always love her (something I tell her with great frequency). She knows that if I get mad at her for anything, I will still always love her. She knows I love her because she's her and that she doesn't have to be perfect in order for me to love her. She doesn't have to live up to some unattainable ideal for me to love her. I love her because she's awesome just the way she is.

  • 92. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:43 am

    Here's what Conservapedia has to say about the "Homosexual Agenda." http://conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda

    WARNING: Do NOT read the above unless you have a strong stomach and steady blood pressure. It embraces the worst of the ultra-conservative hate. The statement about Iran is beyond the pale.

  • 93. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:44 am

    I've been having a very interesting conversation on Facebook with a friend who's in law school. I tried to post it here, but I put some relevant links in and it got caught in the dreaded "awaiting moderation" zone. So if anyone would be interested in joining a discussion about the standard of review the appellate court will use when considering Judge Walker's ruling (in particular his findings of fact), feel free to send me a friend request on Facebook by clicking on the link in my name. :^)

  • 94. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:44 am

    According to William Tam, we want to legalize sex with children along with legalizing prostitution.

    Perhaps he and Mr Jackson did their internet research together.

  • 95. Gray Coyote  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Brett,

    I've been saying this on these threads. AFER has a "Plan B" in case all standing is denied to the D-I and Walker's decision stands.

  • 96. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:47 am

    If you want the absolute worst of the "social conservative" mindset, from anti-LGBT bigotry to the Christian nation myth to young-earth creationism, Conservapedia is your one-stop shop.

  • 97. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Wait — so the 9th Circuit said AOE and Park could appeal the case to them and the SCOTUS said they shouldn't have let AOE and Park appeal?

  • 98. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Straight Ally #3008, we already have legalized prostitution. It's called politics!

  • 99. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:56 am

    Yeah, but that's the same site that maintains that the theory of relativity is a liberal conspiracy.

  • 100. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:57 am

    I couldn't agree more! What about the children? All children…including LGBT children…when does the loving religious community going to step up and embrace ALL children?
    I know MANY religious organizations already do…not at all discounting that, but I am speaking to the larger community of religious Haters.
    ALL children are precious and should be treated as such.

    It is so very sad to say but my husband (fiancee actually) were rather relieved when we found out that both our kids are straight….at least we knew they would have less battles in their lives than their Dads did/do.

  • 101. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Right. That's why I felt the reporter's discussion wasn't thorough. Saying that the decision was 9-0 might be misleading without discussion of all the relevant facts.

  • 102. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Different report from CNN. The one I saw was when Walker first released his decision, before the 9th Circuit had weighed in.

  • 103. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Had this not been presented in such a "serious" light, I would have laughed. As it is, all I can think is how sad it is that there are actually people out there who have been so thought-conditioned and mind controlled that they will buy into this. And what was that tripe about liberals not giving to charitable organizations about? I would ask if they have lost their minds, but I am not sure I can assume that they even have minds to lose.

  • 104. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:08 am

    Nightshayde wasn't saying that "gay people" were tarring all straight people with the same brush. He or she was saying that you were tarring all straight people with the same brush.

    And you're doing it again when you say "all heterosexuals do in fact belong to the group of individuals that have taken it upon yourselves to be voting on my rights. Whether you vote FOR or AGAINST my rights matters not." Don't you realize that there are plenty of straight allies who are as offended at the idea of voting on your rights as you are? Yes, we straight people are unfairly privileged by the fact that we don't have to defend our marriages. But some of us are doing our best to eliminate that privilege. When you make generalizations about straight people, you undermine straight allies.

    It's the difference between saying "Many white people think that black people are [fill in the blank]" and saying "White people think that black people are [fill in the blank]". Even if it's true that most white people think that, it's neither true nor helpful to imply that all white people think that.

    I know you probably weren't intending to say something about all straight people. But you did. We're just politely reminding you to be more thoughtful in your phrasing.

  • 105. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:10 am

    As Dan Quayle so eloquently put it, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind. How true that is."

  • 106. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:11 am

    Does anyone here remember the conference call (I believe it was just after closing arguments) when Rick and Julia were there? There were hints all throughout the conference call that this would not be the only marriage equality case that Olson and Boies would take, and that this was far from the end for AFER. In fact, they hinted at this again with the last questioner, who was in fact, me. So I think that if the D-I's are found not to have standing and Walker's ruling is left in place, this is still a win for us, even though it is not the big win that we want and need, because this will leave this trial, its evidence, and Walker's ruling on the books and it can be used in future trials. Plus, with the evidence that has already been gathered and presented, this means that Olson and Boies can be prepared even faster for the future trials.

  • 107. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Yes Robert and that is why I was so happy to see our Rick Jacobs go mano mano with Brian S Brown, the biggest Bigot in America, asking him, "What about our children when two men have a child together?" That really resonated with me. And Brian S Brown, the biggest Bigot in America, would not answer the question.

  • 108. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Notice that NOM didn't even make the list of "Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda." Apparently, they're too liberal?

  • 109. Svendawg  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:16 am

    Sorry if this was already commented on but did anyone catch Jackson saying that the gay agenda in DC is to legalize prostitution… I tried looking that up online but couldn't find anything. Is he quoting something factual or is he just another Dr. Tam?

  • 110. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:16 am

    I think that's right. But there's more to the case than is reported there. Will do my reading soon… promise. Trying to clear out my inbox and make lunch.

  • 111. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Here's the list of points on the dreaded homosexual agenda. I've got to say I'm on-board with most of them.

    1. Destroying Christian morals
    * Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin [13]

    OK. I don't want to "destroy Christian morals" so much as "destroy the idea that Christian morals should dictate public policy." People have a right to their so-called "Christian morals" (oooh – fun with scare quotes) no matter how wrong they might be — but they shouldn't have the right to make non-believers live by them.

    Updating the definition of marriage does not mean that they can't keep their nasty myopic views — they can hate all they want, but the government shouldn't be denying rights and benefits based on the concept of "sin."

    2. Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene[14]
    * Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax[15]

    If by "pseudoscience" they mean "actual science performed in a responsible manner and which involves peer review," fine. I don't know whether there's a "gay gene" or not, but I'm not willing to rule out the possibility just because a millennia-old book tells me to. I'm also very willing to believe that not all inborn characteristics have a genetic basis.

    I'm all for ignoring pseudoscience that says being gay is a choice and that there's no possibility of people being born gay.

    3. Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"[16][17][18]
    * Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality[19]

    If you're preaching hateful things, it's hate speech. I'm on-board with that concept. I don't think anyone wants to "censor biblical statements condemning homosexuality." I don't need to censor the bible in order to discount it as irrelevant to civil law.

    4. Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals[20][21]

    Huh? Is there such a thing? I can't really comment one way or the other.

    5. Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation[22]

    Yup. I'm totally behind that.

    6. Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality[23]

    Yup. Totally behind ending DADT.

    I'm not quite sure how I feel about allowing private organizations to discriminate. I suppose it's ok (even though disgusting) as long as they don't accept public funds or use public-funded facilities — but if they take public money or use public facilities, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

    7. Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference[24]

    Yup. I think "reparative therapy" should be banned. You can't repair something that isn't broken to begin with — and the risk of doing harm in the process of therapy is just too great.

    8. Promote homosexuality in schools[25]
    * In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."
    * You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. [26]

    I wouldn't call it "promoting homosexuality," but I think kids should (and already do) know that there are GLBT people everywhere and that they're no different than straight people.

    9. Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle[27]
    * Suing an online dating website for discrimination[28]

    Businesses should treat people fairly. That shouldn't be a problem or an issue.

    10. Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality[29]

    If by that they mean "giving closeted GLBT people the confidence to be themselves rather than to live a lie," you betcha.

    11. Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples[30]

    Check. Every child deserves a loving household & the reproductive organs of the heads of the household should be considered irrelevant.

  • 112. Svendawg  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:17 am

    nvm…skimmed the posts to quick towards the bottom

  • 113. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Zing! How funny LOL!

  • 114. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:18 am

    My sons know how disappointed I am that they're not gay. But we've learned to live with it. :)

    (it's a running joke in our house)

  • 115. Kate  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:23 am

    If the NOMbies could know in advance if they were pregnant with gay fetuses, would they abort them????

  • 116. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:23 am

    He and Tam were probably sitting on each other's laps as they prepared for their episodes of fame.

  • 117. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:24 am

    I'm certainly not going to stop advocating for marriage equality just because a gay man on a website insulted me — but I will still feel insulted when I get lumped in with the people I find completely abhorrent.

    I really would appreciate it though if you would avoid saying that the majority speaks for all of the voters. The majority does NOT speak for all the voters — they only speak for the members of their group. The "group" in question here is not "straights." The group is "anti-equality people," and there are some GLBTs in that group (how, I'm not sure — but I know some that actively work against their own interests & they really tick me off).

    The majority does NOT speak for all of California, and the majority should NOT get to take away rights from the minority because they feel the minority is immoral or icky or sinful or unnatural or any "less equal" than anyone else.

    The majority does NOT speak for me, and I don't believe the majority speaks for MOST of the people who post regularly on this site.

  • 118. Straight Grandmother  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:24 am

    No they would just enroll them in NARTH as a toddler…

  • 119. Svendawg  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Best line from conservapedia. "Iran is notable for their exemplary policy of executing known or suspected homosexuals."

  • 120. AlexD  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:28 am

    @Bob – I saw that she said "there are other factors", but I wanted her to say "yes, they're the same".

    Saying "there are other factors" makes it seem to me like she's admitting there's a difference but trying to avoid saying it.

  • 121. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Acknowledging "knowing in advance" would mean that they'd have to acknowledge that being gay is not a choice — something I'm quite sure they're not willing to do since that would pave the way for the courts finding that they'd have to grant equal rights.

    I have a feeling that some would abort even though they think abortion is wrong because they'd consider the procedure as getting rid of something that's less-than-human. Others would try to find ways to re-program the kids as soon as possible either before or after birth.

    Then again, they do that "reprogramming" thing already.

  • 122. Bill  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Again, I must say that you are free to take offense at that and you are free to not take offense at that.

    I personally take offense at the suggestions that if a gay person 'offends' a straight ally, they can simply 'call off' their support of all gay citizens because of that. Total barf.

    That, to me, brings the issue of a TRUE ally into play.

    You seem to want me to concede something here. But this was never my argument. Heterosexuals are responsible for the abuse and brutalization of their gay children. Period. That fact that some of you do not participate in the abuse and brutalization does not negate that fact.

    Part of the repercussions of heterosexuals having treated their LGBT children in the brutal manner they have is that it makes many of us distrustful of heterosexuals. If the situation were reversed, I assure you, you might likely feel the same way.

    This will be my last response to this can of worms I appear to have opened, as it was not my intention to start an argument, but rather point out that the majority of heterosexuals, if ballot box results and polls are to be trusted, seem to believe that marriage boils down to 18 year old mismatched genitalia that are unrelated by birth.

    I submit that it is more than that.

  • 123. Santa Barbara Mom  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Hi HunterR! With such a great explanation shared here this morning, I am going to take advantage of our georgous weather and take my dogs to the beach……..breathe fresh air and soak in the divine sunshine!

  • 124. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:31 am

    I think she was trying to get around to saying that you make the best match for the child in question, depending on the household, the child, the child's siblings (if any), children in the home already (if any), etc. — but that is a bit too nuanced and sensible to be a good sound bite on LKL.

  • 125. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:32 am

    That was the 'beyond the pale' statement about Iran I was referring to.

    As to number 3, anyone catch yesterday's ruling striking down as unconstitutional the Missouri law aimed at keeping the WBC away from funerals? http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/mis…

    We have some pretty strong protections for speech in this country. I don't think they need to worry about their right to express their hate being infringed.

  • 126. Steve  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Of course legalizing prostitution isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem is human trafficking, forced prostitution and the like. But that would be illegal in either case. And it would still happen on some level in either case.

    It's not like there isn't any prostitution. They just call it "escort services". Legalizing it makes it more controllable and even taxable!

  • 127. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:36 am

    @Alan E. Thanks, good to know.

  • 128. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:38 am

    They're not our keepers, and they can't stop anyone from trying.

  • 129. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Gray, would you repeat what you were saying about AFER's Plan B? I missed your comments, and interested.

  • 130. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:43 am

    when placing a child for adoption, it is imprtant to consider all the factors, and it's true there are many factors to consider, like stability of the relationship, criminal checks etc. these are what I thought she meant.

    In that sense the choice between SS and OS parents are the same.. He asked her which she would choose, she said it was dependent on other factors. and the choice would not be made on the basis of parental genders. maybe I'm just making it more complicated than it is.

  • 131. Sagesse  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Subscribe.

  • 132. Bolt  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:45 am

    Yes, he saw that on the "internet."

  • 133. Gray Coyote  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Thank you Richard. I've been trying to say this for days but no one seemed to be listening to me that AFER has many plans in the works and irons in the fire. I think there was some anger at some people contributing money to this thinking that Perry would legalize marriage equality in all 50 states.

    Remember, SCOTUS could overturn their previous decisions about Proponents not having standing and decide that they have standing in order to deal with the underlying merits of the issue and do it for us. AFER would be remiss not to prepare for their possibility.

    Remember Canada between 2001 to 2005. That is what judicial era we are currently in for this situation.

  • 134. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Bill, I accept that heterosexuals have caused you and other LGBT people pain. As a group, we heterosexuals have failed to accept our LGBT brothers and sisters fully, and have, as you say, abused and brutalized LGBT people. All I'm asking is that you take a little care, when making comments about a group, not to say things that seem like universal statements about all the members of that group. Your comment here, about "the majority of heterosexuals", is fine. Generalizations about "straight people" aren't, for the same reason that it's not OK to say "gay people" think this or "gay people" do that, (even in cases where statistically a majority do). It's like when right-wingers talk about "the American people want" such-and-such, or "Christians think" so-and-so — I want to yell, "No! I'm an American, I'm a Christian, and I don't think that!"

    And like nightshayde, I'm not about to 'call off' my support of LGBT people and marriage equality just because of one person's remarks. But please try to remember that we're here, and that we want to fight alongside you in this struggle.

  • 135. Tom  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:05 am

    Hypothetically speaking, what would happen in a case where plaintiffs had standing, defendants elected not to defend, and defendant-intervenors did not have standing and were not allowed to participate? Wouldn't that just result in a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs?

  • 136. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:05 am

    It's scribalicious.

  • 137. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:09 am

    I like that she just kept stating the legal facts over and over….didn't go into the whole "HOW COULD YOU?" angle.

    Though that's really what I'M interested in…..I'm really puzzled/horrified by these people who are all in a twist about this. Of course, a lot of them have made a career off their soapbox…so it's just what they're selling, today. Their "hate" is a commodity.

  • 138. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Another tactic that I have used when debating this:

    Regardlesss of the similarities or differences between various minorities – African Americans, LGBTs, senior citizens, religeous minorities, whatever – it is the DISCRIMINATION that is AIMED at these groups that is the SAME. Being black may very well not be the same experience as being gay, or being hindu, or being eighty years old, but the discrimination that is harming the victims is the same and it is just as wrong, regardless of the demographics of the victim. Bigotry is bigotry, discrimination is discrimination. And it is always wrong.

  • 139. Sheryl  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:16 am

    Yes, and I believe it was that smoke screen that passed Proposition 8. The majority of the ads and signs that I saw dealt with protecting the children and parents rights, which, to me, have absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The other side played that well. I also think the No on 8 side did not do a good job on countering those issues. And, in my opinion, it was because of how the proposition was worded and was felt that people would not truly vote to eliminate existing rights for a group of people. I was very, very shocked that rights were eliminated. Just my opinion.

  • 140. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:17 am

    What's the acronym for "I am NOT a lawyer, but I am a (bad) legal SECRETARY / FILE CLERK who's usually late for work" ?

  • 141. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:18 am

    @Tom, I think that would be the result. I'm hoping pgbach will reappear an answer this question for us. Maybe Trish knows some litigators who will answer.

  • 142. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:21 am

    This is the same line of thinking which was used by Harvey Milk when he was building coalitions in the Castro, which ultimately led to his election to the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. This is the type of thinking that helps to overturn discrimination, even if that discrimination is overturned one area of its expression at a time. Dpeck, you have just added once again to my hopes for the younger generation. Thank you.

  • 143. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:25 am

    For your amusement. Stephen Colbert worries about a 'gay drain.'
    http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/08/18/video-our-coun…

  • 144. Gray Coyote  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:29 am

    Is there any copies of the AFER conference call floating about? Transcripts or MP3's?

  • 145. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Well, if legalizing prostitution is one of the issues, then Nevada should have no problem with extending marriage equality. Does Nevada have a one man, one woman amendment in their constitution? Just curious. I grew up in Nevada, no one gives the "red light district" a second thought.

  • 146. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Conference call: http://www.couragecampaign.org/action/484/listen-…

  • 147. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Are we 100% absolutely, positively certain that Colbert is heterosexual? About the only thing I can be sure of myself when it comes to Stephen Colbert is that he has such a knack for using humor to make people think, and to see just how ridiculous discrimination really is.
    Thanks, Kathleen. I really needed a good belly laugh today, and you gave me one before I could even ask for it. Are you psychic or something?

  • 148. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Tom, I assume you're talking about at the district court level rather than on appeal. I don't think it would be a default judgment — plaintiffs would still have to prove their case. In the typical case, if the defendant fails to show up a default judgment would be entered. In this case, however, the defendants did show up, they just supported the position of the plaintiffs. In the bond world we used to do this kind of thing all the time when there were doubts about the legality of certain types of bonds. The chair of some committee would refuse to sign the bonds, we'd sue them, and they'd agree that they thought the law was invalid but thought their hands were tied. The judge would then base the decision on the case presented by plaintiffs.

  • 149. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:36 am

    How about – Americans need to do more than just 'think of the children'. We need action. We need to make sure the children are legally protected by allowing their parents to legally marry.

  • 150. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Thank you, Kathleen. Now I can listen to it again.

  • 151. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Have to say that I'm finding a bit of humor to this. Early on it was Mormons who were all lumped together and I was always pointing out, along with others, that some of us are allies. Now, it is all straights. As has been pointed out, ALL of us, myself included, need to be sure we are not making blanket statements, be it about Christians, any particular religion, any particular race, or all members of the LGBT community.

    Sheryl, a Mormon mother

  • 152. Breaking the Silence  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Thank you for spelling that out, clearing it up, and putting it so well, Josiah.

  • 153. Breaking the Silence  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:40 am

    Maybe he's confusing the gay agenda with the liberal agenda. ;^)

  • 154. JonT  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Shift to the Left,
    Shift to the Right,
    Push down, Pop up,
    Byte! Byte! Byte!

    (scribing, can't watch vids now)

  • 155. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Thanks for the clarification, Trish.

  • 156. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Don't give up hope, Kathleen.

    Maybe it's just a phase : )

  • 157. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:44 am

    Well played, Richard, well played. :)

  • 158. Breaking the Silence  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Good discussion of that topic in "The Social Construction of Sexuality" by Steven Seidman Wow, I see the cover of the 2nd ed. is a little more risque than that of the copy I landed. LOL http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039397510X/sr=1-…
    http://www.amazon.com/Social-Construction-Sexuali…

  • 159. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:48 am

    LOL.. Now there are the grandchildren …. maybe??

  • 160. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:49 am

    I was hoping you would get a laugh out of that.

  • 161. Steve  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Colbert, the character, admitted that he is gay in a recent show :p

  • 162. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Breaking the Silence,

    There's a difference? ;-D

  • 163. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:56 am

    From the article: "Gay marriage is legal in Canada and Mexico, which makes America the straight meat in a big gay sandwich."

    Hee hee. Oh my! How vivid!

  • 164. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Keep your hoohoo out of my sugarbowl.

  • 165. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:23 am

    Also…when we ask someone if they're "married" we're usually asking about if they are an official, registered couple (for lack of a better phrase…though that sounds a bit ominous, as I read it again.). i.e., are they officially married in a legal sense.

    We don't mean "Were you joined at a riverbank or in a cathedral in the eyes of some magical being that may or may not be real?"

  • 166. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:25 am

    Yes, Catholic Charities did this in D.C. too, I think. They were sputtering about how they'd take their charity programs elsewhere, and D.C. was like, "Buh-bye!"

    It's not like Catholic Charities is the only group that knows how to run a soup kitchen!

  • 167. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Catholic Charities is kind of sucky about reuniting birth parents and adoptees later, too. They have BIG shredding machines!

  • 168. Randy  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Check it out, people!

    SAN DIEGO — Tony and Tyler Dylan-Hyde, the local couple who had scored the first appointment to get a marriage license in San Diego on Thursday before the appeals court issued a stay, are planning to keep their date with destiny.

    The Dylan-Hydes, who were legally married in Massachusetts on Dec. 15, 2009, and other marriage-equality supporters will be at the County Clerk’s Office at 8 a.m. Thursday to demand a marriage license.

    The couple, who have been together for 15 years, will be joined by Michael Anderson and Brian Baumgardner, who have been together for nine years and wish to get married.

    “We believe that county officials and the Attorney General have the authority and obligation to allow marriage licenses to proceed based on both the federal court's findings that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional – and the Governor's and Attorney General's filings in the Prop. 8 cases,” Tyler Dylan-Hyde said.

    “We intend to exercise our fundamental right to marriage on Thursday,” he said.

    San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality (SAME) and other marriage-equality supporters will rally with both couples at the County Clerk's Office on Thursday, the day that hundreds of gays and lesbians had planned to line up for a long-awaited marriage license.

    SAME organizers said they will encourage the County Clerk to follow through on Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling last week that upended Proposition 8, and provide the two couples equal treatment and a marriage license.

    “ ‘Just wait.’ Gays and lesbians have been asked to 'Just wait a little longer' on every front,” Michael Anderson said. “We are making it known that our patience has worn out with that strategy. When the federal courts unequivocally say that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, it makes it hard to understand why I have to wait.”

    At a planning meeting in Park West on Tuesday night, members of SAME outlined the goal of obtaining marriage licenses, discussed strategy including building lists of administrators from the Governor to the County Board of Supervisors, who will be getting a call, and finalized details for the rally outside the County Administration Building starting at 8 a.m. Thursday.

    In April 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that equal marriage rights were due to all, including same-sex couples. Then in November of the same year, California’s Proposition 8 was passed by a slim majority, eliminating those equal rights, even though more than 18,000 gay and lesbian couples had legally wed. On Aug. 4, 2010, Judge Walker ruled that the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment disallow the discrimination that Proposition 8 introduced.

  • 169. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Yesssss…….true…….BUT, we don't know how good the lawyers who someday get this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court will be, if the ruling that's being appealed is as amazingly strong as Judge Walker's is, if there will be such a lame-ass defense that practically evaporates off the record, etc.

    Frankly, I am in a tizzy about all this. I don't know what the best thing to do is. I'm just a (tardy) legal secretary / file clerk, for goodness sake!

  • 170. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Funny how these Catholic groups have no problem giving equal treatment to people who are divorced — divorce being an act Jesus expressly condemns — but they're all up in arms when you suggest that they give equal treatment to LGBT people — a subject about which Jesus is notably silent.

  • 171. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:46 am

    I don't even LIKE children. Sorry.

  • 172. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:49 am

    "And hey, you guys didn't tell me that the Gay Agenda™ includes legalizing prostitution."

    Don't worry….all supporters will get a discount.

  • 173. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:56 am

    My straight friends had dinner with him in Chicago years ago, and he was happily married at that time, anyway.

    They were frankly somewhat miffed that he wasn't very funny in person…at least that night. (Maybe he just didn't like them, though??)

  • 174. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:58 am

    How can the Dylan-Hydes apply for another marriage license, when they're already married (in MA)? One of the questions on a marriage application is "Are you currently married". If you answer Yes, they're not going to marry you to someone else….or even the same person.

  • 175. jay (chicago)  |  August 18, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Bolt, as a performance artist whose work has, for several years now, focused on exploring the "in-between land of gender" outside of the usual gender binary, I've come to realize that the average public has little to no distinction between gender and sex.

    And quite frankly, I think the idea of blowing the gender binary construct out of the water is a significantly more fearful prospect to most people than SSM.

  • 176. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:00 am

    They are not legally married in California. The state of California does not officially consider them to be married at all.

  • 177. Gray Coyote  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:07 am

    Josiah,

    LGBT people as a whole have been opportunisticly abandoned by straight people, have been thrown under the bus.

    Do not blame the abused dog for snarling at a new human saying "I will help you". We're not dogs, but you get the analogue in similarity. We've been hurt repeatedly, abandoned by our so-called "friends".

  • 178. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:09 am

    With the right seasonings, they can be good (if you don't overcook them).

    (sorry – couldn't resist!)

  • 179. Gray Coyote  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:09 am

    The Dylan-Hydes, who were legally married in Massachusetts on Dec. 15, 2009, and other marriage-equality supporters will be at the County Clerk’s Office at 8 a.m. Thursday to demand a marriage license.

    They aren't married according to SB54.

  • 180. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:13 am

    glad to hear it, so this means there will be two places to act up, when you include the one LLB's mentioned yesterday, I think that was a march around the court house

  • 181. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Tastes like chicken?

  • 182. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:18 am

    They will be married if and to the extent Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. So, their marriage must be treated as such by the State of California.

    It is a bit fuzzy, but after the CASC's ruling in In re Marriage Cases, folks from Mass. and Canada were applying for marriage licenses and denied because they were already married. The same applies here. ONCE Prop 8 is overturned, ALL marriages between two individuals of the same sex, wherever/whenever performed, if valid when and where performed, are valid in CA. However, because the injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is stayed, the State is still enforcing that discriminatory law and does not recognize those marriages. It would be perfectly reasonable for a clerk to deny a marriage license to that couple based on no reason other than that they're already married.

    To summarize my jumbled explanation above:

    If Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, all marriages previously entered into between same-sex couples are valid and recognized and such couples may not obtain another marriage license until such marriage is legally dissolved.

    While there is a stay on Walker's ruling, the State will treat Proposition 8 as enforceable and could deny marriage licenses to Dylan-Hydes for either of two reasons: 1) they are a same-sex couple or 2) they are already married.

  • 183. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:19 am

    AlexD, I finally got what you're saying, after all the factors are weighed and found equal, then OS and SS parents are equal, same, no difference, doesn't matter, toss a coin or better yet, depending on age, let the child decide.

  • 184. Steve  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Actually, from what I read, they should have the same rights as married couples. Just not the title of "marriage".

    An out-of-state marriage isn't downgraded to a DP or something along those lines.

  • 185. carpoolcookie  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:28 am

    But at the same time, California doesn't say they're NOT married in MA, right?

    The couple IS married….they're just not married under California law.

    It doesn't make sense to me, because a straight married couple from MA would not be issued a marriage certificate in CA….so that's not really a great example to me of how we want equality for everyone…is it?

    Maybe this couple just wants publicity….or maybe they want an out-of-state same sex marriage and an unmarried same sex couple both being denied, to cover the bases in a new lawsuit.

  • 186. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:29 am

    HA HA! X-D

  • 187. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Steve is right. It's "something kind of like but not including the name of marriage" (scare quotes intended). Treated as marriage for all rights and responsibilities, but not titled as such.

  • 188. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 8:34 am

    I agree, they get the rights of marriage. Apparently they want the word, too. Trish's analysis below (right now #186) presents an interesting conundrum, but "rights of marriage" isn't the same as "marriage".

    Yet another interesting fact situation. Legal professors are finding tons of material for future exams in this case and the related issues.

  • 189. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Yes, they way I read it, I don't see any way a couple legally married elsewhere could be issued a marriage license. The only way the registrar in a California county could issue a license is if s/he treats Prop 8 as unenforceable. But if it's unenforceable, the couple is considered legally married and not eligible for a license.

  • 190. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Hi Richard,

    Actually, I turned 50 in March so I'm not sure I would qualify as being in the 'younger generation', but I'll accept the compliment anyway and say 'thank you' : )

  • 191. Mandy  |  August 18, 2010 at 9:59 am

    I don't know if I would agree with that. Haven't we found that some of the most loudest and influential people against equality out there turn out to be homosexual. (sorry can't remember the names right now) Therefore it isn't just straight people who want to suppress equality in the united states. I am not saying that all of them are or that it is an obvious sign but it has happened.

    Personally I am a straight ally but I don't love being called that as I firmly believe that this is a civil rights issue. It isn't about being gay or straight but about people who love each and cannot marry and cannot be afforded the freedoms that other people do simply because the person they love is the same sex. This is about fighting hate and bigotry and allowing love to overcome all odds. This is about what is right.

  • 192. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:04 am

    No, it's inhumane to kill a fetus… they'd wait until the baby was a toddler, then beat them to death for being 'too girly'

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 193. Mandy  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:05 am

    I agree with you but I also wonder if this is really about having power. By hating on the gays and lesbians the haters have a way of feeling better about themselves. Kind of like the haters used to do to black people. The haters lives are crappy because they are full of hate. If they stopped looking for people to hate they would be a lot happier. I think that once gays and lesbians stop being the antichrist for the haters they will look for someone else to hate on because that is the only way they can go on living.

  • 194. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:09 am

    @svendog
    <cite>Best line from conservapedia. “Iran is notable for their exemplary policy of executing known or suspected homosexuals.”</cite>
    So, if we can't call 'exemplary…executing suspected homosexuals' promoting hate crimes, then what is it? their definition of 'Christian' love?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 195. Tigger  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Bingo…

  • 196. AndrewPDX  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Oh, don't worry about their knowledge of 'escort services'… the religious reich are very familiar with the hourly rate of rent boys.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 197. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:12 am

    As Stephen Colbert said, "without [gay people], who will we turn to when we need a second class group of citizen to marginalize?"

  • 198. Ron  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:28 am

    My husband and I were married 5 years ago in Canada and are Californians. Our marriage is now "recognized" here because of Mark Leno's SB 54. Remarrying the same person is not possible w/o divorcing first, because you cannot marry someone if you are already married. Don't think that MA couple is in a different boat…..

  • 199. ErinInCA  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:37 am

    I just wanted to say thank you to Josiah and NightShayde (and all our other straight allies here) for being so passionate about a cause that doesn't affect you as directly as it affects a lot of us here. I appreciate all of you "straight folk" that are here discussing, and fighting for our rights. More than you could ever know.

  • 200. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Ron is pointing out somethign that may not be well known to some folks outside of California. When the SSMs first started here in the summer of 2008, couples who had already legally married elsewhere (like Canada) asked the State if they needed to marry again here in CA to assure their marriages would be legally recognized. At that time, they were told 'No, you cannot re-marry because you are already legally married, but don't worry, you do not need to".

    Then when Prop 8 passed, all of these legally married couples were suddenly classified as NOT legally married since they had not married in CA during the 'window' between summer 2008 and the Nov 4 election and after Prop 8 passed, their out-of-state marriages were not recognized – a horrible catch-22. This awful situation was remedied by the passing of SB54, which once again made these out-of-state SSMs legally recognized if they occurred during the time when it was also legal in California.

    Another example of just how eff'ed up the whole situation has been and still is.

  • 201. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Actually, SB 54 assured recognition of out-of-state marriages that occurred any time before November 5, 2008, not just those who married during the window in 2008. Here's a FAQ from NCLR and EQCA: http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/SB_54_FAQ.pdf

  • 202. Felyx  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:04 am

    We should run adoption ads that show loving gay and straight couples next to a large (empty of children) house juxtaposed with teens aging out of foster care with the question, 'Why can every child have a loving home?'

    Then show the children and couples united and happy with the slogan, 'Every child deserves a loving home!'

    Felyx (If anyone uses this let me know… I want to be one of the models! :P )

  • 203. Paulie  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Huh,

    I need some encouragement.

    I care so deeply about this issue and *I'm* getting tired of it. I'm getting fed up with the same ol' talking points. The total inability to even agree on what the "question is" (is it redefinition…which just strikes me as some kind of ad historum argument; is it majority rule with minority protection; it is a fundamental right; – the most exasperating – it's about the children; etc.)

    And I cannot discern if I'm going tired of it because I'm IN IT or if I'm growing tired of it as more of a gauge or barometer for what is happening "all over" with our 24/7 news cycle and recycle?

  • 204. Ann S.  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Great ideas!

  • 205. Ron  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Yes, Dpeck and Kathleen, you are both right about SB 54. We wanted to marry again in CA (as we are Americans) but were told we couldn't. PH8 was devastating for us as we lost the recognition we had gained. Since SB 54, we've got it back. Hope everyone knows about 54. Anyone know if Walker's ruling (once upheld) will allow for anything further for couples in situations like ours?
    PS I gotta say, I LOVE all our straight allies! :)

  • 206. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Ah yes, Kathleen is correct. SB54 're-recognized' any legal out-of-state SSM that took place prior to Nov 4 2008.

  • 207. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 11:30 am

    As soon as Prop 8 is unenforceable, California will go back to recognizing out-of-state marriages, the way it did before Prop 8 passed.

  • 208. Moony  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    I've become a regular reader here and thought I should give another answer to the "Can they get married again?" question, FWIW. My wife and I live in Iowa and were married in Canada in 2007. After the SC decision here we asked that question at the courthouse. The registrars told us they had been specifically instructed not to issue marriage licenses to any SS couple that had a marriage license from anywhere else. If we obtained an IA marriage certificate we'd definitively be considered guilty of bigamy in Canada, even if we were married to each other. I'd imagine these people would also be bigamists in MA.

  • 209. elist  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    The initial trial was a lawsuit from our side, so a case already existed, and therefore the other side was granted the right to intervene.

    In the case of an appeal, the appeal does not already exist, so somebody with standing has to get the party started, and they apparently do not qualify.

    Brian Devine's explanation: http://calitics.com/diary/12276/prop-8-stay-stand…

    I personally would be pleased if the Ninth found some reason to give them standing, e.g. ballot initiative proponents in CA are different from those in the 1997 Arizona case, but won't cry if we end up with a California-wide victory instead.

  • 210. nightshayde  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Awww, Erin — you just made me weepy! What a good way for me to end my work-day. Equality affects all of us — even those who aren't "officially" losing out on rights at the moment. I have friends and family who ARE directly affected — so I'm affected by association.

    I'm just bummed that I'm here rather than sharing bouquets with happy couples finally being allowed to get married (that was my plan for today until the stay got approved).

  • 211. Bob  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Paulie, maybe you could check out the protest march, going to be held I think tomorrow, LLB'S posted a link about it on the thread the other day, wonder if they could repost, don't know where you live, but if you're in the vicinty it would be a good way to connect with the Rainbow Community,

    These activities are good for this type of recharging us, cause you're right it is tiring, a good old march in the fresh air, with like minded people, may just be a boost to wounded souls.

  • 212. Kathleen  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    I had plans to pass out baked goods and flowers at the L.A. Registrar's office. Instead I'm dealing with a backed up sewer line. Guess which I'd rather be doing?? :)

  • 213. RebeccaRGB  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    @Josiah — I'm sorry, but I have to do this. Someone is wrong on the Internet.

    Gender ROLES are bullshit. Gender ROLES don't matter. That's absolutely true, no doubt about that. But gender IDENTITY is a core part of a person. Gender IDENTITY matters a whole metric fuckton more than sex. Sex is just as meaningless as gender roles; it may be real in the physical sense, like the color of your skin, but not in the HUMAN sense. And as a transsexual woman, I will fight you to the death over this. My gender identity is WHO I AM. My gender role, my sex, my social standing are NOT. There are two parts to gender: the socially constructed crap that gets dumped on us, and the core identity that helps make us who we are. It's time we all learn that. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, PLEASE.

  • 214. Breaking the Silence  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    You're right, Paulie. It gets exhausting for a number of reasons. Some of us handle that differently/better than others. Hell- it looks to me like some here thrive on the challenge(s) posed. (My admiration to you!) One must do whatever one must do to hang in there through a protracted fight over something that touches us to our collective core. As indicated in your post, the questions, answers and issues lie in multiple areas, levels, even disciplines. I sure find myself frazzled after long sessions of mentally peeling the layers and witnessing the offal flung about by the h8ters. Perhaps workout, meditate, engage in some escapist activity or throw yourself into something productive. Take a break, drive it out of your mind for a half-day or a day if that's the best you can do. The issues and the rest of us who care about them will still be here when you get back. :) Hope something here helps! <3

  • 215. RebeccaRGB  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Mom (of Mom's Friendly Delivery Service): Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I DON'T WANT ASS-PRINTS ON MY NEW DOOR!
    :D

  • 216. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    You're welcome. So what day in March. My birthday is March 8, just turned 47. Have to admit though, you look 30 in the picture I saw.

  • 217. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Yes, and one of our P8Tt'ers asked us to remember the scientists, because they would be next. And I also think that the Jews and Muslims would be included in that, also. I think it was SA #3008 who brought up scientists, but I am kind of fuzzy on that currently, since there have been so many posts since then. But please, remember our scientists, our Jews, and our Muslims once this battle is won. We will need everyone else here.

  • 218. RebeccaRGB  |  August 18, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Most people don't understand the difference between sex, gender identity, socially-constructed gender, and sexuality at all. Even the people who put effort into understanding it occasionally screw up. I like to point people here: http://www.yaygender.net/localresources/SGOExtend…

  • 219. JonT  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    'One week after enduring mounting criticism over using a racial epithet on her radio show, Laura Schlessinger announced that she will not renew her contract when it expires at the end of the year.'

    Ahh, so she's both a homophobe *and* a racist. Stunning surprise.

    Good riddance skeletor. :)

    (good name Bill! :)

  • 220. Dpeck  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Thanks! Mine is March 14th, same as Albert Einstien. Did you know that you share your birthday with Micky Dolenz of the Monkees and 80's synth-pop star Gary Numan?

  • 221. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Thank you, RebeccaRGB! I was hoping there was something like this available. I am one of those who occasionally screws it up, no matter how hard I try to understand all of this wrt gender identity, social construct of gender and all the rest. And I'm gay!
    But then, there are some who don't believe me because I change door locks, put up trellis on the back porch to protect the screening, and even know how to change the oil in the car, the spark plugs, the tires, and other routine maintenance. So much for my copy of the Gay Handbook, I guess.

  • 222. RebeccaRGB  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Prostitution and politics are the two oldest professions. There's a reason for that. :)

  • 223. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    No, I didn't! Thanks for the information. I did find out from a friend's mother at one of her early concerts that I was exactly 42 years younger than she was. I still miss Ruth, but at least her daughter is still recording. I have even posted a couple of Kathy's videos on here. Yes, I was born on Ruth Mattea's 42nd birthday. And Kathy even now sings like an angel.

  • 224. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    Fair enough, Rebecca. I suppose that it's really a bit like race: it's a social construction, but that doesn't mean it can't be real and important (and, I suppose, fun — after all, drag wouldn't have any power if it weren't for gender). And my gut impulse to get rid of gender altogether is probably like the Stephen Colbert caricature of the white guy who claims that he "doesn't see race" — colorblindness as a form of whitewashing.

    But I guess we'd agree that nobody has the right to demand or expect a particular behavior, personality or way of being from somebody else just because of their gender, right? Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Mars and Venus are just excuses for stupid behavior, insensitivity and failures to listen.

  • 225. Josiah  |  August 18, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Whereas I'm straight and can't do any of those things. Boo yah sucks to gender stereotypes!

  • 226. RebeccaRGB  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Yes, we can both agree to that. :)

  • 227. RebeccaRGB  |  August 18, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    You're very welcome. That document actually came out of a discussion among the members of the LGBT speakers' bureau at my college just before I graduated. I have other documents, which are mostly terminology sheets, but it wasn't until I stripped the concepts down to something everybody understands (the gender binary) and rebuilt on top of it that it clicked with them.

  • 228. Str8 AlEye Mikael  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    We've always recognized that racism is wrong?

    WE'VE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT RACISM IS WRONG?!!

    WHO THE F&%$ DOES THIS GUY THINK HE IS??!!!!!

    I'm sorry, I had to stop watching the video for a minute, because I think I might have just heard the DUMBEST THING ever uttered on television. And yes, that includes anything taped during Jon & Kate Plus 8.

    JIM CROWE! THE CIVIL WAR!! MOTHERF%$#ING SLAVERY!!!

    If this doesn't show anti-gay asshats for the asshats they asshat, I don't know what will!!!

    Sorry to be that guy doing the all caps thing… This just ruined my night…

  • 229. RebeccaRGB  |  August 18, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    BTW sorry for such a harsh response. I take things way too personally.

  • 230. Trish  |  August 18, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Actually, the issue wasn't that those previous marriages were suddenly not recognized with the passage of Proposition 8. The issue was that the CASC decision in Strauss didn't address those marriages that had existed before its decision in In re Marriage Cases – it only addressed the issue of the 18,000 ss couples who married between June and November 2008. SB 54 came along to simply codify what the legislators believed was the law anyway — that any marriage that occurred before Prop 8 that was valid when and were performed would be treated as a "marriage" under CA law.

    I am nearly 100 percent certain that if any couple who had married in Massachusetts prior to 2008 had challenged the State's treatment of their relationship as "single" they would have prevailed. In re Marriage Cases determined that Proposition 22 was invalid and unconstitutional. That determination reaches back to the date it was adopted. SB 54 just makes it so those people don't have to sue to get the recognition that I am positive the CA Supreme Court would have granted.

  • 231. Tom B.  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    He and Tam were probably sitting on each other’s laps as they prepared for their episodes of fame.

    Don't you mean their episodes of shame? *rimshot*

  • 232. Keith  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:38 am

    Their arguments against SSM are juvenile at best. When Prager said that race was different than sex, that is wrong. Discrimination can be against race, gender, orientation, creed, religion, etc. and we knocked back discrimination against blacks and now we're doing the same for orientation and equal marriage rights. I don't see how they can be so blind to not realize their beliefs are discriminating. Having Jackson on spewing his views was disgusting because as an African American he should know how bad discrimination tastes and to perpetuate that is sickening. Furthermore, it proves that these are only religious views that are against SSM and not legal ones, which is again forbidden in our constitution. Every court must uphold SSM, if they don't, our constitution is meaningless.

  • 233. Keith  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:41 am

    It's understandable Str8, and thanks for your support. I felt the same as you when he tried and failed to differentiate race from sexual orientation when it comes to discriminating. My mouth dropped when he said racism was wrong but then went on to basically say that discriminating against gays was ok. It's people like him who are dangerous. They want to instill their moral values on others, which goes directly against our constitution.

  • 234. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:46 am

    Yes, you are right, Tom B. Episodes of shame is more appropriate. Or even episodes of infamy.

  • 235. Breaking the Silence  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:27 am

    I think we may ironically be thankful to this man for providing a very widely distributed image that should have caused many, many people to stop and think "WTF did he just say??? THIS represents who SSM is up against?? This is who I'm getting in bed with when I vote for or buy into something like Prop 8??" This, especially combined with the presence of rational people, is what Americans need to hear.

    Let the benefits of this reaching national discussion & media proportions come rollin' in. =)

  • 236. Break the Silence  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Just lovin' this song so much lately. I know this isn't the original ver (which is awesome). …What can I say? I'm a gleek.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yda06UW0XgU

    If any of you who happen to be good at it, pls. feel free to get it embedded better than it likely will for me. =)

  • 237. Don  |  August 19, 2010 at 3:52 am

    OK, Prager is out of his mind. He tries to be so tolerant on one side saying he loves homosexuals and thinks they should have everything, well everything but marriage and children. Have you ever noticed that the people who are against equality in marriage make marriage out to be a job, they talk about procreation and make marriage a responsibility and not a bringing together of two people in love. Are they afraid that same sex couples may get it right?

  • 238. Josiah  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:13 am

    No problem, Rebecca — an occasional bit of intellectual humbling is good for a know-it-all like me. :^)

  • 239. Breaking the Silence  |  August 19, 2010 at 6:54 am

    Yes, Don! You can practically hear the Homer Simpsonian thoughts "don't look like an intolerant bigoted fool, don't look like an intolerant bigoted fool, don't look like an intolerant bigoted fool" then the mouth opens and out comes tripe such as: "WE'VE ALWAYS KNOWN RACISM WAS WRONG," "I AM IDENTICAL TO BLACK, RED, YELLOW PEOPLE," and IS TWO MOTHERS OR TWO FATHERS IDENTICAL TO A MOTHER AND A FATHER? IF YOU SAY "NO" YOU AGREE WITH ME! ANSWER! ANSWER! I WANT AN ANSWER!

    Thank you Mr. Prager for providing yet another example of how the people on your side of the issue think and behave. And for all your enthusiasm regarding how critical being "identical" is! Silly, you should at least realize that ever so many of our Constitutional protections and those ensrined in the Amendments there exactly because we are not all identical. And thank you pastor Jackson for providing yet another demonstration of how hollow and empty the arguments of your side of the issue are despite their being wrapped in The Cloth.

  • 240. Randy  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Protesters stage sit-in at county clerk's office
    By Wendy Fry, UNION-TRIBUNE

    Originally published August 19, 2010 at 9:14 a.m., updated August 19, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.

    On the day hundreds of gay and lesbian couples statewide planned to obtain their long-awaited marriage licenses, a crowd of about 50 people gathered at the county clerk's office Thursday to protest a federal judge's stay of a federal ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

    Three people were taken away in plastic handcuffs by sheriff's deputies early in the demonstration and an additional six people were removed later. A deputy said they were detained for blocking access to a county office.

    Tony and Tyler Dylan-Hyde and at least one other couple came to the county clerk's office this morning at 8 a.m. asking to receive their marriage license.

    "We believe that county officials and the Attorney General have the authority and the obligation to allow marriage licenses to proceed based on both federal court findings and that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional and the governor's filings in Prop. 8 cases," Tyler Dylan-Hyde said. "We are asking you to do what's right."

    Tony and Tyler Dylan-Hyde left the county offices after being told they could not receive a marriage license saying they were going to spend the day pursuing other legal avenues.

    Three heterosexual couples had approached for their scheduled appointments this morning. The group refused to move and allow the couples access to the office.

    Deputies repeatedly asked the protesters to move before removing the initial three participants of the sit-in in plastic handcuffs.

    County Clerk David Butler had asked the sit-in group to move and allow the public access to the office around 9 a.m. The group refused, saying they were protecting their civil rights.

    Shouting, "We shall not be moved. No equality. No business as usual," two members of the group said they were disappointed they could not get married today.

    "It’s something at first that you kind of assume is going to be the case," said Michael Anderson, a 28-year-old who planned to get his marriage license today with his partner of 9 years Brian Baumgardner. "But after awhile, you get tired of waiting."

  • 241. Gray Coyote  |  August 19, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Richard, you sound very much country!

  • 242. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 11:37 am

    That is exactly what they are afraid of! They don't want people finding out about the couples who are together ten, twenty, thirty years or more, the couples like Clay and Harold, or Del and Phyllis, who spent their entire adult lives with someone in a marital relationship without the benefits that come with the word marriage. They know that since we are not hung up on the societally assigned gender roles, that we can actually have equal marriages where the tasks are divided based upon who is better at what rather than any misguided notions about "women's work" and "men's work," and it scares them to no end.

  • 243. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 19, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    @ Gray Coyote: I am rather country. I grew up just outside of Charleston, WV, and currently live just outside of Ft. Bragg, NC, the home of the 82nd Airborne. And even though there are some who think I should, I don't want to get rid of the accent I have had for as long as I can remember, because it is part of who I am, and I am proud of it. I think it actually adds to the fact that I can say NOM does NOT represent me, and I am one of the common people that they claim to represent. I am here, I love my husband, and I want my marriage license. And Louis, whether you want to believe I am married or not is your affair. I know that I am married, and you will not be allowed by the Constitution to stop that.

  • 244. Grace Day  |  August 20, 2010 at 1:41 am

    It's a Burger King jingle life,until one dies and then faces God for their day of judgment. Have it your way,have it your way. The bottomless barbeque pit is a real deal and it isn't a fun meal. Read the bible and see what God has to say about the gay way.

  • 245. Don  |  August 20, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Maybe you should read the bible and worry about the day you meet with God. You sound very judgemental and so you may want to read up on that as well. It's great that you read the bible, but be very careful when you start using the bible to fit your purpose, I'm pretty sure theres something in the book about that as well.

  • 246. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 20, 2010 at 1:52 am

    How about actually studying the bible within the context of the culture and society in which it was written, and actually find someone who can tell you the parts that have been taken out of it because they were not convenient for the translators, especially when those translators were trying to hide the fact that they themselves were gay?
    Also, if you are going to follow this part of the Levitical laws, which were aimed primarily at the Levitical priesthood, then are you also going to follow the Levitical laws WRT not eating shellfish, not mixing wool and linen in your garments, not wearing two garments together if one is made of linen and one of wool, abstaining from sex and even being in the same bed with your husband during your period, and all the others? Or are you cherry picking which laws you will obey because of the Pauline epistles, totally ignoring the parts where Paul himself says that this is only his opinion?

  • 247. Breaking the Silence  |  August 20, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Thank you for your sincere concern for the well-being of members of this community, Grace! A number of folks come here, spout something that can not be substantiated, and then claim that nothing more than the writing in an old book makes it so. One can only assume this, in some way, makes them feel better about their self-imposed dependency on their chosen belief system and perhaps fulfills a need to feel authoritative. It's good to see you rise above this behavior and come offering something real and meaningful. Thanks again!

  • 248. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 20, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Josiah, Michael may say he is only a law student, but it is very obvious that he has paid close attention in class. Hopefully you can ease him on over into posting here with us.

  • 249. Ann S.  |  August 20, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Josiah, I haven't really chimed in on this one before, as the discussion is so removed from my studies and my practice that I am not sure what I can contribute. I can say that Michael is probably more learned on this than I am, and that I agree we all need to be aware that an appellate court might not treat Judge Walker's findings of fact with the deference that most of us here in this forum think that they are due.

    I have to wonder if it is outside the realm of possibility that a higher court will even rule that no evidentiary hearing should have been held at all. I don't know; I'm just wondering.

    I think some of us here have vested Walker's ruling with more power than it may have. It is only an early step in a legal process that may take us to the SCOTUS (or may not) and may take years to resolve (or it may not). A district court ruling may get overturned, that is what the appeals process often does.

    We like to think that Walker's ruling conclusively demonstrates certain things. I think we need to bear in mind that the whole thing can be overruled. Courts aren't terribly predictable. This is why I always counsel my clients against litigation if at all possible.

    This is also why I fervently hope Judge Walker's ruling will be left to stand without further appeal based on the standing issue. Anything else jeopardizes this ruling, on which we all hang so much hope.

  • 250. Kathleen  |  August 20, 2010 at 4:58 am

    I'm having a low function day today, so not sure I should even be weighing in on this; hope I'm not too incoherent.

    My opinion, fwiw, is that your friend's take is pretty dead on. There are facts that are unambiguous as to their implications and others that are open to different implications. While the appellate court is quite deferential to a trial judge's finding of fact, the more there is a dispute as to the implications of certain facts, the more likely the appeals court is to take a hard look at them.

    In addition to the above consideration, there is the question of whether the evidence supports the FofFs. Part of Proponents' appeal is a claim–stated in broad terms–that some of Walker's findings of fact were completely unreasonable, given the evidence presented. I think this is something the appeals court will look at (if it takes the appeal). I can't recall the standard of review applied (maybe Trish knows – "abuse of discretion"?), but in general terms, the appellate court gives the trial judge the benefit of the doubt and it's only if the judge didn't meet a certain threshold of reasonableness that the appellate court will disagree with a FofF.

    In summary, on appeal: (1) no new evidence, with a few exceptions, (2) great deference to the trial judge's findings of fact but the FoF are not beyond dispute, and (3) conclusions of law reviewed de novo.

    There may be more someone else can add to this discussion.

  • 251. AndrewPDX  |  August 20, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Sorry to hear about your low function day… I'd offer you a spoon, as Fiona once pointed out, if I could. Will a virtual "BIG HUG" and a "THANK YOU" for all your hard work suffice?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 252. Ann S.  |  August 20, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Here's another virtual spoon. Is the plumbing problem still going on?

    Hugs to you.

  • 253. Kathleen  |  August 20, 2010 at 5:24 am

    Thanks, both of you. Yes, it does help.

    The plumbing — it's a mystery. Camera revealed no problem in line. Next step – have county scope from their end. I'm taking a break from it and just minimizing water use where possible. It's a good thing to own a house, right????

  • 254. Ann S.  |  August 20, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Sorry the plumbing problem persists. We are lucky (?) enough to live quite close to the main in the street, so ours was an easy problem to locate. Good luck with that.

  • 255. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 20, 2010 at 5:41 am

    Sorry you are having such problems with your plumbing, Kathleen. I, too, always believed that owning a house was a good thing. I have been wondering myself, especially when we seem to get hit with one thing after another. None of it costly in and of itself, but horrendous when added together.

  • 256. Paulie  |  August 20, 2010 at 6:59 am

    These are both very nice posts :) Thank you.

  • 257. Paulie  |  August 20, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Your complete answer is very kind and encouraging. Thank you. I may even apply for a writing spot :)

  • 258. Naughty Girl Guide  |  August 23, 2010 at 12:04 am

    Such interesting articles with interesting comments i had fun and learned some lesson as well while reading it. BTW, thanks for sharing.

  • 259. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 1:30 am

    Simply put, if all men were with men and all women were with women our whole human race would die out and become extinct because neither married "gay"couple is able to reproduce "after their kind"

  • 260. Ann S.  |  August 23, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Trace, if there is legal marriage for same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples, are you suddenly going to forsake any opposite-sex partner you may have, to become part of a same-sex couple?

  • 261. Don  |  August 23, 2010 at 2:36 am

    Amen Ann, Trace are you serious? So are you a man or a women? If you are a women and married, would your husband consider a man if marriage was legal? If your a man do you have deep seeded urges to be with a man? How the heck would legalizing same sex marriages cause a complete change to a homosexual world. Before you start writting things you should think first. Please put down the mouse and step away from the computer…..

  • 262. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 2:48 am

    I am a Male; original post #259.

    Unfortunately, most of the arguments concerning gay rights/marriage do not hit on the one true point – a burning depraved sexual desire hiding behind the US Constitution. We must be reminded that God – who made Man and Woman forbid men to lay with men and women to lay with women. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22). See also, (Romans 1:26, 27) for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly . . .
    Moreover, the US Constitution (First Amendment) which most of the recent argument hide behind (which is only 223 years old) had only 7 Original Articles, 10 Bill of Rights (Amendments) and 17 subsequent Amendments thereafter! All of these changes signify instability and “going with the flow”.

    Conversely, God, who instituted and established Ten Commandments, has not altered His law since Moses gave the law (over 4000 years ago). For I am the LORD, I change not . . . (Malachi 3:6); Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever (Hebrews 13:8) and Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven (Psalms 119:89).

    You can love someone dearly but it doesn't mean you must fulfill that love through “sexual gratification” or change your sexual orientation through transgender surgical procedure. It's against the law of nature. It’s simple logic. If we did not know we were going to be born, how can we determine our sex? People cannot determine their sexual orientation, God does. When you were born, God determined your sexual orientation by your external genitalia and internal organs. If you have a penis, a male reproductive organ, you're a male. If you have a vagina and reproductive internal organs, then you're a female. There simply is no confusion there. And we all know that God does not make mistakes. Therefore, people are the ones who are wrong.

    But God, who is rich in mercy, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:8) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    If you are confused about your sexual orientation (a man who thinks he should have been born a woman, or a woman who thinks she should have born been a man), accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. The bible says he shall save His people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21) . . . and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

    God Bless you by
    Christ Jesus the Lord

  • 263. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Don

    Read my post again. I said "our whole human race would die out and become extinct". Neither married “gay” couple (man and man or woman and woman) is able to reproduce “after their kind”.

    Try to be logical instead of angry.

  • 264. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Ann S.

    Obviously you and Don have an inablity to understand what I said. If I don't want our race to die out and become extinct, obviously I am against the legalization of gay marriage. would not divorce my spouse to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex.

  • 265. Breaking the Silence  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:05 am

    " When you were born, God determined your sexual orientation by your external genitalia and internal organs. If you have a penis, a male reproductive organ, you’re a male. If you have a vagina and reproductive internal organs, then you’re a female. There simply is no confusion there. And we all know that God does not make mistakes. Therefore, people are the ones who are wrong."

    How, exactly, do you explain all the real-live human beings born with one teste, one ovary, a vaginal opening and a clitoris of appropriate size for a newborn's penis?

    Regarding your religious take on things, I leave you with the words of P.Z. Myers:

    Your Jesus was just another in a long line of holy con artists. Why should I believe him over Mohammed, or Thor, or Krishna, or Buddha? That he did a tawdrier class of magic tricks during his brief life does not impress me, nor does the logic of blood sacrifice by another to atone for the imaginary sins of my many-times-great grandmother. He's already absent from my life (and from yours too, I will note: that you pretend to have an invisible friend doesn't make him real), and I'm feeling pretty good: a wonderful wife, three great kids, and a job I enjoy doing. If this is Hell, bring on more.

    Just to be clear, I had spent some time writing a moderate reply to post #259, Trace. But your subsequent piece illustrated that moderate reason has no place in any discussion with you. Good luck with your 2000 year old laws and "logic."

  • 266. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Trace, since only about 10% of the population is born gay, I really don't think you have anything to worry about with regard to the possible extinction of the human race. You are using the same straw man argument that the rest of the bigoted and/or uneducated wingnuts use. Or is this Brian Brownshirt using an alias?

  • 267. AndrewPDX  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:14 am

    Alas, as much as I wish that guy down the hall would be interested in playing for my team, it's not going to happen.

    The illogical conclusion that allowing two loving committed adults to get married would somehow turn the entire population of the world gay… it's just ridiculous.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 268. Breaking the Silence  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:17 am

    Ann, Don, come on… it's simple. If you want marriage equality, you want the human race extinct. Sheesh. :P

    Wonderful observation(s) as usual, Richard. A "Trace" of Brian Brownshirt, maybe?

  • 269. Ann S.  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:19 am

    Trace, obviously you are carrying your so-called logic to a ridiculous extreme. The human race is not likely to become extinct unless all opposite-sex couples cease procreating. Are you going to do that because marriage for same-sex couples is going to become legal?

    If you intend to stay in your opposite-sex marriage and procreate, as you say, then the human race is not going to become extinct.

    Obviously you have an inability to understand what I said.

  • 270. AndrewPDX  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:20 am

    Glad to hear that you have your interpretation of scriptures. Please remember that not all churches have the same interpretations — that's why we have all the various denominations. What makes your particular interpretation any better than another theological scholar's?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 271. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:35 am

    First off, Trace, you really need to remember also that we are talking about Civil Law and the Constitution. We are asking for the LEGAL recognition of our commitment to our spouses. And for you to confuse the definition of gender dysphoria with the definition of homosexual is an insult to more people than I have time to enumerate.
    I am gay. I am a man, and I am NOT confused. However, you obviously are, because you have bought into all of the redacted, misinterpreted, mistranslated, cherry picked passages that everyone in the Fred Phelps camp uses to try and exterminate us.
    first off, the laws presented in Leviticus are aimed primarily at the Levitical priesthood, thus the name given to the book (Leviticus), and those things that are called toevah are with reference to ritual cleanliness, not the modern definition of sin as it has also been mistranslated.
    Secondly, most of the translations that are commonly used are based on redactions of the original texts; redactions that were ordered by those who ordered the redactions to hide their own sexual orientations from those who would murder them out of the same misunderstandings that you are spouting here.
    Also, going back to Leviticus, most of the things in the laws that were considered toevah had to do with pagan rituals wherein those who were not born gay were forced to lie with the temple prostitutes of the same gender in order to appease the local fertility gods and goddesses and ensure both a bountiful crop in the fields and in the family lineage. these are the types of things that were an abomination, not a loving, committed relationship.
    Also, if you are going to refer to Levitical law, then you really should obey ALL of it. This means that you should never eat any shellfish, as that is toevah. You should never eat pork, you should never wear wool with linen, either as a blend or in two garments worn together, and you should only have indentured servants and release them from their term of indenture after six years. Also, while you have those indentured servants, you are to treat them as if they were your own family members, making sure that they have proper food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. But I would bet the farm that you consider those things to have been done away with when Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth was crucified, don't you.
    And you are also forgetting that he himself said that there are some who were born gay, some who were castrated by men, and some who are celibate for the kingdom of G-d. Once the first Century Catholics got hold of this, they began misinterpreting this to read eunuchs, even though in the original koine Greek, the words that were used were three different words which led to the root word for homosexual, castration and celibate, in that order. So, if you are going to believe that this particular dead Jew is the Son of G-d and the same as G-d, that means that you consider him to be the original equipment manufacturer for the human race. If that is so, and he has stated that some of us are born gay, then why don't you believe him on that? Are you that hung up on ignoring those parts of the Pauline letters where Paul himself says that what he is writing is his own opinion, not fact, not doctrine?
    And before you start in on me, I will tell you now that I am a Jew, I have studied extensively in Aramaic, Hebrew, Chaldean and koine Greek, along with the history and cultures of the lands of the Torah, which is more than you have done, I am sure. You are doing nothing more than spouting the same rhetoric that is used to hold the sheeple in line and increase the donations in the collection plate on the wrong day. the Sabbath has never changed. It is still from Sundown on Friday to Sundown on Saturday.

  • 272. Don  |  August 23, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Trace you are correct there is no need for anger, this is open discussion of which you have very little actual logic to stand on. I'm getting happier each day that passes because equality is coming very soon. I look forward to the day that I can say "my spouse". Now drop the mouse and go procreate so the human race will continue, we are counting on you.

  • 273. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 4:04 am

    Jesus said, upon this rock will I build my church (singular) (Matthew 16:18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The various church(es) denominations are the result of people giving their own viewpoint of the Scriptures which clearly and emphatically state: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation II Peter 1:20.
    God has made known the mystery of the Gospel to his saints (Colossians 1:26-28) Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: hom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus . . .
    (Colassian 1:18) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Thus, we see there is only one church, not many as some people erroneously believe. God has to make known the mystery of the gospel to everyone who declares Jesus Christ as Lord. When He does, all those who believe in Jesus will speak as one. 1 Corinthians 1:10 (Whole Chapter)
    Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. I pray that God opens the eyes of all who believe concerning His Word.

    Amen

  • 274. Ann S.  |  August 23, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Trace, do you have the ability to understand the concept of separation of church and state?

  • 275. Breaking the Silence  |  August 23, 2010 at 4:12 am

    I'd like to caveat that in my haste to make a point earlier, I should have at least placed the words referring to certain body parts in quotations. I did not mean to imply which they should be considered to be, nor did I mean to imply what "appropriate size" for either/any is. I apologize if that came off as uninformed or insensitive phrasing. Hopefully it was clear that the point was that gender, sexuality and the body are not as neatly categorized and of such limited scope as Mr. Trace would argue, and that his stance on the issue is hooey.

  • 276. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 5:00 am

    I'm so sorry you are offened. But whether it is civil law or not, the background of all law must be MORAL. And all humans have a moral obligation to do that which is good and right in accordance with the One who created us, because we certainly did not create ourselves. Therefore, and it is obvious, since we cannot govern ouselves on a very basic idea of what is considered right by God's viewpoint (THE WORD), We need God to give us guidance with respect to that which is right. If not, every man will do that which is right "in his own eyes".

    Peace

  • 277. AndrewPDX  |  August 23, 2010 at 5:15 am

    @Trace,
    <cite>And all humans have a moral obligation to do that which is good and right in accordance with the One who created us, because we certainly did not create ourselves. </cite>
    Exactly… I was Created by God as a gay man. I have no clue why, but He made me this way for a purpose. As you said, I did not create myself this way.

    As such, it is my morality that demands that we treat each other as equals, under a God who loves all of His unique creations.

    Thank you for understanding that being gay is not a choice but is part of how we were Created.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 278. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Remember, Sodom and Gomorrah and the reason for its destruction. That whole civilization was destroyed by God for the very reason legalization is being sought today. Because men wanted to "know" men and women wanted to "know" women in a way that displeased the Lord.

  • 279. Ann S.  |  August 23, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Trace, that's according to some religion's holy book. Not mine. Not the government's.

    You obviously lack the ability to understand that this is not a theocracy.

  • 280. Kathleen  |  August 23, 2010 at 5:57 am

    The Bible and a belief in God is not the only source of morality.

  • 281. AndrewPDX  |  August 23, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Actually, I believe that most scholars believe that the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't homosexuality, but inhospitality. The men of Sodom wanted to violate the sacred welcome that Lot had provided to the travelers (angels in disguise).

    Richard W-J, can you and BZ shed some light on how this Old Testament story is correctly viewed by learned scholars?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 282. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Much as you are doing by going directly against the words of the very rabbi you claim to follow. You know, those words about judge not lest ye be judged? And how about loving your neighbor as you love yourself? Your posts make it so very obvious that you have no ability to think for yourself, and you probably have never even read the bible, only listened to what someone told you as you slept in the pew with your eyes open so you could fool them. You probably think that Sarah Palin, Rush LImbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Fred Phelps are all heroes, don't you?
    And to repeat the question another poster asked you: Are you aware of the doctrine in our Constitution regarding the separation of church and state? That little section that states you can believe whatever you wish, but the laws cannot be written to impose your system of beliefs on anyone else. And yet, that is exactly what you and others like you are just dying to do. Well, sir, if you desire a theocracy, why don't you move somewhere and start one?

  • 283. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 6:56 am

    @AndrewPDX: You are correct that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality, including the fact that since the strangers went first to Lot's house, it was Lot's duty to take them on a tour of the town, not the town's right or duty to come trying to break into Lot's house and drag the strangers out of that house. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah got impatient, and that impatience led them to violate the codes of hospitality, which also included a time of rest and relaxation for newly arrived visitors before being shown around.
    Of course, so much of this has been lost by those who choose to go along with the redactions, misinterpretations, mistranslations, and misquotes that have become so ingrained in the current versions of scriptures thanks to the followers of Saul of Tarsus who were trying to help conceal the truth about the thorn in his side. And no, it was probably not being born gay, but probably Crohn's disease, as it is now known. In that time, it was fatal nearly 100% of the time. In those cases where it was not immediately fatal, it was very disabling.

  • 284. Breaking the Silence  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Yes, for a little under 3 minutes regarding the whole holy book/supernatural being as only valid source of morality assertion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oQJCJedmeo

    Pls. note; sarcasm/slights inserted in video not mine.

  • 285. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:04 am

    AndrewPDX

    When you were born, I'm quite sure the doctor said it's a boy or a male. I do not believe the doctor or your parents, for that matter said, it's GAY. Furthermore, according to social viewpoints "sexual orientation" is a CHOICE made by people. Women who are clearly women "DECIDING TO BE MEN" or masculine and men "DECIDING" TO BE WOMEN" or effeminant. God's CHOICE was clear when you were born. God made you a male OR a femal evidenced by the genitalia you were BORN with.
    Please do not blame God for making people gay. That is a person's choice to go against NATURE.

  • 286. Kathleen  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:12 am

    You're really confused about the differences between sex, gender, gender identification, gender roles and sexual orientation. These are all distinctly different concepts.

  • 287. Alan E.  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:13 am

    If you are interested in MORALITY, then I suggest you go take an ethics course at your local college. You might even be able to go for free if you just monitor.

  • 288. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:14 am

    You are so confused. Or are you hiding something from yourself and lashing out at us to cover it up? After all, you are definitely showing all the classic signs of "Me doth think the lady protests too much!"
    And if sexual orientation is a "choice" as you so vehemently and argumentatively claim it is, answer this question:
    When did you choose to be straight?

  • 289. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Remember Andrew, Paul was a learned scholar as well and did not have the SPIRITUAL revelation of the Old Testament until he met Jesus Christ of Nazereth on the Road to Damascus. Until then the mystery of the Gospel was hidden from every man. Jesus Christ "Shined the Light" on Paul. The He used Paul to bring SPIRITUAL revelation to "those who believe". Those who do not believe on Jesus as the Son of God, will not receive the understanding that comes only through faith in His Name.

    Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
    1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

  • 290. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:21 am

    I am not confused. There is Male and there is Female. There is no more.

  • 291. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:24 am

    That is where you are wrong. When I was studying in the Health Care field, I read a report in the AMA Journal about a man who was born with both sets of genitalia and a fully functional set of reproductive organs for both genders. He was literally a hermaphrodite. he made the medical journals because unlike most hermaphrodites, he was fully fertile and could have gotten himself pregnant. I do believe your name is not Trace, but Shirley Phelps-Roper.

  • 292. Trace  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:26 am

    God made the choice when he created me and gave me the identifying parts. Believe me, I am not lashing out, neither am I angry. But I feel sorry for people who don't realize the grave danger they're in by promoting that which the Lord God is against and, in His Mercy, wants to correct, if only they would believe His Word on the subject.

    Peace

  • 293. Alan E.  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:33 am

    I'm sorry you feel that way, bless your heart.

  • 294. AndrewPDX  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:37 am

    @Trace, your illogic knows no bounds.

    The doctor also didn't say 'it is left-handed'… but I am. Did my parents know when I was born if I would have my mom's musical abilities, or my dad's lack thereof? No… but that is still part of my NATURE.

    The 'social viewpoints' that it is a choice are wrong. Study after study after study have shown this. I am what I am, the way God made me. That is NATURE. Trying to hide that, that is to reject the gift that God gave me, and that would be a SIN.

    God made me with brown eyes.
    God made me with brown hair.
    God made me with no musical ear worth mentioning.
    God made me a leftie.
    God made me gay.

    I am sorry that you are blinded by your own fear and hate that you cannot believe in a God that can Love all His creations. I shall pray that you finally come to the light before it is too late.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 295. JonT  |  August 23, 2010 at 7:38 am

    'Furthermore, according to social viewpoints “sexual orientation” is a CHOICE made by people.'

    Uh huh. According to fact, the above statement is wrong. Given that the basis of your argument is so clearly incorrect, there is no point in discussing the matter with you further.

    See how that works? :)

  • 296. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 8:05 am

    Then why don't you work on things that actually matter, like going home and working on your own marriage? After all, if your marriage is in such sorry shape that the only satisfaction you can get out of life is by coming to a pro-equality website and harassing people by spouting the perversion of the scriptures that you have been taught all your life, you need to rethink your priorities.
    If your marriage is so weak that you have to prevent me from having mine, and to try and sugar coat it by repeatedly clinging to some twisted version of the scriptures that has not been right since the day Saul of Tarsus got hold of it and got his very misogynistic views into it by wording his opinions and drunken ravings in such a way that centuries of people have bought into it, beginning with the Catholic Church, you should really look deep within yourself and see why your faith is so weak that you cannot even look at things from a logical, sane point of view, or even consider that your viewpoint may not be the proper one, then you really need to see a professional. One who is not a member of the Phelps Family and is not affiliated with FOX "News."
    And no, that does not include the loonies at FotF or AFA, either.

  • 297. Breaking the Silence  |  August 23, 2010 at 8:31 am

    "…very misogynistic views… drunken ravings…that centuries of people have bought into it, beginning with the Catholic Church". That explains A LOT. I hope you never grow weary of being thanked for your ever-enlightening posts, Richard. :)

  • 298. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 8:40 am

    @ Breaking the Silence. Like Kathleen, Ann S., Trish, Carpool Cookie, and our legal eagles with their legal knowledge and experience, and the posts today from Shannon and Chris from NCLR, who are so willing to share what they have learned, I feel that if I hold my knowledge inside, it does nobody any good. And even when I am answering trolls, I try to remain calm, and I try to answer as rationally as possible, because we never know who may be lurking here who is on the fence and is trying to actually do the right thing. Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. And I have also learned quite a bit from you since you stopped lurking and began posting here. As others here have said, you are a valued part of the P8TT family.

  • 299. Alan E.  |  August 23, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

  • 300. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2011 at 5:34 am

    "we don’t give rights to mob rule. What if we put slavery to a vote in the South?"

    subscribing way late catching up &…..exactly..nor would I want to be put in the position of such a vote….last thing to point out….good job squashing a certain someone someone in the comments above …Bible thumper always = Illogical & Irrational FAIL!!!!…..<3…Ronnie

  • 301. Colon Cleanse Weight Loss&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Colon Cleanse Reviews…

    [...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]…

  • 302. tiny paige anal&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    sexy dildo girls…

    [...]the time out to take a look at the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]…

  • 303. free website&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    The best website…

    [...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]…

  • 304. Clearfield Utah&hellip  |  July 12, 2011 at 11:04 pm

    Clearfield Utah…

    [...]we like to honor other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us, by linking to them. Below are some sites worth checking out[...]…

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!