Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Brian Fitzpatrick :: Townhall.com Columnist
Media Have a Proposition for Calif. Churches: You're Bigots
by Brian Fitzpatrick
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The liberal media worked overtime against California’s marriage amendment, Proposition 8, which the voters passed 52 to 48 percent.   After the Nov. 4 vote, the media quickly jettisoned professional objectivity – and respect for democracy – to spin a yarn about the pain of victimhood.  Now they are working to elevate angry gay protesters who are vilifying opponents and targeting churches.

As reported by CMI’s Colleen Raezler, ABC, NBC and CBS aired a total of 13 news stories on Prop. 8 in the five days following the vote.  Six of the stories, nearly half, emphasized the reactions of the roughly 18,000 same-sex couples whose California “marriages” have been invalidated.  Only four Prop. 8 supporters made it on air, compared to 15 opponents.  None of the networks could spare even 15 seconds of precious air time to explain why keeping intact the foundational institution of human society might be a good idea. 

The worst example we’ve seen of TV reporting on Prop. 8 protests came from the local CBS station in Palm Springs, Calif.  On the grounds of City Hall, furious “gay” protesters knocked a Christian cross out of an elderly woman’s hands and stomped on it.   The woman remained calm and collected.  When reporter Kimberly Chang tried to interview her, protesters screamed and blocked the camera with their signs.  Hilariously, the station identified the victimized woman as “Phyllis Burgess, Involved in Prop 8 Rally Altercation.” That’s like saying Poland was involved in a border altercation with Nazi Germany.  In a masterpiece of moral equivalence, CBS anchor Kris Long told viewers, “There’s a lot of anger and a lot of hate, quite honestly, on both sides.” 

Print journalists have more freedom, time and space than their broadcast colleagues, so they should have produced a more balanced account of the Prop. 8 controversy.  They did, for roughly 48 hours. 

Initial press reports last Wednesday and Thursday included statements by Prop. 8 supporters and the vital fact that a 70-30 majority of African-American voters pushed Prop. 8 over the top. By Friday, Nov. 7, however, news reports focused on “civil rights” street theater by fuming Prop. 8 protesters.  The villains of the piece, Catholics, evangelical Protestants and especially Mormons, no longer were allowed to explain their views or even to defend themselves against ugly charges of bigotry.  The pivotal support of black voters quickly dropped out of the story.    

Newsrooms apparently followed the lead of the editorial pages.  A Nov. 6 New York Times editorial condemned “the ugly outcome of these ballot fights,” referring to votes in three states – California, Florida and Arizona – to uphold one man-one woman marriage.  According to the Times, “the immediate impact of Tuesday’s rights-shredding exercise is to underscore the danger of allowing the ballot box to be used to take away people’s fundamental rights.”

In this editorial, the Times broke new ground in political philosophy.  Who needs all that Founding Fathers blather about government requiring the consent of the governed when razor-thin 4-3 judicial majorities are creating new human “rights?” Maybe America needs some new rules regarding court-concocted “rights.” When a court decides to override public opinion and thumb its nose at the moral order created by nature’s God, shouldn’t we require at least a 5-2 majority?  But I digress.

The Chicago Sun-Times editorial board chimed in on Nov. 7, describing popular support for one man-one woman marriage as “discrimination and nonsense.”  The New York Times ran seven letters to the editor on Prop. 8 – six by opponents.

On Saturday, Nov. 9, the Los Angeles Times posted a story headlined “Anti-Prop. 8 protests spring up in California.”  A photo showed angry protesters waving signs accusing Mormons of “hatred,” and proclaiming “I am a second class citizen.”  The Times quoted several speakers at an anti-Prop. 8 rally, including a woman who called traditional marriage supporters “bigots, bigots, bigots.”  Ignoring minimal standards of decency, not to mention journalist ethics, the Times gave Prop. 8 supporters no opportunity defend their honor.

A Nov. 10 AP/New York Times story, “In California, More Protests Over a Vote On Marriage,” focused on 1,000 protesters gathered Sunday outside Saddleback Church, the evangelical Protestant megachurch pastored by Rick Warren.  The story described protesters as “advocates of equal rights for gay people.”  A “volunteer” from the Human Rights Campaign, a gay pressure group, accused Saddleback of spreading “misinformation” and telling “obvious lies.” 

The reporter didn’t try very hard to allow Saddleback to respond: “A message for comment left at the church’s main office, which was closed on Sunday, was not immediately returned.”

A secular reporter can be forgiven for not knowing that Christian church offices are usually closed on Sundays.  But shouldn’t he have learned, somewhere along the line, that churches themselves are open for business?  The reporter was on the Saddleback campus.  If he had bothered to peek through the windows, he surely would have seen a few people milling about.  Did it not occur to this intrepid soul to walk into the church and ask Pastor Warren to reply? 

Perhaps he was too busy bonding with those angry protesters.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Brian Fitzpatrick, a writer, editor, and commentator on political and cultural issues, is the Senior Editor at Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute.

Be the first to read Brian Fitzpatrick's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Where is our Voice???
By God- I wish we could bankrupt these liberal media outlets!

Why do we allow this?

The Gay Mafia Agenda Is Shared by the...
...media. This not about equal rights or even about marriage. It's all about obliterating all vestiges of stigma from homsexuality.

Not content to have rights afforded thru civil unions, the aggressive gay agenda wants legal marriage so they can affirm gay sex beginning in the primary grades. While we once had Dick, Jane, Spot, Fuzzy Mom and Dad, the gays want primers with Dick, Jan, Dad and Dad.

The CA legislature tried to pass Harvey Milk Day and Coming Out Day in the higher grades even tho homsexuality has been considered sin by Jews, Muslims and Christians for millennia.

When Gavin Newsome performed the lesbian wedding of a first grade teacher in front of her class, parents pushed back. Most parents voted to teach their own children, rather than allowing them to be indoctrinated by the state.

Ex-Tex: Bingo
The whole goal is to shut up conservative/religious voices. The left's propaganda machine owns the schools, the entertainment industry and the MSM. And, of course, the judges.

I spite of that, the people spoke in 2000 with Prop 22. That was overturned by judicial fiat. The people spoke again, and are about to be shut up again.

I know a Mormon family who donated $10,000. Since such donations are public record and they have recieved death threats. So much for the First Amendment.

Monique: Bararck Has Said He Is..
..AGAINST same-sex marriage.

That good Catholic boy, Joe Biden, was against it too until he went on the Ellen Degeneres Show and said he was for it.

The gays need to be protesting Barack.

People of California
Well, the judges in your state think they can legislate from the bench. Everone who voted to ban gay marriage should get outside the court house. How would they like to deal with serveral thousand angry citizens? How about serveral hundred thousand angry citizens? The state and the country need to know that the majority of Americans think, believe, and feel that homosexuallity is disgusting, immoral, sick, and psycholocially and physically damaging to all people, especially children.

If the Judges Overturn This Proposition
... people need to gather at the Sacramento State Capitol in VERY large numbers--not because homosexuality is bad (it's legal, BTW), but because judicial fiat is a serious danger to our republic.

Yes, courts need to protect the rights of all citizens, but the right to a same-sex marriage is not found in the constitution--even tho the judges miraculously "found" it.

If gays just received a marriage license, most people could not care less. But the gay mafia will not leave it at that. They shut down Catholic Adoptions in Mass, taught littel kids in public school w/o parental notification in Mass, won a suit against the San Diego Muslim (women) gynos who would not inseminate a single (Lesbian) woman. The gynos offered to teach the lesbian who to do it herself--or refer her to non-Muslim gynos.

But, no. The agenda is intended to force everybody to accept homosexuality. Remember the evangelical wedding photographers who refused to photo a guy couple in romantic poses. They were sued? I don't believe it's been settled yet. Imagine what this is costing the photographers.

Churches fear that gays will bring suit against churches re: sermons and weddings. We could debate the rights of churches, but you have to admit that absolute acceptance in all areas of American life is what the gays are going for.

Churches and believers have the right to stand up for their rights over social-engineering judges.


TIME TO STAND UP
FOR TO LONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE STOOD ON THE SIDE LINE OR SAT IN THEIR HOMES THROWING THINGS AND SCREAMING AT THEIR TV'S WHILE THE RADICAL LEFT HAVE TAKEN TO THE STREETS IN PROTEST FROM ABORTION, TO GAY RIGHTS, TO IMMIGRATION. WE HAVE ALLOWED OUR COUNTRY AND THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SILENCED BY MEN AND WOMEN IN BLACK ROBES. WE WATCH AS ILLEGALS IN THIS COUNTRY HIT THE STREETS AND DEMAND RIGHTS THEY DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND. THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. WE HAVE GAYS WHO ARE TRYING TO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHEN THEY DO NOT GET WHAT THEY WANT THEY GO TO THE COURTS. ONCE AGAIN THE VOICES OF THE AMERICAN VOTER HAS SPOKEN AND WHAT DO THEY DO. BECOME VIOLENT, CALL NAMES, ATTACK CHURCHES AND ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION. SO ANYONE WHO MAY HAVE SYMPATHY FOR THEIR CAUSE IS TURNED OFF BY THE VIOLENCE AND HATE. SO DO I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HIT THE STREETS

YES YES YES YES BECAUSE WHEN WE GO TO THE POLLS AND VOTE OUR VOICE WE ARE DISREGARDED BY THE COURTS. THEY KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO. DO I THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BECOME COMPLACANT WITH THE FORCE OF THOSE WHO WANT THEIR WAY AND TO FORCE UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEIR VIEWS

YES YES YES. IT IS GOING TO TAKE A REVOLUTION TO TAKE THIS NATION BACK. WHAT WE ALL SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR US. WE DO NOT WORK FOR THEM THEY WORK FOR US AND IT IS TIME THAT WE REMIND THEM OF THAT AND STOP THE GROUPS IN THIS NATION TELLING THE POLITICANS YOU OWE ME AND YOU WILL DO WHAT I SAY OR WE WILL NOT SUPPORT OR FUND RAISE FOR YOU.

IT IS TIME TO STOP THE INJUSTICE IN THIS NATION AGAINST THOSE OF US IN THIS NATION WHO LIVE OUR LIFES, WORK PAY TAXES TO BE PUSHED AROUND BY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO FORCE THEIR VIEWS AND BELIEFS ON US.

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND I WILL HIT THE STREETS TO PROTEST FOR OUR NATION

If the Judges Overturn This Proposition
... people need to gather at the Sacramento State Capitol in VERY large numbers--not because homosexuality is bad (it's legal, BTW), but because judicial fiat is a serious danger to our republic.

Yes, courts need to protect the rights of all citizens, but the right to a same-sex marriage is not found in the constitution--even tho the judges miraculously "found" it.

If gays just received a marriage license, most people could not care less. But the gay mafia will not leave it at that. They shut down Catholic Adoptions in Mass, taught littel kids in public school w/o parental notification in Mass, won a suit against the San Diego Muslim (women) gynos who would not inseminate a single (Lesbian) woman. The gynos offered to teach the lesbian who to do it herself--or refer her to non-Muslim gynos.

But, no. The agenda is intended to force everybody to accept homosexuality. Remember the evangelical wedding photographers who refused to photo a guy couple in romantic poses. They were sued? I don't believe it's been settled yet. Imagine what this is costing the photographers.

Churches fear that gays will bring suit against churches re: sermons and weddings. We could debate the rights of churches, but you have to admit that absolute acceptance in all areas of American life is what the gays are going for.

Churches and believers have the right to stand up for their rights over social-engineering judges.


NO MEDIA THE SAME CONSTITUTION
HOW CAN THE MEDIA ENJOY PROTECTION FROM THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND NOT ALLOW THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA FROM HAVING THE SAME SUCH FREEDOMS? WHY WHEN THE PREJUDICE IS LIBERAL THERE IS NOT AN OUTCRY FOR PROTECTION FROM THE
CIVIL DISOBEDIENT? THE ACLU, NAACP, LULAC, OR NONE OF THEIR PARTNERS IN OPPRESSION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. ESPECIALLY TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VOTE OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. IT IS NOT THE MEDIA JOB TO WRITE ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. NEITHER SHOULD THE MEDIA NOR ANY ENTITY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DESTROY THE RIGHTS OF ANY CITIZEN IN THE UNITED STATES.

WE CAN EX-tex
START CONTACTING THE SPONSORS AND BOYCOTT THE SPONSORS AND GET THE WORD OUT HOW THE MEDIA LIED TO AMERICA.

THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IF WE START HITTING THE SPONSORS OF THE MEDIA AND BOYCOTTING IS THE ONLY WAY. IF THEY HAVE NO SPONSORS THEY HAVE NO MONEY

It ain't over yet
Prop 22 passed 8 years ago with a 61% majority, Prop 8 passed with 52%. Almost a 10% difference in less than 10 years.

Like so many other social issues, the right is once again on the wrong side of history.

Information?
Does anyone know of any good sites to read up on what gives a church tax exempt status? I'm finding a few, but I'm still not clear.

I think the loophole for the LDS is that they claim to be defending marriage as opposed to joining a political movement.

This one seems a bit too shrill to be believed:

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

These looks better, but vague:

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/churchp olitics.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/campaig ning.htm

Any links with more information would be greatly appreciated. I'd LOVE to see them loose their status over this.


gay marriage
The people have spoken. If the courts overturn the people's vote then it is the end of democracy. People must fight back. This is our country and our constitution. Homosexuality is an abomination and that is how it must be viewed. If the yellow neck lefty liberals want to call us bigots or racists then so be it. And, who cares?

The media is protected by the very...
...blanket of freedom that they despise (the Constitution).

A homosexula man and I have the same rights; I cannot marry a man and neither can he. That means our rights are equal...what a concept. Gays want special rights. And before you go off on the "being able to marry the one you love" crap, Christy Brinkley and Kathy Ireland never gave me a second look...not that they know I even exist ;-(

so you are saying
that the media is biased?

the first amendment
needs to be repealed. what would we lose? the right of free liberal speech. lets repeal the first amendment.

Will the real bigots please stand up.
One of the characteristics of a bigot is a strong intolerance for those with differing opinions. Gauging the coverage of the antics of these protesters, it seems the more bigotted folks are the homosexual fascists. Death threats? Accosting little old Christian ladies? They're behaving more like skinheads. They seem to forget that they have EXACTLY the same rights as heterosexuals - they can marry a person of the opposite sex or choose to have a civil union with someone of the same or opposite sex.

THE MEDIA LOVES TO SPEW EVIL!
THE MEDIA ONLY LIKES THE ELLEN DEGENERATE TYPES!FOLKS WE NEED TO TAKE A STAND AND LET THE MEDIA KNOW WE ARE TIRED OF THEIR LIBERAL BIAS!AND I DONT MEAN BREAK THE LAW,WE JUST NEED TO LET THEM KNOW WE ARE SICK OF THEM ALWAYS SIDING WITH THE LIBERALS!THE RADICL LIBERALS ARE ALWAYS OUT OF CONTROL!WE NEED TO BUY ABC!

ridiculous bias
It is curious that reporters in reporting on people affected by the gay marriage ban focused on homosexuals affected by the ban. Why didn't they interview any of the heterosexual people who were in danger of marrying people of the same sex if such marriages were not made illegal.

Why did they not quote any of the heterosexual couples who would not have been able to guarantee that their neighbors were not married to people of the same sex without this amendment.

Apparently they didn't even interview any of the many times married heterosexuals who were in danger of being made to look bad by same sex neighbors with longer lasting marriages.

Truly outrageous.

bryce1
Re-read the article. It's Obama supporters who "pushed Prop 8 over the top" voting 70-30 in favor. Thus making them, in your words, "on the wrong side of history." Proving blacks are not liberal, merely a liberal cause.
So, go organize a demonstration against Louis Farrakan, Al Sharpton, Rev Wright, et al. I'll watch as they castrate you.

Now Both Sides Are On The Idiot Express!
Honestly, I would usually expect this kind of idiocy to come from the religious right, but these gay activists aren't really making themselves look at least remotely dignified, either. And the irony was that it was expected that black people would be rioting in the streets, even if Obama was elected or defeated. Who knew that gay people would be, if you excuse the pun, "flaming"? (As in torching cars and buildings, that is, not the double-entendre version.) And these accusations of bigotry against Mormons and Catholics (as much as I may dislike their teachings and advocacy for their respective agendas for public policy) is totally unwarranted, probably even more so than the Mormons and Catholics' paranoia that their religious liberties would be in peril because gays would allegedly force them to defy their beliefs. The truth is that Gays and Lesbian couples can already get the same benefits as married couples without it infringing on religious beliefs. If that means counterfeit marriage, so be it. At least it doesn't have to force a church or synagogue to participate in this matter.

Basically, I'm trying to have my Boston Cream Pie and eat it too. Actually, I'm more in the mood for Drake's Coffee Cake. I wonder why both sides can't talk this over civilly over a cup of coffee and Drake's Coffee Cake?

Media Have a Proposition for Calif. Chur
Would it make any difference if none of these people against homosexual marriage were not Christian or affiliated with religion in any way?

What if 65% of America just didn’t want to give up the institution of heterosexual marriage to homosexuals?

Do you think that it would defuse there bigotry and hatred toward religion.

What if there were no religions, just people who didn’t think certain actions were ethical or right.

What if I taught my child that it was never right to lie, and they went to school and the teacher told them that lying was acceptable in certain circumstance, and it was part of there curriculum to teach that?
Do you think opponents of my beliefs should have the right to tell me that I have no business or right interfering in the schools policies?

This is where I and some differ on issues.

I’ve been told by some groups who I won’t name, that as long as what I do does not produce harm or injury to your person that I should be free to do what ever I want, and if you don’t like it, you can leave.

I’m told that I don’t have to see, hear, or be around anyone whom I don’t like.
That is liberty!

That sounds great in principle, but in practice, when you disregard respect for what I believe or feel you are abusing my liberty, and when I disrespect what you feel or believe, I’m abusing your liberty. So, who leaves? What if we both decide that we aren’t going to leave?

We will never reach that utopia where you can do everything that you want while I do everything that I want at the same time without us getting in each others way and eventually violate each others liberty.

It’s high time for homosexuals to create there own form of institution if they want to marry. They are never going to get acceptance from the majority regardless of there intimidation.

We know and they know what this is all about.

Terms like abomination

You know, it really is not helpful to use terms like Homosexuality is an abomination. Just for the record, so are 50 thousand other acts that mankind performs. If you can't cite any better reason then that from a book written thousands of years ago you need to close up shop.

Homosexuals are here by the grace of god. They were created by the sane creator and as all true believers will tell you, they were created with a purpose. That purpose may not be understood by all.

God blessed mankind with free will. We are free to accept all of God's creations for what they are or destroy them. We can pick and choose our destiny. We can even choose which of God's commandments we want to obey.

I oppose redefining the term marriage to include same sex couples. I don't oppose gays.

Marriage Equality WILL BE!
Please. It's not over yet people. Not by a long shot.

CA only NARROWLY approved prop 8 and if you don't think the Supremes of CA will have more than a few problems with putting the fundamental rights of a minority up to a popular vote, you are dreaming. Even if they don't, there's NOTHING keeping gays and their allies from putting up another prop to invalidate this prop.

Full fledged gay marriage started without any noise this week in CT and it's expected to happen LEGISLATIVELY in both New York state and New Jersey within the next year, seeing as how there are little or no GOPers in their state legislatures any more.

In polls, something like 80% of N.Y. state residents FAVOR full marriage equality for gays, so I don't see any ammendment gathering any steam there.

CA will not be outdone by New York, and I figure that if the courts don't throw out prop 8, the people will in the near future. The population that is against gay marriage is much older than the pop that either supports or is indifferent to it.

The younger generation has grown up in a gay inclusive/positive pop culture. They simply don't have the unwarranted hangups over the issue that their grandparents may have.

The passing of time is the conservatives worst enemy on this front.

Get ready, at the end of the day...you will indeed have to share this world FULLY with all that it has to offer, with ALL Americans, not just those who live their lives within the context of conservative Chrisianity. Sorry...

BudBud
Equality is not the problem. Redefining the meaning of others peoples marriage is.

If you are free to redefine my marriage then I am free to redefine Catholic Priets who molest little boyes as "Gays who like young boys."

Pro Prop 8 doesn't equal Hate
The MSM support for the idea that anyone who is opposed to same sex marriage is full of hate shows how leftwing they are. The arguments FOR proposition 8 were always about the fact that opposite sex marriages can produce children and that marriage is about children== not just love. People in same sex relationships have been accorded the ability to enter in to domestic partnerships with most of the rights of marriage. The media, IMHO, deliberately ignored that fact in their coverage-- to the point that PRop 8 supporters had to keep reminding people of that fact. Many opponents of Prop 8 implied that they could not have any legal rights absent the defeat of proposition 8-- they knew this was not true, that California's domestic partnership law made that possible for them. So-- here is the question very few opponents of prop 8 will answer-- why do you need "marriage" when you have domestic partnerships? Isn't it really approval of your lifestyle you are looking for? Same sex partnerships cannot, on their own, produce children. That is a significant difference and has been held to be in a number of court cases. The fact that many voters recognize that fact does not make them bigots. We need to reinforce the idea of marriage as existing not just for mutual companionship but also tp create a safe and loving environment for children.

Spoiled Brats Don't Get Their Way
"The proof is in the pudding." What more proof do we need to illustrate the misbehavior of gay activists? They not only throw a tantrum, they throw a riot, discriminate against, label people bigots who are protecting their children and children’s children from the corrupt addictions, of their proposed moral bankrupt values. There is nothing beautiful or good in what they want to pull off.

They redefine not only marriage, but also every moral ethical value to their lowest denominator so that they can practice their lifestyle. They want to normalize every form of sexual perversion because of their sexual polymorphic behaviors. Brutes they are, unthankful, degenerates who are themselves exploited by the Pornographic, Condom, and illegal drug industries. They hold you prisoners to addiction, exploiting your bodies and photographs, while fostering abuse, misery, disease and premature death as a reward.

Now we can see truly the problem of media pampering these addicted persons, as they to are loaded with many who are addicted to sex, pornography, recreational drugs, etc. Irresponsible perverted souls, who know not what they do, not knowing how they are destroying the very society and people that protect them and liberty, through their love of honor, truth and integrity.

Blinded we are not, by your efforts to redefine morality, every sacred, virtuous praiseworthy standard, making America the leader of the free world. This is a great nation, because of the vision and discipline of our forefathers, ourselves, moral leaders and we how do our part, as we ought to do; living as we ought to live. Those who would remove the freedoms it assures have systematically challenged this. We will not give this up, because it is ours, and yours as it is. However, what you are doing is to destroy what you did not create to pervert the lives of others.

"Give me death or give me liberty." --Patrick Henry

Respect Begets Respect
budbud
Location: LA
Reply # 4
Date: Nov 12, 2008 - 2:26 AM EST Marriage Equality WILL BE!
---
If you and your gay friends were doing this for the children, and for a better world, it would be different. Your actions are leading to chaos in your life and everyone else’s. You do not like that and equally we detest it as well.

We have realized that the real reason activists are pushing to destroy the traditional marriage. You may have already read that in my previous post.

If Gays were sent to a private island all to them selves, they could not survive. Any culture that will normalize the polymorphic nature of homosexuality, as gays are demanding, that demand would destroy the foundation and strength that culture. Is that what you want too? That is the reason we oppose you, moreover why death would be sweeter than to see the traditional marriage polluted by misguided and addicted people.

No society has ever endured long after falling beneath the level of brute beasts. Moreover, when we fail to tame and train our nature we will fail to respect our neighbor. Anyway, your actions are a demonstration of this fact. In 6000 year since the first marriage, no demand has ever been made for same-sex-marriages and it is never going to be recognized by good, ethical and moral people, but it naturally will be by those who are themselves addicted to their own hormones just as you are.

Your lives are out of control, depressed, and driven by an “unnecessary necessity” and to your own selfish end, were there is no self-respect as there is no respect for others, driven by passion, and unreasonable urges. There is a better way my friend. You are not gaining support you are losing it. I whish you no harm, and it would be wonderful if you would respect us and the marriage we cherish of one man and one woman.

Oxymoron?
You used the phrase, "journalistic ethics". It seems that this has, for the most part, become an oxymoron.


Sharon
"IT IS TIME TO STOP THE INJUSTICE IN THIS NATION AGAINST THOSE OF US IN THIS NATION WHO LIVE OUR LIFES, WORK PAY TAXES TO BE PUSHED AROUND BY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO FORCE THEIR VIEWS AND BELIEFS ON US.

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND I WILL HIT THE STREETS TO PROTEST FOR OUR NATION"

So I take it your are against Prop 8 and other measures that discriminate against minority groups such as homosexuals. I could not have said it better than you have in the first paragraph I copied above. I am a nonviolent person but I will also protest in my own way. One poster wants to know why "homosexual activists" don't target Shaprton and Farahkan given the fact that 70% of African Americans suported Prop 8. The simple answer for those for those who can think logically (a minority of the people on these threads) is that I don't recall those 2 speaking out in favor of Prop 8 or donating money to the 8 supporters' cause like the Mormon Church and other Churches did. I am Catholic and so I protested to the Knights of Columbis when I learned they had donated $1.25 million to Prop 8 supporters

We live in the US. If Mormoms don't like what happens outside of Utah, let Utah secede from the Union. For my money Colorado offers better skiing anyway and is now a blue state so I will ski there. The US allows freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I for one do not want to live in a Taliban like theocracy. The reason for the media's focus on Prop 8 and other same sex marriage bills is that they are all inherently so un-American as they seek to deny rights to a minority. So please stop the hysteria about the media. There is Fox and Rupie's tabloid papers as well as the Wall Street Journal which loves to spit out anti-gay drivel. So say a prayer today thanking God that you live in the great United States of America. Marriage equality will come to the US and the US will be a better country for it.

Shooting at Clouds
First, My Pet Goat--get a life. It's tiring seeing the EXACT same post on every Prop 8 story. There's no there there. Got it?!!

Second, you can't argue with a liberal. This argument is being waged mainly by liberals (with the exception of religious blacks). Liberals hate facts and argue almost exclusively with emotion. So arguing with facts is like shooting at clouds. I've heard plenty of facts from the Yes on 8 side. What do you hear from the No on 8 crowd? If you're for Prop 8, you're an f***ing bigot who believes in "discrimination". That's it. Just look at the news stories. Look at the comments on this story.

Okay, proponents of gay marriage, using FACTS, tell me why gay marriage will be good for the state and for society. You can't? Didn't think so.


Media in sheep clothing
More proof that we must fight back against the liberal media if he hope to give our children a fighting chance at a decent world. Boycott all liberal media organize a local boycott, fight, fight, fight, the wolf.

Majority rules
It appears that the majority of the people of California, Arizona and Florida voted against gay marriages. Isn't this what its all about, majority rules? Why aren't anti-Obama voters protestingt his election after the majority of Americans voted for Obama? Why don't they call on the courts to ignore the Obama votes and place McCain in the white house?

Sorry, but the majority of the people chose not to allow gay marriages, accept it.

To PET GOAT
Tax exempt status doesn't enter in to this (as much as the gay community would like to think it does) because the Mormon Church itself did not get involved in the vote.

Mormon leaders encouraged their California membership to get involved in their local government - to exercise their rights to free speech and to vote and to work for a good cause.

California Mormons did just that. I live in Utah and we never heard a word from the pulpit or our leaders about getting involved - but a lot of members from around the country sent money toward a political cause they believed in.

People send money to political causes in other states all the time. How much money do you think Al Franken's Hollywood pals sent to his senate race?

Oh and to BIG DADDY
LOVE your post. Well reasoned - and hilarious!
You're a gem!

what?
"when a court decides to override public opinion and thumb it's nose at the moral order created by nature's God".

Fitzpatrick is utterly clueless regarding the role of the judiciary. Their role is to protect the rights of minorities as instructed by the Constitution.
Not 'the moral order of nature's God'.
They certainly cannot thumb their noses at the Constitution.

The anger, hurt and disappointment will calm after a fashion.
And there will be a new strategy eventually of doing exactly what gay people have done all along, reaching out to the public with serious and compassionate intent.
I'm doing that very thing to today by having a meeting with a supporter of Prop 8.

Supporters of 8 have had plenty of opportunity to address gay people, and the media.
They've certainly had plenty of support PRIOR to the vote and their own forums.

The point is, they are quite MIA. It's not that the media ignores them
Very often, it's difficult to get the opposition to gay equality into a forum THEY don't control.
Case in point, many of the very posters in TH, are not to be seen on townhall type gay websites or discussion boards monitored by gay bloggers.
I'm here, and whatever comes, I've stayed.
And I'm not welcome and neither are the few gay people brave enough to be here.

Would any of opposition here show up at where I suggested?
Hasn't happened so far. There is no indication that gay newsmedia is even read.
Fitzpatrick is leaving out who would DEIGN to show themselves on liberal media, not that there was no invite whatsoever.

The LATimes did a whole page on the feelings of the opposition out there. So that side WAS heard. Guess Fitzpatrick missed it.

CA Constitution
There is no power in the CA Constitution to allow a CA court to overturn a CA Constitutional Amendment. The CA Constitution allows amendment power only to the legislature, by 2/3 membership votes, and to THE PEOPLE, as a simple majority of electors. Therefore, any decision by the court contrary to the will of the people, as electors, to amend is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and need not be adhered to.
The CA Constitution provides for NO judicial review authority of a state Constitutional amendment, and should the CA Supreme court decide, in error, to hear a case challenging the recent Prop 8 amendment to the CA State Constitution, it should be sanctioned by the people in the first available popular referendum, and the people (for standing under the CA State Constitution it should only take a single resident of the state) should appeal for redress to the US Supreme Court.
I have been overvexed for some time since understanding that the powers ceded to the Judiciary in the early days of this republic, the USA, are not supported within the US Constitution. The US federal judiciary has no power in the US Constitution to offer it equal standing to the Legislative and Executive branches.

no justifiable stigma
Challenging stigma based on an attribute is a hard, hard thing to change.
No one is questioning whether the stigma on gay people is justified. But mores the point, marriage for gay couples is good for society because we're talking about a minority that is capable of the same potential to do good as someone heterosexual.
Serving the nation in uniform, raising children who need a home, and just being happy.

Happy and secure people are always good for a society. Those in love are kinder, more generous and committed to good works than those adrift, without focus or with no one to love them.
Gay people respond to love as any normal person would.
And also respond to injustice, unequal treatment and violations against them as any normal person would.

If any of you thought of them as human beings, you wouldn't have to be told that simple fact.

Marriage Neutering Media
I have been analyzing almost all of the Los Angles Times coverage of this issue. They are open proponents of marriage neutering, and apparently against the right of voters, preferring imaginary rights instead.

charlie
To make a suspect class subject to a popular vote, disqualifies the Constitutions obligation to equal treatment under the law.
This is a QUALITY OF LIFE issue. And as a suspect class, gay people ARE deserving of the same opporunity as those who are not gay.

That would be like putting black lives or those of women under the same majority vote during a time of serious PREJUDICE against equal rights and standing for the same reason.
Gay people's quality of life has to be protected as it would be for heterosexuals.
"The will of the people"? Given the historical context of suspect classes, that ballot measure was inappropriate in the first place. In 2000 as well as this year.

The courts have ALWAYS had to intervene on behalf of suspect classes because the laws are based on animus, not rational basis.

Considering the perception of threat, the fearmongering ads and reliance on the ignorance of the general public, the majority's motive is even more reason that the courts were doing their job.

hi Ken
The imaginary laws seem to come more from YOUR camp.
No marriage based on non procreative sex.
No marriage based on sexual incompatibility.
No marriage based on child raising qualifications.

No marriage based on the ROLE of gender and specific gender behaviors.

No such laws exist, but they are argued in these forums as if they do.

The courts found no RATIONAL BASIS to exclude gay couples based on these component arguments from the opposition.
And gender isn't a MORAL issue, it's one of attribute.
And there are such people as transgender or intersexed who would also be excluded because their gender can be ambiguous.
Or sex organ damage is possible in either sex or sexual orientation.

So gender as a moral standard of marriage or other aspects of life, doesn't exist either. Gender is a very fluid thing in nature, so therefore impossible to legislate as if it's rigid.

LA Times
Which gets on my last nerve anyway, at least had an online dustup between opposing sides of the issue.

There WAS a representative of the Yes on 8 camp who always had an opportunity to write articles and debate online.

The LATimes isn't obligated to support 8, even if a majority turned out to have.
So WHAT if they did?
So what if a great deal of the media in CA thought that a Constitutional amendment was bad?

More even handed people against gay marriage, still thought the amendment was wrong and a bad idea.
And SO WHAT if they did?

Apparently another's opinion is unwelcome here.

But changing the definition and tenets of the Constitution is much more than an opinion.
There is a profound effect on real lives, not your own.
There was no negative affect on straight people or marriage.
But a definite negative affect on gay people AND unjustifiably.

The media is right to point that out.
Whether you believe it or not, is beside the point.




Cole Front
I have yet to hear any facts from the Yes on 8 crowd aside from the statement that marriage inequality has been around for centuries and as such must continue. The Yes on 8 crowd claims heterosexual marriages will collapse should marriage equality become the law of the land and children will be hurt. Those like myself who favor marriage equality are very pro marriage. My parents were married for 49 years (until my father's passing) and I have many siblings who are happily married with children. Can I imagine anyway their marriages would suffer should I as a gay man marry another gay man? Of course not. The Yes on 8 crowd propagated lies that churches would lose tax exempt status and be forced to close should Prop 8 fail. Such a lie is preposterous. Divorce has been legal for centuries in the US. The Catholic Church does not allow marriage for divorced Catholics aside from those who have gone through an annulment process yet the Catholic Church is not sued for denying marriage to divorced Catholics (I am Catholic by the way). I don't ever expect to marry in the Catholic Church and I have no problem with that. The pro-Prop 8 crowd then use children as a scare tactic stating that should Prop 8 fail, children would somehow be indoctrinated by homosexuals. Homosexuality exists as an innate characteristic in 8% or so of the population and that is a fact of life. I think having children, some of whom are surely homosexual rally and hold signs in support of marriage discrimination is harmful to children.

If you want an argument for marriage equality simply read the majority opinion of the Supreme Courts of the States of CA and CT. The pro marriage equality argument is summed up by the CA's court words that sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."


Ken??? Huh? What???
Ken Wrote:BudBud
Equality is not the problem. Redefining the meaning of others peoples marriage is.

If you are free to redefine my marriage then I am free to redefine Catholic Priets who molest little boyes as "Gays who like young boys."

................................................

What???? Ken, you've always been more than FREE to call pedaphile priests anything you want. Did someone tell you that you weren't? I'm no fan of the Catholic church and it's pedahiles who stand on their soapboxes to condemn gays at any chance, so please, call them what you like. I call them much worse. My real question is what does this have to do with marriage equality?

What's telling is how you say that marriage equality would "redefine MY marriage...other peoples marriages". This is the problem Ken. YOU don't OWN marriage! YOU don't own the concept, YOU don't have a trademark on the word, YOU don't have a patent on it's functioning etc.

Only YOUR marriage is YOUR marriage. Anyone elses marriage has no bearing, impact or influence on YOUR marriage.

A CIVIL marriage is MERELY a legal contract issued by a civil authority! That's it. There is nothing holy, magical, special or esoteric about it. The state has to have a GOOD reason for not allowing two consenting adults from entering into a legal contract.

Tradition has been shot down time and again as a "good reason" to discriminate.

I still can't understand how the marriages of people you don't even know somehow undermines the value, meaning or "definition" of YOUR marriage? Millions in this world have plural marriages (the OLDEST form of marriage) and open marriages, interracial marriages, intergenerational marriages, arranged marriages etc.. Do you wake up every morning shaking your fists at these people for "redefining and undermining YOUR marriage"?

Worthless creatures
I'll go ahead and say it. Homosexuals contribute nothing. They are filth, if they want to throw around threats? Fine, but they'll learn their lesson the hard way.

Anti-Prop 8 demonstrations
70% of black voters in CA voted FOR Prop 8. When will we see the anti group demonstrating outside large mostly black churches? Don't hold your breath, it's wouldn't be PC to do it, so Saddleback and their ilk will be the recipients.
And BTW, doesn't Prop 8 merely state what has been the norm for the last four thousand years: marriage shall be defined as a union between a man and a woman? I don't see a ban on same-sex marriages there. It is eerily similar to the prop making English the official language in CA. That prop has never been enforced and might as well not be in the state constitution.

Charlie
You are wrong that there is no provision for overturning constitutional amendments by referendum in California. It has been done in the past where a referendum was said to be a revision to the constituion rather than a mere amendment. I have no idea if, under California law, that applies in this case. But that clearly is an issue the California courts will have to determine.

poppyseed
You are misunderstanding how our system of government works. Majorities rule on some issues and not others. And it varies what majority counts. Remember Bush won the presidency while getting a minority of the popular vote, because he got a majority of the electoral college vote.

In general rights are not up for majority vote. Laws against marriage between races was overturned by the Supreme Court despite having strong majority support in most of the south.

There is no inconsistency in thinking that civil rights should be protected from majority vote while elections should be decided on their basis.

Deathdealer
Why do you think that your idiotic last three sentences are enhanced by throwing out "I'll go ahead and say it" before them? People go ahead and say stupid things all the time. There was no special in that regard about what you had to say.

Most legislation is tested in the courts
Why shouldn't Proposition 8 be tested as well? All of the civil rights advances of the last half of the 20th century were achieved in the courts, not via the ballot box.

The purpose of the courts as a third branch of government is to modulate the excesses of majority rule when it tramples minority rights.

Whether or not Prop 8 is, or is not, a case of the Majority overstepping basic civil rights is a totally appropriate matter for the courts to decide, just as countless other acts of both legislatures and the initiative process have been tested and either confirmed or thrown out.

All this railing about 'activist judges' is purest hyperbole and you all know it (assuming you know anything about the structure of our system of government). What about the court's recent decisions regarding 2nd amendment rights? You're not calling those 'meddling of activist judges' are you?

Deathdealer
And people wonder why it has been called Prop Hate?

gene in CA
"Most legislation is tested in the courts why shouldn't Proposition 8 be tested as well?"

Let's see - because that's a violation of the Separation of Powers, maybe?

Seriously, the Judiciary can't review or alter the Constitution. They have to bow to it whether they like it or not. Anyone who fails to uphold that violates their oath as a justice as should be turned out of office, imprisoned, and subject to trial.

"All of the civil rights advances of the last half of the 20th century were achieved in the courts, not via the ballot box."

Haven't you ever heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

It is that very ignorance that Rogue Justices prey upon. You're lining yourself up for a nation of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers unless you wake up!

"The purpose of the courts as a third branch of government is to modulate the excesses of majority rule when it tramples minority rights."

Your educators were negligent. Judicial Review exists to keep the Legislature and Executive Branches from ignoring their own laws - including the Constitution that enumerates many Rights of the individual as well as Restrictions on the government. The judiciary settles disputes when two laws come into conflict. That is all.

A sufficient majority can remake the Constitution in its entirety and there isn't a single thing the Judiciary can do to stop it. The check against such action rests in the self-interest of the individual (the smallest minority) and the morality of the citizenry. As John Adams noted, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Don't, can't, will never understand
Why do homosexuals insist that they suddenly have a "right" to destroy an institution which, throughout history, has always remained the basis for stable society? Hasn't anyone noticed before that marriage is between people of the opposite sex? It has NEVER been anything else, in any culture, anywhere in the world. Yet the moral outrage and the presumption that they have been treated unjustly, is baffling and troubling. These people are already accorded every legal benefit of marriage in civil unions, but they cannot rest until they have redefined our families. Can't anyone else see that there is something supremely sinister at work?

Correcting misrepresentation
Let's address some of the falsehoods in this thread:

"A CIVIL marriage is MERELY a legal contract issued by a civil authority!"

False. "Civil marriage," is a Legal Privilege, not just a contract. It isn't handled under contract law either. Legal Privileges must meet the burden of a Rational Basis Test. The Legislature must have a scheme under which the Public Body gains a benefit in exchange for giving an individual or group a Privilege. This governs everything from a driver's licenses, finishing permits, and marriage licenses alike.

"The courts found no RATIONAL BASIS to exclude gay couples based on these component arguments from the opposition."

You've got it backwards. Read Justice Cordy's diseent in the Goodridge decision - I dare you.

Siblings can't have civil marriage for the same reason man-man and woman-woman sex partnerships can't qualify: they don't adhere to the Rational Basis of "civil marriage."

That rational basis is that society gets a better future generation when man and woman procreate through an exclusive partnership and raise the ensuing offspring. Incest and homosexual sex don't fit the bill here.

You can argue that the Rational Basis is bunk, but under the Constitution that means "civil marriage" is invalid - not that "civil marriage" can be extended to same-sex partnerships.

Laurie
Gay people in the US do not have every benefit of marriage in Civil Unions. Arkansas past a prop that states only married people can adopt children thus discriminating against gay couples. I lived in Hong Kong for work for years and recently returned there for a visit. I stayed with an American friend of mine who has been living in Asia for 13 years or so. He has had a monagomous relationship with a gay HK born man for about 10 years now. My friend would like to move back to the US now to be closer to family. But he cannot legally bring his partner back into the US to live with him. If my friend were heterosexual, he could marry and move to the US with his spouse. Separate but equal is usually never equal.

James
It isn't disdain for a certain lifestyle that causes people to want to protect marriage from being redefined.
The issue you raise regarding your friend could be addressed in other ways.
But the state of Arkansas has deemed it beneficial to place children exclusively with two married parents. This is indeed the heart of the matter for most people who value heterosexual marriage. It is clearly ordained by nature and nature's God that children are to be created, and by logical extension raised, in this union. Certainly a reasonable person can see that this has been ordered by a higher power. All those who wish to defer to the common sense edict of nature should not now be labeled haters and bigots.

To mlund
Judges can't change constitutions, however, they are called in to mediate when a dispute arises between competing articles.

If all men are created equal, and this is written into the Constitution, how can the same document then bar such equal treatment based on gender (or skin color, or religious belief, etc.)?

This conflict is the exact same quandry the California Supreme Court had to figure out when they overturned (correctly) the old Prop. 22. You cannot claim to uphold equality for all when actions like Prop. 8 do the exact opposite. (See the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 for an inequality lesson on discrimination being the law of the land.)

This is a black or white issue; either California now unfairly discriminates or it does not. Voter's decisions on such important matters are rarely rational or fair. This is the primary function of the courts, to mediate when serious disputes arise.

Laurie
What are the other ways that my friend's issue could be addressed? In my view without marriage equality the US would have to revert to the French way of marriage where the government only recognizes civil unions and marriage is left to churches, temples, etc. As for Arkansas, I do see some vaildity to the argument that children are better off in a household with a man and a woman. But how many children actually live in a 2 parent households? I have a single male friend who has adopted 2 foreign born children. I believe this friend to be a closeted homosexual but that is not the point. He is a good father to his boys. Adoption agencies have to carefully screen all potential adoptors no matter what. To randomly say certain people can not even be considered as adoptors is wrong.

The ugly truth
It is becoming increasingly difficult for both the pro-gay, anti-Christian media and gay activists to mimic any decorum whatsoever in even a half-hearted attempt at objectivity. There is a deep, long-simmering rage bubbling up out of the gay community, and it is ugly. They can no longer hide behind equality and justice. Their image-bearers, compliments of the media illuminati, are hate-mongers.

Why protest just Saddleback?
I noticed how gays and gay activists vented their outrage over the passage of Proposition 8 by protesting outside Saddleback Community Church, supposedly the very symbol of "bigoted" resistance to gay marriage by ostensibly "homophobic" Christians.

Yet according to exit polls, 70% of black voters in California - the very same group that gave their votes by a ratio of over 20:1 to the very same candidate who said he wanted to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act - voted to pass Prop. 8. Judging by the relative closeness of the vote on Proposition 8, it appears that blacks providing the margin of victory for this measure.

So here's my question to you who live out in California (as I did for 15 years until the year 2000): why aren't gay groups holding protests in Southern California over the defeat of same-sex marriage in California staging the same kind of demonstrations outside BLACK churches? Like the Faithdome? Or West Angeles Church of God in Christ? Anyone care to answer?

I'll give you MY belief on this: because gays now are learning, as feminists did during the OJ Simpson criminal trial acquittal, that the one untouchable faction of today's Democratic Party is blacks.

Skorpio
"If all men are created equal, and this is written into the Constitution, how can the same document then bar such equal treatment based on gender (or skin color, or religious belief, etc.)?"

What gender does Prop 8 discriminate against? What skin color does Prop 8 discriminate against? What religious belief does Prop 8 discrimate against?

If the state doesn't have the right to put any restrictions on my privilege to marry, how can it restrict any other privileges?

For example, I have a sports car that is fun to drive. I was born with a desire to drive fast. There is a lightly travelled highway near my home where I have driven in excess of 100 MPH. If a police officer were to spot me speeding does he have the right to pull me over?


Speeding
"There is a lightly travelled highway near my home where I have driven in excess of 100 MPH. If a police officer were to spot me speeding does he have the right to pull me over?"

Only if that highway is a public road. If it is a private highway (there are some in CA) the Highway Patrol can't do anything about it. That's because the Driver's License is a Privilege to operate on Public Roads. You don't need a Fishing Permit to fish in a lake you own either.

Privileges are advantaged ways of interacting with Law and Public Property granted in exchange for some sort of public service. Granting privileges without a Rational Basis of a public service is a violation of Equal Protection and Unconstitutional - just like what the same-sex "marriage" advocates are trying to obtain even at the price of destroying the Constitution.

Correction
The article says, "Six of the stories, nearly half, emphasized the reactions of the roughly 18,000 same-sex couples whose California “marriages” have been invalidated."

This is wrong. First of all, Proposition 8 was *not* retroactive. Second, the Attorney General of California has already stated that the existing marriages would continue to be recognized.

Who are the bigots?
The people used the democratic process, whereas the sodomites used the courts to get ONE judge to ram their beliefs down our throats [no pun intended], but we are the bigots.

Sedonaman:
What people really don't seem to get in this country is that there are some rights that cannot be taken away by popular vote. We're still in the process of learning this lesson as a country, and many groups have fought long, hard battles to protect their rights from the tyranny of the majority.

You may not like or agree with what gay people want or do, but it's not your place to tell them they can't get married. I don't like the positions that the KKK espouses, but freedom means I can't vote to take away their rights to speak, demonstrate, and meet.

Define Marriage, then Judge
Well Hate-mongers, first of all, marriage is not something the couple 'does.' Marriage is performed; the ritual and rite, the blessing of a higher power on a union. The higher power is usually considered the state, although certain people ask for the Lords' blessing on their unions.

These blessings are support for the union: tax advantages, legal protection and rights. The support of the greater community and/or church may be asked too.

Homosexuals have always been free to live together. Now that are demanding more than the acceptance of society; they now demand the blessing of society.

Daniel:
The state's issuance of a marriage license is not a religious act. The religious component of marriage has no legal standing. It's a ceremony for the religious community the couple lives in.

As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a partnership of two people who enter into an agreement and receive a set of rights and protections in return. This is what is being argued about, not religion.

Sheerfaith
Where is the hate on the No side of Prop 8. The Yes side voted to deny rights to some (Obviously with less than 10% of the population homosexual - although maybe a bit more in CA, a good deal of heterosexuals did the right thing and voted No) of those on the No side. Some protest have seen a lack of common sense but I still don't see hate. I see hate expressed everyday against homosexuals by the likes of "Deathdealer" in these threads. Why don't people here speak out against the whacko "God Hates Fags" Church of they truely believe they have nothing against homosexuals as long as they don;t try to marry. I read in these pages abou the loon who donated $900k to the Yes on 8 side. He advocates sending gay people to an island for public stoning of them. But I guess he really does not hate gays. As for those who wonder why there have not been protests outside of predominantly black churches, those will come. But the immediate target will be the churches such as the Mormon Church which actively backed Yes on 8 financially.

sedonoman
You are one big bigot.

Rights vs. Privileges
When will folks learn, there's a difference between a Right and a Privilege. A Right exists independently of Government. It is self-evident, endowed by our Creator. Legitimate government must acknowledge Rights. Privileges are artificial constructs of Governments. They exclusively address interaction with the Law and the State.

Religious expression, including Marriage, is a Right.

Licenses, including "civil marriage" licenses, are Privileges.

Anyone who says, "We had our right to marry taken away," is either an ignoramus or a liar. There is no such right to "civil marriage," and the government has no power to bar religious marriage.

Again, if you want a Government Privilege (like "civil marriage"), then you must meet the Rational Basis of the statute that grants such a privilege in exchange for a Public Service. If you don't want to perform that service (in this case, pair off with someone of the opposite sex, procreate, and raise the offspring) then you don't get to complain about not receiving the Privilege.

If the Rational Basis is invalid then you fight to abolish the Statute on Constitutional grounds, not to extend an Unconstitutional rule to benefit yourself!

Not on-topic
"Why don't people here speak out against the whacko "God Hates Fags" Church of they truely believe they have nothing against homosexuals as long as they don;t try to marry."

Actually, most people here do speak out against harassment and violence against homosexual citizens. We condemn such behavior towards ~all~ of us - and we don't consider gay folks any more or less special that anyone else. Frankly, your sexuality means about as much to me as a bucket of warm spit. I only get riled up at folks that track mud on my Constitution, treat my Church with disrespect, or otherwise use their posteriors for head-covers, be they homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or nonsexual. You aren't my spouse. I don't care.

Incidentally, those odious folks from the Westboro Baptist Church have been roundly condemned on this board before. We're not responding to an article about their antics right now, so finding discussion about this is rather like finding a sea shell in a desert.

James
I'll believe gays will demonstrate outside black churches in California in protest of the passage of Prop. 8 when I see it!

In fact, gays ought to be all the MORE outraged at blacks than groups like Mormons or the kind of congregation that goes to a church like Saddleback. I'm sure the Mormon vote went heavily for McCain, and I'm sure Rick Warren's congregation probably voted more than not for McCain, so at least the voting of groups like these between their presidential preference and Prop. 8 is consistent and expected. What would be much more interesting is to hear a black person who both voted for Obama AND Proposition 8, given Obama's openly stated position that he wants to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, explain to a gay THIS dichotomy.

Tammy Bruce, when she was still prominent in the Southern California chapter of NOW, during the OJ Simpson criminal trial, has related that feminists who were outraged by Simpson's acquittal were told to bite their tongues about it because NOW didn't want to offend black leaders. I'm sure the leaders of gay groups have been told the same thing now: whatever anger gays feel toward blacks for helping to pass Prop. 8, as Archie Bunker would say, "Stifle yourself!".

Feminists at the time of the OJ Simpson criminal trial acquittal were pushed to the back of the Democratic Party's bus to let blacks sit in front. The exact same thing is now going to happen to gays.

And I don't have a lick of sympathy for gays in California about this, either: this intra-party feud within Democratic ranks falls into the category of what Jesus alluded to in talking about "Satan divided against Satan".

James
Long on babble. Short on facts. So you haven't seen any hate from the No on 8 crowd. Open your eyes. Let's see, there were death threats made against some of the organizers of the Yes on 8 campaign. (Obviously a loving gesture from the No on 8 folks) No on 8 folks stole thousands of campaing signs, vandalized property, blocked traffic and swore at passing drivers near a mormon temple. These are just a few examples of their behavior.

By contrast, roughly six million voters went to the polls and voted yes on 8 to define marriage between one man and one woman. If that's what you call hate, then I guess we are all hateful. Incidentally, I voted yes on 8 and I don't hate gays. I do believe marriage between one man and one woman provides the best environmnet for children.

Actually mlund,
Marriage *is* a right, according to the Supreme Court of the US. Read the decision in Loving vs. Virginia. It's spelled out rather clearly there.

There's the hate:
"Where is the hate on the No side of Prop 8."

Let's see:

- the vandalism of Mormon temples
- trespassing in a Michigan Assembly of God, assaulting the worshipers during services
- internet threats to "Burn their F---ing churches to the ground and tax the charred timbers."

Sorry, but no one here, however rude, he advocated or threatened to burn down your home, vandalized your property, or assaulted you. Maybe it is time to start questioning some of the "activists" in the GBLT community.

standshisground
Actual gay activists are as worked up about the black vote as the religious votes. They are just more split as to what is an effective way to deal with their objections. It is easy to target the Mormons since they bankrolled the pro side of the fight.

But black voters seem to be the most likely to be switched when this next comes up for a vote (and we all know it will. This is an issue in which support is moving steadily in one direction).

I read political sites rather than gay sites, but even in liberal sites not devoted to gay issues, the issue of the black vote on proposition 8 is one of the big topics of discussion.

Mlund
No one is justified in destroying property or hurting people to make a political point. It doesn't matter what you favor or oppose.

The people who engage in this kind of behavior are extremists and a very small minority. There's no point in talking about them as though they represent the mainstream of this movement.

Wrong Cia
I'm familiar with Loving v. Virginia. You, apparently, are not. Otherwise you'd know that the Loving decision does not declare a "civil marriage license" to be a Right. Rather, it asserts that marriage (defined as a union between a man and a woman to reproduce and raise the children) is a Reproductive Right that should not be abridged by the law. In this case by arresting private citizens and jailing them if they attempted to live as man and wife in the privacy of their own home!

It never asserted "marrying whoever you want is a Right." It never exempted Incestuous or Same-Sex partnerships that failed to meet the Rational Basis of the Privilege.

Hernadez v. Robles makes it clear: "Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union,[FN3] it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation."

It was ruled that denying marriage between a white and non-white person violated Equal Protection under the law. This was because a between a man and a woman of two different races still fulfilled the Rational Basis of the marriage statute. Denying someone who provides the Public Service the Government Privilege someone else doing the same thing gets violates Equal Protection.

Likewise, giving the Privilege to someone that does not provide the Public Service (like a same-sex couple) also violates Equal Protection.

Cia
"Marriage *is* a right, according to the Supreme Court of the US. Read the decision in Loving vs. Virginia. It's spelled out rather clearly there."

The Loving v. Virginia decision was based entirely on the protections of the 14th Amendment regarding racial discrimination.

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

A black man and a white man are functionally the same. A white woman and a black woman are functionally the same. That is why an interracial marriage will still work. You cannot make the same statement about a homosexual union and a heterosexual union. Two men, or two women, together, do not have the same function as a man and a woman, together.

Cia
"No one is justified in destroying property or hurting people to make a political point. It doesn't matter what you favor or oppose.'

Agreed. Obviously...

"The people who engage in this kind of behavior are extremists and a very small minority."

You forgot to add that depending on who the perpetrators are, the media will either downplay it (homosexual activists) or blow it way out of proportion (conservatives).

"There's no point in talking about them as though they represent the mainstream of this movement."

But I suppose that the "Westboro Baptist Church" does represent the conservative mainstream? In *every* discussion on this topic, the Left is swift in comparing anyone who disagrees with them to the WBC and demands that we apologize for the actions of the WBC. Get real, hypocrite...

Mlund
The decision clearly states that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man." Now, just because the case concerned race as a basis of discrimination, doesn't change the fundamental status of that right.

Since you are trying to argue that participants in a marriage provide a public service, your argument falls apart. A growing proportion of marriages occur between people who cannot or choose not to reproduce. If your reasoning was correct, we'd have to exclude post-menopausal women from marriage as well. Since this is clearly not anything anyone is seriously considering, marriage is no longer just about the potential for children.

It is in society's interest to foster longterm loving relationships between responsible, consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. Excluding gay couples from marriage is just as arbitrary as excluding interracial couples. Just because your personal feelings disagree with this, doesn't invalidate it.

Lawyer bait "$"

Lets see if we can't help them lawyer leaches obtain some fresh blood to suck out of the American public. Namely homosexual divorcees, religious institutions who teach homosexual union being sin, and government coffers which pay off civil rights litigation.

The lawyers are playing folks on both sides of the issue for fools, while they grin like mules eating briers all the way to the bank.

If there is a legal loophole anywhere in the California constitution to spin, I predict it will be overturned. Its the outcome most favorable to lawyers, which judges are. They have those ABA and ACLU dues to think about you know!

The constitution, thousands of years of history and will of the people of California be dammed.

Anominous
I've never said or supported the idea that Westboro is representative of anyone in the mainstream. I don't use them as an example when discussing this issue with people. It does no good for either side to highlight the fringe wackos on the other side.

When this issue is resolved, it will be because the moderate, reasonable people in the middle have come to a workable understanding.

Quoting out of context, Cia
"The decision clearly states that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man.""

Too bad that statement does not come in the context you wish it to operate in. Unless you can find someway to handle Hernadez v. Robles I'm going to accept your resorting to out-of-context quotation as concession of the point.

If you knew anything about Loving v. Virginia you'd know that the "Right" to marriage that the ruling speaks to is the private Right of marriage, not the Public Privilege of License. People had their homes broken into and were jailed because they lived as man-and-wife to the contrary of the Virginia law. Their right to practice private marriage was abridged on the basis of a license they never agreed to (they got their license outside of Virginia).

You'd also note that their definition of "marriage" was between one man and one woman, to reproduce. It never included the right for a sister to marry a brother, a man to marry a many, or for polygamy. Your out-of-context quote argument suggests that Loving v. Virginia permits all of the above. I'll side with Hernadez v. Robles in concluding that you don't know what you are talking about.

No one is send the police in to break up same-sex private marriage services or religious services. No one is pulling couples out of their beds at night and jailing them for failure to conform. The only thing at issue here is the government Privilege of "civil marriage," not the private Right to marry.

mlund and cia
mlund:

Can you provide a link for me regarding the incident you mention about a Michigan Assembly of God church being trespassed upon during services and its members assaulted by gay activists? I confess I didn't hear about it but would be interested in learning about it.

By the way, why MICHIGAN? I thought the initiative to ban same-sex marriage was voted on in CALIFORNIA!


Cia:

You say that those who committed the acts mlund spoke of are are "extremists and a very small minority" and don't represent the mainstream of this movement.

Gee, when Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, the media and the Democratic Party (AND Bill Clinton also, I might add) were putting the blame for it squarely at the feet of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and pretty much the WHOLE conservative movement. Why is this a street that seems to go only one way?

You want a good acid test to find out whether the actions of this "very small minority" TRULY have much broader acceptance within the so-called mainstream of the movement? Find out which prominent "mainstream" members of this movement advocate prosecution and punishment of the offenders, if identified, to the fullest extent of the law. I've noticed liberals will sometimes denounce apparent bad behaviour on the part of some on their side of the aisle, as they did with Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky scandal - AS LONG AS THE OFFENDER IS NOT MADE TO PAY ANY PRICE OF CONSEQUENCE FOR HIS BEHAVIOUR!

Same failed argument
"Since you are trying to argue that participants in a marriage provide a public service, your argument falls apart. A growing proportion of marriages occur between people who cannot or choose not to reproduce. If your reasoning was correct, we'd have to exclude post-menopausal women from marriage as well. Since this is clearly not anything anyone is seriously considering, marriage is no longer just about the potential for children."

Man, do folks ever get tired of going down this same road?

Let's see what's obviously wrong with your logic here:

"cannot or choose not to reproduce" - We've already established that the State can't snoop in your bedroom to verify if you are "trying" to reproduce.

"we'd have to exclude post-menopausal women from marriage" - We've already established that the State can't snoop into your Medical Privacy to verify that you are fertile.

The State can verify your Birth Certification - including your sex (M or F by XY or XX chromosomes), and your parents. This gives the state the ability to bar incestuous and same-sex unions on a reproductive basis.

"It is in society's interest to foster longterm loving relationships between responsible, consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation."

Nope. That's not what the law says. The law does not legislate "love," in any way. That's not the Rational Basis of the marriage statutes, and no individual or court have any right to change that Rational Basis. It can only be done through Legislation.

"Excluding gay couples from marriage is just as arbitrary as excluding interracial couples."

Nope, it certainly is not. You just apparently put your personal feelings before the Constitution. If you feel that the Rational Basis is wrong, you have to argue to strike down "civil marriage," not assign it to same-sex sex partners.

Cia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." - Loving v. Virginia

Explain to me what action performed in a homosexual union is "fundamental to our very existence and survival." Follow the entire logic of the court, Cia, rather than just cherry-picking whatever seems to support you.

Mlund
Hernadez v. Robles doesn't apply here. It was a New York state case, and we're discussing a California law. The statement I quoted from Loving was correct, but we have failed to live up to its full meaning since - in the same way that we long failed to deliver on Declaration of Independence's statement that all men are created equal.

It often takes time for people to realize that their notions of what constitutes an equal right is often limited by the scope of the times they live in.

Attack on Michigan Church
Sure thing: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111104.html

Bash back - what a charming bunch of folks. I heard one the radio that at least one member of the congregation was struck in the head by their pamphlets and signs.

Hate all over this board
For anyone who questions the hatred against homosexuals that is so rampant on these threads just read "Sedonaman" and his choice of words. Firstly some 40% of heterosexual voters in CA voted for marriage equality as they realize that discrimination has no place in this great land of ours so this is not necessarily a gay (or "sodomites" as the enlightened TH crowd likes to say ignoring the fact that 50% of homosexuals are women) vs straight debate. I have yet to see anyone prove that allowing same sex marriage will "destroy" marriage. This is such a lame excuse used by the Yes on 8 crowd. I have not heard of vandalized Mormon temple or assaults against churchgoers. I myself am a churchgoer. In 45 minutes there will be a demonstration in this great city of mine (NY) outside of the Mormon temple near Lincoln Centre. It will be peaceful and there will be no violence. I will not be able to attend due to a previous commitment. It will be an expression of free speech against bigotry. As for black churches and blacks in general, I have every confidence that Barrack Obama will lead the way in the fight for marriage equality and will enlighten so many blacks in doing so.

Mlund
As it is, there's really no good reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all, but since it has decided to get involved, it cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It's an arbitrary category.

You've already said that your argument is tied to the potential for reproduction. That's your basis for defining marriage as a heterosexual relationship. My grandmother is a widow and well beyond childbearing age. Under your reasoning, the state should not allow her to remarry because one can tell from her age alone that she cannot bear children.

As for the state not being able to look into your medical status and records, that's a bogus argument, too. Many states still require blood tests before they'll issue marriage licenses. Clearly, some states believe that a medical intrusion is necessary before a license can be granted.

Finally, you know we're not discussing what people do in their bedrooms. The whole heart of this is the state's recognition of a relationship and the rights that follow from it. No one is talking about what two people call their own relationship where the state is not involved.

mlund
I just Googled the incident you spoke of at the Michigan Assembly of God and was able to read about it for myself, so I don't need a link after all. But thanks for your post that mentioned the incident. It pays to be informed. Somehow I'm willing to bet that this incident was NOT reported by Pravda dba The MSM (which is how I'm referring to the mainstream media from now on since they seem content to be nothing more than a state organ for the Obama Administration in the same way that Pravda was a state organ for the Soviet communist regime). I wouldn't even be surprised if the Detroit News made no mention of it, either.

My first reaction after reading the story was: it seemed to me that this was a perfect opportunity for the MEN in the service to re-enact the "Jesus expelling the moneychangers from the Temple" incident - with even more gusto than Jesus employed! If gay activists ever try that in MY church, I sure hope the men in MY church would do JUST that. And I'll be happy to be one of the first volunteers!

Sorry Cia
Anonimous is right. There is nothing about same-sex unions that is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

You can try to cherry-pick quotes out of context and assert that "we have failed to live up to its full meaning," but I'd rather accept the limited role of government outlined under Equal Protection than take your word for it.

Moreover, you seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place. You reject Hobles not on any logical grounds, but simply because "it is from New York." On the other hand, you reject the California Constitution because it says something you don't like. (Meanwhile the same-sex "marriage" crowd crows for Goodridge, even though the justices their cited CANADIAN laws in their decision, WTH?).

The Constitution makes it clear - Equal Protection means no Privilege without meeting the Rational Basis of the law.

You can argue for abolishing "civil marriage" just fine, but your arguments for expanding it to same-sex unions without regard for Equal Protection is Constitutionally unsound.

Anominous
It's fundamental in the same way that recognition of non-child-producing relationships are. It provides a definition of next of kin, guides the inheritance of wealth and property, and regulates the distribution of other rights that are the basis of social relationships.

None of these have anything to do with childrearing, yet we grant them to elderly couples who are heterosexual and clearly not capable of reproduction. Why? Because we recognize that a stable, longterm loving relationship is a key building block of communities.

James
What, did the people of New York also just pass an initiative to amend THEIR state constitution to ban gay marriage like they did in California? If not, as I suspect is the case, then why are gays bothering Mormons in NEW YORK? THEY didn't vote to pass Proposition 8.

Just another sign of how much loonier the ALREADY loony far-left has become!

Mlund
You cannot even address the example that I give you of an "allowed" marriage that doesn't meet your own standard of "fundamental to our very existence and survival," which you've interpreted to mean the ability to reproduce. Marriages occur today in this country that violate that precept, yet they are allowed because you *approve of the identities of the people engaging in them.*

That's the only difference. These marriages will not produce children or contribute to childrearing. They are simply expressions of romantic love between consenting adults who are biologically incapable of reproduction. The fact that the participants are opposite genders is in no way the defining element in these relationships.

Until you address this, there's no reasonable argument you can make defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman based on reproductive potential.

I'm sorry you feel that way about Robles, but again, it's neither a national case, nor a California case and can't be considered as a precedent in this discussion. You can agree with it and use it as a source of material for your arguments, but it carries no legal weight.

The Constitution of The United States
When will it be understood by all that just because government sanctions, or legalizes something, that it does not make it right or healthy for a society.

Governments are made up of individuals with ideologies. Ideologies change as cultures change. The Constitution was not meant to evolve. It was written in a manner to sustain the survival of a nation in changing times.

That’s why the Founding Fathers were careful in its construction so as to keep every Tom, Dick, and Harry from coming along and changing it to suit them selves.

Cia misses the mark again
cia wrote, "As it is, there's really no good reason for the state to be involved in marriage at all,"

Good, then just come out and say it: "I want civil marriage abolished. It is the Constitutional thing to do." It isn't hard.

"but since it has decided to get involved, it cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It's an arbitrary category."

No. It is not arbitrary. It is the basis of the Loving v. Virginia ruling you so eagerly hitched your wagon to, I must note.

The inability to sexually reproduce between two people of the same sex is no more arbitrary than the inability of two siblings sexually reproduce in a viable manner. It is the same Rational Basis. Mind you, it isn't ~my~ personal Rational Basis, but rather than of the legislation.

"You've already said that your argument is tied to the potential for reproduction. That's your basis for defining marriage as a heterosexual relationship."

Nope. That's the basis for extending the Privilege of "civil marriage."

Marriage is a heterosexual relationship because it's part of the DEFINITON of marriage.

"My grandmother is a widow and well beyond childbearing age. Under your reasoning, the state should not allow her to remarry because one can tell from her age alone that she cannot bear children."

I agree with the basic logic. I personally think "civil marriage" is mostly a sham and privileges shouldn't be assigned until children are actually produced. Elderly people getting married can be abused as an unintended tax shelter.

However, the government has a problem drawing a hard line as to when people are no longer fertile. They can't use medical tests, and they can't risk placing, say, a 50-year cut-off point when medical science suddenly allows someone to deliver at age 60 and some people fall apart at 30. They've (wisely, IMO) chosen to keep their noses out of it.

Cia fails due dilligence
"As for the state not being able to look into your medical status and records, that's a bogus argument, too. Many states still require blood tests before they'll issue marriage licenses."

Actually, almost all blood tests have been abolished now, since the two disease they screened for were gotten under control. There is a test for syphilis and rubella - both curable diseases. They require you to clear up before they give you a license. The State does have the right to screen for communicable diseases when issuing certain licenses that involve exposure to bodily fluids - including the license to handle food, provide emergency medical treatment, or marry.

They still can't screen for fertility because infertility is not deemed to be a threat to public health that overrides the right to medical privacy.

"basic civil right of man"
Cia, you claim marriage is a basic civil right of man which cannot be denied to same sex couples. What do you think of the other restrictions placed on mans basic civil right to marry. Do siblings have a basic civil right to marry each other? How about polygamists?

Cia
"It's fundamental in the same way that recognition of non-child-producing relationships are. It provides a definition of next of kin, guides the inheritance of wealth and property, and regulates the distribution of other rights that are the basis of social relationships."

Interestingly enough, none of these items pertain to the survival of society. While they might be beneficial to the involved individuals, they are hardly necessary for their survival. There are many relationships that involve these items, but do not involve marriage: children-parents for example.

"None of these have anything to do with childrearing, yet we grant them to elderly couples who are heterosexual and clearly not capable of reproduction."

None of these have anything to do with childbearing, and that's why they are not "fundamental to our existence and survival." Couples that aren't able to produce children are the exception to the rule. Exceptions to a rule, no matter how numerous, do not make a rule.

"Why? Because we recognize that a stable, longterm loving relationship is a key building block of communities."

A longterm, loving relationship is a key building-block of society because it provides a healthy situation for the upbringing of children, not because of any benefits the relationship may provide to the involved individuals. Specifically, the best guardians for children are normally the man and woman that brought them into the world. Each gender provides a certain balance and experience to the upbringing of the children. This is the foundation of society.

Confusing "civil marriage"
"It's fundamental in the same way that recognition of non-child-producing relationships are. It provides a definition of next of kin, guides the inheritance of wealth and property, and regulates the distribution of other rights that are the basis of social relationships."

Actually, none of those "benefits" are exclusive to "civil marriage." You can designate power of attorney and inheritance rights outside of marriage, even to the exclusion of your spouse. Further you have no basis on which to deny any of those to partnerships between non-sex-partners. In essence, you're trying to elevate your sexual relationship over other people's non-sexual relationships for your own gratification and no public interest. That's not cricket, old bean.

"yet we grant them to elderly couples who are heterosexual and clearly not capable of reproduction. Why? Because we recognize that a stable, longterm loving relationship is a key building block of communities."

Good luck finding anything even remotely resembling a LAW that comes close to saying THAT.

Secondly, no one verifies the sexuality of the opposite-sex elderly couple. They can be gay as the day is long and just looking for a tax shelter. No one can test for it. Furthermore, elderly couples getting married don't obviously provide "stable" or "long term" relationships considering their increased mortality rates. Nor is love required anywhere under the law to form a marriage. People get married for reasons other than love all the time and the law can not police them for it. So leave "love" in the realm of private marriage, not "civil marriage." It just obfuscates the issue with worthless emotional appeals.

Mlund
If you read my first comment carefully, you'll note I cited Loving to show that the court considers marriage a right, not a privilege. I didn't say that it had anything to do with the topic of same sex marriage specifically. I did remark that the statement I quoted captures the spirit of what this argument is about, even if it failed to truly capture the whole scope.

Civil marriages are still available to people who can't reproduce. Trying to say that civil marriage privilege given to people who can reproduce is a non-starter. While it may be your ideal, it's simply not the case.

The idea that heterosexuality is part of the definition of marriage is *your* idea, not the immutable definition of the word or concept.

The conception of marriage has changed a lot over the last two centuries. It used to be that marriage was an agreement your parents made on your behalf, giving you to a stranger in exchange for an alliance, money, or property. The concept of marriage for love was utterly alien, yet we take it for granted. Before the Victorian era, people would've laughed at you for saying that marriage was about love. It just wasn't part of the "definition" to them. It didn't occur to them. Yet here we are, viewing arranged marriages with disdain. Why? Because the definition changed. We became aware that the old view of it was wrong and outdated.

Blood testing in New York still occurs for sickle cell anemia (for blacks and Hispanics), which is incurable. You'll also note that most states with blood tests *are* essentially looking for fertility, since applicants over 50 are usually exempt from these tests, as are people who can provide evidence of sterilization.

ON GAY & LESBIAN MARRIAGES
Extract from: Part Two: “Discourse on Gay and Lesbian Marriages”, by Ivan Erickson, author of “Song of the Storm Winds”.

Please be aware that I love all people of all faiths and ethnicities of whom God loves, and this is the reason why I continue to toil to bring the Truth and the Light of God to all those who are seeking:

“What do I mean by stating that one can overcome this type of sin through perseverance? I specifically mean that there may be those types of sin – such as pedophilia or homosexuality – that you may always have the urge within you to commit throughout your entire lifetime, perhaps. The Apostle Paul confessed that he was afflicted with an urge to commit an unspecified sin, and for which he had prayed three times to overcome. The desire of sin was so intense that Paul described it as a thorn in his flesh! The LORD did not take the urge to sin from him, but more importantly, He assured Paul that His Grace would suffice to help him overcome the burning desire in his flesh every time he was tempted by Satan and Its demons to commit this particular sinful act”.

May the Beloved Lord bless each of you and your loved ones in all things, always.

You're Bigots
I am afraid that Homosexuals have the potential of painting themselves into a box. They are trying so hard to justify there lifestyle that they are using the premise that it is genetic.

That’s real a dangerous position for them to put themselves in.

They are using the very liberal society that passes legislation to end life for convenience to advance there position.

We already end Down Syndrome pregnancies, and pregnancies of inconvenience. We will soon end the elderly’s life for convenience. With aids being the epidemic that it is, a socialistic government may choose to end the pregnancies of those genetically prone to homosexuality.
It won’t be the first time that it has been thought of.

Down Syndrome children can’t help the way that they are born either.

Wouldn’t that be ironic, the very people that Homosexuals hate will be the very ones to fight for there right to life.

Mlund
While you can draft legal documents to set up some of the rights that are gained as a result of civil marriage, it's a long and expensive process. If the rights are available in a package form to some pairs of people, there's no good basis to say that same package shouldn't be available to others. Furthermore, there are tax benefits that you can't set up between unmarried partners.

Love is the motivation for people seeking civil marriages. My own parents married in a civil ceremony before a Justice of the Peace because of a romantic relationship. The two of them did not decide to have children until some years after they were married. My mother married my father knowing he did not desire children. Their experience is far from unique. They did not just get together and decide, because they thought it best for society, that they ought to get married and have children. Most people marry out of love, even if that love does not endure. Of course it's central to the discussion.

With regard to longterm relationships, we don't need a law that recognizes their value to society. Laws are not made to proclaim basic truths, they are made to protect the rights of citizens. We don't need a law to tell us that the sun rises in the west, or one to tell us that the earth is billions of years old. These things are known truths.

Privilege for me, not for thee
"While you can draft legal documents to set up some of the rights that are gained as a result of civil marriage, it's a long and expensive process."

Or you can just walk up to the city hall and file for a Civil Union - if you happen to be a same-sex couple. If you aren't interested in having sex with your "partner" you are apparently out of luck, though.

"If the rights are available in a package form to some pairs of people, there's no good basis to say that same package shouldn't be available to others."

Yes. If it is just a general domestic arrangement with no sexual connotations it should be available to everyone, including siblings and old war-buddies and business partners and lots of other people who don't have sex with one-another. It wouldn't be a Privilege anymore, just a certification.

"Furthermore, there are tax benefits that you can't set up between unmarried partners."

Yes. That's a Privilege - an incentive to promote marriage (one man and one woman making kids) as a Public Benefit. If it isn't restricted to those providing the Public Benefit then it isn't Constitutional. Trying to just get it exclusively for sex-partners without a Public Benefit would be a gross abuse of Equal Protection.

Mixing law and love
"If you read my first comment carefully, you'll note I cited Loving to show that the court considers marriage a right, not a privilege."

I've read the comment, noted that you took it out of context, and corrected the context.

"I did remark that the statement I quoted captures the spirit of what this argument is about, even if it failed to truly capture the whole scope."

Your notions of "the spirit of the argument" are as irrelevant as your notions of "love," when it comes to support or opposition of same-sex "civil marriage" under Equal Protection.

"Civil marriages are still available to people who can't reproduce."

Already refuted. Civil marriages are given to a class of people who are, to the best available knowledge of the State, not otherwise unable to reproduce. That's why siblings and same-sex partners can't marry. You continue to duck the issue of siblings marrying, by the way.

Gays seek social acceptance with working

Clearly Gays are seeking social acceptance without having to work for it. That is really the bottom line here.

All the rights, priviledges and benefits Gays seek can be obtained through civil unions.

They hope to legislate into law what they have not been able to accomplish through good clean living and contributing to the community.

In any soceity there are givers and there are takers.

They don't care who they hurt as long as they get social acceptance.

James I Am Sorry to Remind You.
James Location: NY
Reply # 80
Date: Nov 12, 2008 - 9:58 AM EST
---
If you and your gay friends were doing this for the children, and for a better world, it would be different. Your actions are leading to chaos in your life and everyone else’s. You do not like that and equally we detest it as well.

We have realized that the real reason activists are pushing to destroy the traditional marriage. You may have already read that in my previous post.

If Gays were sent to a private island all to them selves, they could not survive. Any culture that will normalize the polymorphic nature of homosexuality, as gays are demanding, that demand would destroy the foundation and strength that culture. Is that what you want too? That is the reason we oppose you, moreover, death would be sweeter than to see the traditional marriage polluted by misguided and addicted people.

No society has ever endured long after falling beneath the level of brute beasts. Moreover, when we fail to tame and train our nature we will fail to respect our neighbor. Anyway, your actions are a demonstration of this fact. In 6000 year since the first marriage, no demand has ever been made for same-sex-marriages and it is never going to be recognized by good, ethical and moral people, but it naturally will be by those who are themselves addicted to their own hormones just as you are.

Your lives are out of control, depressed, and driven by an “unnecessary necessity” and to your own selfish end, were there is no self-respect as there is no respect for others, driven by passion, and unreasonable urges. There is a better way my friend. You are not gaining support you are losing it. I wish you no harm, and it would be wonderful if you would respect us and the marriage we cherish of one man and one woman, as it has always been.

Stanhisground
NY does not have initiatives whereby majorities can bully minorities. The NYS legislature will soon take up the issue of marriage equality. Gov. Patterson is very open to the concept of marriage equality and I expect NY to soon join the ranks of other Northeastern States that allow marriage equality. As for the Mormons, Church elders encouraged church members throughout the US to donate money to the Yes on 8 (which denies rights) Proposition. NY Mormons were among the donors (the list of donors is public information). NY like other blue states is very tolerant of others. The great blue state of Massachussets elected a Mormon Republican governor (whose grandfather was a Mormon polygamist)years ago. When this Mormon ran for President in an Republican primary, he was attacked by conservatives. Blue state tolerance gets stretched when those we are tolerant of work to deny equality to others. The Mormon Church whose history should make it cautious in getting involved in any civil discussion of marriage needs to know this. The people of New York City need to be aware of how actively the Mormon Church worked to take away rights from Californians. The protest was peaceful from what I saw on the news. I was not at the protest but saw a report on the local Fox station here, not an MSM station. Fox said the protest was peaceful.

This may be a very naive question...
but will there EVER be more than just Fox news reporting the truth? I mean, is it possible to create major news stations/newspapers willing to report something other than the views of the liberal left?
I heard Oprah's next endeavor is OWN(Oprah Winfrey Network) which will be ready in 2011... just in time to campaign for B Hussein Obama.

Response to Miund
Is it really necessary for you to question my education before you respond to my post (i.e. "Your educators were negligent...), particularly when you go on to make my exact point?

You said "Judicial Review exists to keep the Legislature and Executive Branches from ignoring their own laws - including the Constitution that enumerates many Rights of the individual as well as Restrictions on the government. The judiciary settles disputes when two laws come into conflict."

And that is precisely what the California Supreme court did when it disallowed the provisions of Proposition 22, and not for an act of the legislature but a initiative created "by the people". They determined that the statute was in conflict with constitutional protections of rights of the individual.


They did it then, and they can do it again if it is determined that Prop 8 was a revision of the constitution and not an Amendment. In fact it HAD to be a revision because if was a true amendment it would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature, which it did not receive. So it IS a revision by definition and it WILL be reviewed by the court.

What the court decides remains to be seen, but the prospects for Prop 8, given the fate of prop 22 are not looking that good. "That is all."

Spiceman0
I respect you and the marriage you cherish as one man and one woman. Obviosuly you are heterosexual. Well not all people in this great country are heterosexual. Some are homosexual and as such cherish marriage as man and man or as woman and woman. Homosexuals do not seek to destroy your marriage so why must you try to destroy ours. Live and let live. My life is not out of control. All I ask is that I not be treated as a 2nd class citizen in this great land of ours. Is that too much to ask.

Response again to Mlund:
you said, "The State can verify your Birth Certification - including your sex (M or F by XY or XX chromosomes)".

Fact: There are more than 150,000 congental hermaphrodites in this country (i.e. either XXY, or neither XX, nor XY).

Whom can they legally marry? Big Daddy says gays have equality because he can't marry a man and neither can they. But what about those who are not clearly male OR female? Can they marry either gender or neither? If the former, how does that not offend 'traditional marriage', and if the later, how is that not an arbritrary denial of equal rights to a 'suspect class'?

In fact the numbers of gender non-specific persons is far greater than just congenital hermaphrodites because of trans gender persons, either pre or post operative.

So, if your birth certificate says XY or Male but your genitalia and breasts says Female, whom can you marry? Legally? In California?

We're talking about half a million to a million people here, so don't be too quick to dismiss it as irrelevant.

The reason they are not rallying outside
Black churches is because these people are taking the path of least resistance. They KNOW they would get their butts kicked. They are cowards hiding behind the masses shouting "BIGOTS."

Check it out
Any of you Liberals and lefties here who claim there is freedom of Religion in this Country, ought to get in touch with Mitt Romney or any Latter Day Saint who knows Church History. also, another good place to start would be Ohio, Missouri and Illinois Histories. Check it out!

The fatal flaw in Proposition 8....
...is that it is an anachronism.

There are many within the hetersexual majority who do not yet fully understand that there are, in fact, millions of people BORN with the sex drive of the opposite sex (i.e. guys who like guys and gals who like gals), but the numbers who don't understand that fact are diminishing with time.

There are still many deeply religious people who are irretrievably convinced that this PHYSICAL anomaly (not genetic but congenital nevertheless) is just sinful behavior and not an integral feature of the human condition, but their numbers are diminishing with time.

The only excuse left for denying the despised 'other' (i.e homosexuals) an equal and rightful place in society is the notion that they are 'choosing depravity' rather than openly living their truth, but that excuse is fading with growing recognition of the reality.

Homosexuals can, and do, establish families and raise children. They can and do live lifetimes of monogomy (The first gay couple married by Mayor Newsome were partners for 60 years). They can and do contribute equally to society (work and pay taxes, vote, shop, run for public office, etc.). They are 'us'. They simply love differently.

They should be encouraged, not discouraged, to form stable families. They should not be encouraged, let alone forced, to fraudulently marry opposite sex persons with whom they can never truely bond. No one here really thinks that is real option for gays, but many here do wish they would (1) live forever alone in a life of denial and celibacy, or (2) simply disappear.

Neither 1 or 2 is going to happen, and 'civil union' is both a separate and unequal (i.e. inferior) status. The future is clear. Prop 8 was just a temporary setback.

BIGSKYER
Do you care to elaborate on the lack of religious freedom in this country? Are you talking about polygamist sects that force 14 year old girls to marry? As for Mitt Romney, he was accepted in blue MA. When he tried to run nationally, he was slammed by the right. The right is the agent of intolerance in this country.

oh please
Complaining now that gay people haven't turned on black voters or their churches enough?!
Doesn't seem to occur to most here that gay people are reluctant, unlike those black voters, to turn on another suspect class.

Gay people voted for our black President in large numbers. Have supported civil rights throughout and invigorated the civil rights movement as well.
A gay black man was instrumental in the success of the March on Washington in the 60's.
And he is a hero to many gays and lesbians whatever their color.

And no one has considered how THEY would feel, if their marriages and family were suddenly thrown into legal limbo and perhaps voided by a majority vote brokered by fear and suspicion?
The perception of threat from gay people is cartoonish. In TH as well as any other forum.

Gay people's marriages WERE actually threatened, before they barely had time to form in the consciousness. And are supposed to go home and make no protest, not have any anger or fell no pain?!

You're trying to tell me if it was YOU, you wouldn't respond that way?

endless contradictions
I wonder, ever wonder where the end of the contradictions will be.
Those of faith want protections to remain for their religious choice.

While ceaselessly asserting that homosexuality IS. Since when is being religious inborn, while an obviously universal trait is not?
And the ONLY ones arguing that it is mutable, are the very people who aren't that way.

And even then, are certain they can't change THEIRS.

Will assert that marriage is good for society, good for stability, good for security of children, yet will argue, despite how much gay people agree and fight to be included, are still told are so beneath it and undeserving that even an incarcerated murderer has that option, where a gay person, not at all.

However much civil marriage is detached from the choice of a religious ceremony, will insist that there is no other option but that religious institutions have in refusing a gay couple a ceremony.

And however much promscuity, mental dysfunction, competence for parenthood, sterility and sexual incompatibility is brought up as fair to exclusion: no such exclusions exist for ANYONE and regardless of the same contradictions in defining what homosexuality is, none of them are defined in disqualification to marry.

Contradictions muddy the conversation and the terms under which we are all expected to live.
The most caricaturish contradiction of all, is expecting gay people to live and respond like children and not be smart enough to see through the mud.
And getting upset when they know they are adults and expect to be treated as such.


Prop. 8
Couldn't care much about what gays/lesbos do in the bedroom, but do care when they try to make a desperate case that what they "do" is normal. It ain't. Mother Nature is not a fool.
Definition of words aren't affected by idiot riots and well-financed assemblies (yes, assemblies protected by the 1st amendment). You gays wanna get civil licenses? go get them. Just don't try to call the agreement a "marriage." CBee

CB, what DO you know?
Apparently you require a very simpleminded standard regarding nature, and how it's defined, instead of how MEN have manipulated what nature is and is supposed to be by maintaining fear and exploiting ignorance among the masses.

Do you know what SEXUAL ORIENTATION is, and the four that exist IN NATURE among human beings and IS normal?

Come back when you've been to class on human sexuality and sociology.
Apparently you and the typical poster here, snoozed through such education.
More's the point, how do you argue about being gay, when that's never been your experience?
Are you so eager to argue with someone of color, if you're not...as IF?
Didn't think so.

so?
You're right, CB, Mother Nature isn't a fool.

But a lot of human beings are and haven't always understood what Mother Nature is, requires or means.
And have gone to great lengths to set standards that place other humans at risk, or in unfair and discriminatory institutions REGARDLESS of normalcy.

That's what makes young women develop anorexia.
Asians to have surgery on their eyes and blacks to straighten their hair with burning chemicals.

Nature?
As if there is respect for those that Mother Nature gifted with being different, but no less inferior and no less of great potential to the world.

Attacking gay people is just a lot more easier and acceptable, but no less justified as it's happened to others.

The shame is how little you recognize that pattern and forcing the heterosexual will on gay people is business as usual.
And all the while, with no results worth the price paid. Let alone without justification.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.