Is challenge to Prop. 8 already lost in California Supreme Court?

The California Supreme Court’s order last week to consider legal challenges to Proposition 8 contained one surprising twist -- the name of the sole justice who voted against hearing the cases.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, a staunchly independent if not stubborn jurist, has a lengthy record of protecting gay rights, including the right to marry, and often sides with the underdog in rulings.

In fact, her record is so unwavering that many gay-rights activists and several independent legal scholars surmised that her vote against hearing the legal challenges was procedural -- for example, she might have wanted them to be filed in lower courts first -- and did not reflect her thinking on the cases.

But a close reading of the court's one-page order suggests that gay-rights advocates may have lost a usually predictable ally in their effort to overturn Proposition 8.

"It definitely isn't a good sign," said UCLA Law Professor Brad Sears, an expert on sexual-orientation law.

Read the rest of the story here.

--Maura Dolan

AP file photo

Comments

[Ben]

I really hope that the judges turns this proposition 8 around. Freedom to love who you want and to express that love should be revered above all else. I want rights for all people, and all things. I know this is kind of out there. But whats the possibility for Apes to have human rights given to them - I know this case in the courts in Europe that considered allowing apes human rights so that they can be treated with respect. There are hundreds of advocates out there for this. This lady is leading the case and the cause. If passed, think of all the possibilities. She may very well have attraction to this ape. I know this is kind of out there - but this relationship between her and the Ape is a "type" of one that is circled with love and devotion and I just think that Marriage (this wonderful union) should include these types of relationships. Oh, may this be true - how awesome- how wonderful that would be. Oh, please, we must pass Prop 8 and broaden its definition! YES WE CAN!

[m burke]

You have the right to "love whom you want", you just don't have the right to redefine a term against the historically held definition for thousands of years. Gays have always had the same rights as heteros... to marry someone of the opposite sex.

[J. Foster]

There's no redefining a definition of marriage. The churches can define it however they want. But it STOPS there. The state, through its granting of marriage licenses, CANNOT treat homosexual couples any different than hetero couples. Why should I pay $60,000 / year in taxes and not be treated equally under the LAW as str8s?

(1) You cannot interject your religion into the Constitution. As an atheist, why should I be bound by your Christian rules?

(2) Most religions define marriage (including the Mormons until last century) as Polygamy. Current Christian definition of marriage is only hundreds of years old, not thousands. Even Charlemagne, leader of Holy Roman Empire back in 800 AD had several wives - WHICH WAS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AT THAT TIME.

(3) This country was founded on slavery. Does that mean we continue it? And the church believed that the sun revolved around the earth for thousands of years - does this make it right?

(4) I'm a sure a majority, through a ballot initiative, in Alabama would support segregation. Does that mean we allow it? No. THE LAW IS AND REQUIRES THAT THE COURTS, IN FACE OF MAJORITY OPPOSITION, PROTECT MINORITIES. WE live in a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY - for a very wise reason.

Overall, the evil Christian church uses fear, misinformation, lies, and ignorance to breed hatred, division, unequal treatment, and intolerance - a far cry from their fairy tale beliefs.

When do we get a ballot initiative to take the tax-exempt status away from the church, particularly when it enters into political areas such as this? WHY DOES THE CHURCH GET SPECIAL RIGHTS? It's just a cult teaching fairy tales. When do we get a ballot initiative to require home schooling parents to have Teaching Degrees and Certificates? And we do we get a ballot initiative to outlaw the Church entirely? It's nothing more than a hate group/cult.

[H. Thorton]

NO, the challenge to Prop 8 COULD WIN. Here's why:

Kennard said she denies appropriate court action to determine Prop 8's impact on the marriages performed BEFORE its adoption. In other words, she rejects that the Court is even considering whether the same- sex marriages before Prop 8 are valid - because they are already legal. There shouldn't be any question on this matter, and these marriages shouldn't even be under any kind of court scrutiny or be placed in the jeopardy position of being reversed.

And with regard to the confusing wording of "deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing", without prejudice means "without losing their (the petitioners) legal right to the filing (to challenge Prop 8)." This means that the petitioners would still have legal right to challenge Prop 8, and that her (Kennard's) denial wouldn't affect their legal right.

[Steven]

Popular sovereignty -- "of the people, for the people, by the people." The people voted, and the proposition passed. Deal with it. If you have a problem with it, leave the state. In this great country, the law is supreme. Whether or not you feel as though it is right or wrong is of no one's concern. Everyone has equal rights regardless.

Also, homosexuality does not fall within the State's definition of a "minority". If one were be discriminated against due to race, ethnicity, or gender -- then the law protects you. Someone's sexual orientation can change, therefore, does not fall within the lines of a minority.

Sidepoint: I cannot even think of a single religion across the planet which is in favor of the deformation of nature that is homosexuality. Don't single out Christianity, Foster.

[M. Johnson]

Steven appears awfully ignorant, and that's why I oppose ballot initiatives in the first place - allowing ignorant, uneducated, bigots to anonymously become legislators is wrong. It's not allowed on the federal level because the founding fathers never intended that.

Steven is ignorant because he never has read the U.S Constitution and the role of the Courts. The California Supreme Court will reject Prop 8 - so deal with that without crying about that some group went around the law - it is the law for the Courts to protect minority rights.

Steven is ignorant because in California sexual orientation IS considered a minority as anti-discrimination laws ARE in place to protect homosexuals. One cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation - deal with that.

And Steven is ignorant as homosexuality is natural. It's found in all animals. More giraffes are homosexual than heterosexual. Do giraffes choose their sexual preference? lol, hardly. And man is an animal.

Steven obviously has self-loathing, latent homosexuals desires and is busy fighting them. It's easier to lash out against someone for something you hate about yourself than to deal with it in oneself. I feel rather sad for you as you appear to be the one deformed.

[Claire P]

If Steven is really not gay (I believe he is and in the closet), since when do non-gays tell gays whether it's a choice or genetics? I mean, unless your gay, HOW do you know it's a choice?? What, do you think all gays are in some kind of conspiracy and all irrationally choose to live, what must be, a much harder life given the hatred toward gays?

It's also very arrogant to tell someone that what he or she is doing is a choice, when you're not that person or if you're supposedly not gay. Are you a mind reader? Maybe Steven is bisexual - then it would be a choice.

[A. Teran]

what is wrong with you people. Let me guess your all from San Francisco, remember, SF doesnt speak for the rest of CALIFORNIA !!! You guys can't even stand loosing fair. You need to get over it, you must accept the fact that The Votes have been counted and the Majority is not you, UNDERSTAND!! Imagine the money that could have been saved from both campaigns, all because of 3 Liberal Judges that should be FIRED and made and made examples of. Now Arnold is cutting 2.5 Billion from Education, and close to $100M from Medicare. Get on with your Lives, accept Domestic Partnerships, and STOP comparing this movemrnt to the BLACK MOVEMENT, which is completely different from gay marriage, you have NO RIGHT to compare your rights to theirs because of marriage, those people fought for equality rights for man and women , "Civil Rights" , those people where slaughtered and raped for centuries, what did YOU SUFFER!!!! just because I am not in your favor for Gay Marriage doesnt mean that I hate you, I DON'T , i have gay friends, I respect them, so stop making your beliefs a "Civil Rights" Movement, your not looked at different, Recognize Marriage between a Man and Women forever, Lets get on with life respect eachother and fix soo many of the other problems that we have today, LIKE OUR DARN ECONOMY...

[John]

Proposition 8 has only one goal: preserving the traditional definition of marriage and thereby preserving our society. Unfortunately, Jerry Brown, a big gay activist, changed the wording on the California ballot from: "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to ""Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." Anyone who considering voting Yes on 8 was made to feel like a bigot, for taking away a 4-month-old right that no one ever voted to create.

Now the people have voted twice to pass the same definition of marriage. Meanwhile, angry mobs are literally terrorizing churches, attacking innocent workers, and vandalizing churches. Why are we tolerating their misbehavior? They ought to be locked up. Who is going to stand up for the rights of the good citizens who are trying to ensure the stability of our most important social institution?

And don't forget what the New York Supreme Court said in Hernandez v Robles in 2006: "The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Let us stop encouraging illegal mobs of angry, ignorant, hypocritical thugs to harass and demonize the good people who voted for Proposition 8.

Enough is enough.

[W. Pacific]

To the GLBT community it really isn't about 'marrage', it's about braking down societal boundries that they preceive to be excluded from either on religious, legal, sexual, gender and ethnic grounds. The GLBT community has pretty much broken down all the legal, sexual and gender boundries, there really weren't many ethnic ones against them, and now all that stands in their 'self-determined' way is the Church which they preceive to be against them on moral grounds.[/I]

Their fight isn't about marriage, it's all about the Church IMHO. And looking at who the GLBT community is vilifying and picketing since Prop. 8 passed reinforces my belief. Interesting they choose to go after the Mormons, not much picketing going on at Baptists churches... In case you didn't know, 70% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics that voted in California this month voted yes on Prop. 8.

[Debbie]

Dear M. Johnson,
You sound so angry. You seem to resort to the ever familiar attacks on anyone who doesn't share your view. Steven made some good points. I did not notice him attacking you or your cause, he merely expressed his opinion. The "YES on 8" position isn't about stripping gays of any of their rights. This issue, YES on 8, is about RESTORING what has been traditionally known as "marriage," namely one man and one woman. According to many studies, the BEST situation for a child is to be in a loving and stable home with their father and mother. Children learn different things from a mother and different things from a father. To be truely complete, children need to learn from BOTH. Two mother's and/or two father's CAN'T give the child what they truely need. Again, I am most concerned with the children. Some families have problems and are broken. Why should we give up? Why isn't the goal to help these broken families? The May 2008, CA judges decision for gay marriage was 4 to 3. Ultimately, it was ONE person's opinion and/or interpretation of the Constitution that led to the change in the law. I would neither call that resounding support for the change, nor would I call it reasonable for the rest of society to be unquestioning of it's validity. I disageed with the four judges and agreed the THREE dissenting judges. Marriage is an historical institution and has value in society. Whether or not a person is religious, it has always been recognized that marriage is between a man and a woman. No one is taking away ANY rights from the gay community by supporting traditional marriage, the gay community ALREADY has equality through the CA law. As a matter of fact, last year, CA allowed Registered Domestic Partners to file a Joint tax return. Just like a married couple! This WILL NOT CHANGE. For your further information, heterosexual couples have to be 62 or older to qualify. Gay RDP actually have MORE rights than heterosexual couples.

[K Linn]

This just in by secret wire from Keith OIlberman who found a poll that says 8% say if it was held today they would have not voted for it.

Me thinks that the SC of CA may infact ask for what is known as a clarifying revote (rarely used as it makes for a fiscal mess) therefore the Christian conservatives cant say that they are not judicial activists because the use of Two votes is used under some states constitutions as constitutional conventions

And if this goes the other way and prop 8 fails this time its then considered moot and everything goes back to the way it was before

As I heard from a source this may end up on the June ballot

[Dusty]

OVERTURN IT!

[Dan Dormann]

Yes, Justice Kennard voted not to hear this case at this point. This does not mean that she believes the case is without merit. Whether the Supreme Ct exercises its original jurisdiction instead of letting the case go through normal court system is completely discretionary and there are many reasons why she may not want to hear the case at this point. One is that she wanted to give the No on 8 campaign the opportunity to overturn Prop 8 in a new ballot initiative. This would give the equality movement an enormous boost throughout the nation. Another reason may be that she is concerned about the implications of not getting enough votes to overturn Prop 8. If the Ca Sup Ct lets Prop 8 stand, this would be a devastating blow to all minorities in California and essentially eclipse the state high court from its core constitutional function to uphold fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. The stakes are very high and if this case is lost, the Supreme Court loses a key function, the biggest losers would be the people of the great state of California. Justice Kennard knows how much is at stake. I believe the court will surprise everyone and come out 6-1 or 7-0 against Prop 8.

[D. Dias]

To m burke - judging from your comment it appears to me you are ignorant of the legal issues surrounding the difference between a marriage and a civil union. The prop 8 argument has NOTHING to do with 'taking marriage away from the church' or even redefining marriage. For a start marriage never 'belonged' to the church, and the act has been around much longer than the names 'Jesus' or 'Abraham' ever reached anyone's ears. The same goes for all other major religions. That, however, is beside the point.

The fact is that legally in the US, more than 1000 rights, benefits and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage that are NOT provided to civil unions. THAT is what the LGBT community is fighting for, equal rights and protections when you become bound to the person you wan to spend the rest of your life with. If you don't like gay unions labelled as 'marriage', you can call it whatever you like, you could even call it 'Goomaligoop' for all they care, as long as they get equal rights in union. I suggest you read the US federal General Accounting Office's OGC-97-16 paper for the full list of rights and protections they're not getting.

I think what is even more striking to me is that although I am not a US citizen and I have never have lived in the US, I know more about the legal issues surrounding this than most (if not all) the people who voted for prop 8. What's wrong with this picture? If you're going to vehemently strike something down, at least make sure you have all your facts straight.

Oh and Steven, there are quite a few recognised religions which support gay marriage including Reformed Judaism, the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists (and have done so for a very long time), some Episcopalians, a few independent Catholic churches, some sects of Buddhism, all Pagan religions, I could keep going. Outside the US there is also the Church of England and the United Church of Canada that I know of. Some religions really wish they were able to 'marry' loving couples regardless of their orientation. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, you clearly know little about other religions outside of your own.

[Steven]

*yawn*

Such blatant attacks are quite boring -- and hold no foundation, yet only show your true character (or lack there-of). Homosexuality is not a protected class for it does not fall within the boundaries of the state's definition of minorities. "We do not protect those that do not immutable characteristics, as they are the product of conscious action". Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; unlike, race, heritage and gender which are... and surely are a protected class.

That's wonderful, but I do not care nor does it hold any further testament to your argument -- because the law is not on your side, and is on mine. Homosexuality is not a protected class because it is the protect of conscious action.

Sidenote: The states define marriage, the federal government is not obliged to give homosexuals marriage, because it is not a protected class.

[Zach]

I think people like A. Teran need to realize that they're not being gracious by not overtly bashing gay people or even having gay friends. It's easy to say you "respect" someone when they're not disagreeing with you, like when a man says he "respects" his wife but EXPECTS her to stay in the kitchen, so to speak.

When you flippantly take equal provisions under the law away from your gay friends and then tell them they have nothing to complain about, you obviously don't have much respect for their feelings or situation.

When you tell a group of people they don't know prejudice when they have a history of being jailed and criminalized for their love, from the present time in some places to the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and even further back still, you obviously don't have much respect for their history, either.

And when insist that judges should be "fired" when their duty of impartially interpretting law (time-honored checks and balances) interferes with majority rule, you can't have much respect for the history of our country. Respect is about more than lip service, it's about caring enough to be informed about the thing you claim to respect!

[LMO]

Dan..you are not a minority! This is insane that this is even a disussion.

"1. minority - a group of people who differ racially or politically from a larger group of which it is a part "

You are a minority based on your sexual preference. I am am a minority based on the biological darker skin I was BORN with, which cannot be changed...nor can I be in the closet about it, nor can I choose to mask it in any way as many do regarding sexuality.

This has gone too far...good grief.

[LMO]

"I think what is even more striking to me is that although I am not a US citizen and I have never have lived in the US, I know more about the legal issues surrounding this than most (if not all) the people who voted for prop 8. What's wrong with this picture? If you're going to vehemently strike something down, at least make sure you have all your facts straight.

Oh and Steven, there are quite a few recognised religions which support gay marriage including Reformed Judaism, the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists (and have done so for a very long time), some Episcopalians, a few independent Catholic churches, some sects of Buddhism, all Pagan religions, I could keep going. Outside the US there is also the Church of England and the United Church of Canada that I know of. Some religions really wish they were able to 'marry' loving couples regardless of their orientation. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, you clearly know little about other religions outside of your own."

(A) - Interesting that you state all that you "think" to know but you obviously have vested interest (personally) here. The fact is, children are at risk of being taught concerning gay marriage at an age where they have no cognizant understanding of sexuality.

Just because some "religions" adhere to it, does not make the practice correct. And if the argument doesnt have a "leg" to stand on...ask the voters of the State of CA.

Prop 22 passed in 2000
Prop 22 finally voted and overturned in May 2008
Prop 8 on the ballot August 2008
Prop 8 Passes (same agenda, same vote) and now it is being challened ..."again"

This movement is like no other. 0-30 in constitutional challenges. No other movement, whether womens rights...Black Civil Rights, Or the Farm Workers Rights challenge never went past 5 challenges. This movement is 0-30. Something is wrong here, and the public understands this. Prop 8 has passed. Deal with it.

[LMO]

For all that you "seem" to know, historically marriage was an insituition with remnants in Judiasm, and progressing to Christianity.....I wont get into detail, but the crux of this issue is that many of these same sex couples have as many rights a "common-law" marriages between man-woman couples, and now the fact that "marriage" being recognized is on the docket as legally speaking this is the first step to opening the door to what ever they would desire to challege.....ultyimately silencing church and state differences.

The "Fairness" Doctrine is tied to this as well. It is all meant to silence morality.

-You cannot mention "God", "Jesus", and homosexuality is "okay". This world is dying right before our eyes.

Should 8 had not passed, narriage could be challenged with respect to churches and exemptions if Bible believing chuches adhere to the Greek-Hebrew dialects of the Bible in what it states concerning homosexuality and the penalties for adhering to it.

Secular courts could force churches to potentially marry parishoners who could legally challege a church's mandate based upon their statement of faith, and perspective regarding homosexuality.

Children are mandated to be taught about marriage in schools and the curriculum (I know a respected elementary school teacher and she is active on her board) is already prepared to be assimilated into schools, as they "assumed" prop 8 would be shot down. Children indoctrinated and taught that this is a "natural" act is ready.

Do you not realize that males who have same sex relationships typically have up to the "hundreds" with regard to partners? Do you not realize that mediaclly with regard to anal sexual intercourse you are merely bursting thousands of blodd vessels in an effort to acclaim to "love" another of the same sex, with which you cannot even reproduce?

This is sick and sadistic to think that this ridiculous argument is being compared to womens rights, and teh civil rights movement....wow.

[Joshua2415KJV]

Please do not mistake the religious crowd for true born-again Christians. Jesus said that "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3) This was directed at the religious and non religious, gays and straights, everyone. The bottom line is the only way for anybody, religious or not, to avoid eternal condemnation in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15) is to repent towards God and put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:21) Neither being "straight" nor "religious" saves you. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23) "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23) "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13). The choice is yours. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9).

[Brian]

Civil Marriage is a Civil Right. While every church has the right to discriminate when in comes to the religious institution of marriage, people cannot deny a disfavored minority of citizens access to the civil institution of marriage since it is granted by the State for the benefit of all California citizens. This separation of Church and State is necessary to guarantee that individual rights are not subject to the beliefs of whatever religious majority exists at any particular point in time (the dangers of which have been clearly demonstrated throughout history…religious intolerance being the core motivation for the founding of our own Nation and the evils of which have been more recently demonstrated by the Taliban in Afghanistan). I find it sadly ironic that one of the most persecuted religious minorities in American history, the Mormons, were the leading financial contributors to the passage of Prop 8.

In addition to religious minorities, discrimination against women and blacks has been justified by bible passages for centuries. I wish that people of faith would recognize the irreconcilability of Leviticus (which, by the way, does not prohibit lesbianism, but does condone the selling of daughters into slavery) and the four other short and controversial passages in the bible used to justify discrimination against gays with Jesus’ core message of universal love embodied in the Golden Rule: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” I am confident that those who choose love over fear of what they don’t personally understand are the true Christians in God’s eyes.

I believe that until the religious objections to homosexuality are answered, discrimination against gay people will continue unabated. The lynchpin to gay discrimination appears to be the belief by many people of faith that homosexuality is a choice because even they acknowledge that a loving God wouldn’t create inherently sinful human beings who are cursed from the moment of their birth. So for those who believe that sexual orientation is a choice and not God-given, I ask two simple questions: Was your own sexual orientation a choice? If not, then on what basis do you assume any other persons was? And if it was a choice for you, then congratulations… you’re bi-sexual! That’s my two and a half cents.

[Mike]

Wow, so much discussion, and so many folks are really not in tune with the facts.
That is sad, because this issue on Prop 8 is so important.
Everyone is entitled to their views, that is a given. But when views are not backed up by facts, others will take them as such.

Here is what I don't understand. A straight couple can run off to Reno/Vegas and get "married" with no connection to any church. They are considered married. There is no rule that marriage must be in a church to thrive. I have a lot of respect for any church to determine within themselves, the right to rule out who they want in their group. But they should not take control and set the rules for everyone.

I have been in a loving relationship with my partner for 20 years. We have loving friends and family, gay and straight. If my partner and I were to get married on a beautiful beach, at City Hall, or even in our home, why would the church care??? Isn't there room here for everyone to live in peace? I just don't understand the threat created. Maybe those in the church think they are better than the gay community? I don't know, but I though love was the common bond.

Today is Thanksgiving, and I will everyone (gay or straight) a wonderful time with your family and friends......

[steph]

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN!!

[Mike]

Even though the "will of the people has spoken", it is up to the Supreme Court to decide if this "will" is constitutional or not. That is their job; to protect.
For example, if 52% of the people voted to ban divorce, that does not make it law. The Supreme Court would have to see how that would apply against the constitution.
So many people do not understand how the system works.
Have a nice holiday, then we will see how Prop. 8 plays out in the Spring, when the Supreme Court will make a decision.

[C Buenrico]

Societies recognize marriage and give it a special status because there is an inherent societal benefit of such status. The major societal benefit of marriage is a stable environment for children who come from a union, who can grow to be responsible members of that society and perpetuate it in a healthy way. Marriage also protects the rights of spouses who could otherwise be left without property or support and thereby be dumped on the state for their support. In other words, recognizing marriage is not about who loves whom, it is about how a society benefits from it.

Homosexual "marriage" certainly can't be about children -- simple biology there. And the current push for homosexual marriage can't be about granting rights to same-sex partners -- they already have them under California law. There is no compelling societal reason to support homosexual "marriage".

What would be the major impact on a society that sanctioned same-sex "marriage"? It would further enforce sexual preference and behavior as a protected class, and expose anyone who disagrees to be charged with hate crimes. The next logical step after sanctioning same-sex marriage is that the right of free speech of those who disagree with it will be restricted. The religion argument is a distraction, the core issue is freedom of speech, which is closely coupled with the freedom to practice (and preach) religion without fear of recrimination by government.

[Charlie]

You can change your skin color. Cosmetic bleaching has advanced to a point whereby skin color can be lightened considerably. Does that make you caucasian if you have it done? No. Does a gay person getting married to an opposite sex partner or not acting on their feelings make them straight? No.

I really don't have strong feelings on the marriage issue. Civil unions recognized on the Federal level would be equally effective in granting equal rights to all citizens.

I am just amazed that so many people are completely ignorant of history; including that of their own religion, civics and even the effect of gay marriage in CA. Even if marriage again becomes legal in CA, those rights mentioned in the GAO report will not be conferred upon gays because of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Until that is repealed there is no equality.

To say that gays have not or do not face discrimination/hate/torture/death/criminality for who they are is just ludicrous. The people that have written that here must be delusional. There can be no other way to explain it. The simple fact that we are having this debate is evidence of that.

[Charlie]

"The religion argument is a distraction, the core issue is freedom of speech, which is closely coupled with the freedom to practice (and preach) religion without fear of recrimination by government. "

If the religion issue is a distraction then how does your free speach connection make sense.

Again, another series of red herring arguments.

1) It is irrelevant anyway but no studies show that children raised in same sex families are any less responsible members of society.

2) Following your logic the government should take children from single parents and outlaw divorce.

3) The Constitution allows for free speach regardless of how the rest of society feels and with the exception of hate speach or that which incites violence. Your free speach is not in jeopardy. Churches are also free to preach as they wish as long as they do not engage in the political process.

4) It is not a behavior or preference. It is an orientation and not a choice. If sexual orientation were a choice at what time did you choose yours?

[Louanne]

The American Psychological Association, which has been looking for a "gay gene" since it proposed it as an explanation of homosexuality since around 1998, has concluded that it does not exist, and has publicly said so, although this fact has received nearly no press. Check out the statements of Dean Byrd, past president of National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. (I would expect that gays would be offended by this title, implying that they need therapy. I also think it could be offensive,) Despite that, facts are facts. It is a choice, not a gene. .