Legislature might formally oppose Prop. 8 passage

The Prop. 8 fight is not just occurring at the California Supreme Court. The gay and lesbian caucus of the state Legislature is now proposing a resolution that would formally oppose the measure that banned gay marriage, according to the Sacramento Bee:

The nonbinding resolution, introduced on the second day of the new legislative session, seeks to put the Legislature on record as declaring the gay marriage ban approved by voters last month was an improper revision of the state constitution. Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said the resolution would restate the now-familiar argument advanced by opponents of Proposition 8 that the measure required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before being placed on the ballot. The state Supreme Court has agreed to consider that argument, and a ruling is expected by next June. "It's important to put ourselves on record (and) that we not remain silent," Leno said at a Capitol news conference where he was joined by other members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus.

Will this affect the high court? Doubtful, according to the San Francisco Chronicle: "This is the court's decision, not the Legislature's, just as whether you balance the budget is the Legislature's decision and not the court's," said Jesse Choper, the Earl Warren professor of public law at UC Berkeley's School of Law.

Comments

[Steve]

Just more proof that the state legislature doesn't really care what the people have to say. Just try to railroad it to get their own way. What a disgrace.

[KEN RIZZO]

Here we go again; democratic politicians ignoring the will of the citizens.Everytime a militant gay issue gets fairly beaten, our wormey leaders opt to cater to a radical minority.Have any of you spineless cowards even hinted that their behavior after losing fair & square has been putrid?
And you govorner;go back to acting, because you lack a spine & a few other things as well!

[alan]

6.2 million people voted no on 8. a slim statistical majority on a social issue isn't the "word of the people". hopefully the courts will undo this attempted tyranny.

[James]

What a waste of time. Each member of the legislature got to vote on Prop 8 on November 4, just like the rest of us. They should not use their position in the legislature to attempt to overturn the outcome of the vote.

[ramiro]

This gives me hope that bigots won't make California a hateful state.

[Just some girl]

Ha ha, just the boys commenting here about how aaafffrraaaid they are of the homos. Maybe if you boys weren't so "in denial", you'd quit b!tching about this issue. Just because you wish to write discrimination into your constitution, doesn't mean that it should happen. There's a good reason that courts protect minorities from the majority of you guys! Geez, all the women should be at home ironing your shirts too I guess...

[Tannim]

Actually, in a world where courts routinely defer to the wishes of the legislature, it could have a great impact. We'll have to see.

And remember the legislature voted to legalize it twice already and were vetoed by the Governor, who wanted the judicial process to play out. Absent Prop 8, it would have passed and been signed on try #3.

And for those complaining about ignoring the "will of the voters", remember that the voters cannot in ANY majority vote away the rights of anyone, period, which is what Prop 8 did, and that's why it is unconstitutional on its face.

If Prop 8 had passed to deny straight marriage, would you call that the "will of the voters"? Nope, you'd go ballistic, in the same way those of us that believe in equal rights are now.

[Joe]

Because a bill wins a popular vote does not make it a just or legitimate law. Our system of government is designed to follow majority law WHILE protecting the rights of the minority. Just because discriminating against homosexuals is popular does not make it right.

[busytimmy]

Steve and James, I hope that one day you do not have the rights guaranteed to you under the state constitution stripped away by "the will of the people". The campaign for prop. 8 was deceitful and immoral. Lies piled on top of lies to create fear and discrimination. The civil marriage of two gay adults presents no threat whatsoever to the institution of marriage or the freedom of religion. This sad and hateful amendment must be overturned. I

[Brian]

Let's be clear and sober for just one second. To all of those who call foul when the courts do their JOB to protect a minority from the majority. Do you think that the slaves would have been freed if we had taken a popular vote?... Do you think women would cease to be property and gain their right to vote it it had been put up to a "majority" opinion?... The rights of human beings are NOT given or taken away by popular vote... interracial marriage, suffrage and slavery are all clear cut good examples.. WHY do you completely IGNORE this fact when it comes to "the gays"... because you HATE them?... Because you're AFRAID of them?... Because you feel a sense of POWER when you keep some people stigmatized and "less than"? .. and if you hide behind your bible on this issue... why do you IGNORE the other clear references in the bible that clearly state that we should beat our children and our wives... why aren't you out picketing the Red Lobster for selling shellfish?... Why aren't you out stoning people who have to work on the sabbath ?... You make no sense... and thank GOD there are clear minded judges with an education to send you and your "vote" back to your tailor park !

[john]

Is it possible to have a group of people that feel they have the "right to win", despite what the majority votes for?

[that one guy]

First of all, alan, you need to look up tyranny in a dictionary. Maybe have some idea of what a word means before you try to use it in an argument. To anyone who actually knows what tyranny means, your post is a joke.

Secondly, to answer Tannim's question. Yes, if a majority of voters passes an amendment banning heterosexual marriage, I would call that the "will of the voters." Thats what the will of the voters means, the voters picked that, duh.

I would not go ballistic and have some worthless protest outside some random church, but I would start a campaign to overturn it. That campaign would obviously not include the courts (which was your first stop) because the courts, unless they overstep their last remaining check, cannot rewrite their own constitution. A campaign to rewrite the constitution has to involve a constitutional amendment, so thats the campaign I would start if I were in the same position as you. But obviously, you want the magic undo button of constitutional law, which you (for whatever reason, or more accurately, lack of reason) think will come through protesting a church, sueing your state, and getting the legislature to write a proposal that does nothing... um, good luck with that.
So far I've seen nothing from the gay community that looks like it is even attempting to do anything that could actually change prop 8.

[Dwight]

Racism and segregation was 'the will of the people' at one time.. That didn't make it right then or ever.. Wrong is wrong no matter how popular it happens to be..

[flex]

Prop 8 will be destroyed! Sexual orientation is a legally protected class in the California constitution. Prop 8 is a direct contradiction to this legally protected class, and doesn't have the strength to withstand "judicial scrutiny." If you don't like it, tough! I'll be booking my reservation at San Francisco City Hall in June 09' to get married. Bigotry and ignorance is not a point of view!

[Jeff]

The California Supreme Court's ruling on Proposition 22 briefly granted a "right" to marry someone of the same gender. This is not an imbedded constitutional right; this was a societal change deemed necessary by the courts because, after all, California allowed civil unions, and we are modern people. The majority of Californians disagreed and took the only recourse they had, which was to amend the Constitution. Just as the courts may rule on the constitutionality of something, voters in a direct democratic process such as California's propositions, or an indirect republican process such as the legislature, may amend the Constitution to overturn judicial rulings. Part of what we see here now is a conflict between the immediate will of the people and the will of the legislature, but that conflict is built into any system will allows for legislation through direct democracy, and the legislature is wrong to try to overturn it (something the Constitution prohibits anyway). Furthermore, a vote by the people affirming that marriage should be reserved for couples of different genders, in keeping with millenia of previous human practice,is hardly equivalent to the struggles for racial equity that courts and voters in the United States fought for so valiantly in the last century.

[ReversingCulturalDecay]

To Brian: Slaves weren't freed because of a court decision. They were freed because a long and bitter war was fought which decided the issue. Ultimately issues like this are not settled in the courts. Judges can only decide for or against issues based on what the laws and the Constitution actually say ...

[bigmarc]

OK, why do gays continue to put them selves in the same boat as ethnic rights, even gender rights? It is not the same. YOU CHOOSE TO BE A GAY. It is a choice, not a right. The same as a person chooses to be a pedofile, so should we give them the right to marry children (because they are a minority in the same sence as gays)
Give me a break. WRONG IS WRONG no matter how many people say it is right.

[Wade]

Hmmm, must be very lucrative for the LAT to open comments for just about every single piece on Prop 8; however, the posts are getting very repititious and I have yet to read anything posted that would convince me that gays and lesbian marriages are a threat to straight marriages or to any other group or to society in general, which is just about the only reason for discrimination to exist in our state constitution. When Prop 8 is declared unconstitutional, as it surely will be, all of you bumper-sticker moralizers will just have to find another lost cause. Good luck with that!

[Mitch]

Jeff-- how ignorant of you to say that the struggles of homosexuals are lesser than those fought over racism, slavery, and sexism. We have been beaten, physically and psychologically, throughout history. We continue, against laws, to be treated as a lesser subclass. However, we are now united and refuse to bear to your oppression.

The difference is, before, we were alone. Now, we have the support of a growing number of equality minded, forward thinking straight people. Your bigotry will come to an end, and sooner than you will be comfortable with.

Time to suck it up and put other people's happiness ahead of your own personal agenda.

[JF]

Completely Agree with Mitch!

This site is amazing...Prop8isgay.com

[Paul]

Look Brian....and all who think like you....your "arguement" is not a "clear cut good" one. Why? Because Blacks and women were BORN BLACK AND WOMEN!!! PERIOD. When there is an box on birth certificates that is titled "Sexual Orientation" like there is one for "Race" and "Sex", then I and most sane human beings will agree that the arguement is valid. I also have a question for the homosexuals and people who support the LIFESTYLE.....if Domestic Partnerships granted you all of the rights that Married Heterosexuals get (which it pretty much does anyway), why do you insist on marriage? I personally think it is because you want ACCEPTANCE for the LIFESTYLE....a sort of VALIDATION that your LIFESTYLE is normal....which it is not of course. Just look at what's going on with this "Pregnant Man" crap. So a woman can cut off her breasts and take some hormones and now she is a man? Please. It takes more than that to be a man....and any man that disagrees....check your crotch!

[JustToSay]

@bigmarc, If you really looked into it in some states they consider the age of consent 14 upto 16 and onto 18. Also in some states you can forgo the age of consent if you were to marry the person in question. I will say that CA is 18 and don't believe we have this clause, but I am not sure.
If you actually think that gays are gay because they choose to be? Than why would someone always want to be an outcast in society?
Also just a question I have for any future posters, What religion are you?

I for one am Atheist and STRAIGHT!

[Jeff]

To Mitch:

An understanding of the historic abuse of homosexuals may legitimately be a reason for society to protect them from further abuse, and even to grant same-gender couples the right to certain benefits under the law (hospital visitation, for example). Many groups have been thus abused, and they should also be protected, regardless of whether or not we agree with them. That does not, however, mean that we must give sanction to all their practices.

It is not abuse, however, to recognize that it is in the best interest of societies to encourage opposite-gender marriage. And It can hardly be considered a matter of personal agenda to give high regard to the thousands of years of cross-cultural wisdom in support of opposite-gender marriage. On the question of personal happiness: in some cultures, opposite-gender marriage is regarded as so important that individuals are asked to completely submlimate their personal desires of happiness for the greater good of the society, and their marriages are arranged. In the United States we don't normally ask such a thing, but in the case of marriage--with a compromise regarding civil unions--it has become necessary.

Furthermore, it is hardly bigotry for me to recognize that there is a difference between a person's race and a person's sexual activity, and for me to consider the ending of racism as of more consequence that the granting of marital status to the sexual practice of an otherwise protected group.

[peter]

The history of the USA is full of examples wherein the government and the courts advanced the cause of liberty and justice for all at the expense of a simple "majority" who would have banned inter racial marriage, women's rights to vote, and blacks right to vote and go to schools. Thank God our Democracy is not just a simple majority rules institution, and that the framers of the constitution set up a government of checks and balances. Under this system many "traditional" social norms have been OVERCOME ! God Bless the USA. Marriage equality is manifest destiny and separation of church and state is as American as apple pie.

[Matthew Nichols]

Since when are minority rights put up for a 50% plus 1 referendum? What would happen if southern states were able to legally have referenda about African-Americans using separate water fountains or having to sit at the back of buses? I think you'd be surprised what a tyranny would entail from these majority votes on minority rights.

[Teetering Midline]

I guess I have a really hard time with this lifestyle choice. If it is physically and biologically the same, call it marriage. If it is not, then call it something else. If this were a genetic issue, it would have been selected out for extinction. It is a lifestyle choice with growing media coverage and popularity, not an issue of race or gender.

[Matthew Nichols]

WIth regard to bigmarc's comments about choosing to be gay, most in the scientific community will either tell you that it is biological, or that there is not sufficient evidence to be completely sure yet.

Saying being gay is a choice is like telling African-Americans they choose to be black since they don't put on white face paint before leaving the house every day. How absurd is that?

One thing that is certain--religion is definitely a choice and religion is the reason for most of the discrimination around this matter. Think about that for a bit.

[californiaislove]

Prop. 8 usurped the traditional role of the courts of protecting minorities from the tyranny of majority rule

[JS]

Bigmarc, I can't believe you, or anyone else for that matter, can think that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation. Why would people choose to be part of a group that is oppressed, discriminated against, risk social rejection, and be subject to physical and psychological abuse. They do not choose to be gay no more than a Black man chooses to be Black. Instead, why can't people like you just learn to be more accepting and tolerant. It's a lot easier than all of this hate.

Oh, and by the way, pedophiles don't choose to molest children either. It's a compulsion that they cannot fight. I am not condoning the behavior, it is despicable and reprehensible. The difference however, is that homosexuals don't encroach upon the rights of other individuals. How dare you compare homosexuals to pedophiles.

[skylar]

Everyone wants to overturn Prop 8, but has no one considered just issuing the same ban for marriage between a Man and a Woman? It seems the best way to make the case. If the state did not recognize marriage between anyone then everyone is equal. Then marriage, which has a foot firmly rooted in both secular and religious meanings, no longer becomes an government issue.

[jabusse]

to Brian who thinks slaves would not be free or women wouldn't vote if the people had anything to do with it. That thought is an example of why the leglislature that gave us our low caliber school system shouldn't do much of anything. over 250 poor white northerner guys voted with their lives to free the slaves and the ninteenth amendment was a popular one.
The california proposition procedure is there to protect the people from the state. Since community activists work on the gerrymandering principal the majority is often subverted. The gay special interest group has shown it is adept at forcing their lifestyle down the throat of the majority. Thanks to prop 8 and the proposition procedure that has at least been delayed. Trusting our future to those who gave us poor schools, high taxes, incompetent services, a bankrupt state, and free services to non citizens here in violation of the law is stupid. We majority should be ashamed.

[bigmarc]

ok, let me respone to the those that directed towards me.
No one is saying they hate the person, it's the act. And no one is saying to not allow people to be gay. What i am saying is that i don't feel that people of the same sex relationships should have the right to be married couples. And once again, they are not a race. so stop refering them to a race. The term minority was used to referance a race when it came to injustice, not a lifestyle. ...the term "minority" typically refers to a socially subordination ethnic group..(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group)

if you did not care for me to refer to them as pedofils then refer them to a group like poligamist. so should we just allow them to do the same as you want gays to do? so change the laws to allow them to marry more than one. They say that they should have the right to marry more than one person as a life style. They insist that they were born to do so. were do you draw the line?
as for me i say no to everyone.

lifestyles are not always choosen, some don't choose to be criminals. people say that some are born to be that way. so should we label them as a minority and give the rights. I don't think you should.

and by the way i have had many gay friends, and they know how i feel about this issue. but regardless of there lifestyle i still see them as people. just as i see the friends i had that choose to do other things i don't agree with. it's not always about hate.

and i am nondenominational christian (to me it's a personal relationship, not to be forced on others)
hispanic, male, 34, married
born and rasied in Long Beach
lived in Seattle for over 10 years.

and if you like to comment about this issue stop using race. Because last i check Gay is not a race. look it up.
compare apples to apples.

[Russ]

Let me make this clear. Prop 8 did NOT take one single "right" away from homosexuals. Any man can marry any woman. That is what marriage is. A man, gay or straight, can get married TODAY to somebody of the opposite sex. Therefore, NO rights have been taken away. Just because gays want to pervert the definition of marriage doesn't mean they actually lost any rights. You would never have been allowed to "marry" in the first place if not for a liberal decision by one wayward court. That is why it is up to the people to decide the definition of marriage. If gays could be allowed to marry each other, we must also allow people to marry their sisters, brothers, 1st cousins or even animals. What about multiple partners? There must be standards.
As far as accusations about lies. There were no lies. Children WOULD have been taught about gay marriages being normal as any other marriage. WE MUST NOT STAND FOR THIS. Children's minds must not be polluted with this trash. It would just be wrong!

[Jamesian]

For those of you who type in all capital letters that being gay IS A CHOICE, and for those of you who continue to compare gays and lesbians to pedophiles and others where abuse and vicitimization are involved -- GROW UP! You're wrong and the facts don't play well in your favor, no matter which passage of the Bible you choose to throw in our faces. But if you want to keep using the Bible and religion to alter consitutions, then I say we put up for a vote a consitutional amendment giving those of us who need a slave to be able to buy your daughters. And I want to be able to toss a few stones at her whenever she upsets me.

[Wade]

Paul, since you seem to know so much about gay people, why don't you explain, exactly, what is the "homosexual lifestyle" I read so much about this supposed, by definition "way of life" that implies that the lives of gays and lesbians are so different from heterosexuals as to constitute a "lifestyle." Tell me, do they eat different foods, wear different clothes, drive different cars, have other than basic human feelings and emotions? So, why don't you enlighten us here and explain, exactly, what is the "homosexual lifestyle"? Until then, you have as much credibility as some Anita Bryant wannabe stuck in the WayBack Machine.

[stormy]

Some of you seem to forget that this country is not ruled by "the will of the people" alone. On top of the will of the people, making sure that that "will" isn't tyranny, is the CONSTITUTION. We cannot vote other human beings into being second-class citizens in this country, no matter HOW much the mob wishes it. This country is about equality for *all*, not just equality whenever the majority wishes to let the minority have it.

[stormy]

Some of you seem to forget that this country is not ruled by "the will of the people" alone. On top of the will of the people, making sure that that "will" isn't tyranny, is the CONSTITUTION. We cannot vote other human beings into being second-class citizens in this country, no matter HOW much the mob wishes it. This country is about equality for *all*, not just equality whenever the majority wishes to let the minority have it.

[ap]

There's an idea of freedom for all men, created equal in the United States and since the creation of this Union, that idea has advanced, first expanding to blacks then to women. I think in this modern century you will see these rights expanded to include other social groups - namely gays.

I think the idea that voters, the people, can say that they want to limit and circumscribe the rights of others will be rejected by the court.

Take for example the voter sentiment in the time of slavery. I think if a mass vote were done then regarding support for slaves - people would also pass a resolution keeping slavery and limiting rights. If it weren't for brave politicians and leaders whom saw the righteousness of abolishing slavery - it might not have happened.

Now with regard to the current prop 8 issue. I think the legislature and the court will see that proposition 8 is one of those issues that if left to the masses to decide, would allow for the majority to discriminate against the minority. They will not allow that to happen.

The governor, the legislature, and 47% of the people agree to give gays the rights they deserve - 52% percent of the people cannot persecute the 10% of people who need these rights.

[Jay]

To all of you people talking about sexual orientation as a "choice": So What? Most experts do not believe sexual orientation is a choice: Did you suddenly decide to be straight? But even if it were, that does not justify discrimination. Religious belief is certainly a choice. One is not born a Catholic (even if your parents have you baptized as an infant) or a Baptist or a Muslim, etc. One *chooses* to be religious or not. Yet our Constitution provides freedom of religion (and also freedom from religion). The Constitution of California also protects people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is why the Supreme Court of California will nullify Proposition 8.

[David]

The California Supreme Court has already ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right.

For them to contradict themselves and allow a proposition that conflicts with the California constitution to stand would be inconsistent and illogical.

I'm hopeful they will protect the rights of the gay minority in the face of this proposition which seeks a simple majority vote to strip away these rights.

[Lofn]

If this was interracial marriage, would you still think it should be up to voters to decide if it should be legal? People won't like it, particularly my grandfather, who also still believes that Obama was sent by Africa to convert everyone to Islam and eliminate every white person by way of concentration camps.

If we are going to promise everyone equal treatment, we can leave it to voters to decide who receives what version of that equal treatment. If we are going to allow voters to decide everything, we're going to have quite a few major political documents to re-write entirely.

Everyone who thinks this is nothing like the interracial debates of yesterday, look at the main reasons that were used to keep it illegal:

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) Judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) They began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) They insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) They declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

5) Finally, because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally", therefore finding a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws."

(Peggy Pascoe)

Doesn't this sound familiar? Why are we appalled by this, but we cheer at hearing the same words used to argue concerning this fight over the legalization of gay marriage?

Think about it people.

[Lofn]

Also, to all the straight people railing that you choose to be gay, when exactly did you choose to be straight?

I tried to choose to be straight, but I'm still attracted to both. I know people who have been trying to choose to be straight for years, and it's made them miserable. Try choosing to be gay sometime. It's not very easy.

As for scientifically, no, we haven't found sufficient argument for either side of this. Instead of blathering on, ranting and raving and calling it a choice, would you care to provide evidence for your claims? It makes you look pretty damned ignorant when you don't.

[Daniel]

Only the media and homosexuals will tell you that being gay is INHERITED. There is no gay-gene and no serious scientist will tell you that there is:

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

--------
{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

So there it is. Being gay LIKE EVERY OTHER BEHAVIOUR is a result of bioigical traits and multiple biological factors.

[liberty4all]

I wonder in 30 years when the majority no longer matters...will they mandate that every child be forced to attend a public school and have a variety of early sexual relationships as part of a mandatory progressive school curriculum. This could make sure that there were no "hateful" narrow minded parents trying to influence their children unjustly to be of one sexual orientation over another. The state needs to protect this orientation much better than they do now.

As we sit and contemplate the current issue of Gay rights the rights of Pedophiles are being trampled on as well. Because of the hate of these same parents... Pedophiles have limited access to children. Their tendencies toward children are as strong or stronger than those of heterosexuals homosexual or bisexual adults are to one another. We need to be basing the marriage definition on the urges of each individual and not some notion to protect unborn children. Many so called child molestors will tell you that the damage being done to children by early sexual exposure is more a result of society not accepting these acts as ok. The children are scarred by the way that other adults react when a child is molested and not the molestation itself. Even the definition of emotional damage is being manipulated by the persecuting mob majority who don't even have a clue about what these adult child relationships are like.

Therefore when the media has sufficiently redefined disagreement as Discrimination and Hate in the Gay Marriage arena...and completely swayed public opinion by a change of definition they need to get move over and assist the pedophile cause with the same tactic. They can start by opposing this silly notion that a child isn't capable of deciding about sexual matters. They decide what foods they like as well as thousands of other important things at a young age. Protecting young people from something they might well enjoy is a ridiculous notion that has never been proven any more than the silly idea that a marriage between a man and a woman is necessary to protect children in societies. It came about by the same conventional wisdom and a misguided majority deciding that their ideas for their own children were more important than the states definition of equal rights. Once we have arrived here the next step is to regulate what kids learn at home.

We need judges who will stand up for a much more liberal and progressive society. We have to move forward for equality. The government should just take all children away from parents at birth and distribute them first to the people who accept more other behaviors and lifestyles, tendencies and ideas. Homosexuals should get the kids first if they want them, because they have been denied of these rights over so many years. Pedophiles need to wait their turn and until a huge media barrage can change public opinion a little bit more and guilt people into a sense of common sense about these people and their needs and rights.

The Government should also be funding research for a Procre-Aid program that just takes DNA from any two people even of the same sex and makes a child. Right now gayness is only a 3-9% phenomenon but with proper indoctrination in school and the ability for Gay couples to finally have equal procreation rights it could be raised to exactly 50%. This is the only way to ensure exact equality. The mandatory public schools could keep exact track of all the tendencies. With no parent actually thinking a child was naturally theirs we could take the emotional ownership and accountability out of the equation and be more objective. With proper government regulation we could eventually reach exact numbers of all protected orientations through careful environmental controls and genetic altering. This may sound expensive and like a lot of work but it is the only way that we are going to move toward any kind of equality.

[jonathan]

BIGMARC you are are MORON and probably a MORMON too.

[The Truth]

Prop 8 is as constitutional as any law that has ever been passed. Does “We the People” ring a bell? That’s something that no amount of rainbow waving at crying foul at the will of the people will ever change.

Now, to the bigots: Shame on you for bashing Mormons, Evangelicals, or any other human beings who have stood up for what they felt was right. By doing so, you set yourself firmly in the place of those inflammatory voices you would oppose. Bigotry never fixed anything.

Now, for the issue of separation of church and state: It is a myth. That’s right, a myth that is not aligned with reality at all. Laws are established based on values, and values tie directly to religious beliefs. Therefore the underlying, core religious beliefs of the majority will always surface as values, then ultimately as laws. So by contending the passing of Prop 8, you stand on a foundation that is not aligned with the will of the people (values based on religion). No wonder gays are attacking religious groups. The religion of homosexuality is a base form obsession with a sexually confused misuse of genitalia. Nothing more. It is the unnatural, amoral value of wanting what is not possible: Long-term happiness in doing what is wrong.

Those who seek to alter the voice of the people on Prop 8 may be better suited with living in a communist country. Then they could really cry and whine about inequality.

Now, to the issue of tolerance: This is not about tolerance. It never was. Tolerance is not a virtue, it’s a flaw. If you embrace everything, you become nothing. That goes for America, too. If we embrace and legalize prostitution, thievery, murder, and homosexuality, then our country will tear itself apart within a generation.

Now, to the issue of equality: Individuals who have chosen the path of homosexuality already have individual rights provided by the Constitution. They have freedom of speech, worship, and the pursuit of happiness. And, they have the right to marry anyone they want as long as that person is of a different gender. In the same way that they aren’t allowed to legally marry someone of the same gender, they are not allowed to marry their mother, sister, or pet horse. Bottom line: Stop whining about equality and start appreciating the freedom you have to actually be responsible and live a life that actually can achieve true happiness. And, yes, that is based on the will of the people. Welcome to America!

[Rick]

6,838,107 people voted yes and 6,246,463 people voted no. That's DEFINITELY NOT the voice of the people. It's a narrow 52.3% majority and it's definitely not enough to deny an entire group of people equal rights. We the people have empowered our government to protect our rights and our interest, I'm confident that in time they will.

As for you Christian Conservative Fundamentalist our there. It's time to rethink your position and your radical religious interpretations. Stop using religion as the scape goat for you prejudice. This is a progressive world that we live in, nothings going to change that. Keep your beliefs but you must learn tolerance. If it wasn't for this great country your views would deem you the minority! Please don't encumber those who peruse happiness, embrace them and encourage it!

[Metal Face Magoo]

To: Anyone using the terms "hateful" or "bigoted" in your posts

Please make sure to specify if you're referring to the radical, anti-gay bigots or the radical, "progressive" bigots who hate anyone who votes differently than they do. Seeing as how there's an equal number of intolerants zealots who utilize third grade tactics like name calling, specifying which group you're talking about will help make your position clearer.

Marveling at the Hypocrisy,
Metal Face

[Genna]

Prop 8 has never been about "protecting marriage" (whatever that means). Prop 8 is about people being grossed out about how homosexuals engage in intercourse, and wanting to "punish" us for being "disgusting, unnatural animals". Here's a newsflash, folks: SEX IS SEX. What everyone fails to realize is that a MULTITUDE of heterosexuals engage in anal and oral sex. So, should we deny anyone who doesn't "do it" the old-fashioned way the right to marry as well? Why do anal and oral sex have to be referred to as "gay sex"? If they do, then there are a whole lot of "hetero" people who are gay in the bedroom! We might as well start labeling all kinds of sex... You know, Catholic sex can be called "Guilty Sex", Mormon sex can be called "Unnecessary Overpopulation Sex", and so on. So if you stupid, ignorant morons out there want to keep discriminating against us because of what we do in our own private lives and homes, and must refer to "our kind of sex" as "gay sex", THEN STOP HAVING "GAY SEX". Maybe studies are right... Maybe the people who fear gays are just little scared queers trying to oppress their own secret desires. Oh, and if anal and oral sex, apparently, leads to bestiality and pedophilia, then a whole lot of heteros are well on their way to their own private donkey shows and screwing their 8-year-old neighbor. And "choosing" to be gay? You're reaching there. This isn't like picking a Honda over a Ford, or rooting for the Dodgers over the Giants. I would never choose to be hated by millions simply because I like girls and I am a girl. And you "all-knowing" folk who think you can say "wrong is wrong" and what-not: YOU AREN'T GOD. SO STOP PLAYING GOD. And learn how to spell while you're at it.

[dylan]

kumbaya my lord! kumbaya!

[cbk16]

Elton John is happy with his civil union, he does not know why Gays have to change the definition of marriage to be happy. The Mormon church if for equal benefits for same sex partners. Why Gays have to demand Gay marriage when it gives them no more protection than civil unions is strange. It should be understandable if religion does not want to change the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years. The Gay movement has vandalized churches and sent possible anthrax to those in religion who appose their view point. Mob violence and hate crimes against those who don't agree with you harkens back to when Missouri made it legal to kill and exterminate Mormons in the 1930s, when many were killed for their beliefs. In the Prop 8 case, religion has not said lets kill Gays for their beliefs, they have just said we do not want to change the definition of Marriage. Hate and bigotry against people of religion should not exist in America in 2008. Since Obama is against Gay marriage, (just not a constitutional amendment), should Obama also be victimized for his belief? His Elton John homophobic?

[informed1*]

Russ: If you have loved ones, I would hope you want them to marry someone who truly loves them and vice-versa. After all, life is often difficult and true love provides sustenance needed to weather through rough patches. I doubt that you would want, knowing 50% of marriages fail, for them to marry someone they do not truly love or that they are obviously incompatible with. Divorce, after all, hurts.

This said: Thousands of children, from failed heterosexual marriages, now live in same-sex households. Societal acceptance was important enough that one or maybe both parents married the opposite sex. An explanation frequently heard after a divorce is: "I lost my identity to my marriage". Could this assertion apply more apply than to gay persons attempting heterosexual marriages?

Point/Question: When you make comments suggesting that gays have equal rights so long as they choose to marry the opposite gender, aren't you advocating more broken families? May I know how this fits in with the argument that Prop 8 protects families and children?

[informed1*]

I have a question for those judging gays harshly for protesting the passage of Prop 8. Where were you when anti-gay marriage protesters were reported disrupting legalized same-sex marriages? Also, did you see any news reports about gays tearing down signs or assaulting these anti-gay protesters? Careful about what you reveal about yourselves via your myopic point of view.

[Dean Hutchinson]

Most heterosexuals don't realize how historically intertwined their marriages have been, and still are, with our suffering, and even our annihilation! Most are unaware of the heavy price same-sex loving people have been forced to pay ever since heterosexual marriage was first affirmed as a sacrament by the Catholic Church in 1274.
What is both shocking and revelatory is the direct connection (in both a temporal and ideological context) between what German historian Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller calls the “theologization, Christologization (marriage as the Bridehood of Christ) and sacramentalization of ‘holy matrimony’” laid down at the Second Council of Lyons in the year 1274, and the simultaneous “relegation of sodomy to one of the death-worthy crimes.” In parallel to the sacramentalization of heterosexual marriage, and “the wave of literature praising” that institution, religious authorities in sermons and public speeches, began calling for “pogroms” against “sodomites” (Bernardin of Siena!) [1380-1444]. “In the mid-13th century … that is, in the first phase of written statutes, laws against sodomites were promulgated in important cities: Siena 1262/70, Bologna 1288, Florence followed in 1325, Perugia in 1342. … Thus, between 1250 and 1300, homosexuality developed into a crime that was to be punished with the death penalty.”

According to Hergemöller, typical medieval forms of execution for gay men were: “death by starvation after being locked up in a large bird cage,” “drowning in swamps,” “drowning … being shackled and then tossed into the sea,“ “… strangulation. The garrotte, a ligature of chain used to strangle someone to death, was the preferred instrument of execution for sodomites in the Netherlands of the early modern era, but it was also avidly used in Spain, Portugal and other countries. … But the most typical form of punishment for sodomites in the Middle Ages was being publicly burnt at the stake, the same mode of death that heretics, Jews and witches met with. Normally, the victims were beheaded before being burnt … but such means of easing the transition to death were not obligatory.”[1]

“Holy” heterosexual matrimony thus served, from the very beginning, as an instrument of (lethal) oppression of homosexuals! This only goes to show how desperately this “time-honored” institution is in need of a complete, democratic overhaul. Denying us the right to marry only perpetuates the suffering which began with these murderously exclusionary tactics that were once part and parcel of “holy matrimony”.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the first publication of ANY laws in colonial America, the “Capitall Lawes of New-England,” as “Established within the Iurisdiction of Massachusets” in 1641 and ‘42, included the death penalty for sodomy. Most of the fifteen capital crimes were based on Old Testament references actually cited (!) in the text! The capital laws of Massachusetts Bay provided death for:
1.“any man” who worshipped “any other God, but the Lord God” (Deut. 13.6., &c. And 17.2 &c. Exodus 22.20.)
2.“any man or woman” who “be a Witch” (Exod. 22. 18, Lev. 20. 27, Deut. 18.10, 11.)
3.“any person” who “shall blaspheme the Name of God the Father, Sonne, or Holy Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous, or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse God in the like manner” (Lev. 24. 15, 16)
4.“any person” who “shall commit any wilfull murther [murder]” (Exod. 21. 12, 13, 14, etc.)
5.“any person” who “slayeth another suddenly in his anger, or cruelty of passion” (Lev. 24. 17, etc.)
6.“any person” who slew another “through guile” (Exod. 21.14)
7.“a man or woman” who “shall lye with any beast or bruit creature, by carnall copulation” (Lev. 20. 15, 16.
8.“a man” who “lyeth with mankinde, as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20. 13)
9.“any person” who “committeth adultery with a married, or espoused wife, the Adulterer, and the Adulteresse, shall surely be put to death.
(Lev. 20. 10 and 18.20, Deut. 22.23, 24.)
10.“any man” who “shall unlawfully have carnall copulation with any woman-childe under ten years old, either with, or without her consent, he shall be put to death. (No Old Testament references here.)
11.“any man” who “shall forcibly, and without consent, ravish any maid or woman that is lawfully married or contracted, he shall be put to death.” (Deut. 22. 25, &c.)
12.“any man” who “shall ravish any maid or single woman (committing carnall copulation with her by force, against her will) that is above the age of ten yeares ; he shall be either punished with death, or with some other grievous punishment, according to circumstances, at the discretion of the Judges : and this Law to continue till the Court take further order.” (No Old Testament references here.)
13.“any man” who “stealeth a man, or man-kinde, he shall surely be put to death.” (Exod. 21. 16)
14.“any man” who rises up “false witnesse wittingly, and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death.” (Deut. 19.16, 18, 19)
15.“any man” who “shall conspire, or attempt any invasion, insurrection, or publick rebellion against our Common-wealth, or shall endeavour to surprize any Towne or Townes, Fort or Forts therein : or shall treacherously, or perfidiously attempt the alteration and subversion of our frame of pollity, or government fundamentally, he shall be put to death. (Sam. 3. & 18, & 20, etc.)

In the recent past, the (woefully misnamed) Rev. Daniel Lovely[2] of the Watertown Baptist Temple in New York, advocated capital punishment for homosexuals. “They should be killed through governmental means. There are a lot of people in Watertown that enjoy living in a non-Christian world, and it’s got to be stopped.”

In the theocracy such “Religious Right” kooks strive for, we might well find ourselves confronted with the (no doubt verrrrrrrrry selective!) reintroduction of Bible-based legislation similar to that of mid-17th-century New England (leaving out, of course, all passages that might directly affect HETEROSEXUAL male behavior, such as the death penalty for “committing adultery” and “ravishing maids.” After all, it probably wouldn’t be in the best interests of religious zealots and right-wing Republicans (such as the known adulterer Newt Gingrich), to have two-thirds of the population, including themselves and most of their parishioners and following, decimated. No wonder today’s gay and lesbian community, like Jesus Himself, loathe the hypocrisy of holier-than-thou religious leaders!

Incitement to symbolic, verbal or physical acts of violence against gay and lesbian people is fascism, pure and simple. Due to its own history, “incitement to hatred against a minority” [“Volksverhetzung”] is a punishable offense in today’s Germany that can lead up to five years imprisonment.

Magnus Hirschfeld, who was both Jewish and homosexual, founded the world’s first homosexual emancipation movement in Berlin in May of 1897. It was crushed, its buildings ransacked by brownshirted Storm Troopers, its books tossed into huge bonfires and burned, all gay rights groups disbanded, gay bars closed and homosexuals hunted down and incarcerated in concentration camps shortly after Hitler seized power in 1933. “Thousands of homosexuals were sent to forced labor camps.” writes the United States Holocaust Museum. “There, in an explicit campaign of ‘extermination through work,’ homosexuals and other so-called security suspects were assigned to grueling work in ceaselessly dangerous conditions [for instance, the brickworks near the Sachsenhausen concentration camp just outside Berlin's city borders].” “At least 1,000 homosexual men are known to have been held at Sachsenhausen between its opening in 1936 and the end of the war. Many perished from the exertions of grueling labor in the brickworks.” My lover and I visited an exhibition on German homosexuals incarcerated between 1933 and 1945 in Sachsenhausen in 2000, at the grounds of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp itself, which is now a memorial site. He had nightmares for months on end afterward. “Homosexuals in these camps were almost always assigned to the worst and often most dangerous work. Usually attached to ‘punishment companies,’ they generally worked longer hours with fewer breaks, and often on reduced rations. The quarries and brickyards claimed many lives, not only from exertion but also at the hands of SS guards who deliberately caused ‘accidents.’” A memorial site was inaugurated in the center of Berlin in May of this year “to honor the thousands of homosexuals persecuted by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945.”

The four-meter (13-foot) high monument, which has a window showing a never-ending film of two men kissing (which will be replaced in two years by a lesbian couple that is kissing, then, every two years, by gay- and lesbian-related film material), was unveiled in Berlin on May 28, 2008. The new memorial - which was inaugurated by Berlin’s gay mayor, Klaus Wowereit, and Germany’s Culture Minister, Bernd Neumann - is situated across the street from that for the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The Nazis branded homosexuality an aberration threatening their perception of Germans as the master race, and 55,000 gay men were deemed criminals. As many as 15,000 of those men were killed in Nazi concentration camps. What’s more, after the “liberation” of the camps by the Allies, those survivors who wore the pink triangle - denoting that they had been imprisoned as homosexuals - were treated as common criminals who had deserved their incarceration. A yellow Star of David under a superimposed Pink Triangle represented gay Jewish prisoners. (So much for America exporting its version of “democracy” to the world. When it came to “queers,” their line of thinking was, and sometimes still IS not unlike the Nazis’.) Many were transferred to prisons proper to serve out their terms . . . According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “The Allied Military Government of Germany repealed countless laws and decrees. Left unchanged, however, was the 1935 Nazi revision of [the anti-homosexual] Paragraph 175. Under the Allied occupation, some homosexuals were forced to serve out their terms of imprisonment regardless of time served in the concentration camps.” This gross injustice serves as a clear indictment of American homophobia, all those who continue to preach and teach against gays and lesbians and treat gay marriages as somehow “inferior” to their heterosexual counterparts.

“Europeans have gone through an extended and extremely productive post-fascist learning process. … In the Sixties and Seventies West Europeans gradually dissociated themselves —in what was at times a long-drawn-out struggle— from the persistent after-effects of fascism, and also from a conservative version of Christianity that was jointly responsible for anti-Semitism and fascism, but which, in the postwar period, distracted from its complicity by insisting on sexual purity.
West Europeans have since developed a new moral discourse in which the infliction of suffering is regarded as a more important problem than the practicing of sexual freedom. In short, they learned to regard sexual rights as essential, inalienable human rights.” — Dagmar Herzog in: “Illegitimite Child of the Sexual Revolution: The Religious Right in the USA, Sex and Power” [“Illegitimes Kind der sexuellen Revolution: Die religiöse Rechte in den USA, Sex und Macht”] in the anthology “Queer Lectures,” p. 35, (publ.) Männerschwarm Verlag, Hamburg, Germany, 2008, [English translation mine].

One of the inscriptions on the plaque attached to the Berlin “Memorial for Homosexuals Persecuted in the National-Socialist Era” (which was built and funded by the Federal German government), reads: “Aus seiner Geschichte heraus hat Deutschland eine besondere Verantwortung, Menschenrechtsverletzungen gegenüber Schwulen und Lesben entschieden entgegenzutreten.” [“In light of its history, Germany has a special responsibility to firmly counter any violations of human rights against gay men and lesbians.”]

“We stand stunned before the brutality with which the Nazis threatened, persecuted and destroyed all those who did not correspond to their inhuman ideology,” Germany’s Federal Commissioner for Culture, Bernd Neumann (from the aforesaid Christian Democratic Union party, the German equivalent to America’s Republican party) said while inaugurating the memorial to homosexual victims of the Nazi regime six months ago. “The experience of war and Holocaust, state terror and tyranny, puts on us Germans a special responsibility to protect freedom and human rights.”

One of the last surviving homosexuals of the Holocaust and bearer of the Pink Triangle, 95-year-old Rudolf Brazda, who was incarcerated in the Buchenwald concentration camp from 1941 to 1945, visited the above-mentioned Memorial on June 28th of this year. (Brazda lived with his lover, who died six years ago, for 35 years in southern Germany. He is presently residing in France.)

You will find his picture, and a short recount of his life (in German), at the following URL:
http://www.ondamaris.de/?p=1914

State and national laws supporting and sustaining patriarchy as well as heterosexual supremacy and hegemony are, in the end, incompatible with democracy, or democratic ideals, as preached, but most certainly not practiced by the United States. We can only hope Pres. Obama achieves the many goals (including the repeal of DOMA and all antigay legislation, and the initiation of federal anti-discrimination laws) he promised to work toward should he become President.

People like Daniel Lovely and Pat Robertson (who, sounding like a medieval theologian or priest, blamed the GLBT community (!) for the New Orleans floods), who cloak their hatred in pseudo-religious rhetoric, are the true threat to civil society, not same-sex marriage!

For these sound reasons, we gay men and lesbians demand the absolute separation of Church and State, and the repeal of DOMA and ALL reactionary state constitutional amendments of the past decade based on Biblical myths, enforcing the supremacy of straight marriages, and our subsequent degradation to 2nd-class status.
————
Footnote:
[1] Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller, “Randgruppen der spätmittelalterlichen Gesellschaft” [“Fringe Groups of Late-Medieval Society”, Fahlbusch Verlag, Warendorf, 1990.
[2] Text taken from a http://www.unc.edu document from Watertown, N.Y., 1979: “The emergence of gay activism in a small town in upstate New York has resulted in violence, harassment, death threats, fire bombings and a call for the execution of local homosexuals.
Watertown, a factory community of 30,000, recently saw the establishment of a gay advocacy group, the Watertown Gay Task Force. This prompted an anti-gay backlash campaign by the Rev. Daniel Lovely of Watertown Baptist Temple.
According to the Task Force president Pat Tanner, the ‘God Says Death to Homos’ campaign begun by Lovely prompted more violence and harassment. It included the severe beating of one woman.
Lovely was quoted in the local newspapers as saying that the execution of homosexuals is justified.
‘They should be killed through governmental means,’ Lovely said, ‘there are a lot of people in Watertown that enjoy living in a non-Christian world, and it’s got to be stopped.’”

Other sources:
Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller, “Sodom and Gomorrah: On the Everyday Reality and Persecution of Homosexuals in the Middle Ages,” Free Association Books Ltd, London/New York, 2001.

D. J. Noordam, “Riskante relaties: Vijf eeuwen homoseksualiteit in Nederland, 1233-1733” [“Risky Relationships: Five Centuries of Homosexuality in the Netherlands, 1233-1733”], Verloren (publ.), Hilversum, The Netherlands, 1995.

Jonathan Ned Katz, “Gay/Lesbian Almanac: A New Documentary [from the Early American Colonies, 1607 to 1740 to the United States, 1880-1950],” Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1994.

[Jay]

cbk16 writes: "The Mormon church if for equal benefits for same sex partners. " This is an outright lie, very typical of the Mormon shills. There are no equal benefits for same-sex partners in Utah or Idaho, where the Mormon Church can dictate policy. The Mormon Church has fought gay rights at every opportunity. And they cannot open their mouths without telling a lie.

[B]

Jay...

Did you really think the Mormon church would stop lying about this issue? They are an organization of haters. They kick out and disown their own children left and right because they don't live their same high and pompous lifestyle. They choose a lifestyle more than a gay does. If anyone should have equal rights it should be gays and not the mormons.

To all the uneducated trailer trash really trying make some of these 'radical minority' arguments, do you also believe the Holocaust didn't happen? Should the Jews being a minority then not have had the same rights as the rest of Germans? I say abolish marriage in the government and just let it be in the churches.