Labor unions, churches to fight gay marriage ban in court

Labor unions and some churches announced Tuesday that they planned to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of invalidating Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state.

The California Council of Churches and other faith organizations including the Progressive Jewish Alliance representing millions of members said they will file on Thursday.

On Friday, a coalition of labor unions representing more than 2 million California workers said they planned to file their own brief. The briefs will support the lawsuits filed by gay-rights groups the day after Proposition 8 was enacted.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take the case and could hear arguments as soon as March.

Sal Rosselli, the president of United Healthcare Workers-West, issued a statement saying his union supported filing the brief because the right to marriage is a fundamental constitutional right "that cannot be abolished by ballot initiative. ... Our organizations stand for fairness and equality for working people — not only in the workplace but in all aspects of society."

--Jessica Garrison

Photo: Los Angeles Times file

Comments

[Gwen]

What a sad state of affairs when the losers of an election not only once but twice in this state continually cry foul when things don't go their way. Grow-up folks, get over yourselves and realize the world doesn't revolve around you. This isn't about rights since your trying to stripe me of mine. Shame on us for raising a bunch of whiny, everything has to be my way, selfish individuals who feel the majority has to bend to their whims. Our rights and priviledges are being violated by you who want everything your way. If you are so unhappy, create your own state or country for that matter and live in it.

[Jim]

Gwen, I'm curious exactly what right of yours is being stripped? Your right to impose your religion on me? Sorry, you never had that one. Your right to not be annoyed? Sorry, you never had that one either.

Nothing in the In re Marriages case removed any rights from any church, individual, or couple. The California education code was not changed. Those are all lies put out by the yes-on-8 camp to deceive you.

However, Proposition 8 does strip rights from gays and lesbians, who do not (despite the legislature's best intentions) get equal protection under the law with a domestic partnership.

[gregg]

Gwen - grow up. if someone told you couldn't marry the one you loved i am sure your piss poor attitude would change. I did marry my partner of 8 years only to be told by bigots like yourself that we may not be valid.

Obviously you don't know anyone who is gay or you wouldn't be saying this.

And the big push for this whole proposition was done by a group that doesn't even live here in california they were from Utah. Saying its against the bible. Great...the bible was written by men inspired by God.

I don't see anyone quoting the 10 Commandments which were WRITTEN by GOD, where is there anything on there about being GAY?

try that route now.

[Juan]

Gwen Said:
"This isn't about rights since your trying to stripe me of mine."

So just exactly what rights are being stripped? What will YOU lose by allowing SSM? How will this effect you? How is it even your business who other people marry?

Take your post and read it carefully. Are you talking to yourself? Maybe you should listen...

[Chris]

Gwen, are you saying that you would happily sit back and defer to the "will of the majority" if the voters decided to invalidate YOUR marriage or outlaw YOUR religion? Would you consider yourself to be a "whiner" in that situation?

[Liz in CA]

Gwen, the simple fact of the matter is, marriage is, above everything else, a CIVIL CONTRACT. If one wants to choose a religious marriage ceremony fine. We are protected by law that any two legal-age persons of sound mind may enter into a contract and not be subject to discrimination based on gender. This Proposition has now attempted to block TWO MEN or TWO WOMEN from entering into a CIVIL CONTRACT of marriage. *THAT* is unconstsitutional. End of story.

Just looked out the window - I don't seem to see anarchy ruling the streets or the sky falling, or heterosexual marriages crashing and burning any more than what they do already in a no-fault state, after the gay marriages we've already had here. Oh, whoops, gee, I guess that was what you pro-8'rs were afraid of -- NOTHING would happen!

I want the right to enter into a CIVIL CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE with the woman I've known for 30 years, been monogamous with for 12, and intend to spend the rest of my life with, having stood by her and seen her be cured of cervical cancer, etc. Isn't that what a real FAMILY VALUE is? As a free, adult human being, I deserve to partner with whomever I choose, in a MARRIAGE so that I can also enjoy the tax benefits, inheritance rights, insurance etc. etc. benefits that men-women marriages do.

It is so very easy, when you have something, to tell someone else that they may not have it.

But one day, because of your narrow-mindedness, before you've realized it, that will come back to you. Then you'll know how it feels.

[Dan Dormann]

This is one of the most important constitutional law cases of our times. The principle of equality of law goes to the heart of almost any modern constitutional document. The abrogration of this principle is unprecedented. No constitutional court has ever allowed the abolition of fundamental rights. I believe that the honorable justices of the Cali Supreme Court will not allow the core of the constitution to die. California is neither Iran (Sharia Law) nor Weimar (Germany before the Nazis took over).

[Chris]

Dan -- Couldn't agree more. Prop 8 sets up a very dangerous precedent that anyone's "fundemental rights" -- and yes they were defined that way on 11/4/08 and still are -- can be taken away be a simple majority vote. Redheads? Left-handers? Overweight people? Drivers over 65? Watch out -- you're out of the mainstream!

Or as the Labor people point out the right to picket is illegal in Alabama but is guaranteed in California constitution -- for the time being.

[Sloppy Joe]

I'll stop fighting for the right to marry the man I love when the government stops collecting taxes from me.

[ikahana]

Gwen says - "If you are so unhappy, create your own state or country for that matter and live in it."

Actually Gwen, I already have my own state and country. I don't need to start a new one. I need to fight for my rights within the one I'm a part of, which is the patriotic thing to do. You actually aren't the only one who lives in this country. The folks who think like you aren't the only ones who live in this country. We all live here, and we have to protect our rights.

Not one single right of yours has been violated thus far, nor will be violated if same sex marriage becomes legal. Legalizing divorce doesn't mean you have to be divorced. Legalizing adoption doesn't mean you have to adopt. Legalizing...coffee use, walking on sidewalks, driving - doesn't mean you have to do those things. Those things are all legal - how is that working out for you? You will still have all of your rights to marry a man if that is what you wish. Won't change a thing, except that all Americans will be treated equally and one group will have to stop perceiving themselves as a special and superior group of folks.

[jeff]

It amazes me how the opposition criticizes for us fighting for this. It is our LIVES we are fighting for....not some lark of an experience, but a major milestone in life: Marrying the one we love above all others.

[AlanW]

The Constitution of the United States was written to, among other things, protect the minority from the majority. If the people in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, and other Southern States would have had the right to vote against civil rights for Blacks they would have and segregation would have thrived for many more years than it did. Instead the Government said enough was enough and gave the minority their rights. The Government really needs to step in and give all people equal rights and one of those is to marry who they wish. I am so sick and tired of narrow minded, hateful, discriminating, bigoted haters who pretend they are not because they have a "friend" who is gay yet they do not want them to be treated equally. These people need to look deep in their dark hearts and admit the truth, get on with their own lives and leave mine alone. These supposedly religious people need to think about what they will tell God when standing before him to be judged. How about, "I don't think that people should be equal to me, I am better than everyone else, I lied, I hated my neighbor, but I am a good person" God has a good laugh and sends you where you belong.

[All Clocks Run Backwards]

I don't think they're whining, Gwen. I think they're kicking your butt.

[robert]

amazing how the secular leftist and thier minions in the media seem to think this is about a civil right nothing could be further from the truth. ones perverted
and very destructive lifestyle should never ever be elevated to a civil right any clear thinking person would agree (just ask the brave voters in Arizona and Florida ) I suppose members of nambla, polygimist, necrofeliacs and peaople who engage in beastiality all have a right to engage in thier perversion as well
where you you draw the line. You lost Rational moral judgement won GET OVER IT AND MOVE ON!

[JohnV]

Keep the Faith Gwen.... It took a lot of courage to post what you did knowing full well the firestorm that would follow. We vote about things in this country. The people of California spoke twice about this. If need be they will speak again.

[Former_Democrat]

The sad thing is that gays have the same right as everyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem is they want special treatment and rights, just like with hate crimes, yet not one of them who spat on and used the "N" word in southern California against blacks and Bible believing churches will face hate crime charges even though theirs is a hate crime. It is time Congress disbanded union and charged them under the RICO statutes because they are criminal organizations that take their members money and squandser it on illegal and immoral things. Oh yeah, I forgot that liberals and Dems are supported by unions so that ain't going to happen. You cannot be a person of moral nor integrity and vote Democrat today, because they have none. To do so make your life a hypocrisy and a lie.

[Renee Horne]

I agree with you Gwen!!!! The people of California spoke loud and clear. GET OVER IT SODOMITES and those that support you!!!

[Atlas Collins]

Why can't homosexuals grasp the simple concept that the issue is about hygiene and not hate.

Good and wholesome normal people simply do not want their Marriages smeared with the fecal filth of homosexual sodomy.

You are all perfectly free to live your filthy and disgusting "lifestyles" all you want -- you are not free to IMPOSE your amoral and repugnant hedonism upon the rest of us.

Atlas Collins

åß

[George Lewis]

The fundamental fact that marriage has been between a man and woman, and ordained by God has not changed throughout history. As someone who has experienced, and still experiences racism I am always appalled at anyone comparing this to the Civil Rights struggles that we saw in the south.

Just because one yells, attacks, carries on or bashes people over the head with your view of the world, does not make it true.

I believe that it many states, homosexuals can enter into civil union. Now marriage is defined as a religous ceremony, confessed before God (Wikipedia not withstanding). It is amazing to think that throughout history all societies had it wrong, and a brilliant minority in California have solved the puzzle.

Time will tell who is wrong. The concept of Yin & Yang was so prevalent throughout California in the last 20 years that I lived there...and that includes the homosexual community. But I guess not when it comes to this huh?

This time the minority will not be victorious and Thank God for that.

[arguenaut]

Prop 8 is a legal definition of "marriage." It is the definition that has been taken for granted by sane people from the begining of human history up till now. But since the gays want to redefine marriage, the people were forced to put it in writing by a popular vote... twice. Nothing has changed. Prop 8 has not taken anything from anybody. The definition of "marriage" is still what it has always been.

[Jim]

robert, I can't believe you still haven't figured this out. Children, the dead, and animals cannot legally give consent. There's absolutely no correlation between same-sex marriage and any of those things.

JohnV, if I were to vote to ban your religion and get 52% of the population to vote along with me, would you turn to the courts and seek to get the vote overturned? The founding principal of a constitutional republic (which is what we have) is that the majority may not vote away the rights of the minority.

Former_Democrat, if we told you that you had the right to marry a member of the same sex, but not a member of the opposite sex, would you feel your right to choose how to form a family unit consistent with your own beliefs had been violated?

Renee Horne, when do we get to vote on your rights?

George Lewis, if you believe domestic partnership is truly equal to marriage, then I suggest you work to get government out of the marriage business altogether and get a domestic partnership instead.

arguenaut, if we stick to the "traditional" definition of marriage, then a man may have as many wives as he wants and women may not choose their husbands; men may rape the maid if he's not satisfied with his wife's child-bearing capabilities; and women who disobey their husband could be killed by him. Thank God the traditional definition has been re-thought by every generation since then!

[AJG]

This is not true Constitution of the United States was written to, among other things, protect the minority from the majority. Initially the constition did not outlaw slavery. The US Constituion was passed in 1787. Ninety years later ain 1865, the 13th amendment was passed abolishing slavery. The situation is really simple here. A few years ago a majority of the people in the State of CA passed prop 22 recognizing marriage between a Man and Woman. Since then you have the legislature increasing the right of same sex couples and eventually the CA Supreme Court saying Hey that's not right Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. A majority of the voters in 2008 supported the passage of Prop 8 marriage amendment. Why should harass those organizations that donated to support the amendment or defeat the amendment. Accoring to an article here on the latimes this "supporters of Proposition 8 had raised $27.5 million, with about 19% of the money coming from outside California. Opponents have raised $31.2 million, with 34% of the money coming from outside the state." Stop complaining that people in Utah passed this Amendment. Opponnents of Prop 8 raised 4.3 million dollars more money than Supporter or Prop 8 and 34% of the total amount donated was from people outside the CA went to proponents. Then we have the protesters that picketted against Businesses that supported Prop 8. Most legal experts say that the Supreme Court will not overturn Prop 8. If that is the case I would encourage homosexuals to unite and place an Amendment on the Ballot to overturn Prop 8. I believe eventually California will have same sex marriage.

[BT]

Jim: "The founding principal of a constitutional republic (which is what we have) is that the majority may not vote away the rights of the minority."
Where does it say that, Jim, or is that just something you've heard drummed into your head over and over so now you believe it? Someone's ideas will be the basis of our laws, and it's either going to be the majority or the minority. I guess you're saying that the minority should rule the majority, which makes absolutely no sense. That's why we have elections...so the people can have a voice.

On the other hand, maybe you're right. So let's see, since the majority of Americans voted for Obama, that means the minority voted for McCain. So because Obama will be taking away the rights of conservatives (the right to say what they want on the radio through the Fairness Doctrine; the right to free speech through hate crimes legislation; the right to do what they want with their money through higher taxes; the right to bear arms through gun control; etc.), McCain should be the next President, right?

After all, the majority shouldn't control or inhibit the minority because that's not our Constitution was based on.

[Jim]

BT, you ask where the Constitution guarantees equal protection for all? Let's see. The First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment are the biggies. (Yes, the Bill of Rights were added only after ratification, but ratification came on the promise that the Bill of Rights would be added. Our Founding Fathers considered it that important.) Here in California it's Article I of our state constitution. Give them both a read sometime. You'll find them enlightening.

I'm curious what rights having an elected representative you didn't vote for abridges. If Obama seeks, for example, to take away your right to bear arms, you would have recourse in the courts. That's what they're there for. Or would that be turning to "activist judges" to "circumvent the will of the people?"

[BT]

Jim, you're confusing the issue. I didn't ask where the Constitution guarantees equal protection. I asked where it says that the majority may not vote away the rights of the minority. The answer is it does not.

Regarding the challenge to Prop 8 in the courts...that's not an issue. What will be an issue is if when the court upholds Prop 8, you and your friends continue to show bigoted hate toward those who don't believe like you do by harassing them. Your true colors will be on display and we'll see just how tolerant you are of others.

Further, marriage is not a right like you would have us believe. It is a privilege. By definition a right is something that is available to everyone without qualification or limitation. One example is the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty when charged with a crime.

Marriage is not a right because there are legitimate qualifications to get married, like you have to be age 18 or older, you cannot marry a close relative, you can only marry those of the opposite sex, etc. These are legitimate societal limitations, so marriage is clearly not a right.

Besides, if you say that 2 people of the same sex should be able to be married, then who are you to limit it to that? Who are you to say that 10 people couldn't marry each other, or a father and his daughter, or a 65 year old man and an underage girl? The possibilities are numerous. If marriage is based solely on people loving each other, then every other combination must be allowed. Otherwise, they would not be afforded equal protection under the Constitution based on your argument.

[Jim]

BT, I'm going to overlook your assumption that I must be bigoted and hateful because I am gay and stick to conversing on the factual points you raise.

You're actually getting into complex constitutional issues with the philosophical discussion about the founding basis of constitutional republics. Books have been written on the subject. To adequately explain the fact that it's unconstitutional for a majority to vote away the rights of a minority, I'm going to need to refer you to a good law class, with emphasis on the 14th amendment, as I can't say much in the limited space a comment allows that would sway your preconceptions. The key phrase is that we're all guaranteed equal protection under the law.

In fact, marriage was ruled to be a right by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. Rights are not available "without qualification or limitation" as you state. The best example of this is your right to free speech does not give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium. However, rights must be applied to all people equally. The issue with Proposition 8 is that it limits the ability of gays and lesbians to marry the partner of their choice, while imposing no such limit on heterosexuals.

The argument that allowing marriage equality will lead to underaged marriages is patently ludicrous for one simple reason ... civil marriage is a civil contract. No minor (or animal, or dead person, etc. as I've seen argued elsewhere) can enter into a legal contract. Does marriage equality open the door to polygamy and polyandry? Perhaps. But, again, it's not my place to impose my moral view that marriage is between two consenting adults on those who believe differently. Allowing legal polygamy and polyandry among consenting adults would in no way undermine the sanctity of my marriage.

No one is saying that you must marry someone of your own gender. No one is saying your church must perform same-sex marriages. No one is saying that you must teach your children that homosexuality is "right."

However, if the government is going to grant rights and privileges to one class of people, it must do so for all classes of people. The only other option is to do away with legal marriage altogether and have the government regard everyone as individuals. Anything else violates our freedom of belief. And trust me, you do not want the government able to dictate what we may and may not believe.

[BT]

Jim, I did not mean to imply that you personally are bigoted. You may or may not be, I don't know. I do see, however, many of those who are for homosexual marriage being hateful and intolerant of of those who believe differently. I assume you repudiate their behavior and find it disgusting?

I disagree that marriage is a right, but leaving that aside for the moment, your example of the right to free speech makes my point. Legitimate limitations can be put on rights. Regarding marriage, those limitations are applied equally. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex, no one has the right to marry under the age of 18, and no one has the right to marry a close relative.

If I choose to drive 80MPH on the highways, should the speed limits be changed to accommodate my behavior? No, because there is a reason why they're set lower than that. It is for society's benefit. Using the same analogy, neither should society change the marriage laws to accommodate the sexual choices of those who choose to partner with the same sex. It is for society's benefit that the laws don't change. Your partner is your choice, but when you chose that person, you knew you couldn't get married, but it didn't take away any rights. You still have the same rights and limitations as everyone else.

Homosexual marriage will definitely lead to underage marriage, incestual marriage, etc. If the definition of marriage is changed to include same sex partners, what would stop the next group of people from demanding that the underage laws be changed using the same argument you're using for homosexual marriage? And after the pro-incest group? What legitimate reason could you possibly have for telling them they couldn't follow in your footsteps and have the laws changed to accommodate their desires?

Your statement, "Allowing legal polygamy and polyandry among consenting adults would in no way undermine the sanctity of my marriage" is patently false. It would destroy the traditional family and marriage as well, which has been the cornerstone of successful societies since the beginning of time.

Also, your comments that "No one is saying your church must perform same-sex marriages. No one is saying that you must teach your children that homosexuality is "right."" are equally false. If the hate crimes bill passes, same-sex marriage WILL have to be performed in churches, and right now California has laws on the books that require teachers to teach children to approve of homosexuality, against their parent's wishes.

"And trust me, you do not want the government able to dictate what we may and may not believe. " I agree, but with the many pro-homosexual bills signed into law in CA over the years, that's exactly what the legislators have done.

[MILITANT]

OUR LAWS HAVE A MORAL FOUNDATION. HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL. WE, AS A SOCIETY, SHOULD MAINTAIN THAT SOCIETY BY ENACTING LAWS THAT PRESERVE MORALITY. I KNOW MANY GAY PEOPLE. THEY ARE NICE PEOPLE BUT THEIR ACTIONS ARE PERVERSE. THEY ARE NOT NORMAL ACTIONS. WE SHOULD NOT PLACE A STAMP OF APPROVAL ON THEIR ACTIONS. WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THEM MAINSTREAM. ALLOWING THIS BEHAVIOR OPENS UP THE POSSIBILITY OF OTHER PERVERSE PEOPLE (MINORITIES) TRYING TO PUSH THEIR SICKNESS ON SOCIETY.

JESUS WOULD LOVE THEM OF COURSE BUT HE WOULD TELL THEM IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS TO STOP SINNING. JESUS WOULD PRESERVE MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN ONLY. HE WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE ANY OTHER UNION. STOP TRYING TO RATIONALIZE YOUR BEHAVIOR. WE WILL ALL BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR SIN. WE NEED TO REPENT AND CHANGE OUR WAY. YOU CAN'T CONTINUE IN IMMORALITY AND MAINTAIN YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. HE WILL CUT YOU OFF.

WE CATCH A LOT OF FLACK FOR STANDING UP FOR TRUTH AND GOODNESS BUT THAT IS THE PRICE WE PAY. WE WILL NEVER BACK DOWN FROM DOING THE RIGHT THING.

[Former_Democrat]

Jim, you use no logic, you just make irrelevent statements to support a perverted lifestyle. And you do it not because you want equal status, you want special status. You cannot change the definition of a word after thousands of years just to make it what you want. Marriage is one man and woman in all languages and in legal definitions. Just because you feel like you must normalize something that has been known as a perversion and an abomination since the beginning of time doesn't make it right. May God have mercy on your soul and you are in my prayers as well as others who live this lifestyle or think it is right. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil.

[Rich]

The debate in Canada was pretty similar before our federal gov't finally caught up with many of the provinces and made marriage equality the rule of the land, since then society hasn't crumbled, the sun still rises every morning and life continues exactly the same for everyone except for us gays and lesbians who finally feel free and proud to finally have achieved legal equality, some finally had their relationships officially recognized by the state by getting married the same as any other committed loving couple, now we're no longer second class citizens in our own country. Even the most vocal opponents have fallen silent since they were forced to admit nothing in their life or in the lives any other heterosexual couple had changed by granting full equality to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation. I'm extremely proud of the freedom being Canadian has given me to live my life to the best of my ability as a fully equal citizen of my country. I have great sympathy for our American friends who can't enjoy the same freedoms and equality we have finally achieved up here, I sincerely hope you too will very soon get to experience how wonderful it feels to finally have equality and freedom by being recognized as fully equal citizens of your own country too. I know you face bigger obstacles than we did in Canada since our Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states all citizens are equal before the law, as well while the separation of church and state is not as clear up here as it is in the USA the separation of church and politics is very clear, religion and politics maintain a healthy distance and the use of politics to advance a particular religious doctrine of one segment of society is frowned upon. However I have great faith in the American people and believe it is only a matter of time before all American citizens are finally considered equal before the law regardless of their sexual orientation and that the day will come when socially conservative religious doctrines are no longer substituted for civil justice and equality for all citizens of your country. Good luck all you fighters for justice and equality! your Canadian friends are cheering you on.

[Jim]

BT, please cite the section of the California Education Code that requires children to be taught about homosexuality over the parents' objection? I'm not familiar with that section. I'm only familiar with the parts that give the parent the right to opt their child out of any family and health lesson to which they object.

Unfortunately for the rest of your argument, legally marriage is a right. Therefore though your belief system is well-argued, it does not stand up under the 14th Amendment or Article I of the California Constitution, which guarantees equal protection. Gays an lesbians are a suspect class in California, and therefore have been legally established as deserving equal rights and protections. This is also the law. So, legally,Proposition 8 is untenable. As for belief, we're going to have to agree to disagree.

However, if anyone ever tries to force your church to perform any marriage that it does not believe is proper or moral, please contact the ACLU immediately. We'll take that case all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to, and under the First Amendment we'd be sure to win. I know there are people trying to undo separation of church and state in this country, but they have not succeeded yet, and they absolutely will not.

[john jakes]

b.t. -- you are a self-hating closeted gay lowlife.

[TRM]

Gwen,

Thank you for you your comments. Those wondering what rights you could be stripped of, obviously haven't been following recent news or court cases. There are at least three recent instances of people, or churches, taking a religious stand against homosexuality, or gay marriage, and losing their first amendment right to free speech or their first amendment right to the free exercise of their religious beliefs.

There was an administrator at the University of Toledo who lost her job because she wrote a letter to the editor expressing her religious beliefs about homosexuality. In nothing that I have read on this case has anyone accused the woman of discriminating against an actual gay person. Apparently she was doing her job well enough to be promoted to a very high position. It seems that no one knew about her opposition to homosexual behavior until, as a private citizen, she wrote the letter to the editor. Now she has been stripped of her job, as well as her right to free speech and the free exercise of her religion.

Then there is the case of the New Jersey church that refused to allow a gay couple to use their grounds along the beach for a ceremony. The church does not believe that gay marriage is Biblical, but that didn’t matter, they lost the ruling anyway. They have been stripped of their right to manage their property according to their beliefs as well as the free exercise of their religion.

Finally, there is the couple in New Mexico who refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony. They were fined more than $6,000 because they believed that homosexuality and gay marriage were wrong and they could not condone with their actions. Like the others, they were stripped of their first amendment rights.

These are not people, or churches, who went looking for gay people to harm or discriminate against. These are people who, based on their religious convictions, said they could not accommodate the requests made on them by a homosexual.

So what rights is Gwen talking about being stripped of, apparently just some little ones in the first amendment to the constitution. And if we lose those, who knows what will be next…maybe the homosexual lobby will even come after people who vote against their agenda…oops, too late!

[Jim]

TRM,

Regarding the New Jersey case, I'm going to point you to a memo by Bringum Young Uiversity law professor Morris A. Thurston in which he explains how that case has been badly misinterpreted: http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Thurston-Memo.pdf
In short, the church was receiving a tax break in exchange for allowing the public to use its property. When it refused to uphold its end of the bargain, it lost the tax break on that piece of property. Incidentally, New Jersey does not have same-sex marriage, so Proposition 8 would have done nothing to protect that church.

The University of Toledo case is still too young for all the fact to be known, but many schools have policies which would make writing such a column a violation of community standards whether or not gays area allowed to marry.
Again, Ohio does not have same-sex marriage, so Proposition 8 would have done nothing to protect her, either.

The New Mexico photographer was found to have violated (incorrectly, in my opinion, and should prevail on appeal) a New Mexico anti-discrimination law. Once again, New Mexico is a state without same-sex marriage, so Proposition 8 would have done nothing to protect her. Frankly, in this case I think the photographer would have been better protected if same-sex marriage were legal in New Mexico, because then she would have not been surprised by the notion of a same-sex wedding and could instead have passed on the commission due to being "unavailable."

It sounds to me like your goal is not to protect those who disagree with homosexuality, but rather to stamp out homosexuality altogether. The ballot argument for Prop 8 paid lipservice to the fallacious notion that domestic partnership grants us the same rights, and yet everything you cite as a reason against same-sex marriage are actually examples of domestic partnership!

[Chris]

Thank you Jim. You're responses have been intelligent, respectful, informative and all-around fantastic. Thanks for keeping up with this board and refuting some of the ugly lies some of the posters willingly post in this public forum.

[Atlas Collins]

This site engages in left wing homofascist censorship as my comments, which were nothing but respectful, were CENSORED by the disgusting homosexual communists who run this site.

They were censored because they were irrefutably true.

No normal non-perverted people want their Marriages smeared with the fecal filth of homosexuality.

I can't wait for the revolution so we can drag left wing FASCISTS and filthy homosexual perverts out and hang them from lamp posts and poke their twitching corpses with pointy sticks.

åß

[informed1*]

Jim: Have to resoundingly agree with Chris. Thank you.

[Zach]

Thanks, Jim, for standing up for the facts calmly and rationally. I've found on this issue that a lot of people don't want to deal in that, preferring to shout their propaganda, their hypotheticals, and their bliblical prophsey - all more exciting than simple constitutional law. That may be "irrelevant" and illogical to some people, but the best we can do is respectfully bring them back to the facts.

[Jim]

Thanks, y'all. Obviously, rational conversations won't sway the extremists on either end, but if the rational majority could calm down and really listen to each other I think we'd live in much less frightening times.

[Dan Dormann]

Racism, slavery and discrimination all had majority support at some point. Constitutions are designed to enshrine fundamental principles of government (including the separation of powers) as well as fundamental civil liberties.
While some changes can be made my simple majority vote (amendments through the initiative process), others require a super-majority.

The elected Governor, elected legislators, the state's highest legal officer, the state's most prominent legal scholars, trade unions, representatives of
the countries' historic civil liberties organisations all agree that California's Constitution protects fundamental inalienable rights, including the right to marriage and equality under the law.

I believe the honorable Justice of the California Supreme Court will once again prove why it is the most cited and most respected state Supreme Court.

The wording of the Constitution is crystal clear. Inalienable fundamental rights
are INALIENABLE.

Removing inalienable rights from a suspect class is not an 'improvement' of the Constitution. While the people can improve the Constitution through the amendment process with a simple majority vote, the elimination of a fundamental right through the amendment process is unprecedented in the history of California. Only a super-majority in both houses plus a majority of voters or a Constitutional Convention can revise the Constitution.
I

[Rebecca]

The Founding Fathers were not even thinking about homosexuals when they wrote the constituion. The Founding Fathers used the Bible-the reason the Pilgrims came to this land in the first place-because they realized that a nation that does not honor God is a nation that god does not honor.
And gregg, the ten commandmets do mention homosexuals. The 7th command is 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' If you go back to the book of Leviticus and other old testament books, the Lord sees adultery not just as a man cheating on his wife or vice versa, but as a man sleeping with a man, a woman with a woman, a man with his wife, a father with his daughter, in short any kind of sexual atraction or sexual relation that is not between a man and a woman and not with in the bounds of marriage.
For all the rest of you gays homos out there, Corinth, Sodom, and Gamorah were all practicing acts of homosexuality and the Lord condemmed them. So unless you all want to be burned by the rath of God, stop your pracitces and turn to the only true belief, or you will ruin this nation and the rest of us along with you. I have no thought of turning from the Lord, but I do not want my county that my my great, great, great, great, great, great, etc. grandparents John and Priscilla Alden braved life and limb for so that I could live in a God honoring nation to be taken away. What was the point of the Mayflower if we just go back to how the country was that we left?

HOMOS, DON'T RUIN MY COUNTRY. I AND GOD WILL NOT ALLOW IT!!!!!