Proposition 8 backers attack Jerry Brown's efforts to keep gay marriage

Proponents of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage filed legal briefs today urging the California Supreme Court to reject the novel legal argument put forth last month by state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and to preserve Proposition 8, the gay-marriage ban approved by voters in November.

"The people have the final word on what the California Constitution says," lawyers wrote. "The practical result of the Attorney General's theory is that the people can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights."

The legal filing comes in response to a brief two weeks ago from the attorney general in which he surprised legal experts by putting forth an unusual theory to argue that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying that the measure undermines fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

His theory surprised experts because he had pledged to argue in favor of Proposition 8 — as the attorney general, it is his job to defend the state's laws. But it also advanced an unorthodox interpretation of the Constitution.

--Jessica Garrison

Comments

[Laurel]

Where can I find a copy of the briefs filed today? Nothing posted yet on the CASC prop 8 site. For that matter, Brown's brief isn't there yet either...

[Flex]

Of course they would ask the court to reject Gerry Brown's novel legal theory. They know that if they debate the questions and issues that he raised, they'll lose prop 8.

[Reason]

Come on, people. Who really cares anymore? The shock value of the gay marriage news story wore off ten years ago.

Here's how to handle it: People for Prop 8: You're going to have to face up to the fact that, whether they're married or not, people are going to sleep with who or whatever they want to. People against Prop 8: If you're gay, just say you're married and live with your true love for the rest of your life. If you're straight, take comfort in the fact that the law can't and will never be able to tell people who they are.

Maybe everyone should just claim bisexuality and get over themselves.

[Rev Hnak Bates]

If left to the popular vote, racial segregation would still be legal in many parts of our country, and interracial marriage would still be illegal. It is time for this country to honor our Constitution and to stop allowing religious justifications to influence the civil rights of our citizens. Allowing same-sex marriage takes nothing away from anyone any more than interracial marriage did. Let's quit "making stuff" up and do the right thing ... overturn Prop 8.

[BobC562]

Uhmmmm, actually the people DON'T have the final say as to what the California Constitution says. The interpretation of the state constitution lies with the California Supreme Court. The people may have the right to try and amend the Constitution, but if challenged, the CASC has the final word. Is that the best they have by way of an argument. As Justice Scalia said to a partner in my very first law firm, "if that's all you have, I'm afraid you have nothing."

[LizardOC]

"Who really cares?" Gosh, I don't know---maybe the 18,000 same-sex couples whose marriages hang in the balance, or the thousands of other gay and lesbian Californians who would like to enjoy the same rights as their straight friends and family?

I understand where you're coming from, "Reason," but please don't be cavalier just because the issues that affect other people no longer titillate you.

[Patrick]

Someone said this previously, but of course the "Prop 8" supporters don't want to have an open and logical debate on the questions Gerry Brown has raised that would invalidate Proposition 8.

Why? Simple: Because a majority of people should never be used to decide upon the fundamental civil rights of a minority. 52% of the voters who voted for Prop 8, and that's a very slim majority, shouldn't be able to take away the established rights of a minority who they disagree with---while they exercise that right.

Besides, think about it... 48% of the voting population who voted against Proposition 8 wasn't just made up of the gay minority who are capable of marrying a same-sex partner. It's made up of straight, bisexual, and gay folks who agree that everyone should have the right to marry the person of their choice.

It's really that simple though. If a minority of people, whether they are interracial couples, gay couples, or even couples of mixed religious beliefs, are either marching in the streets, or quietly filing legal briefs demanding a fundamental right---then the correct, and legal thing to do, is to give it to them.

...and Justice for All. Even if you disagree with that minority, they are still entitled to Equality under the Law. That's what the California Constitution states, and that's what is Fair and Right.

[Rick DeLano]

Absolutely, positively, slam dunk lights-out OVER for the No on 8 crowd. Imagine, filing challenges against a constitutional amendment, and then abandoning your whole argument and jumping aboard Governor Moonbeam's Fairyland Express!

Stick a fork in it, this one's done.

Maybe Moonbeam can shake a few bucks out of the gay marriage folks for his Governor's run next year....LOL!

[Frank]

If the Court does not invalidate Prop 8, then a suit should be filed to declare all special rights now granted to married people be declared unconstitutional. If marriage is concretely defined, it doesn't change the fact that all people are guaranteed equal protection under the law. All Prop 8 did was to define marriage -- and potentially eliminate any legal rights that it currently enjoys. The Prop did not enshrine marriage rights in the constitution.

[riposter]

The power of the court springs from the constitution, not the other way around. The people or their representatives, not the court, create the constitution. The court must use the constitution to restrain the actions of the people if those actions violate the constitution, including fundamental rights guaranteed by it, as the court see them. But since the people can change the constitution, they may override the court and any court established fundamental rights (like the one four justices thought existed and three didn't) through amending the constitution.

This is the structure of the government of the United State and most states. Courts cannot abrogate the political rights of the people to amend the constitution nor claim that some sort of uber-constitutional vision by the justices trumps that right of the people. This doesn't mean that Prop 8 is the "right" thing for the people of California to do. It may be wrong but they still have the right to do that wrong thing.

[Warren]

No defending the Defense of Marriage Act
The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot

By Bob Barr
January 5, 2009

In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.

I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.

[Dave]

Go to the California Attorney General website to take a look at his brief. Given the fundamental questions being posed in general in this case I rather doubt the AG's brief can be easily argued against - unfortunately I'm not certain whether when it comes down to it that it would necessarily persuade more of the judges to confirm that 8 is invalid... that said the AG's argument is in many ways closer to the views held by many of us who object to 8 that whether it's a proposition or not it's still wrong.

[md]

Civil Unions for All
Get Government out of marriage
This way the church can "marry" or not anyone they want.
While this would deal with the issue fairly I don't think it would address either sides real goals. One side thinks its a sin the other wants validation and will not be happy until the "church" is force to accept and marry them.

[NoPhobe]

I am so tempted to file a friend of the court brief in support of Prop 8. I am astounded that the most primal question has yet not been posed for argument, that is: do these homosexuals even QUALIFY as a protected class in the first instance?
There is not one court or one ruling on this planet that has conclusively ruled that their lifestyle is anything but chosen. They are NOT "born that way" and that argument is baseless and an insult to those that do qualify for protected status by virtue of an inherited trait or irreversible injury.
Science is replete documenting examples of set genetic markers ADAPTING to external influences. Since March 1972 the International Journal of Psychiatry, (p. 119) supports that homoness is not genetic; quote; "...Homosexuals have been known to change...” In fact, mainstream psychiatry regards the practice of homosexuality as a basic expression of self-hate.
The bottom line (pun intended) is simply that they (the homos) employ every means of behavior modification, manipulation, threat, slander, guilt, coercion, violence and terrorist tactic in an attempt to legitimize what for centuries has always been regarded as a societal dysfunction, i.e. sodomy, the unchecked psychological compulsion for anal sex and its related derivatives.
"Gays", accept your damn civil contracts and go the hell home!
Quite simply, a CHOICE does not rise to the level of a protected right or class! Enough!

[Mark]

Rick DeLano's comment is representative of the mean-spirited nature of the Yes On 8 crowd.

[Bible Man]

There should be no debate. The Bible says you must follow the only way to salvation. Everyone who disagrees with the Bible is wrong. Those who take it literally and accept Jesus as their savior are the only right ones. Sarah Palin is a genius. Everyone else -- stupid.

[Sean K]

"Reason" ... are you serious? There's not one 'reasonable' sentence in your whole post. You sound like a 14 year old with A.D.D. Here's why your 'reason' doesn't 'handle' anything: People for prop 8: In case you didn't notice, the prop 8 law doesn't mention anything about who sleeps with who, its about being granted legal status of a married couple and the ensuing rights, which.. People against prop 8: already know that they can 'live with' their partner and 'say they're married' but that won't do squat for visitation rights in a hospital or property disputes if one of the couple passes away. Seriously, why bother giving your opinion if you can't be bothered to understand the issue?

[wake u people]

here we go again....equal protection under the law is a fellacy just ask;
smokers, consenting teenagers, combat veterans who still cant drink, drivers who cant talk on their phones but can do almost anything else while driving(eat,smoke,program navigation systems, ect..infinity). I would just ask that one qualified professional validate homosexuallity with a valid definition of its orgin, then and only then we should start down the road of intergration into the majority. Until the orgin is validated homosexuality could be defined as a virus no different than any other common virus without a cure as of yet.
I would ask that any homosexuals please enlighten me and explain the creation theory with regards to homosexuality as believed by homosexuals..??

[John B]

I am so grossed out by straight sex and straight relationships. They are ruining civilization. I am sick of watching them on TV... or kissing in public, or holding hands. All they do is marry, make babies, then get divorced, then marry again, then divorced again. When are they gonna realized it's JUST a choice to be straight, be gay! It's the only way to be. If you are to stupid to get it, then don't even try.

[Travis Bickle]

I love how people in this state defend the "unalienable rights" that they agree with. I personally don't care if gays marry, but how about defending the unalienable right to bear arms as defined in the US Constitution? This state needs to join the 38 other sensible states in this Union and approve "shall issue" concealed pistol licensing, thereby taking the personal safety of millions of honest citizens out of the hands of corrupt sheriffs and judges.

[Vic Ferra]

I want to file a suit and have Obama's election over turned. You lefties took away my civil rights to have a conservative in the White House!

[Preacher]

If two men can marry then I suppose a man has a constitutional right to marry his own daughter, huh? Or pedophile can molest little boys?

We have laws that say marriage is between one man and one woman. A man cannot legally marry more then one wife. Again somebody please explain why if two man or two women can marry then why not can a man marry two wives or more? It is not natural for a man to marry a man.

There are no laws stopping two men or two women from engaging in immoral acts but NO you cannot be married. The people have spoken again and and again and we want to save the traditional marriage between one man and one woman.

[Vic Ferra]

It is very arrogant to of the pro-gay people to think that every human society since the dawn of man were wrong to not allow gay to get married. Talk about ignorance. So was your grandfather wrong? Were Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson wrong? This was never even mentioned anywhere before a few yrs ago. Why should society give benefits let alone marriage to an abnormal behavior. I don't get it. Homosexual sex is NOT equivalent to a marriage. It's not even real sex. The parts don't match, not complementary to each other. The way you determine the purpose of anything is through its design. Men are not designed to have intercourse with men and likewise for women.

[Carla]

These lawyers must prevail. They are my heroes for defending my inalienable right to force other people to abide by my wishes in matters that affect me not one whit.

[John K.]

Here is the problem with the bigots' argument. Yes, the people have the final say over what is in their constitution. However, that does not mean they may express that say through the initiative. There are three methods to change the California Constitution, initiative being the least and easiest of them all. The other two are referral from 2/3 of the legislature followed by majority ratification by the people, and a constitutional convention. The question then becomes, what does the word "inalienable" mean? Does it mean absolutely cannot be taken away? Perhaps not, and I'd admit that this is not the case, and Gerry Brown would admit that is not the case (he says inalienable rights can be taken away with a compelling justification). However, the point that he doesn't make is that certainly AT LEAST inalienable means not changeable without using the MOST DIFFICULT METHOD OF CHANGE! That would be a full-blown constitutional convention. If a convention was convened and the people put a same-sex marriage ban in the new constitution, it would not be touchable by the courts. THAT is where the people's power lies, and it does not harm to democracy for the Courts to demand that at least this most difficult process must be used to take away "inalienable" rights.

[Joe in NorCal]

Bravo, Frank!

[Johnny Holmes]

Give it a rest. G@y people move to a new state and show the people of California you are not putting up with this sort of behavior towards your sort of behavior. G@y's unite and carpool to Connecticut immediately.

[mark]

You may not care now what the CA Supreme Court rules, but in June when gays and lesbians gather in the MILLIONS at Pride festivals and the court rules, you'll care then.

[Ben Daniels]

It is just these kinds of activities that undermine the proposition process and therefore democracy in the California Republic. The initiative process was meant to give the people a voice not an opportunity for judges to make up new legal opinions and codify them into caselaw.

[Stephanie]

Prop 8 won because the rights of parents, and what their own children hear in classrooms in Mass. ---were denied under the implementation of same-sex marriage there. Parents were not able to pull their own kids out of class if they disagreed with the philosophies taught. That's pretty extreme.

The failure of Prop 8 in CA would have had implications beyond disallowing same-sex couples to define their relationship as a marriage.

The lawsuits launched against doctors, against wedding professionals (even though there are plenty of gay wedding specialists out there and doctors willing to assist gay couples) and especially the rights taken away from parents when it comes to the teachings of their own impressionable children -

all of these legal happenings promote the belief that respect is not mutual here.

Mutual respect requires a tolerance for people who are different. Period.

Whether the differences are sexual or religious or political. People have varying belief systems. Somehow we need to make room for respect in all directions, not just some of them.

[Kevin]

The solution is actually quite simple. Leave marriage to the religious institutions where they began. Remove all facets of State managed/endorsed and preference for "legal" marriage. The State should have NOTHING to do with our procreation choices, sexual partnerships or decisions regarding consensual adult partnerships. My cure = No government marriages of any kind.

[Christine B]

"People against Prop 8: If you're gay, just say you're married and live with your true love for the rest of your life. "

Too bad this guy's plan will not confer the full legal and financial benefits and responsibilities that a state-recognized marriage confers. If you're sick of hearing about gay maariage then stop reading these stories and thank your lucky stars that *your* civil rights haven't been subjected to a popularity contest.

[fern]

You've lost, get over it!

This sentence should have been used right after the supreme court decision but they didn't get over it and started prop 8, which is a good thing, since they showed themselves for what they really are. By not getting over it they not only awoke America but the civilized world as well, by refusing to sign the U.N. paper decriminalizing homosexuality after two homosexuals were hanged in Iran.
They are the Christian Talibans and if they're not stopped you'll have 'The Christian Republic of the United States" like "The Islamic Republic of Iran".
How can a politician be so heartless as to support the hanging of two people whose sole crime was to have sex. The American dream is over, it is becoming a nightmare.

[Bob Johnson]

It was not a ban on gay anything. Gay rights have been equal for quite some time now. However it was a voting public that did not want another definition hijacked. I would be much more in favor of eliminating marriage as a state recognized position than I would be for allowing something so ridiculous. Sleep with whomever you want I could care less. But you will never be married in a majorities eyes or in the eyes of the federal government which if you had the balls is where you would be taking this fight.

[mike]

I think it all boils down to the definition of Marriage and what it means to you. Some say its the union of two individuals, others say, the union between man and women. what about union of to beings ? or two clusters of atoms? or two identities, why not ?
As for me, Marriage is defined as union between man and women. And no i also dont believe dogs or cats should be married. But maybe we should extend constitutional right for them too ? I mean were all animals , humans = smart monkeys? what next, have a voting ballot on why applications only have "male/Female" where it should be " male / female/ Bi/ Lesbian/Gay/ trans/not yet defined". Yes lets vote on that next !

[Steve]

It doesn't really matter whether or not anyone is "for" or "against" gay marriage. The issue is one of equality. The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides for the equality of ALL citizens, not just straight people. This battle has been fought before. Too often in our sordid past, we as a nation have tried to denied equality to a whole host of minority groups. I don't see this argument as different. Either the United States needs to REALLY be an equal society for EVERYONE, or repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and stop beating the world over the head with our amazing "shining city on a hill" so called equal democracy.

[Frank]

Ah... back when everybody thought it was prejudice to be against interracial marriages --IT WAS. However, black and whites can procreate --gays cannot --thus the unnaturalness. Everybody thinks they're "cool" be cause they "understand" that gays want to be married. But nose of the camel people, today's argument for gay marriage opens the door for tomorrows man an animal (or you name it) marriage. If you allow one unnatural type of marriage you have to allow them all. You may say NO NO --that's different but, if you knew how the law works, you would realize that a legal precedent has been set thus opening the door to man/child or man/animal marriages. Think not? well those "people" will just accuse you of being prejudiced --and, if you're bright enough, you'll realize you opened the door for them and a constitutional amendment won't stop the guy from marrying Fido because liberals will close that door too. Gays cannot procreate so quit trying to faust on everyone that the gay thing is "normal." It's not, period. Have some backbone people and speak up.

[JL]

"Absolutely, positively, slam dunk lights-out" bluster to compensate for not having an argument to support Prop 8, and to convince yourself that this stance of yours, destined for the trash bin of history, still has a hope. As less and less people become uncomfortable with what other people do with their own lives, as more and more people realize that "the protection of marriage" argument is a canard, gay marriage shall become a legally sanctioned institution.

[mrwright]

Maybe the government should get out of the marriage business. We managed to function without LICENSES until 1856.

[Gomes]

If you're going to "flip marriage on its head", then I want 2 husbands! One to stay at home with the "kids" and one to go off to work with me.

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME I CAN'T LOVE 2 PEOPLE THE SAME AS ONE??? FACISTS!!! Poligamy NOW!! Poligamy NOW!!Poligamy NOW!!

[PeterPatnter]

The key paragraph in this article reads: "The people have the final word on what the California Constitution says," lawyers wrote. "The practical result of the Attorney General's theory is that the people can never amend the Constitution to overrule judicial interpretations of inalienable rights."

That argument is false. The people CAN override judicial interpreetations of inalienable rights.

Such override, however, can be accomplished only by required "revision" procedures -- not by a seat-of-the-pants initiative.

Why so restrictive? Because demagoguery gets "the people" excited enough to trample inalienable rights. Remember Nazi Germany, 1933 to 1942?

[Jeff Greer]

Can someone explain to me what is "unusual" or "novel" about constitutions protecting fundamental rights? I thought this was a basic attribute of our founding documents.

Again the pro Prop 8 people are perpetuating lies. The rules never keep the people from changing the constitution over judicial interpretation. It sets a higher bar when a general population wants to suppress a minority.

[Sean K]

Kevin is right on the money. The problem is simple to solve. The government shouldn't recognize ANYONE'S marriage. If the reason marriage has to be defined as being between a man a woman is based in religion (which it is) then the government has no business enforcing the rules of religion on society. The ONLY thing the government should EVER recognize in these instances is civil unions, even among straight couples. Marriage is a religious ceremony and the government has no business in it period.

[Sean K]

Is it lost on anyone that the anti-prop 8 people tend to advance logical and legal arguments (you know, sets of premises that, when taken together, lead to an inevitable conclusion?) while the Bible thumpers basically say silly emotion based gibberish? They tend to say childish things like, "oh, so you think you're smarter than Abraham Lincoln and Jesus?" Ugh. If these people's IQ were any lower they'd be wearing a helmet and looking for their group leader. The only one who even TRIED to advance a real argument was Frank, but it was a horrible argument with completely unjustified premises, so it just falls on its face. Namely because he doesn't even bother to explain how homosexuality is 'unnatural'. Someone better tell the monkeys, because they haven't got that memo yet.

[Flu-Bird]

As govenor JERRY BROWN proved himself to be a stumbling incompetent he gave us the inamous crinimal coddling ROSE BIRD and tried to make HANOI JANE FONDA as arts commisioner and he is now trying to overturn the will of the voters to gain support from the gay community JERRY BROWN SHOULLD BE IMPEACHED he is completly usless and a incompetent bumbling nit -wit

[Vega Girl]

Bible Man and Preacher,
People like you get me sick to my stomach. I think it's fair to say, that all of are tired of hearing the religious argument. Please stick to your churches, teach your bible teachings and stay the hell out of politics. Your little black book has nothing to do with our constitution. "If two men can marry then I suppose a man has a constitutional right to marry his own daughter, huh? Or pedophile can molest little boys?" Stop being so ignorant, yeah you religious people would like to marry your own daughters wouldn't you? Isn't that what the people in the bible did? And about molesting little boys, well that's left up to the straight catholic priest right? You know, about 95% of all the child abuse and sexual abuse comes from heterosexual men. That's right, Father and Uncle's molesting there own daughters and nieces....it's' disgusting and filthy you should be proud to call yourself hetero's. And since your try at marriage is at a 50% failure rate, maybe its time for us to show you straight people what a marriage is ALL about. When gay couples create families, they are thought of and planned. Unlike the majority of hetero pregnancies, accidents waiting to happen. And just look at our foster care system, oh yeah you hetero's have done a good job with family values. Almost everyone of those children have been abandoned by straight parents. You should be applauding the gay community for wiping up your messes by adopting these poor kids. They take them in, provide shelter, food, and most importantly, LOVE. Shame on ALL of you that voted for Prop 8!

[LA Guy]

I wonder if those calling for the prosecution as a hate crime would be as vocal if it turns out the vandalism was perpetrated by straight people?

There have been a number of vandalism incidents since the November election but I have yet to read of a single instance of the perpetrators being arrested.

Does that mean that the gay folks are smarter than the average criminal or is it possible these have been hoax vandalism incidents designed to drum up support by those claiming to be "victims" and they aren't willing to turn in their own kind?

[Theo, (from literate) San Francisco CA]

I am amazed that no one is rising to the feeble response that Ken Starr has offered to counter Gerry Brown's thoughful 111 page brief; Starr's contention seems to simply be "we never heard this fancy idea about how The Bill of Rights was sacred before which makes the approach much too fancy to even consider; the people who showed up to vote have voted, Prop 8 won, so THERE, go away gay people..." This couched in a curiously stilted and literarily precieux syntax, as though that is enough to ward off what he believes to be alien logic. Gerry Brown has a well enunciated point which seems to be well rooted in facts whereas Starr's only seems to be little more than a slightly more poetic rendition of "nya-nya-nya nyanya". What gives?

[Toe Edge]

Protest at Saddleback Church on Sunday, January 18th from 11:00am to 2:00pm.

The church is in south Orange County and is about 45 to 60 minutes from L.A. (depending on what part of town you are in)

[informed1*]

No-Phobe: Regarding your statement that gays "are NOT "born that way" and that argument is baseless and an insult to those that do qualify for protected status by virtue of an inherited trait or irreversible injury", which you use as argument against gays being a protected class.

Are you aware: Two brothers visiting from a foreign country were BEATEN TO DEATH by a mob spewing anti-gay slurs at them because they were walking hand-in-hand; a man holding his wife's purse, while she assisted a handicapped person into the lady's room, was SHOT TO DEATH; a man, perceived to be gay, is verbally attacked by a woman and later SHOT TO DEATH by her boyfriend; etc. Have you forgotten Matthew Sheppard, Larry King . . . ?

Did you know: Suicide rates are so high there is an organization/website for youths? If not, you should know that a high number of teens kill themselves every year after realizing they are gay. Hence, the organization/website, named in remembrance of just such a youth, encourages OUR young -- after all, these are our brothers, sisters, children, friends -- to choose life.

If you believe that being gay is a choice, I must ask: Who logically would choose a lifestyle so reviled and frought with hardship? If it were a choice, would gay youths need to commit suicide? Why wouldn't they instead, as so many suggest, "just be heterosexual" or "marry [or fall in love with] someone of the opposite sex"?

Opponents of same-sex marriage comment Prop 8 is so much more than about marriage. They say that it is about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage and enforcing non-acceptance of a lifestyle they consider "deviant". My issue with this argument is that there are compelling evidence being gay is NOT a "lifestyle", but rather an unalterable part of one's identity.

Who has more at stake is arguable: Those claiming to "defend" traditional marriage -- personal opinion or religious conviction -- as opposed to those who are compelled to defend themselves. Who is under siege is debatable: Those whose personal and/or religious convictions were deemed unconstitutional or those whose constitutional rights were revoked.

Empathy and compassion: Just a number of things strikingly missing from pro-Prop-8 postings, considering the citing of religious principals. Self-righteousness and judgment: Just a number of things strikingly evident in pro-Prop-8 postings, again, considering the citing of religious opinions. How are these in line with what the Bible teaches us? The answer: They are not.

[informed1*]

Bible Man: We are a diverse nation of myriad religions. Christianity is but one and is DEEPLY DIVIDED within. Some churches organized protests against newly legalized gay marriage ceremonies and supported Prop 8. Others embraced same-sex couples and offered to officiate at their wedding ceremonies. There exists divergent interpretations of the Bible, dissimilar concepts of what a good Christian comprises, and contrasting perceptions of God.

What I am positive of is that the Bible admonishes us to treat others as we would like them to treat us. This means that if I want others to protect my rights, I must begin by protecting others' rights. This means that if I expect to be worthy of compassion, I must begin by showing compassion. This means that if I want others to respect my faith, I must begin by respecting theirs. I am simply a Christian who believes in an empathetic God.

[Dan]

All the talk about judicial activism is a joke because it always judicial activism when it is a decision that they don’t support but perfectly acceptable and precisely what the court is there for when it is a decision they do support. The court reviews the constitution and determines based on the evidence whether a law is in conformity with the constitution or not, if it is than the law stands, if it does not than it is declared unconstitutional and therefore is over turned and cannot be enforced. This means that the legislature and the people can not simply pass any law they wish, any law they pass has to be constitutional if it is to stand and not get overturned. The constituion and the right to challenge whether a law passed by the people is constitional is firewall against the tyranny of the majority and is how the rights of minority groups get protected. That is the case with same sex marriage in California, the Supreme Court reviewed the existing constitution and determined that the existing constitution does not permit the banning of same sex couples from the institution of civil marriage. It also determined the separate but equal argument in respect to domestic partnership is unconstitutional. Therefore it wasn’t judicial activism that made it legal for same sex couples to marry it was the court doing its job and ensuring that the constitution was upheld.

I am also sick and tired of all this whining about how the people decided end of discussion case closed. Such a view would make the Court totally irrelevant as mentioned above and lead to the tyranny of the majority. I highly doubt it that many religious minded people would accept the people decided line of reasoning if it where a proposition that affected them. Imagine if a proposition to change to constitution was approved by the majority of people and made it illegal to display any religious symbols in public be it a cross, a nativity scene, a star of David, etc. or a prop to strip religious institutions of their tax exempt status.. The religious minded people would be screaming bloody murder and would in no way accept the line that the people have decided. They would be filling with the Supreme Court to have these proposition/constitutional amendment over turned so fast it would make you head spin. So for those people who keep whining about how people decided and the issue should be brought to an end, try to imagine how you would feel if the majority of voters passed a proposition that stripped you of your rights and ask your self would you just submit to such a decision or whether you would be trying to have the Supreme Court over rule and declare unconditional will of the people.

[informed1*]

I am unsurprised that same-sex marriage opponents -- who: 1)Argue vehemently for dismissal of "activist judges who overturn the will of the people"; 2)Express outrage over same-sex couples turning to the judicial system for protection; etc. -- have no qualms whatsoever about using our judicial system to overturn legislation passed via majority vote. They remain the unrivaled connoisseurs of double standards.

[Nikki]

No Phobe:

If homosexuality is a choice, (my personal feeling is that it is) what does that matter?

That means religion, and for that matter any personal moral choices, can not be protected either. You have the right to define your morality, so do I. I don't believe in having sex with, or getting married to, men. That is not to say I dont want the daycare allowance on my tax check for our children.

I agree with the poster who said that if (by some long shot) prop 8 passes, I will sign the petitions to remove the "special" rights of marriage from the select individuals who are currently allowed to have them.