New Prop. 8 court challenge brings former legal rivals together

The California Supreme Court failed to protect gay couples' fundamental right to marry when it upheld Proposition 8, forcing same-sex couples to appeal to the federal courts to remedy the injustice, two prominent lawyers said today in announcing a lawsuit on behalf of two gay couples.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a renowned conservative, and David Boies, who opposed Olson in Bush v. Gore in the 2000 fight over the presidential election, cast their collaborative effort to restore the right of gays to marry in California as a moral imperative to correct an injustice. Their suit seeks an immediate injunction on Prop. 8's ban, thereby allowing same-sex marriages to resume while the case makes its way through the federal court system.

But Olson's role in the gay rights mission prompted much speculation about his motives. The former Bush administration official, who lost his wife in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, conceded that the federal courts might not be ready to recognize sexual orientation as a class in need of protection from discrimination, but he said he hoped "that people don't suspect my motives," vowing to demonstrate his commitment to equal rights by winning the challenge.

Boies vouched for Olson as "committed in heart and soul to equality and committed in heart and soul to the Constitution."

Both lawyers, flanked by the two gay couples they represent in the lawsuit, compared the fight for same-sex marriage rights to previous civil rights campaigns and said it was wrong to urge their clients to wait for their fundamental rights for another decade or longer because of the current conservative domination of the federal bench.

--Carol J. Williams

Interactive map of milestones in the gay marriage battle and how state laws have changed since 2000

Photos: Attorneys Theodore B. Olson, right, and David Boies take questions during a press conference Wednesday morning at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles.  Credit: Al  Seib  / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Yang Zhu]

The recent legal and essentially moral debate over the marital status of same-sex couples in the state of California is quite an interesting one, one that cannot be described as a human rights issue as so many people wish to frame it. It is not a human rights or even more broadly equal rights for there is not a single right that is denied same-sex couples in the state of California. Aside from name, same-sex couples are afforded all the rights and privileges as hetero sexual couples by the laws of the great state of California. Granting them the "right" to be called married is not a right at all, it is an issue of language, and language is the most fundamental tool for expressing ideas. If same-sex couples are allowed to be called married, it would afford them no legal rights they are currently lacking, either in the state of California or anywhere else in the United States of America.

Even if California were to extend the term marriage to include same-sex couples, they would still face the same problems as they do now in terms of inheritance, hospital visitation outside the state of California, for their marriage would only be legally valid within the borders of states that have also chosen to apply the term marriage to same-sex relationships. Other issues, such as hosting and sponsoring immigrants would also remain unaltered; being as they are issues that fall under Federal jurisdiction and the state of California has no say over such matters.

So, if applying the term marriage to same-sex couples under California law would not grant same-sex couples a single legal right or privilege they are currently denied, either within the state of California or anywhere else in the entire United States of America, why are proponents of same-sex marriage working so hard to have the term marriage be applied to same-sex unions?

The answer to this question, lies at the heart of the opponents of same-sex marriage. This fact definitively bears witness to the fact that the issue has nothing to do with human rights whatsoever, though the vast majority of same-sex marriage proponents attempt to constantly frame it as such in order to invoke American morals of equality and gain the moral high ground while at the same time demoralizing and essentially, demonizing opponents of same-sex marriage.

In the end, as well as the beginning, the "Alpha and Omega" of the issue so to speak, as I alluded to above, is an issue of language and ideology. If it is not legal rights that the proponents of same-sex marriage are after, then what is it? It is acceptance. Proponents of same-sex marriage want same-sex unions to be put on equal footing and be equally accepted, both ideologically and morally by the citizens of the great state of California. Rather than having partners, they want to have husbands and wives. Rather than having unions, they want to have marriages to feel as though their unions are viewed as being both equal and synonymous with heterosexual legal marriages. Thus, it is a battle over ideology, not inalienable rights.

This is why after the Supreme Court of California's ruling to apply the term marriage to same-sex unions there was an immediate mobilization among the citizens of California to draft Proposition 8. Though our legislature has the job of passing laws to keep our society free from oppression, tyranny and anarchy, it does not have the job to define the ideology of California's citizens. The majority of Californians, as demonstrated on November 4, 2008, do not ideologically believe, think or feel that same-sex committed relationships are synonymous to heterosexual marriages. We great citizens DO believe that individual who wish to form same-sex unions do have the inalienable right to have all the rights and privileges that heterosexual couples are accorded under the law, for heterosexuality and homosexuality are moral issues, ones that are subjective, vary from faith to faith and culture to culture. We citizens of California are strong defenders of democracy and defenders of both the California and American Constitutions as well as the Bill of Rights. Thus, we are not going to try and force our personal ideas and choices onto others who do not feel the same.

But…we ask the same in return!

Being that Proposition 8 passed and the citizens of the great state of California made it known that ideologically, they do not believe that the term marriage applies to same-sex couples, whether the Supreme Court of California had ruled to overturn Proposition 8 or to uphold it on March 26, 2009, the proponents of same-sex marriage had already lost the battle. The battle is over acceptance and ideology, on November 4, 2008 the citizens of California made it known that same-sex unions are not considered equal or synonymous with heterosexual marriages. The proponents of same-sex marriage are fighting for acceptance and no matter what laws may be passed or what the California legislature may or may not allow, homosexuality has never and will never be considered equal or synonymous to heterosexuality by California's citizens.

But those who wish for acceptance, claiming that they are denied specific rights, have forgotten who they are fighting with. They are fighting with their neighbors, their friends, families and co-workers, people who both love and respect them. People who would never wish anything but the best for them and never, ever, wish to take away any level of human dignity away from them either through legislation or any other way. Neither would we wish to force our opinions, lifestyle or ideologies upon them. But that is exactly what they are trying to do to us.

So whether the next steps the proponents of same-sex marriage take in their fight, whether it be further state legal battles or those on the federal level, they cannot win. The people of California do not accept homosexuality as equal or synonymous to heterosexuality, time and time again we have spoken in the polls. Even if proponents of same-sex marriage are successful in having their ideas forced upon the majority of their neighbors, family members, friends and co-workers, on paper it may state that homosexuality is considered as equal and synonymous, in our hearts, it will never be so.

So quit fighting for acceptance by "going over our heads" by taking it to higher and higher courts as you did with the legal challenge to Proposition 8. That will never gain you acceptance. We as citizens have shown that we believe you should have every single legal right as heterosexual couples. Please, as fellow citizens, afford us the same respect and courtesy to not force your opinions upon us.

[jonathan]

The fix is in.

[Michael Doyle]

The bias of the lead paragraph of this article is startling and disturbing. The job of a newspaper is to present the facts, not offer opinions disguised as news stories. This article illustrates how far the Los Angeles Times has fallen. A once great newspaper is great no more.

[Derek]

The people have spoken! Why must this go on. Don't I have rights too?

[Philip]

Legal marriage is not a "right". It is a responsibility, and an obligation.
It denigrates the entire institution of marriage, to treat it as some kind of "reward", or "recognition of love".

The government has no business passing laws to "recognize love" in the first place. Legal marriage has nothing to do with adult love. It is established in order to promote a child being raised by both genders of the human race: "A mother and a father". To lack either of them, leads to a child missing out on a deeper understanding of HALF OF THE HUMAN RACE.

That is why the people of California voted that only the union of "a man and a woman" is legally recognizable as "a marriage".

[Christine Beatty]

California's ballot initiative system is fundamentally flawed when it allows the barest margin of a simple majority to strip away fundamental civil rights from an entire demographic of people. Those who bleat about democracy should remember these words from one of our wisest founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."

[Joey]

Why are the Feds going to get invovled. The People of California let the voice be heard and the California Surpreme Court did the right thing by supporting what the majority of people in California wanted. The Federal Surpreme Court should accept what the people and the state surpreme court decided on. If someone wants to have same sex marriages...well move to Vermont or Iowa. California is a non-same sex marriage state. If people don't like it.....then leave!

[Boogar]

YANGZU not looking for your validation, approval, acceptance, or an invitation from you for thanksgiving dinner.

Just want the rights afforded all men under the us constitution.

ps. you would be welcome at our dinner time for turkey anytime..

[John Galt]

Olson and Boies? The original odd couple.

[Jacob Frank]

Although "legal marriage" may not be a right, as long as the government recognizes certain relationships AND provides benefits to people in those relationships (visitation rights at hospitals, rights to be part of decisions regarding medical care, income tax filing status benefits, etc.) then the government must also insure that it doesn't discriminate against segments of the people because of color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

The problem is that the California ballot initiative process needs to be reined in to restore some sense of order to government. Either we hire (i.e. elect) people to make decisions for us and trust them or we should just abolish government and have all citizens vote on EVERY matter that needs to be decided.

[kirk]

Good God, here we go again.......2 more years of rhetoric back and forth before yet another vote on whether the state recognizes gay marriage. I have news for you gay folk that want the recognition, marrige is OVERRATED. HA!

[Dan]

All I can say about these two knuckleheads, Theodore B. Olson and David Boies is that some people will do anything for money including sleeping with the enemy.

[KB]

It is discouraging to see the postings of people who think that they have the "right" to vote away the rights and privileges of another class of people. The concept is simply evil, as well as un-American.

I'm confident that the Supreme Court will apply the same logic it did when it voted 6-3 to outlaw Amendment 2 in Colorado, which also tried to single gays and lesbians out by denying any protections under state law. It was, of course, the brainchild of pseudo-Christian bigots, just like Prop 8.

[Nickel]

Really? You think we're FORCING anything on you? My right to marry MY partner does nothing to take away from YOUR marriage. Who I have sex with is not going to affect you in the slightest. Why on Earth would you be so arrogant as to say that hetero couples are more or better than homo ones? We're no EQUAL? Seriously? WHO are you to judge? And would you say the same if I said that whites and Asians are not equal? Even if it was put to a vote and a SLIM majority of voters said you weren't? What then? Because we are ALL PEOPLE! None are better or more than others...just DIFFERENT! And if my marriage does NOTHING to take away or hurt YOURS...WHY DO YOU CARE?!

[John]

Popular vote would have denied civil rights in the 60s. No, Derek, you do not have the right to vote your religious / personal beliefs to control me! Prop 8 created inequality which will ultimately be proved wrong and reversed. It's only a matter of when, not if. Meanwhile, I remain married to my husband.

Civil unions / domestic partnerships do NOT give equal rights! To say so is to demonstrate your ignorance.

If you call a 4 point margin "the people" you also show your ignorance. What about the nearly equal number who supported gay marriage? Don't twist fact.

[Know Your History]

In response to the comment that legal marriage is not a "right" - your statement is wrong. In loving v. Virginia the US Supreme Court already ruled that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival...."

"The people of California do not accept homosexuality as equal or synonymous to heterosexuality," - This may be true right now, but that does not mean the ban is constitutional. There have been many times through the course of US history that the court's ruling has gone against the opinion of the masses.

[Chris]

Yang Zhu - I appreciate your well thought out, civil and polite response. I agree that the much deeper issue is acceptance, and that many people believe that the state granting the same title to both homo and hetrosexual couples will somehow imply acceptance.

However, if put to a vote, do you think that black and white citizens would have been allowed to marry? Or that Asian American citizens would be allowed to own land?

We live in a country founded on unalienable rights, despite what the "majority" may feel about them. By giving a separate title to marriage, it does essentially show that a group of people is not "accepted" by their own government, just because the stronger voice of their neighbors is against the idea.

Issues that affect a minority can never be left to a majority vote. It's unfair and wrong.

[Chris]

Would we settle to call a marriage between a two people of different races a "bi-racial union" instead of a marriage? Would we tell someone that they can't be a "property owner" but are instead a "grounds keeper?"

Having different titles implies one is lesser than the other.

[MartyK]

So the state won't call your relationship "marriage." Nothing prevents you doing so yourself. Just don't require me to do it.

And none of this violates your basic human rights or deprives you of your right to due process. Domestic partners have virtually every significant right that married people have. This is not about gay rights. Gays have rights already. When gays are being physically assaulted, arrested or fired for being gay, then I will fight for your rights.

But this isn't about that. This is about wanting the people to officially approve of your relationships. Basically the gay community wants a big hug from the state, because their parents, neighbors, or co-workers won't give them the approval they crave.

These arguments in favor of gay marriage insult the intelligence of the voters. I refuse to vote for this issue so long as these are the arguments presented for it.

[Guido Gaietta]

I am sorry - did I just read that "same-sex couples are afforded all the rights and privileges as hetero sexual couples"??? wow, perhaps I did not realize I could apply for a permanent residence in the States through my same-sex partner. Or, that I could file a joined tax form with the same, poor same-sex partner. And the list goes on and on. It is a total, complete, absolute misconception that domestic partnership gives same sex couples the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. Indeed the fight needs to leave the state borders and get to the federal level! My dear Yang Zhu - guess what, society evolves. And you of all people should know that very well. Should I remind you that Asian Pacific Americans were considered aliens ineligible for citizenship for quite sometime and really were not able to vote until after 1965? or, that 38 states had formal laws prohibiting non-whites from marrying whites until pressure from the civil rights movement changed that in 1967? and, once again guess what, most whites at that time were not exactly in favor of extending such rights to non-whites and, they were using the very same rhetoric you are delighting us with - "homosexuality has never and will never be considered equal or synonymous to heterosexuality by California's citizens", to use your very same words. Who are you to come up with such statements? Oh, wait, I know. You are part of that 52% "majority that voted for prop 8. The remaining 48%? an incident of democracy. Wow.

[Reality Master]

Any father ever looked through the window and said, "Gee, I hope my kid is gay"? Ever wonder why?

A gay couple will not spawn their own child- regardless of the biological trickery involved.

Sorry, but trying to legislate equality when it ain't so if a fool's errand. A kid living in a wheelchair is unlikely to ever play for the Dodgers either. Deal with it!

[Cal Godot]

Why must Yang Zhu and other supporters of Prop 8 spread lies and distortions in order to further their cause? In fact, there are several significant differences between "marriage" and "domestic partnerships" in California -

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.

* Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.

* California permits married couples the option of
confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.

* Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.

* There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships.

* In addition to these differences specific, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (for example, Israel), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships performed in California.

* The use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference. In the majority opinion of In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agreed, suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions".

I got the info above from Wikipedia, and it is readily available in a number of other places, further indicating that supporters of Prop 8 are dishonest, or at best do not make any effort to understand the issue. They are content simply to hate gay people and deny them rights accorded to the majority of citizens.

Equal Rights for All.

[CAC]

Yang Zhu,

I don't care what's in your heart, and I really don't give a rat's a&& whether you accept me or not. But I DO care if my partner is covered under my health insurance if she loses her job, or if the state can take our children from her if I die, or if my family can take our home from her if I die, or (I could go on, but you've got your head so far up your own selfish butt that it's a waste of my time). This isn't about YOU, dude, or your opinion or what you think of your gay relatives or neighbors. We don't care. We really, really, REALLY don't care about your long and meaningless opinion on our lives. We just don't want to live in fear, or be treated like second class citizens. I'm so sorry that's inconvenient to you.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a lesbian and a member of DAR. My ancestors fought for my rights as an American citizen. Your opinion did not enter into the equation then, nor does it now, bub!

[Caleb Marcoli]

The system is fundamentally flawed whenever you vote on rights.

Imagine 50-60 years ago if we voted on whether or not blacks could marry rights, or even each other.

This is not a religious issue, as the state grants marriage licenses, not churches.

Marriage should simply be allowed between 2 consenting adults, no exceptions.

[Paddyoski]

The government needs to get out of the marriage business all together. Unfortunately this would mean major rewrites of the tax code. Therefore they have chosen the easy way out, and will let the people fight it out via initiatives and let courts sort out the resulting legal carnage.

BTW, I've read the New Testamant twice, cover to cover, and I can't find the specific passage where I'm supposed to keep the gays down.

[David]

Is being a doctor a fundamental right - I like the money they make - I like the respect they get - I want to be a doctor. I don't want to pay the price or do the work that comes with the title. I just want the title. If you don't let me be a doctor - you are misguided or maybe even worse a doctorphobe.

The gay community needs seek for fundamental rights not titles. Marriage is a spiritual title that belongs to a man and a woman.

[Johnson]

Yang Zhu doesn't understand. There are literally THOUSANDS of civil and legal benefits that flow from government-sanctioned marriage. Domestic partners, civil unions, etc. are all separate and unequal to marriage in the eyes of US federal law, and most of the states. What happens if your partner gets sick in a hospital while on vacation in Texas? What happens when it's tax time?

In these tired arguments just remove 'gay marriage' and insert 'slavery', 'women's right to vote', or 'inter-racial marriage' and you get the same small-minded, intolerant bigotry that fails to understand the simple american ideals of equality, fairness, and egalitarianism.

I dream of the USA becoming a beacon of open-minded hope to the world, of opportunity and liberty for all. Since Reagan, it's been homophobic and self-righteous fear campaigns from the right, and 30 years later we have states enshrining discrimination in their own constitutions. And in the name of family values and Jesus Christ? I pray that God has mercy on your soul, Yang.

[Very simple]

Proposition 8 is an unfortunate blemish on the history of civil rights in this country, but as the people who support inequality, i.e., Prop 8 supporters, begin to die off, we will have equality soon. Equality always has a way of defeating bigotry in the US. Always.

[Larry]

Gay men and lesbians still need the right to marry. Nothing else carries the rights that marriage affords. My partner of twelve years, who is a Japanese national , could not go to see his father when he was dying in Tokyo. And last month, all we could do was watch the funeral on Skype.

Why? As domestic partners, we have no federal rights -- I'm a U.S. citizen, but I can't sponsor him for a visa (green card). He is here legally on a study visa, but if he leaves the USA it might be difficult to return.

It really is about equal rights under the law. It's about doing the right, decent thing.

[TheMajorityMinority]

The people of California said "No" to this. This is ridiculous & shameful that we're having this battle over same-sex marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman - constituted by GOD. Got a problem with it? take it up with God!! This is NOT the same as the civil rights movement of the 60's. I'm so irritated by the comparison of gays to people of color (by the way, white is a color too!!). This is not the same battle. spoken by a black person.

[mmbriggs]

to those who say my religius beliefs prevent me from supporting gay marriage, but i will support gay domestic partnership, let us shout a resounding no!

and to mr. obama who told us he is president of all the people, let us say, domesitc pratnership for gays and marriage for heterosexual is separate and uneaqual as the supreme court ruled in bronw vs, the board of eduacation.

and if you truly are the president of all the people mr, obama, then support the full civil rightrs of we th people, the gay and lesbian people of the united states.

at this moment it is time to tell mr. obama that he is on the wrong side of history and that separate but eqaul is no more a political or social reality for gay and lesibans in 2009 then it was in the the segregated south of the 1950's for african americans.

mr. obama let my people go!

[markiejoe]

Anybody who says the majority of people in California voted for Prop 8 is nuts. Didn't happen.

And that's one of the primary problems with initiatives. They only need a bare majority OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO VOTE in order to make law or, in this case, change the California Constitution.

In any given election in California, usually between 25% and 65% of eligible voters bother to vote. In 2008, because of Obama's candidacy, it was a good year and voting reached a little over 70%. But that means only 36% of the state's eligible voters changed the state's Constitution. Imagine a bad year, when only, say, 35% of eligible voters bother to vote. That means a Proposition passes with the approval of only 18% of the state's eligible voters!

That's a damned fool way to govern, as is evident with California's current budget mess which is also the result of a minority of voters making stupid budgetary laws through the initiative process. No minority of a minority should ever make law through a direct vote. That's a sure invite for tyranny.

[Robert]

The fact that Prop 8 was upheld may well be a blessing in disguise. With lawyers such as Boies and Olson fighting for equality, we may be about to turn a page. As everyone knows, it's only a matter of time before opponents of same-sex marriage begin to die and become an insignificant minority. And with Mr. Obama as president, the Supreme Court may well take this up and make same-sex marriage the law of the land--of the entire U.S. of A.

[jon]

Yang Zhu, you are a shame to your race.

Be careful with your specious arguments. The California Supreme Court has held that race and sexual orientation hold the same status under the law.

This means that the California voters can decide that you can't marry a person of another race. Do you think that's right?

[Pam]

Funny how the L.A Times NEVER prints any comments that are against the sanctimonious Christians. I wonder why? Yeah, free thinking...that's scary isn't it?

[Bill G]

This battle is far from over. Yesterday the California Supreme Court DISGRACED itself by upholding the idea that a fundamental inalienable right could be taken away by a majority vote. It is a complete rebuttal of the reasoning used in its earlier Marriage cases, and an act of cowardice in defending the ability of the constitution to protect a suspect class.

A shameful day for justice!

[David]

Prop 8 was about the title and defining what marriage is - it didn't add or take away any rights

[John Coleman V]

In response to Michael Doyle: This is the blog section of the LA Times, so from what I understand opinion is free game.

In response to Yang Zhu: I appreciate your thorough assessment. Though there are some flaws I see in the argument. First, it seems, that you're speaking from the stance of the majority, the heterosexual, the "status quo." From that standpoint you have a bias that cannot be reversed–in the same manner that a Caucasian cannot, by nature, completely speak for a Black person, and so on–and a lot of that bias clearly shows in your argument. And inherent in this bias is the lack of understanding of what the struggle for these equal rights is about. This is the same kind of condition that I, as a male, cannot completely understand in women's struggle for complete equality.

Yes, the majority of Californians spoke up against letting same-sex unions also be defined as "marriage" because heterosexuals may, perhaps, never accept homosexuality as equal or synonymous. But also, like you emphasize in using language and ideology as prime factors in this fight for equal civil rights, we must define "majority." The difference of votes between those who voted Yes on Prop 8 and those who voted No on Prop 8 is nearly equal the January 2008 population counts of Berkeley and Long Beach combined; that is, nearly 400 votes shy of 600,000. By contrast, the KKK had a peak membership of 4-5 million back in the 1920s. In that day, their argument was also aligned with the majority, the "status quo." The civil rights advocates of about 50 years ago were speaking the same words that the LGBT community speaks now, and the counter to those voices for freedom were speaking, largely, the same argument you wrote here. Now look where we are now, in 2009. I don't need to remind anyone who sits in the highest office of the land.

Make no mistake, I am not calling you someone that would align to those types of maligned opinions of the last few generations. I am just drawing comparisons of arguments. The question that I have for you, based on what you wrote above (specifically, "homosexuality has never and will never be considered equal or synonymous to heterosexuality by California's citizens"), is, being a Black American not considered equal or synonymous to being White American by the citizens of the United States? We both know the answer to this question, and how it applies to the issue of homo-/heterosexuality.

Secondly, we are all fully aware that winning marriage for homosexual couples in California would only afford them rights in this state, and only in other states that recognize out-of-state gay marriage. But as everyone says, "baby steps." I rest my case here.

Thirdly, you say, "Granting them the 'right' to be called married is not a right at all, it is an issue of language, and language is the most fundamental tool for expressing ideas." Language is, even according to Plato and pre-modern philosophers, the most fundamental tool for not only expressing ideas, but also in exerting control over the masses. This attribute of language isn't something that's kept secret–the attribute is exploited in laws (e.g. the Constitution) and religions that depend on a written code (e.g. the Holy Bible or the Qur'an). If control is simply exerted by the use of a word for one thing and the lack of use of that word for, apparently, the same thing then there is a disconnect; therefore, there is inequality no matter which way you look at it. In other words, if the term "marriage" is applied only to heterosexual relations and purposefully not applied to homosexual relations and, theoretically, if the same rights in number and substance applied to both, there would still be a condition of inequality. This alludes to my fourth point.

You say, "Thus, it is a battle over ideology, not inalienable rights." This statement cannot be further from reality. Sure it is a battle over ideology, the same applied for the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. But most importantly it is a battle for inalienable rights because gaining recognition by simply having the term "marriage" apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relations, would effectively grant the inalienable rights that heterosexuals, married or not, are granted at birth by law to homosexuals–in the United States, at least.

So we will not quit fighting for acceptance by "'going over [your] heads'" by taking it to higher and higher courts as we did with the legal challenge to Proposition 8. We will follow the same steps that civil rights advocates did in the past, if not further. That will help gain us acceptance. The average White American back 60+ years ago probably wouldn't have lifted a finger to accept the fact that the Black American was an equal human being, but the law dictated that by order of the court system which effectively enacted massive change in ideology. Please, as your fellow citizens, afford us the same respect and courtesy to not have your heterosexual opinions forced upon us, keeping us from enjoying the same rights as you.

Thank You.

[John Coleman V]

In response to TheMajorityMinority: Yes, it is the same battle as the one of the Civil Rights Movement–as spoken by a gay black male. While the conditions are not completely the same (yes, I recognize that there's a stark difference between being hosed down by the fire department and not being able to visit your dying partner in the hospital, which really is an understatement) the basis of the issue is the same. Equal rights as recognized by the law. And also, this is the United States–law here is separate and independent, from religion and whatever is written in the Holy Bible. Separation of church and state has been that way since the country was born.

And if you have a problem with anything that is gay, then take it up with God on why we even exist. Everything is a creation of the Higher Intelligence (which is what I personally call "God").

[Michael Evans]

Homosexuality refers to sexual behavior with or attraction to people of the same sex, or to a homosexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one’s own sex"; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."[1][2] Homosexaulity, bisexuality, and heterosexuality together make up the three main classifications of sexual orientation and are the factors in the Heterosexual-homosexual continuum. The exact proportion of the population that is homosexual is difficult to estimate reliably,[3] but most recent studies place it at 2–7%.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
Sexual orientation is also distinguished from other aspects of sexuality, "including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male, female or other), and social gender role (adherence to cultural norms defining feminine and masculine behavior)."[2]
Etymologically, the word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid with homos (sometimes confused with the later Latin meaning of "man", as in Homo sapiens) deriving from the Greek word for same, thus connoting sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex, including lesbianism.[13][14] The word gay generally refers to male homosexuality, but is sometimes used in a broader sense, especially in the media[citation needed], to refer to homosexuality in general. In the context of sexuality, the word lesbian always denotes female homosexuality.
There is much evidence of both acceptance and repression of homosexual behavior throughout recorded history. During the last several decades, there has been a trend towards increased visibility, recognition, and legal rights for homosexuals, including marriage and civil unions, parenting rights, and equal access to health care.
Paraphilia (in Greek para παρά = besides and -philia φιλία = love) refers to traits and behaviors involving nonstandard or unusual sexual interest. [1]
The term was coined by Wilhelm Stekel in the 1920s[2] and popularized by John Money in the 1960s. Psychologists and psychiatrists codified paraphilias as disorders in the 1980 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM describes them as conditions which "are characterized by recurrent, intense sexual urges, fantasies, or behaviors that involve unusual objects, activities, or situations and cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning," according to the DSM-IV-TR, p. 535.[3] Sexual arousal in association with objects that were designed for sexual purposes is not DSM diagnosable (DSM, p. 570).[3] Some people diagnosed with paraphilias undergo voluntarily or involuntarily intervention to alter their behavior. Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard writes that despite efforts by Stekel and Money, "the term paraphilia remains pejorative in most circumstances." [4]
The view of paraphilias as disorders is not universal. Charles Moser, a physician and advocate for sexual minorities, has argued that the diagnoses should be eliminated.[5] Groups seeking greater understanding and acceptance of sexual diversity have lobbied for changes to the legal and medical status of unusual sexual interests and practices.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is a handbook for mental health professionals that lists different categories of mental disorders and the criteria for diagnosing them, according to the publishing organization the American Psychiatric Association. It is used in the United States and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and policy makers.
The DSM has attracted controversy and criticism as well as praise. There have been five revisions since it was first published in 1952, gradually including more disorders. It initially evolved out of systems for collecting census and psychiatric hospital statistics, and from a manual developed by the US army. The last major revision was the DSM-IV published in 1994, although a "text revision" was produced in 2000. The DSM-V is currently in consultation, planning and preparation, due for publication in May 2012.[1] An early draft will be released for comment in 2009. [2] The mental disorders section of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is another commonly-used guide, used more often in some parts of the world. The two classifications have developed alongside each other and use the same diagnostic codes.
The DSM, including DSM-IV, is a registered trademark belonging to the American Psychiatric Association.[3]

Egodystonic sexual orientation is an egodystonic condition. The World Health Organization lists egodystonic sexual orientation in the ICD-10, under "Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation". The WHO describes it thus:
The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it. (F66.1)
The WHO applies the following note to the entirety of part F66: "Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder."[1]
The diagnostic category of "ego-dystonic homosexuality" was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM in 1987 (with the publication of the DSM-III-R), but still potentially remains in the DSM-IV under the category of "sexual disorder not otherwise specified" including "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation”.
The Medical Council of India uses the WHO classification of ego-dystonic sexual orientation.[2] The Chinese Classification and Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders includes ego-dystonic homosexuality, but does not include ego-dystonic heterosexuality, bisexuality, or prepubertal sexuality.[3] The American Psychological Association has officially opposed the category of ego-dystonic homosexuality since 1987.[4]
Treatments
There are many ways a person may go about receiving therapy for ego-dystonic homosexual orientation. There is no known therapy for other types of egodystonic sexual orientations. Therapy can be aimed at changing sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or helping a client become more comfortable with their sexual orientation and behaviors. Human right groups have accused some countries of performing these treatments on egosyntonic homosexuals.[5] One survey suggested that viewing the same-sex activities as compulsive facilitated commitment to a mixed-orientation marriage and to monogamy.[6] In addition, some people seek non-professional methods, such as religious counseling or attendance in an ex-gay group.
• Aversion therapy uses associate negative stimuli with homoerotic pictures and positive stimuli with heteroerotic pictures. A series of 1966 experiments showed promise, and the practice became popular, but it fell out of practice after the reports where shown to be flawed.[7] Since 1994, the American Psychological Association has declared that aversion therapy is a dangerous practice that does not work, but it is still in use in some countries.[5]
• Conversion therapy uses psychotherapy to turn people's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. It may be harmful if the client is egosyntonic and does not with to change their sexual orientation.[8] American medical associations recommend practitioners avoid the practice.[9]
• Gay affirmative psychotherapy uses psychotherapy to make the client more comfortable with pursuing same-sex relationships. This approach may not be indicated for some, and especially religious clients can be harmed from gay-affirmative practitioners who overtly or subtly devalue their conservative religious identities."[10] Data suggest that clients generally judge therapists who do not respect religiously-based identity outcomes to be unhelpful.[11]
• Sexual Identity Therapy helps the client determine their own direction, and assists them to accomplish those goals, whether they wish to pursue same-sex relationships, opposite-sex relationships, or celibacy.
• Group psychotherapy uses group sessions lead by a single psychologist and focuses on conflict surrounding homosexual expression.[12]

The American Psychological Association (APA) is a professional organization representing psychology in the US, with around 150,000 members and an annual budget of around $70m.
Protests
Ex-gays and gays who want to change their orientation have protested the policies of the APA, stating that their views on issues such as the immutability of homosexuality have caused real harm to real people and patients.[14] A. Dean Byrd commented "There exists a climate of prejudice in APA against clients -- often people of traditional values -- who wish to decrease their homosexual attractions and develop their heterosexual potential."[15]
Robert Perloff, former president of the American Psychological Association, charged that it is "too politically correct, too bureaucratic, too obeisant to special interests." He stated that APA’s view of conversion therapy is "all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research."[16]

Conversion therapy refers to methods aimed at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals and bisexuals to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors. Techniques that have been tried include behavior modification, aversion therapy, psychoanalysis, reparative therapy, and religious counseling. The term reparative therapy is sometimes used loosely as a synonym for conversion therapy in general.[1][2] Some forms of conversion therapy are closely associated with the "ex-gay" movement, which is explicitly religious.[3] Ex-gay groups tend to focus primarily on avoiding same-sex sexual activity, and secondarily (or sometimes not at all) on changing the underlying orientation.[4] Conversion therapy and the ex-gay phenomenon occasionally appear in popular culture, usually in a satirical or skeptical context, for example on Penn and Teller's television show Bullshit!.[5]

Ex-gay is a term sometimes used to refer to persons who once identified as gay or lesbian, but have since turned away from such identificaton for religious or other reasons. Some ex-gays enter into opposite-sex relationships, while others remain celibate. While ex-gays may report a reduction in same-sex desires, they may also continue to experience same-sex attraction (as it is referred to in professional literature[1][2][3]) even though they do not identify as "gay".
When the term "ex-gay" was introduced to professional literature in 1980, Dr. E. Mansell Pattison defined it as someone who had "experienced a basic change in sexual orientation from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality."[4]
The term has fallen into obscurity since the late 1990s and is rarely used by organizations today. Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, resents the term and has publicly denounced its usage. Other than Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, no major ex-gay organization has labeled themselves as an ex-gay organization.

Exodus International is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization that promotes "the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."[1] Exodus International states reorientation of same-sex attraction is possible[citation needed], but warns its members not to go to counselors who claim they can help eliminate all attractions to the same gender.[2]. It does not conduct clinical treatment but holds the position that, "reparative therapy - a holistic, counselling approach to addressing unwanted same-sex attraction - can be a beneficial tool." [3] Techniques can include abstinence, "lessening of homosexual temptations, strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity, correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and opposite gender."[4]
Founded in 1976, Exodus is an umbrella organization which has grown to include over 120 local ministries in the United States and Canada and over 150 ministries in 17 other countries.[5] Although Exodus is formally an inter-denominational Christian entity, it is most closely associated with Protestant and evangelical denominations. The group also has monthly newsletters, annual conferences, speaking engagements and web services. Alan Chambers is the current president of Exodus.

[Pete the Fed]

Federal law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman (Defense of Marriage Act). Under the Immigration and Natioinality Act, benefits can pass between husbands and wives, children, parents, and brothers and sisters.

[John]

I think you anti-gay people are afraid of homosexuals. You can make excuses all you want. You're cowards.

[BeautyQueen]

To Michael Doyle: The lead paragraph of the article states what the lawyers said, NOT what the Times may or may not believe. If bias is perceived, you might look to your own bias as the reader - someone obviously not in favor of gay marriage, who is quick to jump on a hot-button word or sentence without fully digesting the entire depth and breadth of what this paragraph quite plainly stated to the rest of us.

Perhaps before you go off half-cocked, you should acquire reading skills that match those of anyone with at least a grade school level of comprehension. Otherwise, your opinion loses that all important ring of intelligence, and, by extension, the backing that one might gain by means of an intelligent debate based upon that opinion.

Personally, if I am going to jump on a band wagon, it will surely not be the one driven by an imbecile wearing blinders.
=======

To Philip, whose contention that marriage is a responsibility and an obligation: That is probably the one point on which we can all agree. But why is marriage a responsibility and obligation that gay people should be excluded from entering? Your premise is not supported by your argument, because your argument is fueled by hate and sheer ignorance rather than fact.
=======

To MajorityMinority who bemoans the comparison of the gay plight to the African American plight: It might interest you to know that history indicates that homosexuals have been around nearly as long as human beings have existed, Black and otherwise. Homosexuals are not abominations any more than green-eyed or red-haired people are, though their instance is comparatively as rare. Should green-eyed, red-haired people be given lesser rights and accommodations than blue-eyed blondes or brown-eyed brunettes? We hearken to the comparison between pre-civil rights Blacks and present day homosexuals in our “defense” because we are similarly discriminated against and hated for something that we have no more control over than you do over the color of your skin. If you can not at least understand that, if not support it, then you are as bad as those Whites who felt better than you simply because their skin was lighter. You might also do well to remember that the God described in the Bible had no problem with slavery. By your logic, if marriage can only be between a man and a woman because God said so, then slavery should still exist because God was OK with that too. Take THAT up with God.
=======

To Yang Zhu: You are right. The fight is against theology and ideology, and we must change both.
=======

To everyone else who thinks that this issue should not be argued in ever higher courts until the decision is reversed, or that we should be happy with the rights we do have, I imagine you are the same folks who would have told women to go back to the kitchen and leave voting to the men folk, or told African Americans to put down their signs, go back down South, and shut their mouths after the first of so many crushing defeats before their first exhilarating victory. It took many, many years to gain legal protection for equal rights, rights that these groups were denied due to a single difference in who they were as compared to who those in power were. For women, it was simple anatomy; for African Americans, the color of their skin. Would it have been OK to tell women that they could vote on everything except the U.S. presidency, or to tell African Americans that they could go to any school they want to attend, except for Harvard? No! It is not acceptable to try to appease us with compromise, or "near" equality. This should not be an issue that is compromised. And honestly, why do the naysayers in straight America care anyway? What about your lives do we threaten by being allowed to be married? Those of you who do not want us to marry are like country club members who don't want to allow... Jews, to join the club, for example, simply because they're Jewish. You just don't want us in your club. It's inane. Yes, I meant inane, not insane. Look it up (although it may well be considered both).

Something all should remember as well is that homosexuality, although it has been around "forever," was almost universally denied and hidden by most homosexuals until the fairly recent past. Unlike African Americans who could not hide the color of their skin, we did have the luxury of being able to deny who we were to avoid beatings, discrimination and other hate-inspired reactions. Some of us still live in that type of fear. Others make our presence known, because we know it is the only way we may ever hope to gain acceptance and equality.

If history is an indicator, you can all rest assured that gay America will fight with zeal equal to that of all of our once-considered “less than” predecessors until our rights, too, are recognized - at a federal level. And, if history is an indicator, we will win. We will not put down our signs, go home, shut our mouths and accept blatant discrimination against us over a single difference between us and those in power. For us, the ONLY difference is to whom we are by nature (aka genetics) attracted.

We will continue to strive for total equality until it is achieved. Brace yourselves.

Oh, and here's a final point made in question form: What woman would want to be married to a gay man just to satisfy the "marriage is between one man and one woman" contention, and what man would want to be married to a lesbian under the same reasoning? How many times has this happened throughout the years? How much deception, humiliation and misery has it caused? I think it best to let gays marry gays and straight people marry straight people and just be done with the whole issue. There are certainly better things to fight over...

[Helen Hill]

Thankfully, Yang Zhu, civil rights are NOT up to majority vote. The essense of our republic is that the "tyranny of the majority" is not absolutely. That's why there are courts.

If it were not for civil disobedience and the courts, doubtless many races, ethnicities, and sex discrimination would be allowed and put us back in the dark ages.

Traditional behavior is NOT always moral behavior.
And that is the issue. You have no right to inflict upon me a second class status. For in essense you are saying, "I can be loved, but you cannot."

That's the bottom line. And it's an immoral one.

[Robert]

Separate church and state, as in many other countries. Civil marriage for all. Those whose religion has a specific view on what constitutes marriage may follow their beliefs in a religious ceremony.

The problem is people who want to use government to impose their religious practices on others.

[Joe Public]

To all the Anti-Gay Marriage posters: Please educate yourself instead of believing what the Prop 8 supporters told you to think. Marriage is a state and federal level right. You can call it what ever you want at your church. If domestic partner has the same rights, then why don't straight couples get them?

This war is far from over. You won the battle but not the war. You want us to just shut up and forget about it but were never going to stop until there is equality. It's just a matter of time before we chip away at every state and then the federal level.

Also I am man still married Married to a man in California. They didn't take that away. So now Gay marriage is still recognized in California. Did you happen to miss that?

[btinc]

It's obvious that many of the posters have no understanding or empathy with what it is like to be gay, and don't particularly care about how gay people are treated in this society. As far as I am concerned, you can believe what you want about me, but you cannot know me unless you're willing to put yourself in my position.

This isn't about what God dictates (there's an endless discussion for you). This is about understanding that there is a group of people who, in the face of some of the most denigrating vitriol a society can dish out, still know that they are only attracted to members of their own gender for intimate relationships.

Instead of trying to understand this group, people have voted to make their lives harder than their own, to accept the rights that flow freely to them and deny them to this group. These protections can make the difference between a family, including children, living in their home or living on the street.

If you want to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, there is nothing stopping you, and your religions can believe what they will and bless only those couples who meet the requirements.

But in a pluralistic society, all tax-paying citizens deserve equal treatment under the law. You don't have to understand what it is like to be gay to understand this.

And if you want to know where all the anger and demonstrations are coming from, listen to the vile things that gay people have to listen to nearly every day of their lives. It's shameful.

At any rate, I believe it's really over and decided. I'm guessing that in California we need 5 to 10 years of old bigots to stop voting, and the same amount of younger voters to come online. They don't understand what all the fuss is about gay people.

[H. Craig Bradley]

State's Rights or Federalism?

Appealing the decision of the California Supreme Court in regards to Prop. 8 and the Will of the People (voters) in the Federal Court System indicates a problem. The problem is the residents of the state have spoken by upholding the traditional view of marriage at the ballot box. The Federal constitution does reserve such issues to the states.

This attempt to Federalize gay marriage in Federal court indicates a lack of respect for state's rights, the Federal Constitution, the people of Calif., and moral tradition. It also evidences the power struggle going on between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Federal government.

Pretty soon, voters in each state will only be able to decide if they want to pay higher sales taxes or approve some more bonded indebtedness, and little else of significance.

[Nancy Richardson]

Marriage is a civil contract. The state in recognizing rights should not consider religion when issuing marriage licenses.

Gay Marriage is now legal in five state. The sky didn't fall, and heterosexual marriage didn't suffer.

Equal rights for all.

[btinc]

David says, "Marriage is a spiritual title that belongs to a man and a woman."

Wrong. You're talking about Holy Matrimony. "Marriage" is a legal term that when conferred upon a couple instantly gives their relationship thousands of benefits and protections.

When religions decided that it was okay to codify the term and concept of "marriage" into civil law, they gave up their right to own it exclusively. Now its benefits, rights and protections must be made available to all couples.

[lindy]

Prop 8 in California was never about rights. Gays have and still do have all the same rights in a civil union. This is all about using the word "marriage". The problem with calling everything a "marriage" means churches and anyone else will then lose their free speech and religious rights and will open up a pandora's box over others that want to be married.

[Steve]

Pete the Fed wrote: "Federal law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman (Defense of Marriage Act)..."

DOMA is not part of the US Constitution, it's a piece of legislation. The constitutionality of a portion of it is the subject of a separate, recently filed lawsuit.

[Laura]

Here's a reason that there needs to be some resolution at the federal level:

A female couple, together for 30 years and a registered partnership, takes a drive to Vegas for the day. On the way home, they're hit by a drunk driver. One of the women is critically injured and life flighted to the nearest trauma center. Unfortunately, her partner cannot see her, or participate in her care. She can't even find out the condition of her long term love. Why? Because they made the mistake of crossing state lines and their partnership rights don't exist in Nevada.

There is no humanity in that moment.

Somehow, we as a people must find a way to honor and uphold basic human decency. I'm a nurse and I never want to be in the position of being required to deny the suffering or the dying the comfort of the person they choose. There must be a way to at least ensure the most basic humanity in these awful moments. Even if the marriage debate isn't settled, can't we all at least agree that this shouldn't be allowed to happen in America?

[DavidMJohnson]

We all know that marriage implies the right of parenthood. Hundreds of social studies as well as common sense all point to a two parent household with a father and a mother being the best for children. We all know that the "best" family situation is often not possible, however government policy and law should always promote the father/mother two parent family as being best for children. Government law and policy should help single parents but should never promote single parenthood or gay marriage. Preserve marriage!

[OldLady]

There is a question of fact -- this is not opinion or religious belief:
Does a "civil union" give you the same rights as a "marriage"? The answer is no. There are various rights that marriage conveys -- filing a joint tax return, being able to visit your spouse in the hospital being just two of them -- that a civil union does not convey.
If civil unions conveyed all of the same rights, we'd be talking about a word. That's not the case.

[Question]

Why limit the numbers of consenting adults who are supposed to be able to get married to two? Why not 15?

[mum2lucy]

Why is the LA Times wondering about Ted Olson's motives? He is a lawyer in private practice. He is available for hire. http://www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/tolson The anti-Prop 8 crowd has extremely deep pockets. His motive is simple -- $$$$$$$.

[Jonathan Stickel]

[Please note today's date: May 27th, "2009"]

"Separate in NOT equal."
It's as simple as that people.

Two "distinct" identities (even if only by "name" alone) inherently do NOT "equal" one another.

So, EVEN IF the "COLORED'S ONLY" drinking fountain IS indeed identical in a "physical" nature to the "WHITE'S ONLY" drinking fountain, a simple difference in "name" and "reference" makes them clearly UN-EQUAL. Clearly.

Here are a few more simple "numeric" examples:

1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3...

And similarly,

1 ≠ 2
2 ≠ 3
3 ≠ 1

Also,

1 ≠ 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001

2 ≠ 22

3 ≠ .3

Nor does "5" = "S"

...sure the two are often confused with one another even though they are essentially completely different: one being a "letter" and the other a "number."

Therefore,

"Marriage" ≠ "Domestic Partnership"

"Domestic Partnership" ≠ "Marriage"

However,

"Domestic Partnership" = "Domestic Partnership"

"Marriage" = "Marriage"

IF "Marrriage" = "Domestic Partnership" THEN the two "names" ought to be interchangeable with one another. And IF that were the case, how about the two entities trade names for the next year, heck how about indefinitely? I mean WHY NOT? If they are TRULY indeed EQUAL. All the current "domestic partnerships," from here on out, will be instead be referred to, and know by "name" as "Marriages" and similarly, all current "marriages" from here on out, will be instead be referred to, and know by "name" as "domestic partnerships."

[FamilyValues]

NOT A CIVIL RIGHT ISSUE and it is an INSULT to Blacks, Women, and the entire civil rights movement of the 60's.

GAYS ARE NOT VICTIMS and this entire gay marriage thing is a red herring. The true goal is to try and convince the US population that homosexuality is okay.

Keep it in the bedroom folks, and enough of the kicking and screaming because we're not going to accept you giving our children a choice to be gay at 4 years old already.

We DONT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR SEXUAL FOLLIES in the same way that I'm sure you don't want to hear about mine.

Get real.

[mitch]

We don't ask government to ordain our baptisms, communions, bar mitzvahs.
We, the people, allow the state the privelege of licensing our marriages, as sacraments, as an ideal, for free society to perpetuate itself through the ideal California family.
Lets not turn this around and pretend marriage is a right, or a public display of monogamy for all to applaud.
Lets not use the words "moral or ethical " when defending the consummation of a homosexual union. It is, in itself, the contrary.
We the people, often honor the Creator, of all men, equal through interpretation of law.
I love all my queer friends.
I understand that they love their alternative lifestyle.
I will support them and love them unconditionally.
I will meditate on the fact that they may never know the magical feeling of love between a man and a woman.
And they may believe that the trust, companionship, and sex with their best friend, is an acceptable surrogate.
It may be. But it does not redefine the ideal.

[Leslie]

Mitch: Love is neither "moral or ethical." And we the people, all of the people, live real lives, not ideal lives.

Time you grow up and act like an adult.

[Leslie]

MartyK: "So the state won't call your relationship "marriage." Nothing prevents you doing so yourself. Just don't require me to do it."

You were not a city hall when I married. You don't ever come in contact with me or my family. So get on with your life and get out of mine by voting to maintain your "special privileges."

"When gays are being physically assaulted, arrested or fired for being gay, then I will fight for your rights."

Step up to the plate then. Domestic partners since 2000, we have been assaulted in our home and fired asking for the same rights from employers in California. Our marriage settled these cases - in our favor.

My marriage is mine. Your marriage is yours. Let us know when you've been assaulted, or arrested, or fired for being straight.

[Philip Brett]

Wow, homophobia is alive and well. The song should go,
"And you'll know they are christians by their hatred, discrimination, and hysteria."
Christian morality is looking more and more like a mental disease.
The truth is that all people must be considered equal or it is an attack on the dignity of all human beings. That is a real christian principle.
And nothing can be more sick than the people who say, "Don't bother me with your complaints of being second class citizens because it will always be that way."
Soon that stupidity will be done away with.

[Leslie]

Bradley: DOMA federalized marriage. This court case builds on what has already done.

"Pretty soon, voters in each state will only be able to decide if they want to pay higher sales taxes or approve some more bonded indebtedness, and little else of significance. "

In all states, voters never went to polls and decided to enact marriage. Some of them decided to exclude someone else from marriage, in some states, for some periods of time.

And no one ever voted to exclude people from moving across state borders or disregarding something as insignificant as a driver's license.

It's the United States of America. You know: Liberty and justice for all. That's significant.

[Pete Sanders]

What about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in the same sex marriage debate?

(And the case that the masses are confusing the issuing of marriages licenses recognized by the Government with the marriage ceremony recognized by the Church.)

IF one argues that marriage is only between a man & a woman, then THAT puts the U.S. GOVERNMENT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ENDORSING A RELIGION THROUGH THE ACT OF ISSUING OF MARRIAGE LICENSES. Because if issuing licenses are nonreligious acts, as are granting business partnership licenses, driver licenses, etc., then the government has to issue marriage licenses to same sex partners. If the government refuses, then it is endorsing various religions' dogma, which state marriage is only between a man and a woman.

For example, if two individuals want to start a business, would the government issue them a business partnership license if they are straight, but if they are gay, then they are issued a business union? And if they did, why would they make the discrimination? Because gays are different, less than, a separate second class to be treated differently just because some people are uncomfortable with them?

(And for the record, I believe in Greek Pagan Religion that states only two males can marry as to bind strength to secure their survival. Women are only to reproduce children, have no marriage rights, are simply vessels to impregnate. Why isn't my religion endorsed? Why isn’t my belief, that only males can marry, the law of the land?)

And this IS where all the CONFUSION lies – between the Government issuing marriage licenses and churches performing ceremonial marriage acts. Even if the government issued same sex marriages licenses, that would NOT imply that any religion, faith, or church must recognize it or perform the marriage ceremony, because marriage ceremonies are SEPARATE ACTS and have no legal power – they’re simply celebrations. And gays certainly wouldn't demand that certain churches perform same sex marriage ceremonies, because it wouldn’t mean anything legally. The ceremony is really just a style preference, and gays can find another church that will perform the ceremony. But in this case, they can't find another county court house in California to issue them a marriage license. And the government has to take a blind eye to color, age, sexual orientation, etc. in issuing any license, whether a business, drivers, or marriage license.

So Christians have no real complaint – it’s pure fear, hatred, ignorance, and intolerance. They're confusing the issue of granting licenses with the powerless marriage ceremony performed by their church. And it’s the government, and not the church, that issues rights through licenses and must do so equally to all couples, without regard to any religious preference, faith or belief, including marriage licenses to same sex partners. And this is what Christians REALLY dislike - the reality of discovering that they're powerless and not able to control others with their ignorant and prejudiced will. Because as homosexuality is found in most species, and is more prevalent in some, for example more giraffes are gay than straight, then God, or a Creating Life Essence, purposely created gays and with the intent that they be treated equally with the same dignity and respect given to all creatures created.