Hooray for the constitution and equal rights. Believe what you will for your personal lives, but let other consenting adults decide what is best for them. Live and let live...and love.

PROUD to live in California once again.

Just say now to bigotry.

I meant: Just Say No To Bigotry

Damn iphone keeps changing my words.

I think it is silly that this is an issue. Why do I care if two people get married. Why should a law say that two people cannot get married.
Why does my tax money have to go to fighting a stupid law like prop 8. Should it go to something more meaningful like fighting crime.

Prop 8 is pre-tea-party. Although they are the tar baby of the moment for people that fear what they cant control.

The tea-party is a movement mostly based on fiscal issues, not socail.
There are a lot of people trying to co-opt the movement and claim leadership.
But like critical mass, its purpose and leadership is poorly defined and based on who you ask.

Like being Irish on St Patricks Day, anynone can claim to be a tea party member when there is nothing real to join.

I really do not understand why it takes a 136 page opinion to make commen sense.

A sensible, humane and welcoming decision. And the Gulf oil leak will finally be stopped for good.

What a day!!

"I really do not understand why it takes a 136 page opinion to make commen sense."

It's because too many people will not accept the common sense version of common sense if it conflicts with their particular nonsense - as in "Just say now to bigotry."

(Although that latter statement was an accident and its unwitting author has renounced it, it encapsulates the pro-Prop 8 argument with stunning aptness.)

I'm so relieved. I've felt terrible ever since that awful thing got passed. I keep wondering why there are so many people with the time and energy to meddle in other people's lives out of spite. Finally a sane and credible answer from the court. Thank you, Your Honor!

Next they will sue for the constitutional right to have Steve give birth to Paul's baby.

The Tea Party is promising to appeal this ruling.

A victory for minding your own business.

Throughout the opinion, the Judge goes into great detail regarding trial testimony and justifications for Prop. 8.
The Judge then holds, in essence, that the justifications are irrational and have no legitimate societal basis.

The Judge even designated a section of the opinion "Credibility Determinations."
Many commentators think the Judge was trying to insulate the opinion from appeal since appeals courts do not normally overturn credibility determinations, since only the trial judge observed the witness.

In this case, the Judge seems to be trying too hard to insulate the opinion, and I doubt that on such a momentous finding of a new constitutional right for same sex marriage that an appeals court, much less the U.S. Supreme Court, will care much about the credibility of witnesses as a basis for a legal ruling.

Everyone expects this case to end up on the U.S. Supreme Court, which should test what Elena Kagan meant when she said, under oath, that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

Update:
The trial court has granted a stay of entry of judgment until the motion for a stay pending appeal can be decided.

Either way the case would have gone to the SOTUS-- this way Chief Judge Vaugh Walker will be framed as an activist gay judge in the political debate and that will harm Democrats in November--
If the judge had ruled the other way then advocates for same sex marriage would actually have been better off.

Both Obama and Biden said they oppose same sex marriage in their campaigns --- and they know where the political wind blows.

Elton John had the best idea---similar rights--- but call it something other than marriage-- don't invoke the ghost of the Culture War without the Powell Doctrine on your side.
Oh well-- never mind

The gay lifestyle is here to stay and growing. Churches of every faith need to recognize our power and unite us in marriage when we request it. Otherwise there need to be lawsuits challenging such discrimination. Next stop is to change the school curriculum to embrace gay values. We can only prevent bigotry in the future through education.

The Tea Party plans to make gay rights a wedge issue in this year's elections. They want to force all politicians to take a stand on the issue, then hope there are enough bigot voters to turn the election. Will their calculation add up?

You people are really afraid of the Tea Party. Do you really believe we are that obsessed with gay marriage? And you call us paranoid. We are first and foremost tired of the same old tax and spend habits of a Congress that has a dismal approval rating--on both sides of the aisle. When you demonize us, it makes me believe you are perfectly happy with the way Congress runs and builds up debt, and makes me believe you are all immune to it surrounded by your trust accounts and tax lawyers. We are against big government.

Of course the constitution provides protection for all. But the inability to be married isn't causing physical harm and thus doesn't require protection. The concern comes in distinguishing between positive and negative rights; not being killed is a negative right, but the ability to get married is a positive right. The constitution does not portray marriage as a right to all. This judge is making a mockery of the justice system by bending interpretations of the constitution to suit his personal opinions.

John, is the ability to go to an integrated school a positive or negative right? There are many things besides physical harm that require constitutional protection. Your freedom to post here is one of them.

"When you demonize us [Tea Partyers], it makes me believe you are perfectly happy with the way Congress runs and builds up debt..."

Well, I have often wondered why the Tea Party failed to celebrate Clinton's budget surplus and his shrinking of government, why it was then happily complacent with Bush's needless huge debt-raising tax breaks for CEOs and his expansion of government, and why it now professes its displeasure with Obama's actions to get the economy and Americans working again.

Sorry, pal, but the major and overriding variable is the color of Obama's skin, and the rest of the conclusion follows by clear, cold logic.

I therefore fully expect the Tea Party to totally oppose gay rights. I would welcome a refutation by facts.

"But the inability to be married isn't causing physical harm and thus doesn't require protection."

Therefore, since taxation without representation causes no physical harm, the American Revolution should not have happened.

As you look at the WSJ map of the " Flyover States" position on the matter the final outcome becomes clear--- each of those States has 2 votes each in the Senate---they overwhelm the east and west coast states dramatically.
Gays are 2 to 3 % of the population-- all states--tolerated gays-- as they should.
Few voters approve of the behavior and a tiny minority advocate it.

Judge Walkers decision serves his own interests-- but the outcome for the gay community of his decision will not be good-- unfortunately--
Do the math--

I am afraid of the Tea Party because I am afraid of bigotry. Bigotry is party of almost every major Tea Party candidate's platform. How many Tea Party people do you see fighting to overturn Proposition 8?

The only rational resolution is to take the state out of the business of defining marriage. Allow civil marriage contracts between any
consenting people of an age to make a contract, and eliminate any government consideration of marital status. Develop a new set of laws independent of the status of parents on rights and obligations of parenthood. Now that the state is out of the marriage definition business I may just fulfill my lifelong wish and marry Doris Day and Kim Novak - as long as Doris, Kim and my No. 1 wife agree.

The backlash against activist judges ruling against the will of the people is going to be IMMENSE.

Unfortunately, the backlash against gays will be along with it..like racism is on the rise, so will homophobia be on the rise.

It is a pity.

Remember the backlash begun by the Mass. judge several years ago..gave rise to a rash of States' legislation.

I keep telling my gay friends..the best thing is to go for the goals: equal "rights", "benefits" and "costs" as straights, under a different name. Very simple.

Instead, the furthest fringe keeps delaying the equality by tying us up in this stupid battles and increasing backlash.

Just wait.

Liberals: 18% of the country who use the legislator and judicial courts to force their views on the other 82% of us.

No one should "hate" a practicing homosexual. In fact, I believe that we should LOVE all people. Yet "love" and "tolerance" is not the same thing as "forced acceptance." I am somewhat disturbed that a certain group is seeking "Constitutional acknowledgement" based solely upon a particular sexual orientation.

One could easily argue that there is a reverse discrimination at work. Many people scream "tolerance" and then do their best to tear apart anyone (or even a religious faith) that doesn't agree with that particular view.

I read through the Yahoo message boards about the decision...and many of those who were against Prop 8 were the same people who were rhetorically tearing down the Christian faith. After all, religious expression is still protected by the law -- even if certain groups choose to spew at such a thing. It isn't "tolerance" when you only tolerate yourselves and those who agree with your particular views.

Oh well...I don't want to open up a "can of worms" in which people point the finger of "bigotry" and "intolerance" at me simply because I do not agree with the justification behind this particular court decision (of which the ruling judge may have had a vested interest).

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as an identical contractual union between "one man and one woman" -- and has been affirmed EVERY time that it has been put up to a statewide vote -- even in California (twice). Homosexual couples have enjoyed legal contractual protection (regarding insurance, home ownership, etc...) in California and even the reddest of red states via Civil Unions (of which consenting heterosexuals cannot enter into).

This ruling proves once again that "democracy" (the rule of the people) is limited to the particular interpretation of a judge or legislators who think that they know what is better than the people. A judge can quickly "redefine" a law (or even a common law) based solely upon his/her own private interpretation of the Constitution...even against the will of the voters.

I have a strong feeling that this appeals process will be swift and the Supreme Court will eventually overturn this single judge's ruling by a 6-3 decision (with Sotomayor joining the majority).

:-\

BTW, please do not mistake my views as "intolerance" or "bigotry." My views are based upon my own cultural, religious, moral and legal understanding. You don't have to agree with me...but I hope that there can be enough "tolerance" and "diversity of thought" in Palo Alto to not resort to any sort of name calling, accusations or finger pointing.

*legislature

I apologize for the typo.

:-P

Bigotry is on the rise because of groups like the Tea Party, not because of any judges.

"The backlash against activist judges ruling against the will of the people is going to be IMMENSE."

Like in December, 2000?

Walter is right on target with his idea. Sharon is usual off target. Once again the sore loser blame " activist judges". The pro prop 8 side presented no reason to ban gay marriage. . Also some things should not be up to a vote of the people. What about if the people voted to ban catholic churches from the state?

Religious and cultural views aside we should allow anyone do anything within reason barring terrorist acts. Let people be who they want to be. Let Romeo be with Juliet. Let Romeo be with Romeo. And Juliet be with Juliet.

These arguments based on the will of the people are sour grapes.

No one posting them thinks people should get to vote on reestablishing slavery or preventing women from voting.

You can't take away a constitutional right unless you change the constitution. It is part of what makes America a free country.

I kind of like activist judges who have the courage to stand against prejudice and let women vote, end racial discrimination in schools and let people marry who love each other. When active means defending the rights of people, who can complain?

As an economist I really like being a state that welcomes talented people who might find other locations less inviting. Gay rights in addition to being "right" are good for the economy in California.

"Tea Party rhymes with bigotry"

Well you appear to be one and I'm not afraid of you

"Liberals: 18% of the country who use the legislator and judicial courts to force their views on the other 82% of us."

The liberals have certainly been very tough on right thinking Americans, beginning with the Social Security Act, and going on to Brown v. Board of Education, the striking down of anti-miscegnation laws, the Voting Right Act, the Civil Rights Act, school integration, Medicare, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. And now the universal right to marry.

You people! Hahaha
I don't give a crap what straight people do in the privacy of their own homes. I just really get bent out of shape when they try to force their lifestyle and values on me.
Yeah, I do want to marry your wives. All of the ones that were smart enough to leave you bigots and take half of your stupid money. It's a total conspiracy, don't you know? Paranoid, insececure patriacal males sponsored Prop. 8. You have now opend Pandora's box. Enjoy the American way and all the legacy that comes with such actions!

Our enemies our laughing...

It's interesting that we are in the middle of an economic crisis and some people are spending time, money, and energy to debate an issue that is pretty inconsequential.

This is the type of issue (even more than immigration) that is worked over by the political types to divert the masses from the real issues facing the country.

We better make sure that all the kids in school now learn Chinese because when they are middle-aged the Chinese will be telling them how high to jump if the Republicans and Democrats continue on their current course.

Incidentally, the charge of discrimination won't wash. Any man, gay or straight, is limited in legal marriage partners to single, agreeable, non related women. A "right" to marry the one they love? Any one want to see a list of people I love that I cannot marry?
Incidentally, did you know that many homosexuals have embraced the Quaker religion? Yes, some of my best Gays are Friends.

Web Link

Imagine life in a few years..as a gay couple walks hand in hand down the street in front of an Islamic festival, causes a riot, so they gay couple gets arrested.

Like the 4 folks in the link above passing out religious pamhplets ( always has been part of our Constitution..but somehow liberals don't like it when religious and speech freedom come from Christians)..who got arrested for "causing" a crowd that gathered around them to "become agitated". ( Oh boy, I am now responsible for "causing agititaion" when I disagree with someone..lovely!! Soon we will have that government web site back up that Obama put up, before he finally took it down, to report folks who disagree with the Government and "agitate".)

Keep choosing the intolerant side, useful idiots!

Soon, we will be like every other country where gays can "marry" but have to hide because they are in an intolerant country.

the irony is rich.

BTW: If we have now redefined what constitutes a marriage, when will we redefine who can enter into a "Contract". I think I want to take all my parents' money..and they are senile. But this goes against their rights to give me all their money...CHANGE CONTRACT LAW NOW, it is UNFAIR and DISCRIMINATORY to prevent senile parents from changing their wills if they want to!

Or, how about adults with IQs of 60? It is discriminatory, they should not be forbidden from signing a contract that enslaves them for 20 years!!

Good God Almighty, we have lost all reason in this judicial system.

The funny thing is, I was FOR Gay Marriage, until I saw the effect on personal and religious freedom of the rest of the population in Massachusetts. I am against anything which infringes on the freedom of others to express any opinion they wish, or do business in any way they wish. Call it something other than Marriage, make it equal in all ways, call if ONLY for 2 Women or 2 Men entering into a lifetime contract, and the vast majority of Americans would support it. We are a tolerant and accepting society..we just want to live and let live, which means we want others to let US live and let live. Unfortunately, this is going to cause a huge backlash, and simply increase homophobia. Makes me really sad.

"I was FOR Gay Marriage, until I saw the effect on personal and religious freedom of the rest of the population in Massachusetts"

How exactly did it effect the personal and religious freedom of the rest of the population?
How is a gay couple who were married by a judge/justice of the peace effecting personal and religious freedom?

Read this article:

Web Link

"Unfortunately, this is going to cause a huge backlash, and simply increase homophobia."
The only way homophobia will be increased is by the hysterical proclamations of people who hate gays and will go all out to deny them rights.
And that makes me very sad.

I love how so-called Libertarians always claim that they're not dogmatic Republicans but rather champions of small government and personal freedom.

However, when you ask them what they think of gay marriage, they either look at the ground awkwardly or say they're opposed to it because allowing gay people to marry is opening the door to polygamy and allowing people to marry horses.

What a joke. You can try to make yourselves sound cool by embracing the "liberatarian" or "tea party" labels, but in most cases, what's really going on is the same old thinly-veiled bigotry. Sorry, guys, it's not 1955 any more, and your dreams of returning to those days will never be realized.

As for the ridiculous "marrying horses" argument, no one's asking for having people marry animals. For you to justify banning marriage between two gay people on those grounds is quite similar to banning marriage between Protestants and Catholics, educated and uneducated people, or any other pairing that some find morally objectionable for whatever stupid reason.

Judge Walker's decision eloquently and convincingly argued why state-sanctioned intolerance against gays and lesbians must end in this country. Hoooray!!!!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Tough luck, prop-8ers

Allow me to interpret the constitution for what I think they meant. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [straight] men are created equal, that they are endowed by their [straight] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And women don't even factor into the statement. Tough luck women, including lesbians.

To those of you not in favor of the U.S. constitution and upholding it: Move!

I wish I had a penny (yes, only a penny) for all of the times I have heard the argument that marriage is for the sole purpose of bearing children so only men/women should marry.

If you feel that it should be legal for only a man and a woman to marry so they can bear children, then it will be legally necessary to nullify, revoke, take away..... millions of marriage licenses from men/women unions!!! As millions of men and women that have married had NO intentions of bearing children!!!

"Allow me to interpret the constitution for what I think they meant."

Constitution?!? The referenced quotation is from the Declaration of Independence.

How many layers of tongue-in-cheek are you attempting, dear Law Student, a resident of Stanford? Or are you really trying to be straight (synonym sense)?

@ Stanford Law student
Are you a reflection of the type of law student attending Stanford presently?
It is good to know that Stanford is private and not public funded.

"To those of you not in favor of the U.S. constitution and upholding it: Move!"

Maybe the following Constitutional amendment would make them happy:

Amendment XVIII

1. A valid state of marriage may exist on these United States, solely between one White native born Christian male, and one White native born Christian female capable of bearing children.

2. Any provision in this Constitution, and any Law whatsoever, which conflicts with this Amendment, in whole or in part, is declared null, void, and unenforceable.

3. Congress shall have the authority to implement and protect this Amendment by all necessary means."

For those of you using religion as an excuse for two persons not to be happily united:

I was raised 'in the church' to believe that God gave humans free will; to make their own decisions.....had to do with that bit about apples and gardens. Well, you know your bible inside and out so you know all about it.....And, you would know about the bible stating that God is a God of compassion and love and tolerance. And wasn't Solomon and Jesus and all of the other great persons also?

By the way, read the Torah, Bible and Quran ....... as all three religions have the same basic prophets and beliefs.

People of all three of these religions have simply decided over time to twist and interpret what these wise holy documents and relgions have said as to fit their social and political 'agendas'!

If all the great prophets including Jesus were to come back today, they would be extremely ashamed of you judging Prop. 8 as you are and ingnoring what was their true messages.

> I really do not understand why it takes a 136 page opinion to
> make commen sense.

If same-sex marriage made sense, it would have been practiced since the dawn of "humanity". That it was not tolerated, or sanctioned, made sense to billions of people .. until now.

So if this makes "common sense" .. what else does? Polygamy? Why not? If it's all about "freedom" .. then letting people marry as many as they want would seem to be the new "common sense".

I knew this Town Square Forum was going to be interesting reading. My circle of acquaintances and friends in Palo Alto are uniformly liberals. But, obviously, there are other voices.

I'm pleased with the judge's decision declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional, but dread the long slog through appeals, probably inevitably ending up in the hands of our current "activist" conservative majority on the United States Supreme Court.

Some have said we shouldn't blame the largely religious opposition to same-sex marriage for the passage of Proposition 8. But it sure seems to me that Catholics, Mormons, and Evangelicals are using their tithes and Sunday collection plates as funding to impose their religious views on the laws of the land. And they have tax exempt status, giving them even larger amounts to spend on political issues such as Proposition 8.

To Paul:

Amazing! Even more marriages would be erased if this still the law!
If you happen to see this, do you know when Amendment XVIII was revised? Thanks.
And, if it hasn't, all I can say is, OMG! All those against same-sex marriages, defenders of their religions, are living in sin!

Sorry, Resident. "Amendment XVII" should read "Amendment XXVIII." I need a new keyboard or a new pinkie. The Constitution currently has 27 amendments. I intended this one as satire, but I do wonder how many readers are nodding at their screens.

@ Judges ruling....

If I marry someone of the same sex or had 3 wives how in the world would this affect you and what you wish to do with your life?! Free will to make a choice that 'works' for one's life does mean intrusion of privacy for another's life!

It is overwhelming how scared people are being around others that differ from themselves in thought, word, or deed! How great it would be if everyone had respect for each other!

Thanks Paul.
Your satire was appreciated! And, yes, I can just see some readers agreeing with XXVIII and it's bigotry!

Gay marriage is good for the economy. Bring it on! Get registered at Tiffany, Williams Sonoma, Crate & Barrel, Ikea, Home Depot (EPA needs the tax $$!), hire wedding planners & caterers, decorators, whoever is needed.

Seriously, it's time to let adults have the full range of responsibilities & rights that that they're competent to deal with.

Those who demonize the tea party CLEARLY know nothing about it! Hey, I'm a proud tea party member AND I am for gay marriage. Sort of upsets the apple cart a bit, right? The tea party is simply people who are FED UP with big government, rising taxes and loss of freedom. Period! Don't let radicals define what the tea party is or is not. They are not informed - and frankly don't want to be!

Have you studied cultures since the dawn of humanity to learn if any of them had same-sex marriage? My past research has demonstrated that many cultures, throughout history, have had many forms of same-sex unions, from marriage to more temporary relationships. By using the standard of history, your argument holds no merit.

There is indeed no constitutional right to gay marriage or any marriage for that matter, but the Constitution provides for all to be treated equally and that is why it is unconstitutional (until there is a court declaration of the contrary) to deny gays their right to the pursuit of happiness and equality. That, I think, is self evident.

Constitution is moot on marriage. Marriage is not an explicit constitutional right. The laws of various states treat marriage differently, but every state is presumed to give full faith and credit to marriages performed in other states.

Sharon, you are very confused on what Constitutional rights are and what the law (or laws) is. I suggest you learn a bit....

"The tea party is simply people who are FED UP with big government, rising taxes and loss of freedom. Period!"

Yeah, that's what Republicans said and still say, despite the ever increasing deficits proposed and imposed by Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and despite the bloated expansion of the government under all three. Got no reason to believe the tempest from the Tea Party, either.

"Hey, I'm a proud tea party member AND I am for gay marriage. Sort of upsets the apple cart a bit, right?"

No, it just means you are out of synch with your own party, like the Log Cabin Republicans that delude themselves into believing the Repub Party is the Big Tent party of fiscal responsibility.

The issue of marriage is but another step in the propogation of the activist gay agenda. Just as the footage of the last "pride," day parade purposely kept the cameras away from demonstrations and floats of gay sexual exhibitionism and towards groups promoting "family values," the gay and lesbian community want to portray gays and their lifestyle as normal human behaviour. This is clearly stated in one of your respondants; Posted by Gay All the Way, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, 21 hours ago

The gay lifestyle is here to stay and growing. Churches of every faith need to recognize our power and unite us in marriage when we request it. Otherwise there need to be lawsuits challenging such discrimination. Next stop is to change the school curriculum to embrace gay values. We can only prevent bigotry in the future through education.
Need I say more. The end purpose is to totally, even to the point of educating our children that basically there are not just men and woman, but gays, lesbian, bi-sexuals, transgender, etc. human beings all created as being normal with normal lifestyles. Talk about confusing our future generations with any sense of a normal identity, in the end it will basically end up with anything goes as long as the adults are consenting and no one is being physically harmed.

Once upon a time, the majority of (white) voting people in the South felt that separate but equal was good enough. That was only after the federal govenment forced that idea on them.

Just because a majority thinks it is "right" doesn't make it constitutional or morally correct.

Curious - does the U.S. Constitution contain the word marriage in it? This is about the rights of an pair of consenting adults to join in what other consenting adults already have the right to.

It really won't hurt you straight people, just like racial equality didn't hurt the whites in the South.

Here is a choice piece of mumbo jumbo from Judge Walkers report.

" The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state’s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender."

Antiquated and discredited notions of gender?


Walker sounds more like a sociologist writing in 1968 than a jurist writing in 2010.
Back then, college faculties (and the popular culture) were full of scholars, hacks and others proclaiming that the differences between men and women were merely social constructs.

In the intervening years, however, a whole host of studies from neuroscientists, psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have found that sexual differences are real.

Poor, Walker --- a very week legal argument--the Ninth Circuit could throw it out on that alone.

Lance, what does normal mean to you? I know that science has a wide range of normal. Is normal important to you?

This is truly a great step forward, but only a step. No doubt that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they choose.

However, isn't it equally prejudiced to limit marriage to being just between two consenting adults. If three or more wish to form a marital union then why should it not be permitted, as long as it is consensual among all parties involved?

Moreover, isn't barring marriage between related individuals also equally outmoded and outdated? What is truly wrong with two brothers, a mother and a daughter, or a brother and a father entering into a marriage as long as all parties are consenting adults?

If you say no to any of the above, then aren't you imposing your moral and value framework onto free thinking and free willed adults. Isn't this the very same behavior that those opposed to gay marriage are accused of indulging in?

I wish Sharon would just admit that she's against gay marriage instead of trotting out bad arguments against it.

I don't have a lot of good arguments for being for it, except for my economic one ;-) I just feel that equal right should be just that.

Sharon has clearly found a new target--Judge Walker

"" The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state�s interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.""

Why is this mumbo-jumbo (to quote Sharon)? Sounds pretty straight forward to me. In fact the same argument could have been used years ago to deal with discrimination against women.
Very sound reasoning--excpet to those who see gays as unworthy of equal rights and back religious/bigotry sanctioned hatred.

"Walker sounds more like a sociologist writing in 1968 than a jurist writing in 2010. "
Why? His reasoning is very sound especially given that the pro-Prop 8 crowd never presented any serious witnesses to show that letting gays marry would harm anyone.

"In the intervening years, however, a whole host of studies from neuroscientists, psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists have found that sexual differences are real. "
Sexual differences may be real--but sexual differences and/or gender differences should not be used to discriminate or deny rights to thers.

"Poor, Walker --- a very week legal argument--the Ninth Circuit could throw it out on that alone."
When you cannot provide proof of your spurious argument than attack the judge. If you seriously believe that the 9th circuit will overturn his decision based on your flimsy argument then.....

Maybe you can enlighten us Sharon by telling us how a married gay couple will affect your life and your personal freedoms. Considering how you have come out so strongly against the verdict and how two years ago you came out so much in favor of Prop 8 (one can search this forum for the threads from back then and read Sharon's arguments) would have plenty of evidence to back her position. Please share that with us.

Elton John, Obama and Biden all oppose same sex marriage--- they support domestic partnerships-- as do the supporters of Prop 8.

Sometimes the unstated expectation of ‘equality’ for an alternative lifestyle is not only equality of outcomes but equality in all things.
And that implicitly includes equality in moral standing, social acceptance and in sanctity.
Thus a church or mosque may not refuse to bless a relationship; no one may be allowed to express distaste for an arrangement and the slightest, subconscious aversion is a sign of bigotry that must be treated with therapy.
Otherwise full equality is not achieved.
To achieve this goal, government must mandate this auxiliary equalities and therein lies the problem.

A government of limited scope could only guarantee legal equality or equality of outcomes. It could not mandate a status outside its sphere. For years this was the case.
Now the expectations have changed.

In the UK and Canada little old ladies now get arrested if they say that they believe homosexual behavior is a sin.
Catholic Charities, who helped the poor and sick for hundreds of years, are run out of town.

Tragically, this ends up in Holland and elsewhere with gays free to marry--- but afraid to walk in public.

People just think it's tendy or it's a hip thing to support Prop 8. There's white or wrong, no grey area. If it's too liberal, younger generations would think why people couldn't marry pet, they love each other, right. Why daddies couldn't marry daughers, brothers married sisters............

One can choose to be gay or straight. I respect that. But please don't give young generation the idea that being gay is a fashion.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Hmm from east Palo alto put it quite well"
"I wish Sharon would just admit that she's against gay marriage instead of trotting out bad arguments against it."

Yes, I would love to hear why Sharon feels her life would be irreparably damaged if gays were allowed to marry. I have yet to hear one valid argument showing how a married gay couple would ruin anyone else's life or personal freedoms.

I also like the idea of banning divorce--if marriage is so sacred, then divorce should be outlawed.

and

"Catholic Charities, who helped the poor and sick for hundreds of years, are run out of town"

and

"Tragically, this ends up in Holland and elsewhere with gays free to marry--- but afraid to walk in public. "

Not sure where all of these claims are coming from.

Concerned Parent - you think being gay or straight is a choice? If you're straight, have you tried choosing gay?

Maybe I misunderstand you! Perhaps you mean this definiton of gay: cheery: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer; "a cheery hello"; "a sunny smile" - as that perhaps is more up to choice than not. If that's the case, I'd say it's always in style to be gay!

As you well know, many taboos change w/the times & we're witnessing the taboo of marrying a partner of the same sex changing during our lifetime.

Historically, close relatives have married. It's illegal in many places due in part to medical problems arising.

Who knows - perhaps 3 people marrying will be legal again at some point.

I have to say, that your disingenuous argument is a poor one, though because your rationale doesn't work well.

But if we can get rid of or solve those medical problems, then close relatives and even fathers and daughters will one day be able to marry and rejoice. Laws against incest were born in the same ignorance against laws against sodomites. I agree all may be legal again at some point.

Paul says:

"Yeah, that's what Republicans said and still say, despite the ever increasing deficits proposed and imposed by Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and despite the bloated expansion of the government under all three. Got no reason to believe the tempest from the Tea Party, either."

You're right! And that's why Tea Partiers are fed up with republicans AND democrats - we're in big trouble, and if we don't make some changes soon, it will be too late. That's why the Tea Party exists - people who want the current state of affairs to STOP - and stop quickly, before we're sunk. You can't believe that fiscally, we're going in the right direction with the current administration - we've gone from bad to worse - very much worse! For those who are not paying attention, we're headed for the cliff. Gay marriage is the last thing we should be talking about.

And for those who liken gay marriage to incest, PLEAZZZE - stop drinking the Kool-Aid! Or move back to the hills!

Elton John--Sir-- actually -- a gay icon if ever there was one is vocally opposed to same sex marriage, his view is that the 1-2% of the population that is gay should respect the values of the 98-99% who are not, he views it as an "in your face provocation" that will be very counter productive for gays, he, like the supporters of Prop 8, Joe Biden and Obama support civil partnerships that have similar financial incentives.
From SF Gate
"Despite the media hoopla, this is not the first case in which a federal judge has imagined and ruled that our Constitution requires same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Nebraska ruled for gay marriage in 2005 and was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 2006.

The Proposition 8 case on which the Ninth Circuit's Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday was pushed by two straight guys with a hunger for media attention, lawyers with huge egos who overrode the considered judgment of major figures in the gay legal establishment, thinkers who feared exactly what we anticipate: the Supreme Court will uphold Prop. 8 and the core civil rights of Californians and all Americans to vote for marriage as one man and one woman."Web Link
When the HIV/AIDS epidemic spread in the homosexual community, religious groups and tax payers gave massive support.
Ask yourself, why would the gays want to alienate 98-99% of the population?
By all accounts there is a new epidemic of HIV which is resistant to existing drugs as well as a new potential plagueWeb Link

Why provoke and alienate the faith based communities, 90+ of the USA, that came to their aid in the recent past ?

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

@ Happy Tea Partier

You're saying good things, especially in the current context ("And for those who liken gay marriage to incest, PLEAZZZE - stop drinking the Kool-Aid!")

Therefore you might want to reconsider your party affiliation. From the outside, the Tea Party appears even loonier and more socially atavistic than the Repubs. Nor do its members seem particularly happy.

Is it really a coincidence that, after acquiescing in ballooning deficits since the Reagan administration, Tea Partiers suddenly acquired fiscal responsibility when a dark-skinned president took office? Think about it.

Friendly hint: check if that Kool Aid metaphor is what you intended to say.

You wonder why the people who now support the tea party movement didn't sound a peep when Bush turned a huge projected surplus into a crippling debt by cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans while screwing the middle class, brought the economy to near collapse and openly violated the constitution by ordering warrantless surveillance on US citizens. They don't have the collective intelligence to realize that the current administration had to stop the slide into depression which could have been done only through government stimulus and that the damage Bush/Cheney have caused would take many years to repair. It seems like their only message, beyond wide spread racism is :no taxes, USA, USA.

Correction--of typo --

When I said "Why provoke and alienate the faith based communities, 90+ of the USA, that came to their aid in the recent past ? "

I meant 90%+ , clearly there were and are more than 90 faith based agency involved and committed to save HIV victims lives, in the US, Africa, Asia etc-- our own experience is actually in Haiti-- thanks--

Of course many of us can CHOOSE which life to lead, gay or straight!!

A famous one who is quite clear she CHOSE is Tammy Bruce! Her courage in speaking the truth is outstanding. Don't be fooled. Many of us CHOSE to be with same gender, and many of us who could have chosen to be with a same gender, chose the opposite.

For some of us, it IS a choice! It just takes a TON of courage to admit it.

"his view is that the 1-2% of the population that is gay should respect the values of the 98-99% who are not"

Well, first of all Sharon, Elton John is one opinion out of many. Why belabor his opinion, because he is gay?
And where do you get the idea that 98-99% of the population are against gay marriage? Are you saying only gay people are in favor of gay marriage? Then where did all the votes come from against Prop 8?


As for your continued bashing of Judge Walker, read Scott Herhold'sc olumn in yesterdays Mercury News:

Web Link

"Same-sex marriage would undermine the mission of procreation, the central purpose of marriage? The Proposition 8 proponents never really explained why. Walker tartly pointed out that procreation occurs outside marriage."
"A wedding between two lesbians or two gays would damage or cheapen the marriages of heterosexual couples? This argument was too silly to debate."

Even the pro-Prop 8 witness stated:
"Even one of the two Proposition 8 witnesses, think-tank founder David Blankenhorn, acknowledged that same-sex marriage would reduce discrimination and be "a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion." "

Sharon, we are still waiting to hear how you feel that allowing gay people to marry with irreparable damage your life and impact your personal and religious freedom. That is the real question that needs to be answered by you.

I know of no old ladies (or young ones) that can get arrested (no less) for saying that gay marriage is a sin, neither does sharon, of course.

May I point out that many European countries have made marriage between any two people (gay, straight or hermaphrodite)legal. No harm has been reported on this account. Even my very catholic mother (approaching 90 years old) agrees that marriage as a state matter (which it is) cannot be denied on the basis of gender and that procreation is not the reason people of all ages, fertile or infertile marry.

Firstly, 5-10 percent of people are gay, not 1-2 percent. Do you know of one heterosexual couple who decided not to have children because couples of the same gender were allowed to marry? And should heterosexual couples who decided not to have children be forced to divorce because they failed to follow their supposed duty to procreate? There used to be, and probably still are1, people whose religious faith makes them believe that interracial marriage is a crime against god, so what? Since when is some peoples moral indignation relevant vis-a-vis human rights? Those who oppose same sex marriage are free not to attend any gay wedding, not have gays as friends and seethe in private, otherwise, their opinion is completely inconsequential.

Real Sharon: You may still be waiting for how Gay Marriage will impact the rights and freedoms of others, but for most informed people, they have simply looked to the multiple past links to the unintended consequences on the freedoms of others in Massachusetts.

Don't be lazy, follow the links on the multiple threads, or start with this one.

Web Link

I believe in the fundamental right of every human to act out of his or her own beliefs..but changing the definition of Marriage will open a floodgate of oppression, as it did in Massachusetts. We want to live and let live, but militancy won't let us.

Quote

"We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.

It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.

This is not the only example of what is to come. Massachusetts, like many other states, strictly regulates private adoption agencies through licensing. Historically, this has not posed any difficulties for religious institutions, but Massachusetts now demands that all licensed adoption agencies be willing to place children with legally married same-sex couples.

However, Catholic Charities, the largest private social service provider in the state, could not in good conscience place its orphan children into homosexual households. After a bitter struggle, Boston Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because it refused to embrace the state’s new definition of marriage. The result was doubly tragic because both orphan children and religious liberty took the hit for this misguided attempt at equality.

Two more real-world examples illustrate the danger. In New Jersey, the city of Ocean Grove recently yanked a Methodist institution’s real estate tax exemption because it refused to perform civil unions in its outdoor wedding pavilion.

In Iowa, the Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.

Based on the ruling, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose $102,000 in government support for the YMCA’s community programs. Equal provision of benefits to all couples was not enough — only the YMCA’s explicit adoption of the state’s new definition of family fulfilled the government’s requirements.

This list barely mentions the avalanche of employment discrimination lawsuits religious institutions will face, if, for example, employees at religious institutions publicly enter same-sex unions in violation of the institution’s teachings and employment policies."

I will do a preemptive strike here..for those of you who believe it is fine to abolish freedom of religious belief, please remember that when "my side" is back in power and wants to force you to go to the church of our choice every week or not be eligible for a job.

Always apply your standards to your worst nightmare, and you will find the wisdom of our founders in framing our Constitution.

Choice/Perspective/Sharon

You are posting old news.
Try this one:

Web Link

Your hysterical claims of oppression etc are not relevant to the discussion at hand. BTw, there are cases all the time when organizations are called to task for discriminating against women, minorities etc. Should we cut back their rights because some people do not want to follow the law regarding basic human rights or in other words, should only white, christian males have rights

It just occurred to me...

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, passed 85-14 ( where was the 100th Senator?) has exactly the same language

"defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3)."

This has been challenged and lost..at the Supreme Court level.

Ok, follow me here..so why isn't the Fed Govt entering a LAW SUIT today against this Judge who is going against FED LAW? ( Oh, I forgot, it only sues States that FOLLOW Federal Law. Don't get confused here)

"will do a preemptive strike here..for those of you who believe it is fine to abolish freedom of religious belief, please remember that when "my side" is back in power and wants to force you to go to the church of our choice every week or not be eligible for a job."
Boy what a statement, Choice. Of course there is no facts whatsoever in your statement. This is not about "abolishing freedom of religious belief"--you have the right to worship were you want and have the beliefs you want. Having a married gay couple in no way affects those beliefs. Your argument is a red herring. When religious affiliated organizations get public money or under other conditions must follow certain rules.
BTW, many of the religious right already believe that only christians should be elected to public office and I am sure would be more than happy to compel people to go to "their" church. But that would be a direct violation of the Bill of Rights.
The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring, tossed around by those who just cannot admit in public that they hate gays.

"The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, passed 85-14 ( where was the 100th Senator?) has exactly the same language
"defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3)."
This has been challenged and lost..at the Supreme Court level.
Ok, follow me here..so why isn't the Fed Govt entering a LAW SUIT today against this Judge who is going against FED LAW? ( Oh, I forgot, it only sues States that FOLLOW Federal Law. Don't get confused here)"

Once again you are playing fast and loose with the "facts":

Web Link

"On June 12, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a brief in the case defending the constitutionality of DOMA.[32]"
"Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2)"

and as for your section 3:
"Section 3 of the law—the part that defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman—was ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge in July 2010"

The US has complete religious freedom for all. However, the camp of people like "choice" want to impose their religious views on the rest of us, and sequel like stuck pigs when we reject their attempts. Just to give you an insight into the American autocratic mindset:in the Minnesota Governor's race, state Rep. Tom Emmer, a far-right Republican gave money to a fringe group that condoned the execution of gay people.

The American theocracy in a nutshell:I should be allowed to impose my religious faith on others, and if they don't let me do it, they are taking away my constitutional right to freedom of religion.

"Elton John, Obama and Biden all oppose same sex marriage--- they support domestic partnerships-- as do the supporters of Prop 8."

SO what, Sharon. I can provide lists of gay people, democrats and republicans that support gay marriage,
All of a sudden you are agreeing with a gay person and a couple of democrats because you claim they agree with your stance.

By changing the definition of marriage, the requirement that it must be "2" comes into question. The term "marriage" recognizes that it takes a male and a female to produce offspring. It is true that today there are many ways to have children and form a family. Certainly gays are as good as parents as heterosexual couples. But the term marriage recognizes the fundamental way people come into being. Heteros must opt out and usually it takes a lot of effort to prevent offspring. Gays must op-in. It is not the same. If we change the definition of marriage, than why should marriage be limited to "2"?

I have been a supporter of gay rights for over forty years, and fully support civil unions with all the rights of marriage. It saddens me that my statement above will be viewed as bigoted.

"It is not the same. If we change the definition of marriage, than why should marriage be limited to "2"?"

That is a whole different issue. You are comparing apples and oranges.
We have heard this argument before from opponents of equal rights for gay people---letting them marry will mean that multiple people can marry, people can marry their children, people will be able to marry horses.
The simple answer is that their are laws on the books regarding incest and bigamy. Allowing gays to marry has nothing to with the number "2".
Sorry, 2cents

"However, Catholic Charities, the largest private social service provider in the state, could not in good conscience place its orphan children into homosexual households. After a bitter struggle, Boston Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because it refused to embrace the state�s new definition of marriage. The result was doubly tragic because both orphan children and religious liberty took the hit for this misguided attempt at equality."

Choice, it's pretty rich that the Catholic Church is feeling it's in a tragic situation because it wants to protect children from the immoral idea of gay marriage. Maybe if it didn't spend decades looking the other way as its priests molested thousands of boys their alleged concern for children would have some shred of credibility.

The Church at various times in history has essentially endorsed racial discrimination, the oppression of women and genocide. Perhaps it's a good thing that we have separation of church and state in this country. Invoking the religious argument, you're pretty much trying to tell us that God is telling us to discriminate and stop those gay people from marrying. Pretty shameless.

"If we change the definition of marriage, than why should marriage be limited to "2"?"

Excellent point. Bible fundamentalists presently opposing gay marriage will most likely be at the fore of the upcoming "one man, many women" movement, probably citing these precedents among others:

Genesis 4:19 "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah."

Genesis 32:22 "And he [Jacob] rose up that night, and took his two wives..."

Genesis 36:2, 36.3 "Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; And Bashemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebajoth."

I'm going to just to ignore arguments from people that never answer for their arguments, when caught in a contradiction or a lie. What they do is to go from argument to a different argument pulling us all along. This way of doing things is not a conversation: it's less than honest way to be involved in a forum and it sounds more like a zombie going from place to place bitting people than a rational discussion of facts. It doesn't disturb me that someone may hold opinions that are different from nine, but when they control a conversation by shifting their arguments constantly it means that they are wanting no consensus whatsoever.
Fact: no straights have ever been harmed by gays' marriages

Fact: gay women( by definition)are not barren and can produce children.So can gay men. And they do.

Fact: producing children is not about sex. It's about the fertilization of an egg. (Perverts make EVERYTHING about sex)

Fact: marriage is a contract (that's what it is legally)in which benefits are given by the government. I see no reason for denying those benefits to people of the same gender.

Fact: Hermaphrodites, who are simultaneously male and female have never been forbidden from entering into civil or Christian religious marriage- So how can the anti-gay marriage justify that marriage is between a man and a woman if the church itself have never made that determination in the case of hermaphrodites?

When civil union conveys all the rights and privileges of marriage, the claim of discrimination is hard to support. 1984 is truly here.

Narnia,

"Fact: Hermaphrodites, who are simultaneously male and female have never been forbidden from entering into civil or Christian religious marriage- So how can the anti-gay marriage justify that marriage is between a man and a woman if the church itself have never made that determination in the case of hermaphrodites?"

I could be wrong. But is hermaphrodities due to developmental abnormality? If that's the case, then I don't think your arugement is valid.

"When civil union conveys all the rights and privileges of marriage, the claim of discrimination is hard to support."

Do they, Walter?
For example is a civil union in California recognized in Nebraska. A marriage certainly is.

Walter:

"When civil union conveys all the rights and privileges of marriage,..."

They don't; rather, there are hundreds of instances where laws identify marriage, but not civil unions.

So Walter: how does Jane and Julie getting married harm you?

Walter

"When civil union conveys all the rights and privileges of marriage"

Actually thats not true. I'll give you some examples, My wife and I can file married on a Federal Tax Form, a same-sex couple can not. I believe any of the federal priviledges that comes with marriage is denied a same sex couple.

if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized, a civil union is not.

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Marriage laws are universal. Civil unions are not.

"When civil union conveys all the rights and privileges of marriage, the claim of discrimination is hard to support."

A common fallacy, as several have pointed out.

I think civil unions ought to be reconstrued as the civil contract that marriage is now considered, for the purposes of tax, inheritance, medical decisions, and so on. Therefore, only civil authorities could certify them. They should be available to all adults.

Marriage would then be an optional ceremony, with no legal standing, that could be performed by any church or other organization, or simply the couple standing with their friends.

To Narnia,
Abnormality or not, the fact is that such person are simultaneously female and male and always could marry. The abnormality, as you say is due to genetic and chromosomic non-standard arrangements (in the case of Klinefelter's syndrome, for example) but externally, you would attribute a certain gender to those persons. That means that the "real gender" is unimportant and in some cases just a social construct, nothing else.
What this means is that in the case of an hermaphrodite that marries a person who is not hermaphrodite, you don't have a man and a woman marrying, and that never stopped the church and the government from agreeing to marry them. So, there it goes the "argument" for man/woman marriage only.
Also, hermaphrodites are amongst us and you probably will never know
that you know one. In all other respects, except gender an hermaphrodite is like the rest of us.

Narnia,

When you compare hermaphrodite to gay people, I am afraid that you may be insulting gay people. As gay people never thought that their being gay is an abnormality. That's why your augument is not valid.

"I meant 90%+ , clearly there were and are more than 90 faith based agency involved and committed to save HIV victims lives, in the US, Africa, Asia etc-- our own experience is actually in Haiti-- thanks--"

BTW, Sharon, do you think all HIV positive people are gay?
What does this argument have to do with the topic of gay marriage? I and others would really like to hear the real reasons why you oppose gay marriage,i.e. how would gay marriage affect the quality of your life and your personal and religious freedoms. That is what we need to know.

To Narnia,

your comments are really out of context and silly, but are they also badly intentioned? I haver never said it was an hermaphrodites were an abnormality.
What I said was " abnormality or not..." ,since I didn't want yet another diversion to this forum and lateral discussion on whether hermaphrodities are due to developmental abnormality (As YOU suggested) .In any case, reasonable and good will people recognize that what I was saying is that hermaphrodites and Klinefelter's syndrome people have never been forbidden to marry and so the argument that marriage has always been between a man and a women is not true.

Please stop putting your very own words as if they are mine. At least assume responsibility for what you are saying.

here it is YOUR post:

"But is hermaphrodities due to developmental abnormality?"

To Narnia,

sorry, my last comment,

To Narnia,
your comments are really out of context and silly, but are they also badly intentioned? I haver never said it was an hermaphrodites were an abnormality.


should have read:
To Narnia,

your comments are really out of context and silly, but are they also badly intentioned? I haver never said that people who are intersex (that is, hermaphrodites) were an abnormality.

Why not civil unions with full marriage rights? No one has yet explained why marriage should stay at the number two if gay marriage becomes law. Up to this point, it takes two to make a baby. There are alternatives ways to procreate, but those are alternatives, not the fundamental way people come into being. To change the definition of marriage would change it to mean just two people. But why just two? On what grounds would 3 or more people be denied marriage?

precreation is not a good criteria as same sex couples can procreate and many hetero couples can not or choose not to

Arnold asks the judge to let gays and lesbians marry now: Web Link

I agree with 2cents. Why not a legislative act rather than a speciously reasoned judicial fiat?

Walter

That's why we have 3 branches of government.

I'm sure we've all experienced the Mormon kids and the Jehovah's Witnesses ringing our doorbells, trying to convert us to their particular brand of religion. But I've never had anyone come to my door and try to convince me I should be a homosexual.

So why are so many so afraid? Politicans and religious leaders love to use fear to bend us to their way of thinking.

Web Link

"Tea Party Rhymes with Bigotry" - where is your evidence?

I am a proud member of the Tea Party MOVEMENT (former democrat), and I've never heard anyone say anything racist or bigoted in the gatherings I've attended. But I hear there are people like you who try to make it appear so. Are you that afraid of us - there are many long-time democrats turning to the Tea Party movement because we can't stand what is happening to hard-working Americans.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked a federal judge Friday to allow same-sex marriages while an appeal over the struck-down law that banned them makes its way through the courts.

CNN report: Web Link

2cents ,
On what grounds would 3 or more people be denied marriage? you ask

Very easy answer, but not the subject of this forum at all. I am sorry you can't think of the answer yourself but I am not tutoring anybody today. Maybe tomorrow....

The subject of this forum is the Court's ruling that prop 8 is unconstitutional. Has nothing to do why this or that would or would not be permitted. By and large the rationale for the judge's decision was that the the US Constitution guaranties equality. Whether this ruling will stand on appeal we do not know, but the ruling has no bearing on other laws.

narnia, look up unintended consequences. If, as Walker posits wishing will make it so, I eagerly await the interpretation that will let me write checks on Bill Gates' account.

Narnia that is an easy out to say changing the definition of marriage has nothing to do with the Prop 3 ruling (which will of course change that definition). I am a supporter of gay rights and have been for over 40 years, and support civil unions with full equal benefits same as marriage. But I don't agree that civil unions should be called marriage. On what basis should marriage remain at 2?

To: Posted by Be fair who says:
precreation is not a good criteria as same sex couples can procreate and many hetero couples can not or choose not to

Yes you are right, but it takes a male and female to procreate, and that is how all people come into being. Heteros usually have to opt out by making a major effort to prevent procreation; same sex couples must always op in, and there is then always a third or more "parent" involved.

Whoops, I meant Prop 8 ruling.

For those of you who keep arguing about "will of the poeple"

back in 1964 voters in California overwhelmingly passed Prop. 14, which nullified the Rumford Fair Housing Act (end racial discrimination by property owners and landlords who refused to rent or sell their property to "colored" customers).
The courts ruled that unconstitutional.

Web Link

When it comes to "rights" there is no will of the people- a majority of people cannot vote to discriminate against another group

dear 2c2nts,
Heterosesual or homosexual have exactly the same chances or procreating. Being gay doesn't mean you are infertile and in fact many gays have their own biological children. In many heretosexual couples there is also a 3 rd person involvement either by the couples' consent or just one of them. Does that make them more or less heterosexual?

Now, civil unions: when I got married, the state, my parents, my friends, everybody, even the parish priest (offered his congratulations on my marriage) called that a marriage. It was 1974 and I am still married (happily) to the same person with whom I have children and I have a state issued document saying that I am married. My wedding was not a religious affair, but one conducted at city hall (and only at city hall, there was never a religious wedding). Don't you or anybody else dare to tell me that what I have is a civil union. I have been in this marriage as a heterosexual person for a long time and nothing in this marriage is any different from the (for ever in sickness and health) religious ones except that it didn't end in divorce. Mine is a marriage, not a civil union and it's exactly the same for gay marriage. It's a marriage, not a civil union.
Churchs may not want to perform religious gay marriages.. But the state cannot evade its responsibility towards some and only some of its citiziens (gays) and refuse to perform its duty because they
don't like their path. The fact that people are supporting civil unions means that they agree that any 2 consenting adults should have all rights in this respect. The fact that they do not want to call it marriage flies in the face of law- you can't have different names for the exact same legal act. The law should call it marriage, just as it did with my marriage. YOU call it whatever you want. But THE LAW should call it a marriage.

"rights" are only what is within our sovereignty, and are "God given", if you will, not given to us or granted to us by anyone or any governme


We do not have a "right" to marry any more than we have a "right" to a driver's license.

Marriage is not anywhere listed as any of the rights in our bill of rights/constitution.

We vote, by majority, over the wishes of the minority, all the time either by initiative or by representatives. We vote to not allow first cousins to marry, practicing genetic discrimination, or 13 year olds to marry, practicing youth discrimination. We vote to not allow 68 year olds to sit in the classrooms as students with our 8 year olds, practicing elder discrimination. We vote to decide who to let into our country and who not to. We don't allow, for example, HIV + folks into this country, being a huge drain on our resources and risk to the population, practicing medical discrimination.

A society has a natural "right", if you wish to call it that, or obligation would be my preference, to protect itself however it sees fit.

To think that we can't let the "majority" vote against the "minority" is silly. We have a Constitution to protect against the loss of inherent rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights to anyone. The job of a judge is to uphold the Constitution, which specifically limits the expression of the "rights" of one person at the expense of another. ( Amendment 9).

Given the results of changing the definition of the word "marriage" in Massachusetts, many folks, individual and religous, lost their rights to practice their personal beliefs, ( religious freedom) and their right to be in a group of like-minded individuals ( freedom of associatoin).

Therefore, this is a bad call by this judge.

We, the vast majority of the people, want equal laws for gay couples that straight couples can choose to participate in..but we just want it called something other than "marriage" so we don't have the unintended ( I assume they are unintended) consequences so often referred to.

A rose by any other name is still a rose

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

"Being gay doesn't mean you are infertile and in fact many gays have their own biological children."

Yes, you may be gay and very fertile. But you can NOT produce kids with the other part in the "marriage" you prefer to call UNDER WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS is a fundamental difference between gay couples and straight couples. You may argue that there are straight couples who can't produce. But the reason is absolutely different from the inability of gay couples to produce kids that carry the genes of both partners.

Even your example of hermaphrodites does not work. Hermaphrodies have reproductive organs associated with both sexes. And, they are born with the condition.

Your post, Sharon, is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Them, rules are for everyone to follow

The most egregious acts of the anti Prop 8 activists are

1/ The cynical -- and futile attempt-- to some how link their preferences to the Black Civil Rights Movement. Have they no shame?
This cynical strategy by anti Prop 8 activists has been totally condemned by the Black community, in the voting booth, in Churches and in the press.
They ask, what have gay activists groups done to help the Black AID/HIV victims-- 50% of gay/bisexual Blacks in the US have HIV/AIDS --50%
In contrast-UK and US faith based groups put an end to slavery and championed civil rights for Blacks.

2/ The attempt to stigmatize Pro 8 supporters as bigots and haters of gays--- nothing could be further from the truth and the reality.
Marriage between one man and one woman is a foundational value of the 2000 years of Western Civilization and enlightenment.

Faith based groups have been in the forefront of helping gay HIV/AIDS victims in the US and World Wide.

Enough is enough--

Here is a link to the successful Faith based campaign to end slavery, for those who have not seen the movie " Amazing Grace" Web Link

Sharon'please try sticking to the facts. This is about rights-- one can compare to the civil rights struggle if one is so inclined. Others can then draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately many of the prop 8 supporters do hate gays. Their is plenty of evidence of the stigmatization of gays by religious groups. Your comments about marriage and helping HIV positive people is irrelevant to the discussion. Why are you against gay marriage?

@ irrelevant

Please provide evidence that Faith based citizens have expressed hatred towards gays-- they say they hate the sin and love the sinner-- in all cases.

Most gays we know believe that helping gays with AIDS/HIV is a act of Charity and a good thing.

You do not like religion-- fine

The larger question is preserving the foundation of Western Civilization over 2000 years-- marriage is between one man and one woman-- under sharia law, for example, you can have many wives---

But not in the West.

Speaking (writing) of web links - please look at Web Link - this describes the amazing parallels between the arguments made to justify anti-miscegenation laws (which may also have a 2000 year history...) and those used to oppose gay marriage. In his decision Judge Vaughn notes that "Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre."
The bottom line, as he summarizes in his decision is that
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

"We vote, by majority, over the wishes of the minority, all the time either by initiative or by representatives. "
But not when it comes to basic rights--see example I gave above--also we couldnot vote to prevebt women from voting as another example.

"We vote to not allow first cousins to marry, practicing genetic discrimination' We vote to not allow 68 year olds to sit in the classrooms as students with our 8 year olds, practicing elder discrimination. "
You are mixing up laws with things that are voted on.

"We vote to decide who to let into our country and who not to. We don't allow, for example, HIV + folks into this country, being a huge drain on our resources and risk to the population, practicing medical discrimination."
this was never brought to avote, this was a government decision, that i believe has since been repealed.

"A society has a natural "right", if you wish to call it that, or obligation would be my preference, to protect itself however it sees fit."
Not sure how denying people the right marry is "protecting" society.

"To think that we can't let the "majority" vote against the "minority" is silly."
No, it is sillyto think that some things can be decided by a vote. California has been down this road before and has seen many of it's initiatives thrown out by courts.


"We have a Constitution to protect against the loss of inherent rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights to anyone."
And that is why we have judges who decide if something is contitutional or not,as in this case.

" The job of a judge is to uphold the Constitution, which specifically limits the expression of the "rights" of one person at the expense of another. ( Amendment 9)."
you forget the 14th amendment. however letting gay's marry is not givinga right to someone at the expense of another.

"Given the results of changing the definition of the word "marriage" in Massachusetts, many folks, individual and religous, lost their rights to practice their personal beliefs, ( religious freedom) and their right to be in a group of like-minded individuals ( freedom of associatoin)."
The above is a bunch of completely non-factual comments. No one has lost their rights to practice their personal beliefs--people can worship where they want, when they want. A married gay couple is not infringing on that right.
And no one is abrogating their right to be in a group of like-minded individuals ( freedom of associatoin)--no one is forcing anyone to associates with gays. I am not sure where you come up with these claims. I have poted links to articles that totally demolish this bogus argument.


"We, the vast majority of the people, want equal laws for gay couples that straight couples can choose to participate in..but we just want it called something other than "marriage" so we don't have the unintended ( I assume they are unintended) consequences so often referred to."
Areyou sure you are still in the majority/
There are no unintended consequences. This is another red herring bandied about by the anti-gay marriage crowd. There is no reason to prevent gay marriage--no heterosexual couple will be hurt by having married gay people.
Clearly there are other reason why people oppose gay marriage, unfortunatley they refuse to state the real reasons for these anti-gay feelings

Let me address some of your comments Sharon:

"Please provide evidence that Faith based citizens have expressed hatred towards gays-- they say they hate the sin and love the sinner-- in all cases."
Well, we can go into the archives and pull out plenty of stories. Let's start with the Westboro Baptist Church, who you may recall you supporetd their visit to Palo alto. There are plenty of examples--read the comments made by Jerry Falwell and other "religious"leaders.
Yes, some religious people practice "hate the sin and love the sinner"--unfortunatley others do nto.
the pro-prop 8 campaign was driven bythe Mormon and Catholic churches--a couple of groups with plenty of skeletons in their closets vis a vis treatment of monorities, women and children.

"Most gays we know believe that helping gays with AIDS/HIV is a act of Charity and a good thing."
And only religious people "help" HIV+ positive people. And only gays have AIDS?
This is is a red herringa and has nothing to do with gay marriage,

"You do not like religion-- fine"
i do not like people like you trying to use religion as an sxcuse for your bias towards gays.
Please tell us how having married gay couples will affect your freedoms and your life in a negative manner. we are still waiting to hear.

"The larger question is preserving the foundation of Western Civilization over 2000 years-- marriage is between one man and one woman-- under sharia law, for example, you can have many wives---"
Ridiculous point. if marriage is so scared the divorce should be banned. Many western countries allow gay marriage and heterosexuals have not been negativelky addected. It is arguments like the above that the judge cited as being bogus in overturning prop. 8.
Please see Stephen's link above.


Sorryk, Sharon, your arguments do not hold any water.

"Clearly there are other reason why people oppose gay marriage, unfortunatley they refuse to state the real reasons for these anti-gay feelings"

The real sharon,

You are over analyzing the situation. I can't speak for all but I don't practice any religion and never had. Neither had my family. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Nothing else. You may call it bias. But that's your opinion.

The Fake Sharon,

Opinions we all have, but the law is the law. At the moment there is
a ruling on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8. That's the law as it stands. We don't know what the Supreme court will rule and given the Court's composition it's anyone's guess. Btw, gay marriage, where it exists has never been judged against the Constitution. It is largely
a religious matter and it has been proven so by the wide involvement of churches in Prop 8, , even the religion whose founder and many of its members advocate plural marriage (LDS').
Fake Sharon, the fact that a few (comparatively small number) of people of no religion maybe against gay marriage doesn't invalidate the heavy religious argument.
Incidentely, marriage has not always been of a man and a woman as you claim and unless ignorance is a bliss, people who claim the contrary are just being dishonest and fake...

If you do believe that a marriage should be of a man and a woman only,
then what are you doing about plural marriages, some involving children, practiced by Mormons, right at our California border and other states. Why don't you crusade against those? The answer is because your stance is not that marriages should between a man and a women (whatever that means, because intersex people can and do marry)
: it is being gay that you have problems with. Your call, certainly,
but it's neither against the law, nor has it been declared unconstitutional to be a practicing gay. It is, however, against the law to have more than one spouse and you are not saying anything about that particular aspect. Honest answers will only be honest as long as people are intellectually honest. I see little of that trend in the arguments of the bashers of the recent ruling, whatever their religion or lack of thereof.

To Narnia and Real Sharon

Clearly yours is a religious belief, and you are entitled to it. You insist on fighting other peoples' religious beliefs, ok, whatever you wish, you have the right to speech...

I don't care what religious beliefs you have, as long as you follow our laws ( which are, of course, VOTED on...either by direct vote or through representatives)

However, keeping religion out of it, which I would prefer, since "belief" is, frankly, indefensible..

I, again, would like you to find the "right to marry" anywhere in our Constitution or any of our Federal laws....when you do, please post it.

While you are at it, find "the right to health care" and "the right to drive", and maybe the "right to housing" and the "right to food"..

good grief.

Please read my posts unless you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote.

Here my post (again) and please read it:

"Posted by narnia, a resident of Menlo Park, on Aug 5, 2010 at 2:13 pm

There is indeed no constitutional right to gay marriage or any marriage for that matter, but the Constitution provides for all to be treated equally and that is why it is unconstitutional (until there is a court declaration of the contrary) to deny gays their right to the pursuit of happiness and equality. That, I think, is self evident.

Constitution is moot on marriage. Marriage is not an explicit constitutional right. The laws of various states treat marriage differently, but every state is presumed to give full faith and credit to marriages performed in other states.

Sharon, you are very confused on what Constitutional rights are and what the law (or laws) is. I suggest you learn a bit...."

You Perspective are as confused as Sharon....

Nope, no misrepresentation, have read all you wrote....just looking for some back up for the use of the word "right" in relation to marriage.

And there is none, anywhere.

BTW..please note that, until now, other States have honored the marriages of each other..so, tell me again how there are no abrogation of the rights of others in changing the definition of marriage by one State. If 48 States are forced to accept 2 same sex folks as married, because 2 States have, then that is forcing religious belief on them..sorry, doesn't fly.

There is no right to marriage, presumed or otherwise.

Narnia has stated it correctly this is case is about equal treatment. We could also solve this inequity by eliminating marriage for all.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

There is one thing that every red-blooded American can do who does not wish to accord the right of marriage to homosexuals. DON'T MARRY ONE!

Hi It's Evident...

Please don't lump ALL Christians together with those hate-mongers who came from the tiny Westboro Baptist Church. The vast majority of Christians espouse the virtues of kindness -- even if we might hold moral, religious and/or cultural standards that might be at contrast with certain views of others.

While historic Christian teaching has traditionally taught against homosexuality in thought and practice, it also taught against similar heterosexual lasciviousness and promiscuity as well. There are plenty of practicing heterosexual couples that have engaged in behavior that conflicts with Christian standards, but few of those who have or do engage in such behavior would try to debate Christian standards on the subject. Yet, ironically, there is a growing intolerance against such spiritual beliefs whenever the subject of the Christian view of homosexuality is discussed.

On many internet discussion sites, there seems to be an all out attack on Christianity because of the subject. I believe that this subject can be discussed without resorting to attacks on someone's religious faith that is, ironically, protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. It is unbecoming to demand tolerance from a group that supposedly makes up 78.5% (according to the CIA World Factbook) of the population of the United States if those demanding tolerance don't practice it themselves. Why should we surprised if a person's moral, cultural, spiritual or religious views influences their political views or votes?

Thus, I don't think that it is helpful to lump all Christians together with a tiny fanatical congregation that travels around the country with a message of hate. It is, after all, possible to love someone (and demonstrate love toward someone) with whom you strongly disagree with -- without accepting certain aspects of that person's "id."

I am not a Liberal (at least, in regard to most modern principles associate with progressive politics)...but I don't attempt to lump together the 18-20% of liberal voters in this nation with certain fanatical Liberal groups either.

By what rational should marriage remain at two if the basic union of what it takes to make a baby is no longer the definition of marriage, and marriage is changed to mean only two people. Many societies do practice polygamy. Won't polygamists also insist that their love is equal to that of two and demand that they can also marry the third person too?

Dorothy Kellems was right.

In the present state I don't think marriage is going to include more than 2 people because the state has an interest in not paying more benefits than what is minimally necessary.

What is true is that in societies in which benefits are not linked to marriage, and each partner/spouse receives benefits on their own, marriage practiced less and less. Children get benefits and each parent has their own. No marriage necessary, marriage is performed less and less. Under those circumstances it's none of the government's business to know who is setting up household with whom and it is a fact that some households include sets of partnerships with more than 2 people.

If you understand how marriage came about historically you will understand that the present set up, done for various may indeed change. It has not always been the way it is now.

But this discussion is about the constitutionality of Prop 8. It is, at the present unconstitutional. That may change too. Or may not.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

To Narnia:

You keep implying that this definition of marriage as between a man and woman is something new in the Western world.."It has not always been the way it is now".

I keep looking, I can't find any other way marriage has been done. Please give me some sites..

BTW..if Prop 8 is 'unconstitutional", then there is gonna be a heck of a fight coming up over the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act voted on 84-14 by our US Senate..with the same wording..which has been challenged as "unconstitutional" at the SCOTUS level and already upheld.

Walter, I give up. Who was Dorothy Kellems and what was she right about?

These many arguments about marriage not being a right, or posts asking people to find marriage in the constitution demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional system. If we had to have marriage literally written in the constitution in order to have rights related to it, that would be a different system than the one we live in (and far worse).

Public schools, lunch counters, and the back of a bus aren't mentioned in the constitution either.

Until it was overturned as unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court in 1948, California Civil Code Section 60, stated that “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void,” and further that ". . . no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race".

Now -- I assume that none of folks on this forum who oppose gay marriage and argues that point by virtue of it not being in the constitution will argue that CA code in 1948 was morally OK, or that we should bring that law back. That's despite the fact that it reflected the will of the people and was overturned by just a few judges.

Maybe they can explain the legal principle by which they think gay marriage should be banned, but that California Code from 1850-1948 was wrong.

Or, they think that we should go back to the "traditional" definition of marriage -- you know, they way it "always has been" as several of you keep saying.

By the way, I am a happily married (heterosexual) male who finds the idea that gay marriage somehow threatens my marriage or the institution laughable. I have two young children, and I'd find it hard to explain to them why two people who love each other (who happen to be gay) shouldn't be able to get married.

In the end, all of you protesting against gay marriage are on the wrong end of history. It may be that the current Supreme Court will overturn this recent ruling, but it is already clear -- this is inevitable. Maybe not this round, but soon. There won't be any disaster or end of marriage -- no more than there was after interracial marriage bans were found to be unconstiutional in 1967. Although the screams of protest were just as loud then.

Judge Walker already got slapped down by both the 9th circuit and SCOTUS when he wanted to broadcast his theater via video.

Sad case,but he is retiring and would probably like to leave his money to his boyfriend without tax-- nothing wrong with self interest-- when it comes to judges it is called conflict of interest-- a very different matter.

SCOTUS knows the history of attempts to terrorize and intimidate pro prop 8 witnesses.

Most prominent gay attorneys have distanced themselves from this case and think it was a very bad idea----the 2 lawyers in the case want a last grasp at fame and fortune

winning is not everything, getting paid is-- for these lawyers

Hi Ed...

One thing: Marriage has ALWAYS been defined (in this nation...and most others) as a union between one man and one woman. To try and equate it as some sort of archaic definition "on the wrong side of history" is to ignore (or try and rewrite) 234 years of US history.

If the federal "Equal Protection" clause were meant to extend to issues left to the state, then what is the point of ANY state prohibitions that deny Americans things afforded to others?

In the United States, polygamy is illegal (even for consenting adults). So is incestuous relationships (even for consenting adults). Adults between the ages of 18-21 are forbidden to purchase or consume alcohol. Some states, counties and municipalities have strict guidelines for owner or possessing firearms -- even though it is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Some states allow terminal patients to end their lives at the hands of a consenting physician while others do not. Smoking cigarettes is prohibited in public places while it is legal at the same time. Some states allow marijuana even though most do not. Some cities are "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants -- which is completely in opposition to state and federal law.

The point?

These things are left up to the people of the STATES. The government of the states -- as consented upon by the people in those states -- can make and laws and definitions that they feel are best for the state as long as they are not already spelled out by the federal Constitution. This is why some states can make laws that other states do not recognize or replicate. The Constitution makes no distinction of any person or people based upon sexual desires.

The identified common law of the State of California has always held that marriage was a union between a man and a woman. Recently, some people tried to change this definition. This led the people of California to TWICE vote on retaining the traditional definition of marriage. The option for homosexual couples was a Civil Union contract (of which heterosexual couples cannot enter into). Yet twice, members of the judicial branch have overturned the will of the people. Their rationale? It violated the federal Constitution's "Equal Protection" clause -- even though this clause does not extend to matters outside of federal jurisdiction.

What do I think will happen?

I believe that this case will quickly be taken up by the US Supreme Court. I strongly believe that they will rule that the majority of people of the State of California had the right to retain the traditional definition of marriage as they chose in November 2008.

Nayeli,

You're not paying attention to what Ed wrote. Just because something has "always" been the case does not mean that it's right or that it doesn't violate basic human rights that our constitution is supposed to protect.

Before 1865, black people were "always" enslaved by white people in this country. Before 1920, women were "always" denied the right to vote. Banning same sex marriage is based on flat out discrimination and nothing more, and the case that it's "always" been illegal does not mean that it isn't a human right violation that must be corrected.

Gay teenagers commit suicide at a much higher rate than their peers in large part because of the rabid intolerance they face from those around them. Gay people have long been subjected to violent hate crimes and in some cases beaten to death just for being who they are. You sound like a reasonable person, Nayeli, but there's a very fine line between opposing gay marriage because you say God tells you to and flat out ugly prejudice and homophobia. And the more you promote the latter, the more you contribute to a culture of hatred that causes unnecessary violence and death.

The only hatred we have seen is hatred toward religion in his matter by gay activists

Oh, my God! Wallis was wrong!
It was Vivien Kellems, co-inventor of the Kellems Grip, a product used to pull and suspend electrical cables without damaging the insulation. Beside her famous opposition to withholding laws, she also objected to the preferential tax treatment of marriage partners.

Thanks Walter. It drove me crazy not to be able to find it!

BTW, no Nayeli, it was not legal for all whites to "own" slaves before 1865, neither here nor in any other country. It was legal for SOME states to allow Slavery. Learning history is a very useful way to improve thinking skills, along with a good dose of math for logic.

We are the only country to fight, suffer and die over a war to, in part, end slavery. I think you should remember who fought it.

But, whatever, there is a certain way of thinking that will persist in trying to equate this to slavery ( which I find highly, highly insulting to those who fought slavery), because that is the template.

Always amuses me, ..why isn't it equated to, say..suffrage? A tiny bit more usefulness in definitions there, but not the emotional weight, I guess, though women got the ability to vote long after black men did.

Oh well,templates, propoganda, whatever.

Wish I knew what I had written that was deleted...I see another post just prior by someone else was deleted..maybe I used the same language in response..oh well.

Sorry, it was Adobe who wrote the phrase about "before 1865..slavery..blah"

It's amazing how many people seem to have made up their mind on the judge's ruling without even reading it.

That is pure predjudice. How can you *know* that something is wrong unless you read it and actually analyze the logic?

I found the ruling to be quite reasonable and well written. I also learned a few things about the rules of evidence, the proper role of expert witnesses, and the legal history of the marraige contract. (hint, it's not nearly as old and unchanging as the Pro Pro 8 people lead us to believe)

Mostly though, by actually reading the ruling first hand, instead of having it "explained to me by talk radio, I got a strong sense that our country is actually in very good hands.

I just wish american's would have more faith in each other. There are an aweful lot of "us" people running around terrified that "them" people have taken over government and are going to ruin everything. It's not us and them, we're all americans, and we're trying to do the right thing for the country.

"Judge Walker already got slapped down by both the 9th circuit and SCOTUS when he wanted to broadcast his theater via video."
Interesting choice of words. What happened is that his decision was overruled. Anyway, the idea of broadcasting the case was not his idea but in response to a request by media organizations:
Web Link
Of course, one could now say that the supporters of Prop. 8 have gotten slapped down.
Poor choice of words, Sharon, but not surprising.

"Sad case,but he is retiring and would probably like to leave his money to his boyfriend without tax-- nothing wrong with self interest-- when it comes to judges it is called conflict of interest-- a very different matter."
ANy proof for this vile comment? I guess when you disagree with a court's decision, you go after the judge.
How was there a conflict of interest? Because he is gay? Really, Sharon, is there even an iota of proof to go with your comments?

"SCOTUS knows the history of attempts to terrorize and intimidate pro prop 8 witnesses."
Care to provide any proof for this? Once again it looks like gays are being demonized and vilified because they want equal rights.

"Most prominent gay attorneys have distanced themselves from this case and think it was a very bad idea----the 2 lawyers in the case want a last grasp at fame and fortune"
Please provide proof for this conjecture.

"winning is not everything, getting paid is-- for these lawyers"
Another unfounded and biased comment, this time directed against the lawyers. Notice a pattern here--factoids, innuendo and lies directed at the judge, lawyers and people involved in this case without even a shred of proof. Very sad, indeed.

"The only hatred we have seen is hatred toward religion in his matter by gay activists "
Considering Sharon's previous post,which I have addressed above, this post would be funny if not for the fact that the poster is serious.

For a level headed, non-hysterical, non-judgmental look at the ruling , read John Diaz's op-ed from yesterday's Chronicle.

Web Link

And, of course,we would still like to her how Sharon will be affected by having gay couples married. How will it affect her life and her personal and religious freedoms. That is the one question that remains unanswered.

This statement misses the point: "One thing: Marriage has ALWAYS been defined (in this nation...and most others) as a union between one man and one woman. To try and equate it as some sort of archaic definition "on the wrong side of history" is to ignore (or try and rewrite) 234 years of US history. "

Many people have been saying some variation of this claim of consistency for "the" definition of marriage. Some say it for world history instead of US history, and others say for the Western World, and others say it for 2000 years, and other combinations. Folks who have read the bible or know about other cultural norms quickly modify that to 2000 years or Western World etc.

Again, none of you saying that gay marriage does not/should not fit the "traditional" definition of marriage seems willing to concede that the "traditional" definition has varied. Thus these constant invocations of "one man and one woman". But what does that REALLY mean?

It meant for a long time that women were sold or bartered to the man. Later she had some choice in the matter, but as a practical matter he could rape her or dispose of her property (sorry -- that would be HIS property, because she couldn't legally own any) as he pleased.

It usually meant that you couldn't marry somebody of a different race.

The problem with these "ALWAYS" statements is that "ALWAYS" depends on when you set the time line, even in recent US history.

In 1838 you could have said "Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as a union between one man and one woman, and has ALWAYS meant the woman was subordinate to the man and could not own separate property or make her own decisions". If somebody tried to change this you could have said "this goes against over 150 years of US history, and British commonlaw going back many hundreds of years more".

HOWEVER -- 1839 the first exception occurred in the state of Mississippi -- but it took decades later for the entire USA. I'm sure people in other states were railing against this absurd notion that women had the mental capacity to own property separately from her husband because it had "ALWAYS" been otherwise.

In California in 1947 you could have said "Marriage in California has ALWAYS been defined as a union between one man and one woman of the SAME race, and has ALWAYS meant that whites and blacks and asians shall not intermarry. It has been that way for almost 100 years" The next year that was struck down.

Now, some of you seem to say "Yes, I agree that women were property and couldn't vote, and men could rape their wives, and blacks couldn't marry whites and so on -- BUT -- they were always MEN and WOMEN being denied those rights within marriage. You see, I was right, marriage is ALWAYS between a man and woman." That seems to miss a much larger point -- the definition of marriage has evolved very significantly, and (I hope) none of you is willing to go back to the earlier versions.

At the same time you keep saying "keep it how it has ALWAYS been". But you don't seem to notice that it hasn't "ALWAYS" been any one way.

There was, however, one theme for a long time ---- and that was the notion of women as property of men or at very least inferiors. It seems to me in that cultural context there was NO WAY women marrying women could have been contemplated for most of world or even US history. If women couldn't vote or even own property or have jobs in most places, how could they possibly live independently and get married to another woman? That's why these statements of "how it ALWAYS has been" are standing on a foundation of sand.

As for men marrying men -- well, how much of a threat would that have been in a world dominated by men?

I stand by my original statement. Those opposing gay marriage are on the wrong side of history.

As I said before -- this recent decision may well be struck down, but gay marriage ultimately will be the way things within the next few decades. If nothing else, the majority of folks under age 30 simply don't see a problem with it. There are plenty of married heterosexuals such as myself who not only don't see it as a threat, but see it as benefit to society.

Polls indicate that the opposition to gay marriage is much higher in people over the age of about 50 and support for it is much higher in those under 30. Over the next few decades, as populations shifts and those of us who are older (including me) dies, the vast majority of Americans will simply believe in marriage equality for gay people and will do what it takes to make it happen. This argument against it will seem as quaint as the rants of those opposed to interracial marriage did as recently as 50 years ago.

Hi Ed...

You wrote (again): "Those opposing gay marriage are on the wrong side of history."

This type of cliché seems to be the ultimate position for people who who want a particular piece of legislation passed that is unpopular. It is almost used as much as the infamous "those people just don't get it" expression. Like I said, gay marriage did not exist in the history of the United States. So, to argue about "history" is a non-sequitor.

What I am saying (if it wasn't clear enough) is that STATES should have the right to make their own laws if they aren't clearly spelled out by the federal Constitution. Slavery, Jim Crow and interracial marriage laws were ultimately unconstitutional because, well, it was clearly mentioned in the FEDERAL Constitution. The case had already been taken up in northern courts BEFORE the Civil War.

Homosexual couples and traditional couples already have the SAME contractual legal protections when it comes to conjugal unions. However, one union is defined as "marriage" using the traditional definition of it being between "one husband and one wife." The other, "civil unions," is recognized by the state as being the union between "two men or two women." So, the argument is whether or not the state should be forced -- because of the "equal protection" clause -- to redefine marriage to incorporate any two people.

IMHO, it is silly to try and make a federal "equal protection" argument advocating for "gay marriage" when homosexuality is based upon a compulsive desire and/or behavior rather than a race, ethnicity or religion. Moreover, the people of any State have a right to create any law that is not in conflict to the Constitution.

To broadly declare that the "Equal Protection" clause should extend to "marriage" is to forget many other issues into which this clause is not inclusive (such as those things that I mentioned previously). The use of the "equal protection" clause in such a manner would be the basis for a legal argument to overturn consenting polygamy, consenting incest, alcohol consumption and gun ownership laws -- or any laws dealing with deviant behavior.

States have a right to make laws that some could argue "limit" their equal protection of certain groups. In addition, some groups cannot claim Constitutional protection (such as a religious free-speech protection clause) if it violates certain state laws (i.e. a cult group cannot violate state laws on animal cruelty, polygamy or pedophilia even if this is part of their religious views). In other words, the State has the right to create laws (especially the specificities of legal definitions) that aren't clearly spelled out in the federal Constitution.

Why is there such widespread opposition to gay marriage -- even in California?

There are many citizens in California and throughout the United States who do not want the legislative or judicial branches to redefine marriage (along with the accompanying seal of approval) in a way that goes against their own cultural, traditional, moral and religious norms. Many Americans still view homosexuality as a behavior issue and do not want to see special "minority" rights granted to a group based solely upon sexual desire or practice. Right or wrong, this is the sentiment of the overwhelming majority.

Now, this is not the same as permitting "persecution" of ANY person based upon their own views or behavior (right or wrong). Violence, ridicule and contemptuous scorn is wrong no matter WHO is on the receiving end. However, most Americans just do not see homosexuality as a special, federally protected minority group. They are protected -- as human beings and American citizens, but not on the specific basis of behavior or sexual pruriency. Most Americans do not want something like "marriage" forcefully redefined in homes, schools and churches throughout America out of some misguided notion that "equal protection" extends to the specific, statewide-approved definition of the word.

"Moreover, the people of any State have a right to create any law that is not in conflict to the Constitution."

Right. Therefore, since Judge Walker found that Prop 8 is unconstitutional - in other words, in conflict with the Constitution - the people of California had no right to make it. It's null and void.

"Why is there such widespread opposition to gay marriage -- even in California?"

Why was there such widespread opposition to interracial marriage -- even in California?

Insurance actuary tables, developed before "Gay marriage," become inaccurate, justifying rate hikes because of claim uncertainty. The "Gay" marriage drive was coincident with AIDS, as a means to get medical coverage for a lover from an unprepared employer.
To the extent that Civil Unions do not fulfill all needs of the involved couples, legislators have shown no unwillingness to resolve those problems. Judicial prudence would suggest that "Gays" let legislation define their union so as to deflect the "two or more" argument, and sue only if legislation is not forthcoming.
Methinks "Gays" are getting greedy and a bit arrogant.
A judicial ruling lacks the completeness of a debated legislation. I remember when some idiot judge ruled that prisoners had a constitutional right to a mirror in their cell.

"I remember when some idiot judge ruled that prisoners had a constitutional right to a mirror in their cell."

Judge Walker made a ruling, therefore Judge Walker is an idiot judge.

Impeccable logic!!!!!! Why do I even bother litigating disputes when all judges who make rulings are idiots.

Hi Paul...

I don't think that you understand what I am saying.

A judge with an OBVIOUS conflict of interest decided that Prop 8 -- a Constitutional Amendment voted upon by the majority of California residents (for a second time) and retains the longtime definition of "marriage" in the State of California -- was in opposition to the federal Constitution. Yet "marriage" is not even mentioned in the federal Constitution! Thus, the people of the State of California can define terms however they see fit.

Do you see the difference? It is about a DEFINITION. Period. The definition of "marriage" has ALWAYS been a legal union between a husband and a wife. A "civil union" is the same legal union with the same protections for TWO husbands or TWO wives.

In addition, I have NEVER seen much opposition to interracial marriage in the State of California (...or those red states that many blue folks like to stereotype). As a Hispanic woman, I am disappointed that anyone would attempt to compare racial and ethnic minorities with a person or group that is identified by either behavior or sexual pruriency.

I think that one thing will almost certainly come from all of this.

The Democrats are poised to lose quite a few seats in November due to the idea that they have become so utterly liberal that they have lost touch with mainstream America. The popular sentiment is that while Liberals represent only 18-20% of the population, their social and economic ideas are being pushed upon the other 80+% of the country. The ruling by ONE judge in California that negates the votes of more than 7 MILLION residents of the state will almost certainly energize voters in statewide races. This almost certainly will draw more opponents of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer to the polls on November 5th.

"I don't think that you understand what I am saying."

You are correct but, for the record, my sole resource is what you wrote.

So what if the Constitution does not explicitly enumerate marriage as a right? (Some people think it should, though - by way of selective proscription.) The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law for all rights of citizenship, for all Americans. Freedom of marriage is an accepted right for Americans, therefore a fair-minded judge found it is a right for all Americans under the Constitution. It's that simple.

If the judge negated an alleged 7 million votes, then he affirmed 6,500,000 votes (the margin was 52-48, remember?) Did you object when 5 activist judges on the Supreme Court overruled a much larger majority for Al Gore in the 2000 election? Why not?

And don't forget that the Brown vs. Board of Education case overruled trhe will of a much larger constituency. And, yes, lots of them and their descendants have neither forgotten nor forgiven.

It is good you "have NEVER seen much opposition to interracial marriage in the State of California." That is my point. It once was the dominant opinion, now it is a minority bigotry of a few holdover dinosaurs. It was one of those social ideas that 18-20% pushed upon the other 80+% of the country.

Finally: "I am disappointed that anyone would attempt to compare racial and ethnic minorities with a person or group that is identified by either behavior or sexual pruriency."

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

QED, I was giving another example of judicial misfeasance. To suggest that I do not have standing to disagree with a judge's decision is to demonstration that you just don't understand the system.

Paul wrote "The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law for all rights of citizenship, for all Americans."

first..wrong on what the Constitution does. Please read it. It isn't THAT long. Go to Heritage dot org and order up a cheap copy.

Second: Marriage is not a right. I will repeat this, and be deleted for "repetitive posts" as long as there are repetitive posts asserting that marriage is a right.

To repeat, a government license does not equate to a "right". A license to drive does not constitute a right to drive. A license, by its very nature, means that it is government regulated...our government is by the people either through direct vote like our propositions or through our representatives ..and thus we, the people, decide what to regulate and how.

repeat..marriage is not a "right".

Hi Paul...

--> Paul wrote: "If you are really hispanic, you might want to defend any assault on anybody's civil rights. You could be next. The current liberal-imposed veneer of equality is being eroded fast. Arizona 1070 is your wake up call. Immigration per se is not the issue. It's about who is immigrating."

PLEASE do not begin questioning my ethnicity, skin color, or culture in an attempt to drum up support for a group that is identified based entirely upon their sexual desires! It is HIGHLY offensive for a person to compare an ethnic or racial minority with a group identified by sexual practice AND THEN question the identified of minorities that don't agree with your views.

Why is it that Hispanics (or any member of any other minority group) are dismissed as "sellouts" when our cultural, traditional and religious views are in opposition with the 18-20% of liberals in this nation? It is bigoted of you to think that my experiences in life -- and the attitudes that I have faced -- would make me embrace the forced push of this legislation from the bench by a judge with a vested self interest.

--> You wrote: "It was one of those social ideas that 18-20% pushed upon the other 80+% of the country."

First of all, interracial marriage was legal in all but a few states since shortly after the Civil War. In fact, it was legal in some northern states BEFORE the Civil War!

Secondly, your words display the audacious arrogance of liberals in this nation. They represent 18-20% of the country who feel pompously EMPOWERED to force their views on the other 80-82% of us (including the 41% who are moderates and 41% who are conservatives)! But you know what? Americans are TIRED of this! This is exactly why the Democrats are going to lose MANY seats on November 5th...possibly enough to lose both houses of Congress! Americans are tired of elected politicians who try to "speak for us" in votes and legislation but who are limited by their far-left of center social and economic views.

Like others have said, marriage is NOT a "right." It is a contract defined as a "union between a husband and wife" that happens to be a STATE license. For a biased judge to be so ignorant of Constitutional Law as to claim that the wording of the definition is "protected" by the federal constitution shows just how far judicial activists will go to "interpret" the Constitution in order to suit their social or economic views.

No one is calling for any hate to be shown toward any human beings (including homosexuals). Human beings should be valued and treated with kindness and dignity EVEN IF we might disagree with a particular aspect, politics or belief of that person.

Likewise, a person who doesn't embrace a desire to redefine the term "marriage" (to include homosexual couples) shouldn't face scorn based upon his cultural, traditional, moral or sacred views. Unfortunately, this is what I have faced when discussing this with others. I have seen my ethnic heritage questioned (or ridiculed) and I have seen my faith (Christianity) mocked. This is not helpful to any discussion.

"PLEASE do not begin questioning my ethnicity..."

This is the web. Everything anybody says about themselves is open to question. How can I tell if I'm addressing a real person or someone's avatar du jour? And do bear in mind that all of us have ethnicity, etc.

My point was, and is, if the majority can abridge the rights of any minority (and gays are a minority of the population), then it can restrict or abolish the rights of all minorities. Why not? Where is the line in the cement? Like the NRA will tell you, if you let them take away some guns now, they will take away everybodys' guns later. Substitute rights for guns and you got the picture. Anyone who knows US history (or has lived it) can tell you how it was before that arrogant "18-20%" forced their views on the rest.

BTW, your arithmetic is somewhat amiss re prop 8, where it was 48% "pushing their views" on 52%. And that margin is rapidly inverting as more open-minded younger voters come along (it's the schools, you know) and older ones with less flexible attitudes leave the scene. Heavens, the mixed-race/ethnicity couples that pass by my front window hourly would have given the old timers I grew up with total apoplexy.

"First of all, interracial marriage was legal in all but a few states since shortly after the Civil War."

Wrong. Here's a list: Web Link

Hi Paul...

--> You wrote: "This is the web. Everything anybody says about themselves is open to question. How can I tell if I'm addressing a real person or someone's avatar du jour? And do bear in mind that all of us have ethnicity, etc."

Then if you feel audacious enough to question my ethnicity, at least do me the favor to NOT STEREOTYPE my ethnic experiences.

By the way, no one is "taking away" rights (except a judge who took away the voice of the majority of voters). Homosexual couples already enjoy the same legal contractual rights as traditional married couples. Rather, this entire case was about a DEFINITION. This judge claimed that the definition of "marriage" was federally "unconstitutional" -- something that is absolutely incorrect. States have the Constitutional right to set their own definitions for words.

As for your arithmetic, it doesn't matter whether or not the vote was 48-52% (this time) or 62-38% (the last time) -- the point is the democracy had spoken. The last vote came at the best possible moment for opponents of Prop 8 (during a presidential election for an extremely popular candidate following an extremely unpopular president). I have a strong suspicion that it wouldn't be nearly as close the next time.

Still, the bottom line is that this one judge (who had a vested self interest) had NO GROUND for his decision.

:-\

Hi again Paul...

--> You wrote: "Wrong. Here's a list: Web Link "

Even this Wikipedia link that you shared shows that ELEVEN northern states permitted interracial marriage BEFORE the Civil War.

States with NO anti-miscegenation laws: New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

States where anti-miscegenation laws were repealed before 1861: Iowa, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

So, yes, these eleven states had no anti-miscegenation laws (or had already repealed them) before the Civil War.

Still, I am disappointed that you want to compare a racial or ethnic minority group with a group that identifies themselves by a sexual desire. Moreover, this is not about one group being denied ANYTHING. Homosexual couples enjoy the same contractual rights under the definition of "civil unions" because their union is not defined as a "marriage" under the longtime "husband and wife" prescription of the term.

Nayeli, the reason why you've never seen opposition to interracial marriage in California is because you're lucky to live at a time where American society has already undergone the civil rights movement and has come to accept that people of all races are all entitled to protection of their civil rights.

This was not always (to use your word) the case. Slavery, Jim Crow, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the internment of Japanese Americans are all examples where our legal system mandated discrimination and mistreatment of non-white Americans. We are all lucky to live in a time where these horrible things are not imaginable. Unfortunately, people like you still seem to think that prejudice against and inferior legal standing for gays is somehow acceptable.

As a racial minority, I have experienced intolerance first-hand here in the land of my birth. This experience has shown me how ugly discrimination is and how important it is that our government not inflict it on any group, whether it be African Americans, Asians, Latinos, or gays. I'm sorry you haven't learned the same thing in your experiences as a minority and as a woman.

It's particularly sad that you use Christianity as justification for stripping gay people of their rights. I thought Christianity was a loving, accepting, tolerant religion. I guess your version of it isn't. You know, God was once used an excuse to burn crosses on black people's lawns and massacre children during the Crusades. You're part of a long historical tradition of some misguided Christians who use their religion to excuse the worst forms of intolerance.

"Even this Wikipedia link that you shared shows that ELEVEN northern states permitted interracial marriage BEFORE the Civil War."

Please try to get something right. First, the link is: Web Link . It shows that, of the 27 states (excluding territories) that had enacted anti-interracial marriage laws before the Civil War, just 4 had repealed them before the war. Only 7 more repealed their laws "shortly after the Civil War," by 1888, debunking your claim that "interracial marriage was legal in all but a few states since shortly after the Civil War." Then none were repealed until 1948, while 4 more were enacted during that period. The last 16 laws were repealed by "activist" judges in 1967. How many million opinions did they nullify?

Altogether, 41 of 50 states enacted interracial marriage prohibitions. These laws reflected the majority bigotry of their times. There is no reason why parallel anti-gay bigotry should be tolerated today.

"I am disappointed that you want to compare a racial or ethnic minority group with a group that identifies themselves by a sexual desire."

But sexual desire is what this is all about, isn't it? You claim the majority of sexual desirers should receive preferential treatment over the minority of sexual desirers. Exactly as the majority ethnic/racial group once thought it was due preferential treatment over minority ethnic/racial groups. Many majorityites still think that way, BTW. Watch your back.

Liberal activism won you your civil rights as an hispanic. I am therefore deeply disappointed by your "I got mine, bleep them gays" attitude. But that too is your right. For now, anyway. As I said earlier, restricting the rights of one group can backfire big time.

Hi Adobe...

Please don't mistake a set of principles as "intolerance." Christianity speaks about a lot of other things -- such as premarital sex, drunkenness, etc... Of course, most of those who practice such things don't march against Christianity and ridicule it (or the central deity) of the faith. It just seems like there is a great hypocrisy within a certain group that is defined by their sexual desire or activity who choose to ATTACK the sacred faith of others. Such hypocrisy is the ugliest form of bigotry.

"Tolerance" isn't really "tolerance" when you only tolerate yourselves and those who agree with you.

:-\

Hi again Paul,

Again, you continue to misunderstand the principle behind what I am saying. This was a SINGLE judge who declared a DEFINITION to be federally unconstitutional.

I guess that I can SUE the government because they didn't allow me to identify myself as a MAN in the last census. Wait a minute! I would like to redefine what it means to be a MAN. Maybe I can sue because of the archaic definition of "Asian." Maybe I can be Asian too?

Hmmm...

Paul,

There were 11 states that permitted interracial marriage BEFORE the Civil War. That was more than half of the existing states in the Union (not counting those that attempted to secede).

But, again, I don't want the subject to be changed by comparing interracial marriage and homosexual unions. Interracial marriage, by definition, was STILL "marriage" -- the legally defined union of a husband and a wife.

:-)

If same sex marriage were legal it would have massive negative impact upon 98% of citizens'
1/ Rights of freedom of religious practice.

2/Rights of free speech.

3rd graders in public schools would be forced to learn about and approve of sexual and marital practices that go against their parents religious beliefs and values, therefore it would also harm parent child relationships and harm parents rights.

There are multiple examples of this in Europe and Canada.

The gay activists destroyed the ECUSA and divided the Anglican Communion world wide

Why do the gay activists attack established religious faith so viciously?--- if they wanted an accepting faith they could have joined the Unitarians--- but instead they want to spread discord in families and faiths.

The analogy with the Black Civil Rights movement has been completely rejected by the Black community and voters overwhelmingly, 80% of Blacks voted against same sex marriage..and they are outraged that middle class privileged White gay activists would twist history, while ignoring the plight of the Black gay/bi-sexual community--50% of whom have HIV/AIDS

Obama, Biden, Clinton and Elton John all oppose same sex marriage--they support domestic partnerships--- as do the Prop 8 supporters

Enough is Enough---

President Obama himself opposes same sex marriage.

"This was a SINGLE judge who declared a DEFINITION to be federally unconstitutional."

So what? Single judges can do that under the law, as can married ones.

"I guess that I can SUE the government because they didn't allow me to identify myself as a MAN in the last census."

I don't know why you'd want to sue, but I know a doctor who can help.

"3rd graders in public schools would be forced to learn about and approve of sexual and marital practices that go against their parents religious beliefs and values, therefore it would also harm parent child relationships and harm parents rights."

It gets worse. In science class they teach kids that flowers are plant sex organs.

"Why do the gay activists attack established religious faith so viciously?"

I've never heard of gays attacking a church half as viciously as some churches attack gays. Apropos, splitoffs from the Anglican Church attached themselves to a church in Uganda, where it is a felony to even be gay and could become a capital offense. How much more viciously can a religious faith attack?

I still don't get it - If the laws limiting ALL men restricting acceptable partners to women, how can it be said to be discriminatory? If it is discriminatory to notice the difference between men and women, then the practice of medicine has a problem.

@paul
you find the whole thing a joke--very well

In the conversations after worship outside Mosques on Friday, outside Synagogues on Saturday and outside Churches on Sunday-- across America--there was outrage that a single judge with a conflict of interest who had tried to intimidated people of Faith by his actions-- broadcasting the trial, by his opinions--- rejecting thousands of years of religious faith as bigoted, irrelevant and trying to replace it with a hedonistic, gender is mailable, ends justify the means pseudo legal argument based upon opinion rather than facts.
The backlash to his self serving judgment will be permanent, pervasive and overwhelming.
Bad decision and bad outcome.
Again Obama and all his cabinet all oppose same sex marriage.

"you find the whole thing a joke--very well"

Aw c'mon, I was grooving with with your humor, like "The gay activists destroyed the ECUSA and divided the Anglican Communion world wide" or "If same sex marriage were legal it would have massive negative impact upon 98% of citizens' 1/ Rights of freedom of religious practice. 2/Rights of free speech." Slick stuff.

But I do not find it funny when part of the Anglican Church runs screaming from a gay bishop and ostentatiously allies itself with its counterpart in a country where it is a felony to even be gay and could become a capital offense. Where do you see the joke in that?

There is no joke

But when the next two waves of gay male plaques hit, which they will soon according to the CDC
1/ Resistant Aids viruses as the high risk behavior among male gays has not changed
2/ A plagues of drug resistant MSRA Web Link which is lethal and incubating in SF.

Last time, in the 1980s, the public health authorities surrendered to gay activists and did not implement quarantine, closing the bath houses etc--- we all know what the the result was--- 320,000+ dead and massive expenses to public health--the tax payers.
When the new 2 plagues come, as they are predicted, the response will be much more rational and scientific.
Gay marriage grew out of an campaign to get employers to pay the health care costs of high risk behavior by gays and to get get tax benefits
Gays are alienating the vast majority of the population in supporting Walkers circus-- enough is enough--

It is that simple--

Uganda is in Africa-- how is that relevant to the concerns of American tax payers?

Posts keep saying "Marriage is NOT a right", pointing out that people need a license to get married.

So let's just stipulate that marriage is NOT a right. Maybe marriage is like driving or opening restaurant, neither of which is a constitutional right. So what?

Constitutional rights still apply to driving or opening a restaurant. Yes, you do not have a "right" to open a restaurant in the sense of a "right" to free speech. You need a license, and these activities are regulated. Not everybody has a right to drive, not anybody can go fishing in a county reservoir without a license, and you can't just open a restaurant without the appropriate permits and health inspections on an ongoing basis.

All true.

However, that doesn't mean we could make a law that black people can't get a driver's license. We can't make a law that Jews can't open a restaurant. Or women to own a business. And so on. These wouldn't pass muster on constitutional grounds. While it is true that the constitution doesn't mention freedom to drive or freedom to run a restaurant, the rights we all have mean that we can't pick some group without good reason and outlaw just "them" doing these things. In our past history, however, some of these things have been impossible or difficult for certain "groups" of people.

We can make rational distinctions such as a state law that you have to be 16 years old to obtain a driver's license. But that applies to ALL people in the state -- white, black, asian, gay, bisexual, jewish, catholic, whatever. If you made a law that women can't drive -- well, that won't hold water either.

I think what the people who are against gay marriage are saying is that discriminating against gay people isn't like discriminating against black people. Or asians. Or hispanics. Or women. In fact, several of you have explicitly gotten angry and asked those of us making comparisons to civil rights and race to stop.

So you are saying discriminating against gay people is OK. In fact, you are saying that this is a rational distinction -- like not letting a 12 year old drive.

My sense is that many of us who disagree with you are saying that we think (as more of you try to block gay people from exercising a right that you take for granted) courts are going to be more favorable to the idea that you are wrong. There isn't a rational distinction. Regardless of how you rail about the recent court decision and the so-called "activist" judge, we see this as being the correct decision -- very much like court actions that brought black people the right to vote.

You are angry when you are called on this point, and you insist that it isn't the same thing -- that YOU are being discriminated against for not being able to prevent gay people from getting married.

In the end, even if I agree with you that marriage isn't a right, my reaction is again -- so what? You still can't tell people who are old enough (but happen to be gay) that they can't obtain a driver's license. And you shouldn't have the ability to tell them because they are gay that they can't get a marriage license either.

The American Bar Association says same-sex marriage should be legal. Web Link

Yes, Walter, I also wonder about this. No one asks if you are gay when applying for a marriage license; hence there is no discrimination. Interracial marriage laws required a statement of race which allowed for discrimination.

Sharon,

If AIDs is your fear, monogamy is your friend.
Marriage is a good thing in the war against AIDs.

Since we are discussing the similarities between drivers licenses, restaurant licenses and marriage licenses, of course we can say that anyone can apply for each.

For a drivers license, anyone can drive if they have the necessary faculties and skills. But they can't get a drivers license and drive on the left side of the road. They can't get a drivers license for a car and then drive a bus or even fly a plane.

For a restaurant license once again, we can stipulate that the applicant will provide food suitable for people to eat. In other words, regardless of the type of cuisine, we still have expectations that the food should be prepared to a certain standard. Also, a restaurant is a place which serves food, not a place which serves ingredients for you to cook yourself, or for you to sleep overnight. In otherwords, we know what the word restaurant means, and if someone wants a license for a restaurant that is what is expected to be there, not a hotel, or a grocery store. We have other words for those.

Likewise, marriage is something that we also regulate. Anyone can get married provided they are not already married to someone else, over the age of consent, but there are certain people they cannot marry. They cannot marry a close relative, they cannot marry someone under age or someone who is already married, for example. They should also be marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Regardless of what the law calls it, a marriage is between one man and one woman. The law can call it marriage, but it will never be a marriage in the true sense of the word. Although it can be argued that marriage is for the procreation of children, it is much more than that. Marriage is the coupling of two human bodies which are designed for physical interconnection. The male and female bodies are designed for coupling in a unique manner which two male bodies and two female bodies are not designed to do. The sex act, although it is designed for procreation, is a joining of human bodies. In fact, we go as far as to say that a marriage which has not been consummated can be nullified.

There is a saying that the law is an ass. By allowing same sex marriage, we are belittling the law. A two year child knows that a married couple means a husband and wife. Call the legalization of same sex coupling in terms of the law a civil union, a domestic partnership, spousal arrangement or anything you like other than using the term "marriage".

Keep the traditional values of marriage, keep the traditional names, allow all the "rights" but give them a new name for a new legal arrangement. Keep the marriage license for husband and wife, bride and groom and give us the dignity of not using party A and party B.

This is not a case of being anti-gay. It is a case of allowing us to continue to use the traditional terms we have used for centuries, to understand our language to mean what it has always meant, and to start a new lawful arrangement to have a new name. This would be fair to all.

"Last time, in the 1980s, the public health authorities surrendered to gay activists and did not implement quarantine, closing the bath houses etc--- we all know what the the result was--- 320,000+ dead and massive expenses to public health--the tax payers ... Gay marriage grew out of an campaign to get employers to pay the health care costs of high risk behavior by gays and to get get tax benefits"

Gee, Sharon, what global chicanery are "gay activists" NOT responsible for? You don't suppose they faked all those temperature records and tree rings and glacier layering and that other evidence of global warming for their secret purposes, do you? Like any global conspiracy, they are all powerful, and we can only surmise their motives.

"When the new 2 plagues come, as they are predicted, the response will be much more rational and scientific"

We can hope that reason and science supplant the anti-gay hysteria that accompanies AIDS, but your postings don't give much hope.

"Uganda is in Africa-- how is that relevant to the concerns of American tax payers?"

Now how did this nifty little conspiracy get by you? Maybe because it's a real one? Certain homophobic American Anglican churches joined themselves to homophobic Ugandan bishops. Therefore, not only are American Christians subjugating themselves to foreign potentates, but as churches they pay no taxes. They send dues money to Uganda, which is in Africa. That means US and state governments are effectively subsidizing unaccountable foreign interests at American taxpayers expense.

Sharon is once again repeating factoid and unsubstantiated comments:

"If same sex marriage were legal it would have massive negative impact upon 98% of citizens'
1/ Rights of freedom of religious practice.
2/Rights of free speech."

First of all her numbers are wrong--we have addressed that before, but these bogus are repeated over and over again. The above comment first of all assumes that all heterosexuals oppose gay marriage. Also, Sharon does not provide any proof of how these rights will be impacted negatively--she just throws out the comment without any proof.

"3rd graders in public schools would be forced to learn about and approve of sexual and marital practices that go against their parents religious beliefs and values, therefore it would also harm parent child relationships and harm parents rights."

These are the same bogus scare tactics that were heard during the campaign. This is a vile attempt to cast gay people in a negative light. People should know better.

"The gay activists destroyed the ECUSA and divided the Anglican Communion world wide"
This is another bogus vilification of gay people. Some people on this forum feel that it is okay to demonize gay people--shame on them

"Why do the gay activists attack established religious faith so viciously?--- if they wanted an accepting faith they could have joined the Unitarians--- but instead they want to spread discord in families and faiths."
Another vile, unsubstantiated claim thrown out to cast gay people in a bad light. SOme people know no boundary in their hatred of people that are different than others.

"The analogy with the Black Civil Rights movement has been completely rejected by the Black community and voters overwhelmingly, 80% of Blacks voted against same sex marriage..and they are outraged that middle class privileged White gay activists would twist history, while ignoring the plight of the Black gay/bi-sexual community--50% of whom have HIV/AIDS"
Another bogus claim. There is only one person twisting history and it is Sharon.

"Obama, Biden, Clinton and Elton John all oppose same sex marriage--they support domestic partnerships--- as do the Prop 8 supporters"
We have heard this over an dover again--totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. But keep on repeating it if it makes some people feel good about their vilification of gay people.

"In the conversations after worship outside Mosques on Friday, outside Synagogues on Saturday and outside Churches on Sunday-- across America--there was outrage that a single judge with a conflict of interest who had tried to intimidated people of Faith by his actions-- broadcasting the trial, by his opinions--- rejecting thousands of years of religious faith as bigoted, irrelevant and trying to replace it with a hedonistic, gender is mailable, ends justify the means pseudo legal argument based upon opinion rather than facts."
I wonder how Sharon knows exactly what the conversation were outside all of these places of worship. At best, her comments are a gross exaggeration--making it sound like every heterosexual is against gay marriage. I wonder if Sharon even read the opinion Walker rendered--I doubt it. There is not an iota of fact in any of the above comments.

"But when the next two waves of gay male plaques hit, which they will soon according to the CDC
1/ Resistant Aids viruses as the high risk behavior among male gays has not changed
2/ A plagues of drug resistant MSRA Web Link which is lethal and incubating in SF."
The AIDS issue is a red herring that SHaron has injected into this conversation. It has no relevance whatsoever to the topic of gay marriage. It seems that Sharon is using it in another attempt to vilify gay people.

In all of Sharon's postings I have yet to hear a single example of how her life would be affected by having gay couples marry. Instead we have read a steady stream of innuendo, factoids, lies and vilification of Judge Walker, the anti-prop. 8 lawyers and gay people.

Who killed more "Gays", religious fanatics or ACT UP?

In addition to my previous post, let me add that disagreeing with another person means I disagree with them, not hate them.

Some people love classical music and others love jazz. They can discuss their passions and why they think their love is better than the other. They can respect each other's opinion but hate never comes into it. Why should it be assumed that those who disagree with those who are against gay marriage hate gays. It is an intellectual disagreement with the fundamentals, not an act of hatred. I like to feel that all people are valued and equal. But just as men should not be in women's restrooms and vice versa, a gay legal gay union should not be called marriage but something else.

Marriage is not a religious rite. Many weddings take place in churches and many take place in other places. Many weddings are officiated by a religious personage, but many are not. Many weddings include the words "in the sight of God" and many do not. These weddings are all equally valid. Many weddings include the vows to "love, honor and cherish", but no mention made of tax situation, visitation rights or any other changes in the lawful status of the married individuals. So marriage is not a religious institution but a wedding may or may not be.

Marriage is not a right, but a wedding is a rite.

I think the legal ability of two people to be considered a couple for tax purposes should be allowed. How about two elderly widows setting up a home together, not for sexual reasons but for companionship, peace of mind and financial security reasons? How about a single person moving in with a parent for various reasons? How about an elderly brother and sister doing the same? These are all possible reasons for two individuals to want to live together without being considered a married couple.

We all know the definition of the word marriage. It has been defined in dictionaries and gives an immediate meaning when the word is used. If we want to establish a new law for a different situation, then we should use a new or different word. Civil union, domestic partnership and spousal binding are all terms that would cover a new law. Why mess with something that has worked satisfactorily.

"Who killed more "Gays", religious fanatics or ACT UP?"

Obviously religious fanatics. They've got a huge head start: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 Then, to drive the point home: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

But I admit the records are spotty - quotidian executions are seldom recorded in stone for the ages, and many religious fanatics were illiterate anyway. However, ACT UP is a very recent enterprise and its members can write. Perhaps you have their box score on hand?

BTW, I notice your quotes around the word Gays. It's the first step back from the PC that has even the truest of true believers on this thread cowed.

"Who killed more "Gays", religious fanatics or ACT UP?"

Maybe you should re-phrase the question--who killed more HIV+ people--religious fanatics, ACT UP or Ronald Reagen?

ACT UP fought against using proven means of contact reporting of STDs, in effect giving a virus civil rights. It is estimated that half the AIDS deaths were attributed to non cooperation with public health measures and reopening bath houses. If you object to my putting "Gays" in quotes, perhaps you can get one of your flunky judges to enjoin me. "You" got away with hijacking a traditionally defined word for your own, just as "you" are trying to steal marriage. What next? Lincoln was reputed to have asked "If you all a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does he have?" Someone answered five, Lincoln responded "Nope, it's still four - calling a tail a leg don't make it one." AS for blaming Reagan, elucidate.

"If you object to my putting "Gays" in quotes, perhaps you can get one of your flunky judges to enjoin me"
My, my my. The judge rules against walter and all of sudden he is a "flunky". Clearly Walter only respects judicial decisions that he agrees with.

""You" got away with hijacking a traditionally defined word for your own, just as "you" are trying to steal marriage"
No one is trying to "steal" marriage. As others have pointed out the concept of marriage has evolved over the years.

"AS for blaming Reagan, elucidate."
Web Link
Web Link
(The administration undercut federal efforts to confront AIDS in a meaningful way by refusing to spend the money Congress allocated for AIDS research. In the critical years of 1984 and 1985, according to his White House physician, Reagan thought of AIDS as though "it was measles and it would go away." Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon claims that the president's response to AIDS was "halting and ineffective.")

For someone who seems to know it all (or thinks he does) i find your selective memory vis a vis Reagen and HIV revealing

Wny is Walter such a bitter person?

"It is estimated that half the AIDS deaths were attributed to ..."

Ah, yes. The usual data-free innuendo.

"If you object to my putting "Gays" in quotes, perhaps you can get one of your flunky judges to enjoin me."

Actually, I was remarking on your remarkable, if timid, emergence from PC. For the record, you can call a "tail" a "leg" or a "spade" a "spade" all you want for all I care. The latter can be hazardous in some situations, but, hey, free speech is a right. Ask any judge.

Hi Paul...

It is about a DEFINITION. The judge incorrectly thinks that the FEDERAL Constitution doesn't allow states to determine the definition of "marriage" because it isn't inclusive of same sex couples.

What is next?

Will a state's definition of "marriage" be declared unconstitutional because it doesn't include consensual polygamists and consensual incestuous relationships? Next, will a state's definition of what constitutes a "man" be declared "unconstitutional" because it excludes women who believe that they are men in their minds?

Homosexuals have the SAME RIGHTS to a legal same-sex union. It just isn't designated as a "marriage" under the traditional definition of "a legal consensual union between a husband and a wife."

I will readily admit that homosexuality conflicts with the moral, cultural, religious and traditional beliefs of MILLIONS of California residents. However, no one should "persecute" homosexuals. No one should throw rocks. No human being deserves to be mocked and ridiculed for a belief. Likewise, a person who holds sacred or moral beliefs that are contrary to homosexuality should not face scorn or ridicule for their faith or beliefs (or even for sharing it).

Rather, many California voters simply do not want a group that is identified solely by sexual desire or sexual practice to FORCE the state to change traditional definition of marriage just so that it will include them. After all, homosexual couples have the SAME RIGHTS via a legal contract -- a civil union -- of which traditional "husband and wife" couples can not legally enter.

"Straw man" arguments change the subject from a disagreement with the definition into a debate about legal homosexual acceptance (enforced, rejected or quietly coerced).

Ultimately, this issue boiled down to whether a single judge -- who had a vested self interest in the outcome of this case -- had the power to rule against a longstanding legal definition of "marriage" that has been agreed upon since the founding of the State of California and reaffirmed (TWICE) by the majority of California voters was "unconstitutional" even though the federal Constitution makes no mention of "marriage."

Like I said, there will be an outcry at the voting booth. This will undoubtedly empower some voters to show up to the voting booth on November 5th who might not have been inspired by a previous reason. I imagine that this case will go to the Supreme Court and the majority will remand this back to the power of the people in the State.

"Ultimately, this issue boiled down to whether a single judge -- who had a vested self interest in the outcome of this case -- had the power to rule against a longstanding legal definition of "marriage" that has been agreed upon since the founding of the State of California and reaffirmed (TWICE) by the majority of California voters was "unconstitutional" even though the federal Constitution makes no mention of "marriage." "
Please explain and provide proof that the judge "had a vested self interest" in the outcome. Because he was gay? where have we heard that before. If a straight judge had decided in favor of prop. 8 he would done so because he had a vested self interest?
Reaffirming something by the voters does not make it constitutional. California has been down this road before with majorities voting in favor of measures that did not pass the test.

LOL! I know that this will make some people livid, but...

With all of this talk about Reagan -- I wish to God that Ronald Reagan were our governor today! Maybe we wouldn't have so many TAXES, FEES and TOLLS weighing so heavily on the backs of our families!

California has the HIGHEST taxes per capita in the nation! This doesn't even bring into account the FEES and TOLLS either. It seems like our legislators in Sacramento can't figure out that we shouldn't SPEND SO MUCH when so many people are hurting financially. Raising taxes (again...and again...and...) and fees shouldn't be an option -- especially when businesses need a reason to put more Americans back to work.

People are leaving California. In fact, California might lose a Congressional seat or two as a result of the last census. In fact, there are several "blue states" that are poised to lose seats (and electoral votes). Low tax (and mostly "red") states are poised to pick up 12-14 congressional seats and electoral votes.

We need to lower taxes, folks. OR, in the very least, we need to STOP SPENDING SO MUCH! Otherwise, our $20+ Billion deficit will grow even larger with the loss of tax revenue from people fleeing to states with less-intrusive government, lower taxes, no state income tax and a lower cost of living.

The great weather and beautiful scenery won't keep people living here if they have to work harder for less money.

Hi The Real Sharon,

--> You wrote: "Please explain and provide proof that the judge "had a vested self interest" in the outcome."

Yes. I wouldn't want an environmental activist deciding whether or not "cap and trade" policies are constitutional either. An outgoing advocate of environmental causes certainly has a right to an opinion -- but there is an appearance of bias if he/she were to decide a case of which would actually affect the judge himself/herself.

--> You wrote: "Reaffirming something by the voters does not make it constitutional."

And a single judge making a decision that declares a state constitutional amendment federally "unconstitutional" does not make it right either -- especially when this deals with the wording of a "definition."

"Yes. I wouldn't want an environmental activist deciding whether or not "cap and trade" policies are constitutional either. An outgoing advocate of environmental causes certainly has a right to an opinion -- but there is an appearance of bias if he/she were to decide a case of which would actually affect the judge himself/herself."

If you are claiming bias by a judge, you need to provide some proof--not just say that he is gay and therefore he is biased. By your argument the only decision that the Supreme Court could make would be to uphold his decision, since the majority of justices are heterosexual, for them to rule in favor of Prop 8 would be the appearance of bias.

"And a single judge making a decision that declares a state constitutional amendment federally "unconstitutional" does not make it right either -- especially when this deals with the wording of a "definition." "
Well, that is why we have our court system setup the way it is--his decision will be reviewed by the circuit court and may make it to the Supreme Court. You could argue decisions by all judges and claim that they are not "right".

"Will a state's definition of "marriage" be declared unconstitutional because it doesn't include consensual polygamists and consensual incestuous relationships?

Probably only in a strict theocracy. The Bible sanctions polygamous marriage, at least the one man, many women variety. See my earlier post. Incest at the brother-sister level occasionally occurred in royal marriages, but I have no idea what the level of consent was. It depends on mores, which, as I pointed out in other earlier posts, do change.

"Next, will a state's definition of what constitutes a "man" be declared "unconstitutional" because it excludes women who believe that they are men in their minds?"

This is your second reference to this topic, Nayelio. I'm sure your local LBGT community would be glad to help advise you. You'll see that liberalism offers many benefits.

Oops, that's LGBT. Sorry for the typo.

AIDS is a venereal disease. Reagan did not consider it as a political party nor a religion. You can be quarantined for Measles or Mumps, and yet ACT UP and others fought identifying AIDS victims. One solution, obviously good for the latex glove business, was to require medical folk to treat everyone as if they had AIDS. This raised the cost of all medical care. One surgeon at the frisco hospital was ridden out of town because of her "Space Suit" she wore when operating on an AIDS patient.
Any suggestion that I have ever been timid [except in the presence of pretty girls] or PC is an outrageous canard. [That's duck for you in Rio Linda]

Editors - what is the highest number of responses to a topic on this forum. I sense this is getting there.

"Any suggestion that I have ever been timid [except in the presence of pretty girls] or PC is an outrageous canard. [That's duck for you in Rio Linda]"

Or the winglets on a Vari-EZ or TU-144. But aren't we getting a bit wide of the topic with this?

Walter is correct, but underestimates the lethality of gay activist to their own kind.
Randy Shilts in his book " Yet the Band Plays On" documents how gay activist in SF and NY prevented the closing of gay bath houses and stopped other scientific public health measures like quarantine, tracing contacts, stopping blood donations by gays and prosecuting infected people who had sex with others.Shilts was a SF reporter, gay and died of AIDS.
The epidemic could have been stopped in its tracks if standard public health measures had been implemented in the 80s to stop transmission by the key vectors, homosexual men and IV drug users.

Holland has had same sex marriage for many years, it has not reduced the infection rates for HIV and other STDs, it has not reduced the level of promiscuity, drug abuse, suicide etc among male homosexuals in Holland.

Re Walker
In his ruling he stated

“the gender of a child’s parent is not a fact in a child’s adjustment,” “children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted,” and “the genetic relationship between a parent and a child is not related to a child’s adjustment outcomes”; “that the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant”; and “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

This last “fact” has been viewed by legal experts as an attempt to establish grounds eventually for declaring that Christian teaching about same-sex activity — and, with it, any opposition to same-sex activity — is in fact maleficent and needs to be constitutionally curbed. Web Link
The real agenda of the gay activists is to de-legitimize organized religions, promote the gay agenda in schools and stifle free speach and freedom of religious practice.
People of faith tolerate gays, they do not approve of gay behavior and they will not advocate it in schools
From a public health point of view the real danger is male homosexuals behavior-- not lesbians behavior.
The result of this activism by gays will be the regulation and enforcement of much stronger penalties for certain male gays behavior,
ie criminal penalties and quarantine for HIV+ people who have sex with others--- in the same way we prosecute and quarantine people who have drug resistant TB, Typhoid, leprosy and other communicative diseases--this is a public health issue-- not prejudice nor hatred--just common sense public health.
The CDC predict 2 new epidemics among male gays
1/ Drug resistant HIV
2/ Lethal and drug resistant MSRA Web Link

Paul...

No one is talking about a theocracy (although some view fanatical liberalism as almost a modern-day "religion" akin to state atheism in the Soviet Union).

This is about whether or not a judge has the power to declare a definition "unconstitutional." It is NOT about the various views on homosexuality that we ALL have a right to hold and share.

The greater question: Does a judge have the power to overturn a state constitutional amendment that reaffirms the traditional definition of marriage simply because a certain group (defined by their sexual desires or practices) doesn't fit into that definition -- but still enjoy the SAME legal rights and protections via civil unions?

Next up will be litigation by polygamists and the rest of the LGBT activists.
If gays could marry why cannot bisexuals have 2 spouses?

Walker dismissed the whole concept of domestic partnership as irrelevant and demeaning --- ok lets scrape them in all States and start from scratch--end them until the SCOTUS and then the US Senate deals with this matter.
This reminds us of the phrase-- give them enough rope---

The public health issues need to be front and central and discussed in public.
As do the religious freedom and freedom of speech issues in this matter.

Why do people keep saying things like THIS "still enjoy the SAME legal rights and protections via civil unions" as Nayeli did in a post above? She isn't the only one to have said this.

It isn't true. The differences are enormous.

Civil unions aren't fully respected across all states.

With Civil Unions, couples aren't provided partner Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of their partner, as well as benefits for minor children.

They don't get Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member.

They aren't covered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to Leave a pension (other than Social Security) to their partner.

They don't get exemptions on many areas covered for married couples including exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies, exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance.

Most cruel to many, until President Obama put pressure on hospitals to change it, until extremely recently they had no guarantee that they could visit a sick or injured loved one, and have decision-making authority in their treatment.

Don't claim things about civil unions that aren't true. Now, maybe civil unions could be changed (which would require action at a Federal level) to guarantee all of these things, but that isn't the case now.

Walker-- a federal judge dismissed civil unions as irrelevant--OK-- The SCOTUS should end them now as should the Senate until they have considered the interests of all citizens-- that will take many years

The lawyers in this case just want fame and fortune, they do not care about the outcome--they just want to be on stage.

Ed

If what you say is true, and I am no expert, then you and others should be protesting to get these things covered by civil unions. You would then get more respect and more support from those of us who oppose gay marriage.

At present, you are protesting for something that just upsets people. Protesting for the rights and privileges that civil unions do not already have make a lot more sense. I for one would be glad to see civil unions give all the above and more if necessary but please leave us the word marriage to stand for what it presently stands.

After all, wouldn't you rather have less angst and more support? Or is it the battle that is more fun than the actual cause?

Paul, a man has the right to defend against accusations, and you must admit I do it elegantly.

Agreed, make licensed civil unions equal to licensed marriages in almost all things, and I will support it 200%.

I object to the unintended consequences of loss of freedom of association and freedom to practice one's religion as one wishes in using the legal term "marriage" for anything other than one man, one woman, in a legal state.

"Holland has had same sex marriage for many years, it has not reduced the infection rates for HIV and other STDs, it has not reduced the level of promiscuity, drug abuse, suicide etc among male homosexuals in Holland."
Sharon continues to argue about HIV--this is a red herring, irrelevant to the discussion of the Pop 8 decision. As we know HIV can strike heterosexuals as well, so it is clearly not an issue that is related to gay marriage.
Naturally, Sharon does not provide any proof to back up her claim regarding Holland--Sharon's post are long on conjecture and innuendo but lack any solid proof. But again I point out--this is not relevant to the Prop 8 issue.

"This last “fact” has been viewed by legal experts as an attempt to establish grounds eventually for declaring that Christian teaching about same-sex activity — and, with it, any opposition to same-sex activity — is in fact maleficent and needs to be constitutionally curbed. Web Link"
Would Sharon care to provide the names of who these legal experts are. I see that she posted a link to a website from a catholic clergyman--should the catholic clergy be preaching to us about morals, considering the state of their house?

"The real agenda of the gay activists is to de-legitimize organized religions, promote the gay agenda in schools and stifle free speach and freedom of religious practice."
wow, where did this come from? Any proof for any of these wild claims?
Who are these gay activists that Sharon rants on and on about? I think you will find that the gay activists want to live normal lives just like hetero people do--they have the same issues to deal with and the same problems. There is no "agenda" as Sharon describes.

"The CDC predict 2 new epidemics among male gays
1/ Drug resistant HIV
2/ Lethal and drug resistant MSRA Web Link "
We hear this claim on a daily basis from Sharon, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. As others have pointed out--marriage for gays will lead to stable relationships. Not sure why Sharon keeps on bandying about the HIV issue--sounds like the old scare tactic from years ago when HIV appeared on the scene and gay people where stigmatized--this tactic is not new--avoid the real issue and attack the people who support it with innuendo, factoids and distortions.

"Next up will be litigation by polygamists and the rest of the LGBT activists.
If gays could marry why cannot bisexuals have 2 spouses? "
This is complete garbage. There is so such litigation. Sharon is comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about marriage between a single man/woman and another man/woman. The issue of multiple spouses is irrelevant. Polygamists could have gone to court long ago and claimed they had the right to marry multiple spouses--gay marriage has nothing to do with this. Red Herring alert!!!

"Walker dismissed the whole concept of domestic partnership as irrelevant and demeaning --- ok lets scrape them in all States and start from scratch--end them until the SCOTUS and then the US Senate deals with this matter."
No he did not. But don;t let that stop Sharon from attacking Judge Walker. One of the problems with domestic partnerships is that they are not recognized from state to state as marriage is.

"The public health issues need to be front and central and discussed in public.
As do the religious freedom and freedom of speech issues in this matter."
The public health issue is irrelevant to the gay marriage discussion and Sharon has yet to show us how it is relevant, besides tossing out claims about HIV and health crisis.
There are no religious freedom and freedom of speech issues in this matter. Sharon has constantly brought this red herring up without providing an iota of proof that this is an issue. Nor has she shown how people's religious freedoms and freedom of speech has been impacted by allowing gays to marry. Furthermore, despite numerous requests Sharon has not told us how she, personally, will be affected by this decision--after all, she appears to be up in arms over this, so we would like to hear how her religious freedom and freedom of speech have been impacted by the decision. Considering how often SHaron has brought this red herring up without providing any proof, I have to conclude that me thinks the lady doesth protest too much

"The lawyers in this case just want fame and fortune, they do not care about the outcome--they just want to be on stage."
Once again Sharon goes after the lawyers in the case who opposed Prop 8. Does she provide any proof for her assertion? No. I think people can draw their own conclusions about the above claim

"Does a judge have the power to overturn a state constitutional amendment that reaffirms the traditional definition of marriage simply because a certain group (defined by their sexual desires or practices) doesn't fit into that definition..."

Judges are severely handicapped - they have to work within the law; they cannot "just do what feels good now" to a small and rapidly shrinking majority.

Your comment illustrates how completely roles reverse over time. Do you remember when conservatives were all for "law and order" and liberal hippies were like "do your own thing"? That's totally flipped.

"No one is talking about a theocracy (although some view fanatical liberalism as almost a modern-day "religion" akin to state atheism in the Soviet Union)."

Read again. I was talking about theocracy. I believe the USSR would be called an atheocracy.

"Paul, a man has the right to defend against accusations, and you must admit I do it elegantly."

Fair 'nuff. Now try for "effectively."

Naw, Paul, elegance is more fun. Effectiveness requires receptiveness, and most who oppose me are confirmed in their misunderstanding. My primary reason for foruming is to let rational readers know they are not alone.

I'll go with effective. A rapier is elegant, but it's not very effective against modern weapons like firearms.

I'll agree your postings are very effective at showing rational readers this forum can be a lonely place. But that's fine. I'm surrounded by stubbornly rational people in the real world and I appreciate these occasional breaks. So stick around, good buddy.

So rational people believe that bypassing the legislative system is the appropriate system of making laws? One man's epiphany rather then many folk resolving differences? Have a care - if the sizzle is more important than the steak you wind up with cardboard steak and electronic sizzle.

"So rational people believe that bypassing the legislative system is the appropriate system of making laws?"
That is a good start, Walter. I am glad that you realize that the people that put Prop 8 on the ballot are irrational

Proposition 8 was put on the ballot to challenge the arbitrary decision of Newsome and others to subvert the legislative process by executive fiat. If you cannot see the evil inherent in such manipulation then you slept through 1984. When the winds of anarchy sweep down all before it, where will you find shelter? What process will defend you? Remember, it is the culture that keeps you alive, so have a care before you dispense with its imperatives.

"Proposition 8 was put on the ballot to challenge the arbitrary decision of Newsome and others to subvert the legislative process by executive fiat. "
So it is okay to bypass the legislative system as a way to make laws, when you claim that someone is "subverting" the legislative process.
So, bottom line, anything that you agree with is okay. Same old, Walter. Let me know when the winds of anarchy start sweeping down.

"So it is okay to bypass the legislative system as a way to make laws, when you claim that someone is "subverting" the legislative process."
That is diametrically opposite to what I wrote, double Sharon. Pull yourself together.

"That is diametrically opposite to what I wrote, double Sharon. Pull yourself together."

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

So, If Newsome was guilty of subverting the legislative process then isn't making "law" by ballot measure also subverting the legislative process? Just answer the question without your faded reminiscing about the "good" old days.

The ballot measure is the way California makes law, and Newsome's act was knowingly against and contemptuous of the law as it stood.
What would you prefer, Miss Sharon, A law that granted every right BUT the right to call the union marriage, or a continuation of the strife from those who want to get even? I can guess your answer.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

"What would you prefer, Miss Sharon, A law that granted every right BUT the right to call the union marriage, or a continuation of the strife from those who want to get even? I can guess your answer."

Really, Walter are you psychic now? You can guess answers?
If said law was recognized without any exception in every state of the union, I would have no problem with it. Not sure how your mind considers the desire for everyone to be treated equally as a desire to "get even". But I will leave it to you to elaborate at a later date and I can guess your response.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

So funny to look at the weak arguments of thoise opposing equality in hindsight.

Like Sharon's "The analogy with the Black Civil Rights movement has been completely rejected by the Black community" So completely WRONG.

This week the NAACP voted to endorse equality as a civil rights issue and support gay marriage.

It was a close vote.

62-2

Yes, Sharon. Sixty two - two. Equality is a civil right.

As far as American support, it's a tidal wave: Web Link

A tidal wave, and to mix metaphors, the tide is still rising.

53%-39%

Almost 60% support in California and still rising.

So many of the anti-civil rights arguments above look so dated. Only two years ago. The times they are a' changin', and will continue further.

Sharon?

I do believe you read this by now... imagine if we got paid to go back and correct sharon's falsehoods and predictions.

We could name it the Sharon Full-Employemt-Act.

Equality is a civil right.

Nice catch, Eq is a CR!!