Gay Marriage vs. Democracy

Why the people of California should determine the definition of marriage

Steve Chapman | March 9, 2009

You can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar, the adage goes. But advocates of same-sex marriage have a deal for the citizens of California: all the vinegar they can drink.

Those citizens don't believe gays should be allowed to unite under the name of marriage. In 2000, more than 61 percent of voters supported a ballot measure barring such unions. That didn't mean the voters get their way. Last summer, the state Supreme Court struck the law down on the ground that it violated the California Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

But Californians were not content to let the court substitute its judgment for theirs. In November, they approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, with a 52 percent majority. If the constitution required recognition of same-sex marriage, the people decided, the constitution needed correcting.

That should have been the end of the legal battle and the beginning of a political one, where gay rights have excellent prospects. After all, they have made steady progress on the issue, expanding their support from 39 percent of voters to 48 percent in just eight years. Given the trend, their chances of persuading a majority in the next few years look good—if they were to focus on persuading the majority.

But this is a tedious and time-consuming task compared to trying to get the state Supreme Court to nullify the will of the people. So opponents of Proposition 8 chose the latter option after their defeat.

And for what end? Not so that gays can have the full package of rights and duties that go with the institution of matrimony. They already have those—insofar as the state of California can provide them—thanks to a domestic partnership law that duplicates everything about marriage except the name. This is not a fight over fundamental equality. It's a fight over nomenclature.

On Thursday, the fight went back to the Supreme Court in San Francisco, where state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown insisted that the people of California, who created the constitution, don't have the power to change it as they tried to do this time. He argued that it protects pre-existing inalienable rights, including the right to marry, and that an inalienable right "cannot be taken away by a popular vote."

But inalienable rights are empty concepts without legal protection—which in this case they enjoy only because of a constitution approved by the people. If those people had wanted to deny themselves the power to repeal rights protected by the state constitution, they could have included a provision to do that. They didn't.

Instead, they erred on the side of making it easy to amend their charter. Any limits on that power, beyond those imposed by the federal constitution, exist only in the mind of legal fantasists.

It was one thing to demand that the state Supreme Court overrule the will of the people once, and on a mere law. It's quite another to ask it to repudiate their verdict again, after they had decided to alter the constitution precisely to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court.

The justices apparently were not enchanted by the invitation. "We would like to hear from you why the court can willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the constitution," Justice Joyce Kennard told the lawyers urging the invalidation of Proposition 8.

Kennard, it should be noted, was among the justices who voted last year to legalize same-sex marriage. So did Chief Justice Ronald George, who Thursday suggested that the current method of amendment "is the system we have to live with until and unless it is changed."

The nice thing about the referendum option is that once gay-marriage supporters constitute a majority, they can promptly amend the constitution to their liking—as I hope they do. But it is hard to win voters to your side while telling them they have no legitimate say on the issue.

Like it or not, the California Constitution notes a basic truth in a democratic society: "All political power is inherent in the people." Advocates of same-sex marriage might do better by treating those people not as opponents to be defeated but as allies to be won.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Comments

somegay|3.9.09 @ 7:35AM|#

Yes, because our rights - as much as anyone else's - are subject to the will of the people. If the majority decree it, then I shall have no rights. And even though I know I'm right, I guess I'll just have to wait for everyone else to figure that out too.

Some Guy|3.9.09 @ 7:40AM|#

We'd live in a pretty scary country if we based everything on what "the majority of the people" wanted.

|3.9.09 @ 8:14AM|#

The people of California have exercised their Constitutional rights and that legal exercise has been sundered by the elitist courts. What does their Constitution say about removal of their Supreme Court justices? In contravention to original intent of the US Constitution's article allowing removal of justices for the "mere" failure to uphold the Constitution, we know that such removal grounds have been limited to the commission of actual crimes. I wonder if the Cal. Cts. nullifications serve a s a basis to remove them.

ed|3.9.09 @ 8:19AM|#

It sucks when your minority gang loses but it's great when your majority gang wins. The victors of many such contests have expressed no qualms about majority rule, even when it took away the rights of the losers, because the winners were so certain of their righteousness. But when those winners eventually lose a battle, they conveniently dismiss the concept. Hypocrisy travels hand in hand with democracy.

Ben|3.9.09 @ 9:01AM|#

Good grief.

1) The US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic.

2) From the US constitution, article IV, section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

3) The constitution (US) is designed to protect the rights of the people. Not the heterosexual people or the Christian people, just, "the people."

4) The reason for the above is, as many much brighter than you have noted, is that straight Democracy can be quite accurately likened to two wolves and a sheep deciding upon the dinner menu. Myself, I characterize the key problem with it as "any two unqualified people having the power to outvote the qualified, in an environment where qualified people are a rare commodity."

5) Your general argument, that "the majority wantz it, so they should getz it" fails when what they want is atrocious: For instance, if the majority wants to march Jews into the oven, then that's not going to fly. Because it violates the rights of some of the people, you see.

6) Your specific argument, that is, that any non-hetero community can be marched into the oven of no marriage rights, is just as unacceptable and for the same reasons in principle.

Having said all that, both the supreme court of California and the people of California seem to be singularly poorly educated and informed. No doubt they will do the wrong thing, just as the author of this article has come to the wrong conclusion.

Gilbert Martin|3.9.09 @ 9:13AM|#

"3) The constitution (US) is designed to protect the rights of the people. Not the heterosexual people or the Christian people, just, "the people."

The Constitution was designed to limit the power of the federal government.

As to the rights of the people, unless you can show that there is any language in there that would have been understood by those ratifying the Constitution at the time they did it to guarantee a "right" to gay marriange, then such a "right" is not guaranteed by that document.

Not everything on earth is a "right" just because you want it to be.

KipEsquire|3.9.09 @ 9:13AM|#

Once again we are all left scratching our heads wondering why Reason provides a forum to this majoritarian jackass. Who's next -- Krugman?

|3.9.09 @ 9:18AM|#

What the political Gays have forgotten is that you ALWAYS have to get along with the Sovereign, It does no good to please the King's courtiers and functionaries if the King himself dislikes you so much he falls into a rage every time your name is mentioned. The core problem is the long-standing, highly counterproductive, and by this time somewhat tiresome game of shock-the-squares the Gay community plays at every Gay rally and parade. Dressing up like a whore at mardi gras and watching the congealed expressions is doubtless a lot of fun - I used to be seriously involved in Science Fiction fandom and we did things that are rather similar. But it also convinces people that you are (at best) a bunch of tacky adolescents with poor impulse control, which makes it hard to persuade them to accept you as grown up people with grown up rights.

Are the Gays, in the absolute sense, right to demand the right to marry? I think so. I think that the Californians are in the wrong there. But at the same time, the Gays are wrong to demand tolerance while willfully acting intolerable. Whatever happens, you have to get along with the neighbors.

Especially when the neighbors are also the Sovereign.

|3.9.09 @ 9:23AM|#

Sadly both the article and the current comments have shortchanged the issue. At what point doe competing rights balance? That is the issue here.

The right to marriage in name is one that is a bit more than symbolic. It entails many rights, priviledges and responsiblities. To deny this to a group of people is decidedly unamerican. However, the right to govern ourselves is also present.

Do the people of California have the right to amend their constitution? Clearly they do. Part of the issue before the state Supreme Court is whether they amended it in a proper way. Does improper amending stand merely because a majority of voters say so? Is the intend in accordance with prior legal intend of law? These are just some of the problems that need to be addressed.

Equality under the law is not something that can willy-nilly set aside, yet that is what is being asked to be done through denial of marriage to same-gender couples.

Far from a simple problem faces the state Supreme Court. I pray that they have the fortitude to arrive at a proper slution.

GlenK|3.9.09 @ 9:29AM|#

Isn't 52% kind of low for a constitutional amendment? Something major like that should require more support than half of the population.

|3.9.09 @ 9:31AM|#

Steve Chapman, you low-life fucking retarded bigot, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Reason,

Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please, stop running the hellastupid Steve Chapman columns.

|3.9.09 @ 9:34AM|#

I'm not sure how you can remove "equal protection" from the US Constitution by amending a state Constitution.

Shane Brady|3.9.09 @ 9:46AM|#

If 52% of the population had voted that marriage is a union only between a man and woman of the same race, or worse yet, a man and woman of the non-black race, would any sane person be anything but totally outraged? Why all the attempts at niceness over a pretty egregious civil rights violation?

Hugh Akston|3.9.09 @ 9:56AM|#

Equality under the law is not something that can willy-nilly set aside, yet that is what is being asked to be done through denial of marriage to same-gender couples.

I'm not clear on the distinction between marriage and civil unions as defined by California law. Do civil partners have to sit on certain parts of busses, or use separate water fountains?

|3.9.09 @ 9:58AM|#

Since when is marriage (of ANY sort) a Civil Right?

The Expatriate|3.9.09 @ 10:14AM|#

re: The Winter Soldier

Since when is marriage (of ANY sort) a Civil Right?

I think it stems from the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing.

|3.9.09 @ 10:20AM|#

I thought it stemmed from the idea that we can do whatever we want as long as we don't infringe upon the rights of others. I wasn't aware my heterosexual marriage would be infringed upon if teh gays also got married.

|3.9.09 @ 10:25AM|#

I'm not sure how you can remove "equal protection" from the US Constitution by amending a state Constitution.

A couple of observations:

(1) I don't know that the SCOTUS has yet determined that equal protection extends to marriage laws.

(2) This begs the definitional question at issue here: whether marriage is, essentially/by definition, between a man and a woman (in which case there is no equal rights issue), or whether it is between any two consenting people who are of age.

If the latter, it sets up the next question: why only two? Why not polygamy? And you can bet your ass that the day after SCOTUS decides that DOMA language violates the equal protection clause, there will be fundamentalist Mormons banging on their door.

|3.9.09 @ 10:25AM|#

As to the rights of the people, unless you can show that there is any language in there that would have been understood by those ratifying the Constitution at the time they did it to guarantee a "right" to gay marriange, then such a "right" is not guaranteed by that document.

Not everything on earth is a "right" just because you want it to be.

The constitution is not a comprehensive list of your rights, like you said. So I fail to see how you jump from that into 'not in the constitution = not a right'. And besides the gay marriage thing fell under the equal protection clause; which is in the constitution. What was your point again?

J_B|3.9.09 @ 10:35AM|#

Marriage is a religious ceremony and designation. It has no place in the realm of state recognition, regulation, or otherwise. The state has no business handing out marriage licenses than it would handing out Bar Mitzvah licenses.

|3.9.09 @ 10:39AM|#

Wake me up when California establishes (and enforces) criminal penalties for homosexuality.

If two or more people want to devote themselves to one another, they don't need my permission.

|3.9.09 @ 11:00AM|#

J_B, and P Brooks.

Amen. Get the State out of the marriage Business and this all goes away . . .

Or, at least, it SHOULD.

|3.9.09 @ 11:01AM|#

"If the latter, it sets up the next question: why only two? Why not polygamy? And you can bet your ass that the day after SCOTUS decides that DOMA language violates the equal protection clause, there will be fundamentalist Mormons banging on their door."

Loving v. Virginia relied, in part, on Equal Protection, but the courts have strained to say that Loving was for real marriages, not gay marriages, thereby assuming what they pretend to be analyzing. The question isn't whether Equal Protection extends to marriage, its whether it extends to gays. IMHO.

All the practical implications you note are excellent examples of why government shouldn't be in the marriage recognition business.

|3.9.09 @ 11:31AM|#

Are you fucking kidding me with this bullshit? Since when are our natural rights (entering into any contract with another able-minded adult that we see fit to being one of them) put up for a vote?

Yes. Let's have a democracy. Let's vote on everything. We'll start with the budget. Then we'll vote on the war. Then, at the height of a fear epidemic we can vote on civil liberties restrictions for the sake of our safety. You don't like that Wall Street executives are getting fat paychecks in this troubled economic time? Let's vote on salary caps for private industry employees!

Why is this asshole's articles still reposted here? This is ridiculous.

|3.9.09 @ 11:32AM|#

Loving v. Virginia relied, in part, on Equal Protection, but the courts have strained to say that Loving was for real marriages, not gay marriages, thereby assuming what they pretend to be analyzing.

Not really. Loving dealt with whether marriage as traditionally defined could be prohibited to mixed-race couples. It never addressed the issue of whether marriage, by definition, included same-sex couples, because that issue was not before the court.

The question isn't whether Equal Protection extends to marriage, its whether it extends to gays.

Clearly, it extends to marriages as traditionally defined. What isn't so clear is whether it mandates a redefinition of marriage.

|3.9.09 @ 11:34AM|#

"If the latter, it sets up the next question: why only two? Why not polygamy? And you can bet your ass that the day after SCOTUS decides that DOMA language violates the equal protection clause, there will be fundamentalist Mormons banging on their door."

Actually there is a fairly practical reason for 'why not multiples'. If you were to look at a marriage as simply a predefined set of legal contracts and principles regarding the division of assets, children, power of attorneys, etc, between two consenting individuals, you can see that granting the exact same protection to homosexual couples would require no additional changes or put additional strain on the legal system, except as to make it apply to more people. A contract between a man and a woman is exactly the same as a contract between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

However the 'current marriage contracts' are completely inadequate when it comes to covering more than two parties. Asset division alone would be messy and thats probably the simplest. I wouldn't wanna be in the middle of a 'pull-the-plug' lawsuit where two surviving wives have a difference of opinion.

There are ways to remedy that, I'm sure, but those would require significantly more effort than just extending the same protections to homosexual couples.

|3.9.09 @ 11:34AM|#

*Let's vote on salary caps for private employees!

*Why are this assholes articles still being reposted here? This is ridiculous.


Sorry for the errors. I was writing quickly. Anger got the better of me.

MNG|3.9.09 @ 11:34AM|#

"If the latter, it sets up the next question: why only two? Why not polygamy?"

I don't see anything inconsistent with a government saying that marriages of two are conducive to the promotion of the general welfare, but that the sex of the couples matters not.

One can hold that polygamy is not conducive to the public welfare (perhaps because it is seen to inevitably create intra-family rivalries and we want unified families in our society) and that the sex of the preferred two person marriages is inconsequential and still pass rational scrutiny imo.

Gilbert Martin|3.9.09 @ 11:35AM|#

"The constitution is not a comprehensive list of your rights, like you said. So I fail to see how you jump from that into 'not in the constitution = not a right'. And besides the gay marriage thing fell under the equal protection clause; which is in the constitution. What was your point again?"

No the Constitution is not a comprehensive list of rights. But that doesn't mean that anyone at any time can self proclaim something to be a "right" and that means that it is.

And it isn't under the "equal protection" clause if it isn't a right in the first place.

Furthermore, a consistently applied concept of "equal protection" would mean government could not engage in an differntial treatment of anyone for any reason whatsoever. Giving financial incentives, tax breaks, etc, to people (of whatever gender) who decide to marry that single people don't get is also a violation of "equal protection" And so is progressive taxation - charging some peole a higher tax rate based on their income. And so is giving people tax breaks for buying hybird cars instead of gas guzzling trucks, and so on and so down through every social engineering measure ever enacted at any time for any reason under any circumstance.

MNG|3.9.09 @ 11:37AM|#

"All the practical implications you note are excellent examples of why government shouldn't be in the marriage recognition business."

Government may or should not be in some business, but when it is in a business it should treat all citizens equally I should think...

Those who oppose gay marriage by saying "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage" are being coy or stupid imo. Yes, yes, Ok, but IF they are going to be involved in it, should it be applied to gays as well, that was the frigging question...

|3.9.09 @ 11:37AM|#

If the latter, it sets up the next question: why only two? Why not polygamy? And you can bet your ass that the day after SCOTUS decides that DOMA language violates the equal protection clause, there will be fundamentalist Mormons banging on their door.

Good! Let them marry! What business is it of yours? Or mine? Or the President of the goddamn United States'? It's not.

Either the government gets out of the marriage business altogether (preferred), or it hands out marriages equally.

Shane Brady|3.9.09 @ 11:39AM|#

There is no practical point in saying the state shouldn't be involved in marriage. We all know it will remain involved in marriage for the foreseeable future, and in the meantime, we have a part of the population that is restricted from entering into a legal contract on the basis of sexual orientation.

MNG|3.9.09 @ 11:40AM|#

"unless you can show that there is any language in there that would have been understood by those ratifying the Constitution at the time they did it"

I don't buy that. If the ratifiers put a provision in that says in plain text x, but we have some evidence that says they understood it to mean y, the text should trump that.

For example, while the 14th Amendment clearly says there shall be Equal Protection of the laws the ratifiers of it clearly did not think that language meant that government programs aimed at exclusively helping blacks (like many Freedman Bureau programs) should be struck down. But they said "equal protection" for all races, so screw how they understood it.

|3.9.09 @ 11:45AM|#

What the political Gays have forgotten is that you ALWAYS have to get along with the Sovereign, It does no good to please the King's courtiers and functionaries if the King himself dislikes you so much he falls into a rage every time your name is mentioned. The core problem is the long-standing, highly counterproductive, and by this time somewhat tiresome game of shock-the-squares the Gay community plays at every Gay rally and parade. Dressing up like a whore at mardi gras and watching the congealed expressions is doubtless a lot of fun - I used to be seriously involved in Science Fiction fandom and we did things that are rather similar. But it also convinces people that you are (at best) a bunch of tacky adolescents with poor impulse control, which makes it hard to persuade them to accept you as grown up people with grown up rights.

Are the Gays, in the absolute sense, right to demand the right to marry? I think so. I think that the Californians are in the wrong there. But at the same time, the Gays are wrong to demand tolerance while willfully acting intolerable. Whatever happens, you have to get along with the neighbors.

Man, I wish I could write so eloquently. Nicely done!

Is it really as Chapman claims here that in CA, gays in civil unions have all the same rights as married heteros? I think things like life/death decisions, SS/Medicare benefits, and IRS tax filing status are the main things their complaining about. Do the states have any jurisdiction (if that's even the correct term) over the SS/Medicare system and/or the IRS. I'm guessing no.

MNG|3.9.09 @ 11:51AM|#

I mean, there's a lot of evidence that buy freedom of speech the founders understood this to apply to political speech alone.

Well screw them for being so sloppy, they wrote freedom of SPEECH, not "freedom of only political speech" so Ulysses is protected to.

The plain meaning of the words alone should control despite some odd understanding of them by the writers.

|3.9.09 @ 11:53AM|#

Furthermore, a consistently applied concept of "equal protection" would mean government could not engage in an differntial treatment of anyone for any reason whatsoever. Giving financial incentives, tax breaks, etc, to people (of whatever gender) who decide to marry that single people don't get is also a violation of "equal protection" And so is progressive taxation - charging some peole a higher tax rate based on their income. And so is giving people tax breaks for buying hybird cars instead of gas guzzling trucks, and so on and so down through every social engineering measure ever enacted at any time for any reason under any circumstance.

First of all, people like to talk about marriage tax breaks, can anyone specifically mention the tax benefits you get for being married? As far as I can tell, the main tax benefit, is 'income splitting', where if one spouse make significantly more than the other they can transfer the a portion of the income, thus dropping to a lower bracket. Can someone shed some light on this?


Do you have a right to get married Gilbert? Or do you feel that the state can provide a reason you shouldn't be, and thus take that right away from you? If you have that right, they do as well.

And your argument about not treating anyone different for any reason doesn't hold any water, people are treated differently for a million reasons. Convicts cant vote, children are basically the property of their parents, blind people cant drive, even though I consider my right to drive a right. The government has to have a due cause to deny someone something, I'm afraid falling back on 'traditional' doesn't cut it.

Jon|3.9.09 @ 11:56AM|#

Constitutions--to the extent that they place substantive limits on legislative bodies and carve out individual rights--are UNDEMOCRATIC. That is the point! They protect political minorities from the oh-so-wonderful "will of the people." Using a constitution to foreclose possible rights and expand state power is just silly and bad policy. Good work California--you truly are the guiding light and the path to a better country.

|3.9.09 @ 12:00PM|#

blind people cant drive, even though I consider my right to drive a right.

Yes. Because letting two men marry is the same as LIKELY KILLING people on the road. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Nobody ever said a right to arms meant a right to do with them whatever you want (murdering innocent people, etc.). And you know that.

Shitty argument. Very shitty argument.

|3.9.09 @ 12:03PM|#

Constitutions--to the extent that they place substantive limits on legislative bodies and carve out individual rights--are UNDEMOCRATIC. That is the point!

Thank you! Yes! Well said.

geniusiknowit|3.9.09 @ 12:05PM|#

This article is gay.

Nobody should ever be allowed to get married.

Fascitis Necrotizante|3.9.09 @ 12:06PM|#

MNG - what about incestuous marriages? Same general welfare argument apply?

MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:12PM|#

Sure fascitis, the argument usually used still holds (that it creates intra-family discord, causing for example the father who marries his daughter to favor her over her brother, or causing strife between the mother and the daughter re jealousy, you don't get that with two non-related gays being married).

ed|3.9.09 @ 12:12PM|#

Chapman: "And for what end? Not so that gays can have the full package of rights and duties that go with the institution of matrimony. They already have those-insofar as the state of California can provide them-thanks to a domestic partnership law that duplicates everything about marriage except the name."

If that's true (is it?) then what's the problem? Is this really just an argument over semantics?

Gilbert Martin|3.9.09 @ 12:12PM|#

"And your argument about not treating anyone different for any reason doesn't hold any water, people are treated differently for a million reasons."

Uh huh and those reasons usually come down to somebody claiming something to be a "public good" that makes it worthy of NOT treating people equally and getting enough other people to agree with it to get it passed into a law.


The gay marriage supporters argrument is essentially nothing more than claiming that everyone else should accept their judgement on the balance of equality vs "public good" as being superior to everyone elses.

None of them have ever accomplished anything that proves that it is.

|3.9.09 @ 12:12PM|#

MNG - what about incestuous marriages? Same general welfare argument apply?

Should two brothers be allowed to enter into a social contract with equal cohabitation rights as a non-related man and woman? Or three brothers? Or five? Why not? Who said the contract was sexual, and why does it have to be?

Not for nothing, people who are too fat to get out of bed disgust me. But I would never get in the way of a five hundred pound dude and his 99 oz. Coca Cola.

I just want equal protection under the law for all people (so long as there is a "marriage" law, which is not to say that there should be one).

MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:15PM|#

"Constitutions--to the extent that they place substantive limits on legislative bodies and carve out individual rights--are UNDEMOCRATIC. That is the point!

Thank you! Yes! Well said."

Uhh, I'm agreeing with you guys on the big picture here, but that is not quite right. Constitutions represent majoritarian principles, in fact super-majoritarian principles, because the provisions in them were adopted by some majority somewhere. The alternative would be pretty awful.

Having said that our supermajority used the term Equal Protection and I think those words refer to a principle that should cover gays (even if the people who ratified it could not concieve of the principle [which they did understand] applying in this particular case to something that was in their time pretty far out)

|3.9.09 @ 12:15PM|#

....blind people cant drive, even though I consider my right to drive a right.

Yes. Because letting two men marry is the same as LIKELY KILLING people on the road. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Geebus, did you get what I was trying to say wrong. I was replying to Gibert Martin's assertion that extending the equal protection right to homosexual couples invariably means that we have to treat everyone the exact same way. I said thats BS and people treated differently all the time, but that government doesn't grant you rights, they are yours with out without, the only way the govn't can deny you anything is with due cause and process. And there is absolutely no cause to deny homosexual couple right to marry.

Fascitis Necrotizante|3.9.09 @ 12:17PM|#

MNG - so for "general welfare" as reasoning for the state to manage your relationships, read: "any excuse they can come up with"? Seriously, incestuous couples can be denied marriage rights because the state thinks it might lead to "strife between the mother and the daughter re jealousy"? Why are those considerations not the prerogatives of the citizens involved? Similar issues don't come up with non-incestuous homo and heterosexual relationships?

Solana - I'm single and plan to be for a while, so I don't actually know that much about what's involved with a marriage license, but I don't think anything prevents two brothers (or two unrelated individuals of any sex) to enter into private contracts that deal with sharing resources, rights of attorney, etc... without needing to wed.

MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:17PM|#

"The gay marriage supporters argrument is essentially nothing more than claiming that everyone else should accept their judgement on the balance of equality vs "public good" as being superior to everyone elses."

Duh. In this argument our side is saying the principle of Equal Protection, rightly understood and applied to marriage laws, requires allowing gays to marry.

But of course your side is arguing the opposite side of the coin, that the principle of Equal Protection, rightly understood and applied to marriage laws, does not require allowing gays to marry.

So I'm not sure what your point is Gilbert, but then that probably makes two of us ;)

|3.9.09 @ 12:18PM|#

Val --- no, I missed it. Sorry about that.

This is what happens when I post when I'm angry. I should probably just stop.

Sorry again for the mix up.

|3.9.09 @ 12:19PM|#

The gay marriage supporters argrument is essentially nothing more than claiming that everyone else should accept their judgement on the balance of equality vs "public good" as being superior to everyone elses.

Public good? How about equality vs "not causing public harm"? In this case, as far as I can see, we have a boon for equality that wouldn't cause the public any harm. Or do you have some demonstratable ways that homosexual marriage will cause public harm, or reduce "public good" if you will?

MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:23PM|#

Fascistis
I think it is OK for the government to foster certain familial relationships and disencourage others (by recognizing them as marriages and having certain rights accrue), and maybe even allow some and not allow others. And I think in doing this they should be guided by what they think will promote the general welfare.

I'm not a libertarian though, and I can see why this would be a tough sell to a libertarian though.

But regardless of that, I should think if I understand your view correctly that you would have to see going from a state where we foster/allow only heterosexual marriages and don't foster/allow gay or incestous ones to one where foster/allow hetero and gay but still not incestous ones as a step in the correct direction. Right?

And at the least I am arguing that one can rationally argue for gay marriage without having to hold forth for incestous or polygamous relationships. Saying you have to be for all if you are for one is a trick of the right since they know most people, for good or bad reasons, disfavor the latter. It's not correct though.

|3.9.09 @ 12:25PM|#

Uhh, I'm agreeing with you guys on the big picture here, but that is not quite right. Constitutions represent majoritarian principles, in fact super-majoritarian principles, because the provisions in them were adopted by some majority somewhere. The alternative would be pretty awful.

Right, but isn't it sort of the same thing as having a government that limits the powers of a governing body?

Our Constitution may have been voted into being by representatives of a majority, but the Constitution was specifically crafted (by a clever minority) to limit majority powers. That's what Jon was saying, I think. That's what I was agreeing with at least.

Fascitis Necrotizante|3.9.09 @ 12:30PM|#

MNG -

Well I generally bring up the incest line because I think it helps separate people who think the state can regulate the relationships of consenting adults (they think this one's cool and this one's cool but this one's gross so ban it) and people who actually make the equal protection claim with what I consider good faith reasoning. The reasoning behind prohibiting incestuous marriages is pretty weak tea, I think, as weak as the claims some make to prohibit gay ones. As to whether including gays but not incestilovers is progress, I don't really care. Who wants to get married?

And if marriage rights eventually extended to every feasible relationship, at some point it would just seem like a complicated way of overtaxing the single...

MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:32PM|#

Solona
Then I'm agreeing with you on that too! thanks for clarifying.

MNG|3.9.09 @ 12:33PM|#

"As to whether including gays but not incestilovers is progress, I don't really care. Who wants to get married?"

A lot of people.

Some of them can't right now.

Opposing their fight, or even apathy imo, because of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, is wrong imo...

Fascitis Necrotizante|3.9.09 @ 12:39PM|#

Well, to clarify -

I'm not clear on what exactly are the benefits (other than taxes) that accrue to a couple who are officially married that they couldn't get through private contract. It mostly seems like a symbolic think to want, so I can't get that worked up about it. Secondly, I think the implications of promoting gay marriage but not incestuous marriage is that if you accept the premise that marriage is not an inalienable right that we all have equal protection to regardless of our relationship choices but instead is something that the state can regulate as it sees fit, then how can you reject a majoritarian referendum on what the public sees fit as worth regulating? Because you disagree with their choices?

I'm down with an equal protection argument for recognizing all relationships (or, better yet, not involving the state at all), but if you think the state has general welfare claims to regulate some of them, how can you reject a democratic decision of what constitutes general welfare?

Gilbert Martin|3.9.09 @ 12:48PM|#

"Duh. In this argument our side is saying the principle of Equal Protection, rightly understood and applied to marriage laws, requires allowing gays to marry."

No it means you want to selectively invoke a concept of "equal protection" merely to advance your own personal preferences as to how society should be organized.

There is no empirical proof that any of those other myriad laws I mentioned that treat people unequally for all sorts of reasons such as "progressive taxation" ,etc. are NOT an exactly equally egregious violation of the concept of equal protection.

qwints|3.9.09 @ 12:55PM|#

The declaration of independence and the 9th and 10th amendments make clear that rights do not stem from the will of the majority.

|3.9.09 @ 1:38PM|#

Government should not be in the marriage business to begin with. You don't need a license to have children - you shouldn't need one to get married. Write a will or contract to deal with assets.

ap|3.9.09 @ 1:38PM|#

The declaration of independence and the 9th and 10th amendments make clear that rights do not stem from the will of the majority.

really? so all of our rights in the US are natural rights? are you a fucking retard?

Gilbert Martin|3.9.09 @ 1:51PM|#

"The declaration of independence and the 9th and 10th amendments make clear that rights do not stem from the will of the majority."

Yeah - like my right to own a 25 megaton hydrogen bomb.

|3.9.09 @ 2:38PM|#

I hate christianists! We must destroy their disgusting religion! If we banned the christianists from marrying in California, via the voting process, the hypocrite pig christianists would be asking the same court to overturn that vote, and they would win too. I hate them from the bottom of my heart!

MNG|3.9.09 @ 2:51PM|#

"There is no empirical proof that any of those other myriad laws I mentioned that treat people unequally for all sorts of reasons such as "progressive taxation" ,etc. are NOT an exactly equally egregious violation of the concept of equal protection."

Gilbert, you seriously do not understand either the word empirical or the word concept, or more likely both, to make such a stupid statement, but what else is new?

Pastor Robert Christian|3.9.09 @ 2:57PM|#

This is exactly my feeling about the issue. Prop 8 was a sham from the start. It demonstrated a lack of tollerance and acceptance among the People. What is bothering me I think more than just Prop 8, per cap- more african americans voted For Prop 8 than non blacks did. No Im not a racist, but do feel that if African Americans remember back- there was a clear seperation even at the Bathrooms. White ones, and black ones. Restraunts refusing to serve African Americans.
How did they like that? Surely the laws were changed. President Abraham Linclon ( sorry for the spelling there) free'd the slaves, so " All men were created equal".
The deal here is that the basic civil right of all americans, not just the gay americans have been stomped on.
California and the rest of the United States need's to stop stomping on the rights of all americans. Otherwise it is not a republic, it is not freedom but a dictatorship.

Visit us on line- I have a commentary about this same issue.

Gilbert Martin|3.9.09 @ 3:15PM|#

"Gilbert, you seriously do not understand either the word empirical or the word concept, or more likely both, to make such a stupid statement, but what else is new?"

What I understand is that you are incapable of refuting what I said so you're just blowing hot air about it.

|3.9.09 @ 3:17PM|#

What the ignorant liberals don't understand here are:

1. They have the same rights as everyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex. What they want is special rights and treatment, which usurps the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
2. You cannot redefine a word after milleniums of the same definition. If they lie in a garage for 30 days and nights, they still will not be cars. So your logic is faulty trying to redefine marriage.
3. This is nothing more than liberals way to push perverted lifestyles on us. They protect the homosexuals, child pornographers (Man/Boy Love Association, those into beastiality, into polygamists, etc. This is the next step in getting society into accepting the immoral lifestyles.

|3.9.09 @ 3:55PM|#

Here is the issue:

If they got the majority, it is not possible for them to re-amend the Constitution to allow them using that majority.

That is because California has two "amendment" procedures.

One is called an "Amendment". An amendment to the California Constitution cannot change what is defined as a "basic principle" of the document. It can't "change" the document, it can only "add" to it. This requires a simple majority. Furthermore, this can be done via referendum.

The second is called a "Revision". In a revision, clauses can be removed, reworded, etc. This requires a 2/3 supermajority vote within the Legislature before it can even be considered by the voters, and cannot be done via referendum (any referendum petition that is judged to be a "Revision" must first pass the Legislature via a 2/3 majority vote).

In order to remove an amendment, a "Revision" is required. Thus, even if people managed a majority in California, that isn't enough - a supermajority is required to re-instate the right to marry that was removed via a simple majority. The argument in front of the CA Supreme Court centers around whether or not the referendum that was passed should be considered an "Amendment" or a "Revision". If it's the former, then it is legal and should be enforced. If it is the latter (that is, if it's considered to be taking -away- something, or revising something already considered to be there) then the referendum was not legally voted upon, as it did not pass the Legislature via a 2/3 vote.

It is a difficult question, and one that hasn't really come up in California's history. One of the problems the Justices face is that in extending the right of marriage in the original case, they stated that it is inherent to the California Constitution's guarantee of equal-protection. However, if it is their true belief that it is inherently included within that clause, then removing that right is a "Revision", and not an amendment (by the definition put forth in the same document). However, at the same time, it is unprecedented to "undo" a vote that's already happened in this way.

A case made its way up to the Court prior to the election making this same argument, and the Court said "Let's have the vote, and if it passes, THEN we'll hear arguments about whether or not the referendum is legal." Of course, I'm guessing the Justices were hoping it would fail, because now they're being forced to decide the issue AFTER it's passed - had they been willing to hear the argument prior to the vote, this issue could have been settled and avoided.

|3.9.09 @ 4:09PM|#

I believe that one of the justices had it right when she asked ... what is stopping those oppose to the amendment from just creating their own proposition and going through the exact same legislative protocol those for Prop 8 did? If the people want the constitution rechanged then create a proposition for this year's ballot and put it to a vote! Use the system, as it is intended and don't try and circumvent the rights of the people by asking the judicial branch to make a decision that isn't theirs to make.

Jon |3.9.09 @ 4:28PM|#

I am sorry but this is a thoroughly uninspiring article written by an uninformed author. This is just a rant against judicial review, which has been commonplace since 1803 when the Supreme Court handed down Marbury v. Madison.

Mr. Chapman, should we expect legislative bodies to police themselves and safeguard constitutionally protected rights? They have done a bang-up job so far. Had you couched your argument in terms of judicial activism, rather than judicial review--you can go back and debate Justice Marshall on the merits of the latter--I think you might have been (somewhat) more convincing.

|3.9.09 @ 4:37PM|#

I don't know where to start in the bologna in this article, but let's start with a basic correction on this:

"That should have been the end of the legal battle and the beginning of a political one, where gay rights have excellent prospects. After all, they have made steady progress on the issue, expanding their support from 39 percent of voters to 48 percent in just eight years. Given the trend, their chances of persuading a majority in the next few years look good-if they were to focus on persuading the majority."

Wrong. The amendment was on the ballot before the CA Supreme Court decision. Moreover, previous attempts to put amendments on the ballot had been put forward well before the issue was put before the Supreme Court. Even if the issue had NEVER been put before the SC (an unlikely scenario, granted), it IS likely that anti-gay advocates would have put this on the ballot, regardless--just like they have in most other states.

The Christian Right has made this an issue, not gay-rights activists. If it were almost any other industrialized country in the world, the courts would be involved, and that would be the end of it. Courts should play their role in civil rights issues, regardless of what "the people" think.

Your average Joe might be against gay marriage, if asked, but this is beside the point. The problem isn't a subversion of democracy: it's religious hysteria that makes what should be a benign issue into something much more controversial than it really is.

|3.9.09 @ 4:42PM|#

from Gilbert Martin | March 9, 2009, 1:51pm
"Yeah - like my right to own a 25 megaton hydrogen bomb."


If it's not an actual threat to your fellow countrymen, then it should be assumed to be a right. It doesn't need to be listed or enumerated.

Two guys filing joint IRS papers... not a threat.

Hydrogen bomb next door.... big threat.

Buffy|3.9.09 @ 4:58PM|#

Winter Soldier,

Since when is marriage (of ANY sort) a Civil Right?

You might want to consult the Supreme Court on that (Loving vs Virginia)

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"


Former Dem,

Get real. Saying "everyone has the same right--to marry someone of the opposite sex" would be like outlawing every religion except Satanism then saying "You *do* have Freedom of Religion. Everybody has the same freedom to worship Satan."

The claim that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and that legalizing same-sex marriage would "redefine" it is untrue. Marriage has been dynamic and varied around the world and across cultures. Men have had multiple wives, women multiple husbands, same-sex unions have existed throughout history, and countless variations exist even today. In some cultures the "one man one woman both virgins at marriage" notion would be laughable, even abhorrent.

In other words, your notions aren't everybody's and shouldn't be forced on them by law. As for "perversion", studies have shown that conservatives consume far more porn than liberals. So stop throwing stones when you live in a glass house.

Gilbert Martin|3.9.09 @ 5:34PM|#

"If it's not an actual threat to your fellow countrymen, then it should be assumed to be a right. It doesn't need to be listed or enumerated."

You mean like a right not to have to pay any higher income tax rate than other lower income people pay?

Jon|3.9.09 @ 5:51PM|#

Former_Dem

#1: Using your own reasoning, they would not be seeking to establish special rights since you could also enjoy the same rights by marrying another guy.
#2: Why does a word's pervasive usage in a specific context mean that we cannot re-define its legal usage? Why does its historical use really matter here?
#3: Nobody is forcing you to marry some other dude or look at kiddy porn.

Why have an amendment that prohibits gay marriage rather than an amendment that establishes that Equal Protection doesn't apply to gay marriage?

|3.9.09 @ 5:52PM|#

You mean like a right not to have to pay any higher income tax rate than other lower income people pay?

Being poor isn't a class like race or age. It's a burden.

|3.9.09 @ 5:52PM|#

Gilbert,

I don't support an income tax or any progressive tax. Your not arguing with a liberal here, so what's your point?
Is it that, since liberals have trashed the Constitution; conservatives should be able to trash it as well?
I would say that that argument is pretty damn sad.

Some Guy|3.9.09 @ 6:08PM|#

As to the rights of the people, unless you can show that there is any language in there that would have been understood by those ratifying the Constitution at the time they did it to guarantee a "right" to gay marriange, then such a "right" is not guaranteed by that document.

Ever heard of the Ninth Amendment?

Tim|3.9.09 @ 6:17PM|#

I don't think the government should define marriage one way or another; however if it does it ought to include homosexuals. Ideally there would be only civil unions for all but as that point is largely philosophical and semantics I won't make homosexuals give up their rights for such a minor point.

That said this is a process issue and not rights issue. The amendment process is the way for the people to maintain the ultimate authority over their leaders should their elected leaders subvert the constitution to their will. If the California supreme court rules that the people cannot amend the California Constitution then in certain areas the Court has a near despotic power. Suddenly on the issue of marriage the supreme court is the sole unchecked authority as it can both interpret the constitution and prevent the people from changing it as to avoid an interpretation they don't like.

I do think that the best outcome would probably be to interpret the amendment as a revision thus reserving the right of Californians to amend their constitution as they see fit but only with a 2/3 majority; there should be no mere majorities allowed to pass any amendment.

Constitutions are the last safeguards against tyranny, be it of the masses or an individual, and if the people are incapable of changing them they cease to be truly self governed. Ultimately we have to trust that super majorities won't be dicks or abandon constitutional governance.

|3.9.09 @ 6:38PM|#

go catholics!


http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/03/08/a_followup_question_your_holi


A Followup Question, Your Holiness
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Originally posted on Sunday afternoon but moved up because, fuck man, everyone needs to hear about this.

The Vatican "stands behind" the excommunication of the mother of a nine-year-old girl who underwent an abortion after she was raped and impregnated by her stepfather, and doctors determined that carrying twins to term would endanger the life of the little girl-oh, the Vatican stands behind the excommunication of the girl's doctors, too.

The regional archbishop, José Cardoso Sobrinho, excommunicated the mother for authorizing the operation. He also excommunicated the doctors, who carried out the operation for fear that the 80-pound girl would not survive a full-term pregnancy.

"God's law is above any human law," Archbishop Cardoso said Thursday.

The girl's stepfather, whom she accused of sexual abuse, has been jailed.

So, your holiness, any word on the stepfather? Has he been excommunicated? Or are you worried about the repercussions for the Church if you start excommunicating child rapists left and right? The Church is having a hard enough time retaining priests as things stand now, huh? And, excuse me, but if the girl's mother and doctors are excommunicated for violating God's law, how about the "devout Catholic"?

Seventeen months ago, lawyers for a man facing execution sought extra time to file a last-minute appeal. Judge Keller refused to delay the closing of her clerk's office past 5 p.m., even though late filings are common on the day of a scheduled execution. The man, Michael Richard, was put to death by lethal injection a few hours later.

Where's that seamless garment we're always hearing about?

UPDATE: Well, it seems that someone did ask the obvious followup question.

Upon learning of the abortion, the regional archbishop excommunicated the doctors, as well as the girl's mother. He did not excommunicate the step-father, saying the crime he is alleged to have committed, although deplorable, was not as bad as ending a fetus's life.

|3.9.09 @ 7:56PM|#

So...if the people pass by a majority vote, the right of any person to kill or molest children, we should just go with it because, hey, the majority rules? That is why we have a judicial branch, flawed as it is, it still serves this purpose. Anti-gay rights is still big government interference into personal lives.

MJ|3.9.09 @ 9:10PM|#

"That is why we have a judicial branch, flawed as it is, it still serves this purpose."

The judicial branch'a purpose is to uphold the law as written, not to establish the latest progressive fads by fiat. The voters of California spanked their Supreme Court for doing just that.

MJ|3.9.09 @ 9:21PM|#

"The Christian Right has made this an issue, not gay-rights activists."

Please, gay-rights activists were shocked as anyone to find themselves in court arguing to overturn the status quo on marriage? They were there only because the Right was pushing DOMA? If you're not being completely disingenuous you have a truly amazing ability to lie to yourself.

|3.9.09 @ 10:47PM|#

While no man or woman should concern themselves with what adults do in their private lives -- with Private Homosexism, all should be alarmed at Political Homosexism.

Political Homosexism, everywhere is dangerous.

Many self-deluded homosexuals believe they can become married.

Certainly, homosexuals can establish relationships, but what they cannot do is take a word, marriage, and use it to label a different concept, one that all humans know today and have known and recognized for a 1,000 years.

The "gay marriage" issue is about money, not love.

Gays, especially aging lesbians, want the legal status of marriage so that one can gain the privilege of survivor status and thus collect Social Security of the dead partner.

Most homosexual men care little for "gay marriage" since they prefer a libidinous lifestyle.

End income taxation. End involuntary, forced participation into Social(ist) Security and you end the debate and bogus issue of "gay marriage".

Best of all, you squash an insideous plague -- Political Homosexism.

Political Homosexism is another kind of Racism, that is, living by racing for the spoils of Collectivism income taxation and Officialdom privilege.

Political Homosexists seek superior privilege granted to them by Officialdom on the mere status of being a named group with an agenda -- pushing Private Homosexism into the public arena.

homophobe_gets_smacked|3.10.09 @ 12:58AM|#

Ben at 9:01 am said it best. Smart person. That one post can put any right-wing nutcase to shame.

Hate to break it to the bigots: the EDUCATED people of society, from legal scholars to social scientists (you know - people with brains), OVERWHELMINGLY support gay marriage. That includes everyone from the American Psychological Association to the American Anthropological Association. That includes over 300 pediatricians and countless law professors. Survey after survey keep showing the higher the education level, the more supportive they are of gay marriage.

Clearly there is some kind of correlation here: the dumber they are, the more anti-gay they tend to be.

If these uneducated bigots and homophobic sheep would spend just a little more time in school (where they can learn some science and logic) and less time sticking their noses into other people's personal lives (which don't affect them one bit), maybe they'll earn some respect from those of us who are educated and civilized.

I say we raise the level of education required for voting. That would surely eliminate most of the Yes on 8 crowd (bigots, bible thumpers, rednecks, homophobic p*ssyboys, etc.).

homophobe_gets_smacked|3.10.09 @ 12:03PM|#

...oh and I left out blacks!

Pastor Christian|3.10.09 @ 1:26PM|#

Former_democrat wrote
What the ignorant liberals don't understand here are:

1. They have the same rights as everyone else, to marry someone of the opposite sex.
^^Clearly Former Democrat you yet fail to understand that gay and lesbian tax paying Americans want equal rights in Marriage with a non gender specific law.




What they want is special rights and treatment,
^^ Actually gay men and women do not want "special "anything. They want and are demanding for EQUAL rights. Not sure how you get Special out of Equal.

which usurps the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
2. You cannot redefine a word after milleniums of the same definition. If they lie in a garage for 30 days and nights, they still will not be cars. So your logic is faulty trying to redefine marriage.

^^ this statement does not even make any clear point. It is mote.

3. This is nothing more than liberals way to push perverted lifestyles on us. They protect the homosexuals,
^^ These Liberals you speak of are not pushing anything on anyone. They understand equality.
The point here is, do you?

child pornographers (Man/Boy Love Association,

^^ To be honest, Most gay men and women are AGAINST child pornographers ( MAMBA ) association etc. You should really think about your statement. IT is un true, not grounded or founded in anything but equality.
Besides, there are more HETRO's who look at Child porn than gay men and women. You should look up and do research before speaking in something that is clearly over your head.

those into beastiality, into polygamists, etc.
^^ Want to know about beastiality? Want to know about polygamist? Rather than even bringing those two groups into this conversation you should find more about them.
My own experance with statements as yours 90% of the time are from people who are not satisfied with their own sexuality thus, they demand respect due to their nill sexual experances.

This is the next step in getting society into accepting the immoral lifestyles



Actaully Former_democrat: Accepting beastiality and multi marriages as you mentioned are two side issues. It is not the next step accepting immoral lifestyles what so ever.

What is so immoral for two persons GENDER NUTERAL to love another of the same sex? What is so immorial?
One in two Marriages of HETRO's end in divorce in five years *Pew reasearch *
Most all marriages end in divorce due to financial hardship *Pew Reasearch *

The Majority of younger Americans support (gay marriage ) Marriage Equality, yet the elder members of our land are not 100* against it.

It sounds like you should get better facts and speak on issues that you understand better.

Thanks for trying :)
www.Hourforum.net

----------

homophobe_gets_smacked|3.10.09 @ 2:28PM|#

Some coward above attempting to impersonate me with the little "black" plug. Nice try.

Pastor Christian|3.10.09 @ 2:47PM|#

I am not attempting to Impersonate you what so ever, what is this " little black plug" you mention?
Nonetheless, sites as this one reflect the true need of the State and Federal agencies to once and for all, set the standard of equality.

There are some who do not agree with same sex marriage, but there are others who do.

Prop 8 was a sham to begin with. It was religious idiot's, who flexed their pocketbooks to insure that equality is never granted.
Sad to say, but its not going to work.
There are more fish to fry out there than just focusing on hate. We should strive to see laws changed , that allow more to celebrate Life and all it brings.
My partner and I have been together for 15 years, and it is sad when in most hetro marriages end in divorce ( one out of two ), in the first year.
Maybe hetro's can learn a thing or three about love. Its not money here, but commitment.

www.hourforum.net
206-736-9688

|3.10.09 @ 3:37PM|#

some of you guys are simply amazing. gay civil unions have the same exact rights as marriages, so stop saying this is about rights.
if it were up to me, i would say "fine, let gay civil unions have the same name as hetero marriage". problems solved!

oh wait, its not up to me, its up to the people to vote. that is the point you meatheads miss. then you make hilarious analogies like voting on putting jews in the oven is the same as saying gay civil unions shouldnt be called marriage. if civil unions and marriages have the same rights, then all that is different is the name. its not complicated. really, just think instead of getting all worked up because "dummies" fail to see your brilliance.
you clowns want to abandon the principle of a constitutional democratic republic because of a frickin name fight? grow up.
id love for someone to tell me what will change when gay civil unions are recognized by the state as gay marriage. what will be different?
i cant believe how ridiculous this is.
the truth is you guys just want a fight with the religous bigots, and you look like asses because it is so blatant. you dont make them look bad, you make yourself look bad. they dont need any help from you to look close-minded, you just sink to their level.

Pastor Christian|3.10.09 @ 3:57PM|#

Simply put, "Civil unions" can not be endorsed by the Federal Government ( which is the base line for all of this ), but only "Marriages can be". Look at the IRS rules about Marriage.
Providing that Gay men and women were allowed and or granted the right by the United States Government- THEN, can all the laws that govern "Marriage" of two be granted.

Civil Unions though some states might offer some protection under state law, it does not protect or offer any kind of protection though the United States Government.
So, The Gay and lesbian community do seek "Marriage rights", not " Civil union rights".

We need to be protected and have provisions working for us not against us.
The base line as I mentioned is the Federal Government. It is sad that "civil unions" are not reconized by the Fed's, maybe one day it will be... nonetheless, the single word "Marriage" is so reconized by them.
So, rather than accepting the lesser of...
The Gay and Lesbian community want "Equal", not "Equal to" but Equal.
Maybe that makes better sence of the conversation at hand.

www.HourForum.net

Naumadd|3.11.09 @ 3:16AM|#

As to individual rights, those are beyond the reach of popular vote. For a thing to be a genuine right, it is necessarily inalienable from they who possess it. That an individual has a right to voluntarily enter into a deeply committed relationship with one or more other persons is unquestionable. Notice that this right is dependent only on the fact the individual has independent life. What type of sexual behavior one indulges in and with whom is not relevant to the right. Whether or not one is at liberty to exercise that right depends on how tyrannical other human beings wish to behave. Any majority may be at liberty to impose its will on a minority, however, it is also unquestionable a majority does not and will never have the RIGHT to impose its will. It is true, I may be at liberty to beat you with a stick for a prolonged period of time, however, although I am at liberty to do so, is it necessarily arguable I have the RIGHT to do so? This is precisely the nature of "majority rule". The question of same-sex marriage isn't a question of whether or not homosexual individuals have the right to marry whomever they choose - that right is basic - it is a question of whether majority will intends to interfere in their exercise of that right and for what reasons. The question also is whether or not the will of the majority is to be allowed in spite of the fact that to grant the majority its wishes with regard to the liberty of homosexuals to freely marry whom they choose is an incredibly barbaric act and quite contrary to the basic principle of human civilization - mutual guarantee individual to individual of personal liberty to exercise one's right to self-determination. Denying homosexuals the right to marry those of their same gender in no way impinges the liberty of anyone to exercise their personal right to self-determination. Heterosexuals remain at liberty to marry whomever they choose if homosexuals are similarly at liberty. Such a limitation on individual liberty is most usually imposed on those who, in some way, have committed the crime of impinging on the individual liberty of another. As homosexuals have committed no crime warranting such restriction on their liberty, one wonders why the majority of voters in the state of California wish to ferret out such punishment on homosexuals. Is such punishment justified merely because support for homosexual marriage is outnumbered? "Majority rule" is the old repeatedly discounted argument of "might makes right". The view of the majority can be as much in error as the view of one. It may be true a majority of Americans wish a culture where "might makes right". It is also true those who think this way will not get their wish as long as even one human being is left capable of right thinking. Human history proves time and again - tyranny is temporary.

|3.11.09 @ 3:37AM|#

Steve,

If there are truly no limits to what rights can be taken away by a simple majority vote under the California Constitution, then that Constitution provides no protection for minority rights, whatsoever.

The essential purposes of any constitution are to provide a framework for government and to protect minority rights. If a constitution does not do that, it is not worthy of the title.

I agree with Attorney General Jerry Brown, "the scope of liberty evolves over time" and the freedom to marry whoever one chooses is an inalienable right flowing from nature itself. If you need legal authority for this principal, look to the Declaration of Independence. Some truths are self-evident.

|3.11.09 @ 3:53AM|#

The whole "amendment" vs. "revision" thing would be silly if so many people weren't treating it so seriously. Read the California Constitution. It uses the terms "amendment" and "revision," but neither defines those terms, nor informatively distinguishes between them. We are told that the legislature can call for a Constitutional Convention for purposes of "revising" the Constitution, but that is our only clue that a "revision" might be more ambitious -- or of greater import -- than an "amendment." The point of the passages on which the anti-Prop. 8 folks rely seems not to be to restrict the PEOPLE's power through initiative, but rather to keep the legislature's power in check, forcing them to come to supermajority agreement AND pass the result on to the people for final approval, in order to make a fundamental change to the State Constitution (via Constitutional Convention) or even a particularly radical or ambitions change (through "revision").

The people can pass a sequence of Amendments that have the cumulative effect of fundamentally changing or even rewriting the State Constitution, and each stepping stone needs only majority approval, so the people really aren't encumbered very much at all. Many amendments that have passed in the past several decades had much greater import than Prop. 8, and as far as I recall, ALL of them were bulkier than Prop. 8. By any yardstick, Prop. 8 was an Amendment. It only rises to "revision" in the minds of Prop. 8 opponents, who rely on an earlier court decision that found a right to gay marriage within the text of a Constitution that never once addressed the topic specifically. Because our learned justices could infer such a right, goes the reasoning, it was obviously inherent in the structure of the Constitution, though not obvious from the plain text. Thus, removing the newly-found right must change the fundamental structure of the Constitution, which can only be done by a revision and not a garden variety amendment.

Frankly, I see such reasoning as being about as flimsy as the reasoning that "found" this right last year in the first place. Let's put it this way: if we were talking about a murder case, the anti-Prop 8 side could mount only a weak, circumstantial argument that Prop. 8 should be found guilty and put to death. If Prop. 8 is, as it seems, merely an amendment, then it was lawfully enacted and that should be the end of it, as far as the California Supremes are concerned.

The thing that gets me about this case, though, is that it really cannot be decided at the California Court level, UNLESS it is clear that the amendment was improperly enacted. This is because the people DO have supreme political authority in the State, and the Constitution -- which establishes AND REGULATES the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of State government -- is founded on that authority. If the CA Supreme Court finds that Prop. 8 was lawfully enacted, yet rules to excise it from the Constitution or otherwise nullify its effect, that would establish the Judicial branch as supreme. Absent clear evidence that the Constitution itself proscribes the passage of something like Proposition 8, then any remaining battle over the measure becomes a full-blown Constitutional crisis.

I have long predicted that not only must this case eventually get to the US Supreme Court -- a higher authority than the State Court system, capable of dictating changes to the State Constitution on grounds of its present incompatibility with the US Constitution -- but that Prop. 8 opponents actually want the case to end up before the 9 supreme federal justices. I think this has been the strategy all along. Let's see what happens...

Bruce Majors|3.11.09 @ 5:28AM|#

There is no good solution to Prop 8.

If you watched the C-Span coverage of the testimony before the Supreme Court a number of things came out. One is that the Assistant Attorney General from the State of California who argued for gay marriage was an inarticulate moron on the level of Robert Gibbs. The little butch dyke lawyer who argued before him made a blue smoke and mirrors legal argument based on a complicated theory in which there were no individual rights, but instead group entitlements in which less well off or more vulnerable groups, like gays, must be given special coddling and therfore must always have access as well to institutions like marriage. Only Ken Starr, arguing for the legal right of voters to regulate marriage by initiative mentioned individual rights, when he noted that the California state constitution states the government is instituted to protect liberty and property and yet the state is allowed to regulate them almost out of existence.

The problem with the gay rights movement is illustrated in the recent law suit against E-Harmony where the owners of E-Harmony were forced to match gay people on their service. Gay people already have access to AOL chat rooms, J-Date, Yahoo personals, Craigslist, and a huge number of sites (AfterEllen, Manhunt, SilverDaddies, BearHunt, Squirt, Men4SexNow etc etc) that are only for gays. And yet a gay lawyer in New Jersey sued E-Harmony.

It is clear that once gay marriage as a state defined, state licensed institution exists (as opposed to a contract) gays will sue mosques, churches and synagogues to force them to provide weddings. And then they will sue adoption services to force them all to allow gay adoptions, even if their are parents who do not want to give a child up for adoption to a gay couple. And every other law suit that invades the privacy of people who wish to disassociate from gay people.

In such a winner take all, one size fits all, statist system, I cannot imagine gays are going to win all the time. And I imagine they will have to raise money and campaign perpetually to win sometimes. Which sounds like full employment for the gay rights lobby but not much else.

|3.11.09 @ 6:20AM|#

When you see someone using terms like "homosexism" you know you are dealing with a lunatic. Get out the tin foil hats boys.

Chapman seems to miss the essence of the debate completely. There are are minor revisions and major revisions to the constitution. Minor ones can be made by majority vote. Major revisions have to have a super majority. The argument is that the Mormon/Fundy/Catholic alliance got lazy and used the wrong method because it was easier. That is the entire debate in the Court about the matter. Chapman went off on a tangent about other issues not raised.

Pastor Christian|3.11.09 @ 1:07PM|#

Bruce, by the state allowing same sex marriage to take place, it does NOT mean that Church groups would be forced to preform such marriages. ( Seperation of Church and State ).
However, what it will do is give authority by virtue of the state and it's laws, to have these marriages legal,thus giving these persons the same legal right of being in a marriage to the same sex, as it is now for hetroxexuals.

Again, it will not force church groups to preform these marriages, but it will allow them to do so, under protection of the law. ( I should know ).

Meanwhile, it is one thing at hand for the state to decide who "gets married and who doesnt", but unless the Federal Government steps up to the plate and allows these same persons social security joint and survivor bennefits, the IRS file as joint not single,
then the law is only in effect for "the state", not by virtue of the United States Congress and the President himself.

This whole issue is a sticky one, but it is people like you here on this forum that help shapen everyone else :) Thanks!!

Pastor Christian
PS Yes, I am a Pastor have been for years
www.hourforum.net
I did write an article on our website under "news and events" that speak about same sex marriage. Intresting...

Cheers!

|3.11.09 @ 1:27PM|#

Tim and Blake make the proper argument.

The process under a Constitutional government should be protected. Whether any constitution garnts expansive powers of the central government or not, it should be applied given its intended purpose.

No, we do not "interpret" the plain meaning to reach a result contra to the intent. Such is not what is done to understand contracts.

Why? Because the people and the states (speaking of the US Const) are the sovereigns that granted limited powers to the central government and retained all powers not granted. The compact to grant those limited powers cannot be breached and still live up to its role. We must allow the legislative process to decide the issues not ceded to government.

|3.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#

tims last sentence is especially important. "Ultimately we have to trust that super majorities won't be dicks or abandon constitutional governance"
the points are that we should have a supermajority for CA const ammendments, and that this way of determining laws is the least bad. yes you may get something silly like not allowing gay civil unions to be called marriage, but if we just left it up to the courts, the nomenclature of gay marriage would be the least of your worries!

Pastor Christian|3.11.09 @ 5:41PM|#

Blake wrote:

some of you guys are simply amazing. gay civil unions have the same exact rights as marriages, so stop saying this is about rights.
if it were up to me, i would say "fine, let gay civil unions have the same name as hetero marriage". problems solved!

Blake you stated that " gay civil unions" have "the same exact rights as marriages"

1. There is no such thing called in any state " Gay Civil Unions".
2. Civil unions do not offer the exact same rights as Marriage.
Under a civil union rule, that is only as good as the State is concerned, not the Federal Government. If you have had a Civil union- that does not allow you any such grounds for your partners social secirity payments in such event that he or she passed away. Unlike Marriage, where that is afforded as " survivors " bennefits.
The Veterans Administration is the same way. A Civil union is not a "Marriage". Yes it is one word but that one word is the key that unlocks
rights for all americans.

Meanwhile, over 18000 same sex marriages hang in the ballance here. These are the ones extended in California. The point is, should the state have the right to now say "you are divorced" by no fault of your own.. oops we made a mistake?
Should these marriages be limited ones that will remain legal?
Should these Marriages keep being preformed as yes in fact, California will extend these " state rights of marriage " now and in the future.

Point said- opinions please.

|3.11.09 @ 8:56PM|#

When you read that someone (in this case hlm on March 11, 2009) write "...someone using ..."homosexism" you know you are dealing with a lunatic.", you know you've witnessed an ad hominem attack.

Since hlm lacks the requisite wit to defend his, her or its false beliefs, he or she or it reaches for the lame method of ad hominem.

Of course, the smarter readers of Reason Magazine never would fall for such a weak-minded rhetorical ploy as used by hlm.

Denying that Political Homosexism exists (see Act Up!) is akin to denying that the earth revolves about the sun or denying that racism exists (NAACP, NOW).

Marakay Rogers, Esq.|3.12.09 @ 2:08PM|#

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the U.S. Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." --Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791).






Since the Constitution does not grant the United States government any domain over family law, marriage has always been a matter for the states. Most libertarians, whether small-l or capital-L, oppose the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which makes a federal determination of who is or is not legally married. Clearly, DOMA is outside federal action and should never have been enacted; a perfect example of federal overreach.

And so to California's Proposition 8. Can same-sex couples marry in California? The immediate response should and must only be "well, why not?" It is a fundamental of libertarian thought that the government has no duty, and certainly no right, to circumscribe the rights of individuals.

However, that is not how the current law is applied, thanks to the recent vote on Prop. 8, and as Steve Chapman would have it, it is not how the law should be applied. According to Chapman, "Like it or not, the California Constitution notes a basic truth in a democratic society: 'All political power is inherent in the people.' Advocates of same-sex marriage might do better by treating those people not as opponents to be defeated but as allies to be won." But that suggests that rights are political, not a matter of the inherent worth and dignity of human beings. Chapman suggests that there is an alternative - that of the existing domestic partnership law in California, which gives equality under laws "insofar as the state of California can provide them."

Chapman suggests that the same-sex marriage battle is not about equal rights but about nomenclature, an argument often used to suggest that those fighting the marriage battle are fighting over pure semantics. When those semantics also affect citizens' rights under federal laws, Mr. Chapman, I propose that the battle is anything but useless. It has been noted elsewhere, in lists too long to reproduce, that there are over one thousand instances in federal law in which specifically created rights are provided to those classified as "married" which cannot be provided to anyone whose status is not legally "married." As "domestic partnership" is not interpreted as "married" by the courts - more of those pointless semantics - those rights must be denied to such couples.

If we believe in equal protection of the laws, as long as such created rights exist only for those termed "married", the definition of marriage requires expansion as a basic right for non-heterosexual couples.

The question, ultimately, is whether the inalienable rights of the individual should only be recognized through the will of the people. If the abolition of slavery had been left to referendum, how much longer would slavery have existed in the United States? Various public polls of only a few years ago still indicated that gays should not be allowed to teach children or serve in the military. And not long ago, in an article on the voting gender gap, I noted a sarcastic comment pertaining to women's voting - apparently among some males, women's suffrage is still a question. And so, Mr. Chapman, should the categorizing of individual rights indeed be left to the voting public?

Chapman says yes - rights must be left to the determination of the voters in California, who have the right to abolish rights since nothing in California's constitution prevents it. That is a tautology full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. If a right is inalienable, as California Attorney General Jerry Brown suggests, then there is no "right" to abolish a right that exists with or without laws creating it. That, last I checked, is what "inalienable" means.

Further, the idea of a "right to abolish rights" is an anathema to libertarian philosophy , since it suggests that if the people wish to do so, they may vote to turn themselves over to a totalitarian government that would be permitted to deprive them of any future ability to exercise their rights. The idea of allowing the will of the people to give up their collective will permanently is a logical extension of Chapman's premise.

Political power may be inherent in the people, but individual rights can not be allowed to rest on a political whim.

Rob Power|3.12.09 @ 3:36PM|#

http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2009/03/reason-online-again-off-track.html

Thursday, March 12, 2009
Reason Online Again Off-Track
Marakay Rogers, an attorney in Pennsylvania and a member of the Outright Libertarians Executive Committee, responds to Reason's Steve Chapman regarding his March 9 article supporting California's Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the California Constitution. This is the second time in six months that Reason has published an article hostile to advocates for marriage equality. So much for "Free Minds..."

|3.12.09 @ 4:51PM|#

No self-respecting, authentic libertarian could support granting an extra Officialdom privilege (the license of gays to intermarry) to a protected class (Political Homosexuals).

Every adult male and female can marry already in any of the 50 states as well as in the U.S. dependencies and territories.

Political Homosexists seeks the license of homosexist marriage to gain extra privilege on the mere basis of being homosexual.

Such privilege sought is the collection of survivor benefits of the Social(ist) Security welfare program imposed upon all Americans from Collectivism.

|3.12.09 @ 5:31PM|#

Political Homosexists seeks the license of homosexist marriage to gain extra privilege on the mere basis of being homosexual.

Such privilege sought is the collection of survivor benefits of the Social(ist) Security welfare program imposed upon all Americans from Collectivism.

Of course, social conservatives like yourself are fully supportive of the idea that those "homosexists" should subsidize your own gummint cheese through higher taxes and lower benefit withdrawals, so your whining on this issue is hypocrisy at best.

|3.12.09 @ 6:13PM|#

Brian Miller writes:

"Of course, social conservatives like yourself ... " and then goes on a rant about government cheese and welfare.

Yet, if Brian had reading comprehension skills, he would have read where I deplore Collectivism -- the kind of doctrine that supports systems of government income confiscation and redistribution.

Brian and his label "social conservative" falsely applied to me make me laugh.

Being right needs no label.

Collectivism is wrong, always.

Officialdom with its establishment of protected classes (e.g., political homosexists, feminists, blackists, hispanicists) is wrong, always.

Income taxes amount to theft of a man's time, hence his life, for our lives get a time limit.

Redistributing such stolen income to voting blocs (age-tested retirees) is wrong, always.

Political homosexism, like all forms of racism (forming a group based on an arbitrary factor and then racing for the spoils of stolen income given the rubric 'income taxes') destablizes society and gets used as a tool by collectivists to gain power and maintain it.

All forms of racism assist Collectivists in their march toward totalitarianism.

Happy goose-stepping Brian.

|3.12.09 @ 9:01PM|#

Smack -- yes, of course every person of age may marry in this country, but ONLY currently to persons whom the government authorizes them to marry. If the person meets various criteria, some of which (age, degree of relationship) may be reasonable, but others (gender) are not provably so, the marriage may not occur or it must be annulled.

The best question of all is, always, what right the government has to restrict the rights of free citizens in contracting regarding personal matters with each other. But as long as the government has set itself up in the control-of-human-freedom business and as long as we allow it so to do, how is saying "marry a person of whichever gender you choose" a matter of special rights? It no more forces a heterosexual to marry a homosexual than it forces a homosexual to marry a heterosexual. To share a right with others is NOT to grant one class "special rights". It would equally, by your argument, be "special rights" in Loving v. Virginia to allow people to marry persons of whatever race they choose.

The government shouldn't be running a chow line for anyone, but if it's handing out gravy to one group, it's hardly "special" for them to hand the same stuff out to everyone. Until the government can be thrown out of the marriage business, there is no valid justification for treating different classes of couples differently.

The biggest problem this thread faces is the challenge of alleged libertarians attempting to justify their own gender and sexuality issues and dislikes -- their own personal prejudices -- by coming up with terms unrecognized and unrecognizable to anyone but themselves. "Homosexism"? "Political homosexists"? Balderdash.

And Smack, NOW is a RACIST organization? Anyone who cannot tell the difference between race and gender lacks the wit to debate on this forum. The smarter readers will recognize the error immediately.

|3.12.09 @ 10:57PM|#

Wow, Smack, sorry I called you a social conservative. My bad. I should be more careful with my descriptives in the future and note that the proper appellation for you is "batshit fucking nuts." :)

|3.13.09 @ 2:56AM|#

Marakay Rogers argues with fallacy, first by appeal to those opposed to government welfare privileges to specific persons ("The government shouldn't be running a chow line for anyone, ...") and then by the trick of two wrongs make a right ("but if it's handing out gravy to one group, it's hardly "special" for them to hand the same stuff out to everyone.")

Marakay relies on the the fallacy of saying that something unjustifiable IS justifiable simply because someone else did it or it is done for someone else, e.g.,

Johnny stole candy from the store and explains that it wasn't wrong because Jimmy did it too.

Marakay Rogers writes "The biggest problem this thread faces is ... libertarians coming up with terms. "Homosexism"? "Political homosexists"?"

Words are not terms. You find terms in contracts and in mathematical expression.

Oh, and Marakay, you might want to learn the difference between racialism (living by bigotry against those of another race) and racism (living by joining a group based on skin color, sex, sexual fetish, language and then racing for the spoils of Marxist income tax redistribution).

Also, you shall want to learn that languages like Spanish and French have gender, but humans have sex.

A male is a sex. A female is a sex, not a gender.

Good luck with your sloppy, weak rhetorical skills Marakay.

|3.13.09 @ 3:01AM|#

Brian Miller strains himself when he pushes through his orifice his lame ad hominem attack against me by calling me "batshit fucking nuts".

Right after, Brian reveals himself to be some ghettoite when he writes "My bad".

All should doubt that Brian Miller is a Dominican living in Washington Heights (NYC) who speaks some patois ("my bad") because he cannot say "my mistake".

Thoughts of a backwoods retard come to mind.

|3.13.09 @ 7:18AM|#

"STATES' RIGHTS" = The last refuge of a scoundrel.

It's just another name for "tyranny of the majority", and THAT's precisely what the courts, both state and federal, were designed to protect citizens against. If not, we'd just let vigilante justice and mob rule run the place -- but Americans have, up until now anyway, preferred the rule of law. And that requires courts willing to enforce EQUAL treatment under the law.

Lastly, does anyone REALLY think this is just about "nomenclature"?? Do you think all those people in favor of Prop 8 pushed it because THEY cared about 'nomenclature'? Of course not, it's about recognizing gay and lesbian people as equals, equals under the law, with all the same protections and privileges. Both sides in this struggle know it, and THAT'S why both sides care so much.

It's only as much about 'labeling' as was the struggle of African Americans to be considered fully "persons" under the law - it's not the word, it's the dignity and the promise that go with it.

Pastor Christian|3.13.09 @ 12:10PM|#

To end the whole life long debate on this, the primary objective and true arguement here is not "only with the state", but with our federal government. One writer said that they think that by offering sex nutural marriages, there would be more people on social security, and on welfare. I want to correct this writer.
IF a person *Hetroxexual* lives with a spouse for TEN years prior to a death- according to Social security's website, they are elegible for "survivors bennefits" of the dead spouse.
As to welfare, allowing gender nutural marriages is not going to make the welfare line any longer, but in essence make it shorter. That means, it will create more jobs.. more things people can do.. IE work for the County Marriage licence office..

I think it would be better for people to do some study on line (its free), before posting something so studpid as his statement.

206-736-9688
my phone
www.hourforum.net our website
glbt friendly...
[e-mail] my email

I put that up there, because I have not one thing to hide. I am glad I am a gay man, and someone that at least stands firm with a heart of understanding, not one of hate.

Pastor Christian|3.13.09 @ 1:34PM|#

Pros and Cons
Let's see if some brain dead people can figure this out..

By allowing same sex marriage
1.It will end discrimination based on sex-when one is to be married.
2.It will end discrimination when it comes to legal rights,family law and the courts.
3.It will end discrimination when it comes to marriage equality.
4.It will boost the state and federal economy.
5.It will allow same sex couples to be bound by the law to each other as in ( hetro marriages ).
6.It will prevent discrimination bios when it comes to employment and military service.
7.It will erase the "dont ask dont tell" law.
8.It will further give provision under the law that would allow by law couples to handle their own affairs IE wills,estates,etc.

Now lets see on the other hand..
1. By not allowing this sex nutural marriage..
it would keep biggots flapping their gums.
2.It would give these right wing idiots more room to hate.
3.It would give other hetrosexuals "peace of mind" thinking ( no gay marriage would ever harm my marriage )..
4. It would hang a sign in the county marriage license office that reads "only for hetrosexuals".
5.It would force state and federal government to further discriminate against someone due to sexual orentation.
6. It would allow legal discrimination- based on fear.
7.It would allow right wing biggots to say "we won this one" again, and again and again... when it comes to equal rights FOR THEM.
8. IT would allow other businesses like insurance companies, mortage lenders, automobile dealers to do a panties check on cliants.

What kind of a world would you like to live in?
One that ends discrimination or one that pampers discrimination to it's core?

Lets see if a brain scientist can figure that one out..

Bruce Majors|3.13.09 @ 2:42PM|#

You know it is sad that Rob Powers' marriage is in legal limbo and it is sweet that Brian Miller gets to call people names and Outright Libertarians gets to show the statist gay "rights" lobby that they are right there with them.

It remains the case that state defined, state licensed gay marriage will mean that gay lawyers will begin suing churches, synagogues, mosques, adoption services etc etc to force them to perform weddings and to give babies up for adoption to gay couples even if the biological parents expressly do not wish this. This is clear from the recent law suit forcing E-Harmony to open its door to gays. The Pastor's chant about the separation of church and state is ludicrous. "Liberals" have long ago thrown the 1st amendment out the window via the FCC and regulation of commercial speech (including my freedom as a gay realtor to answer a gay client's question about whether they will be the only gay person in a prospective neighborhood -- it is illegal for me to answer in DC and Maryland). They long ago threw away the 2nd amendment, the takings clause, the commerce clause. They currently regulate church based day care and nursery schools enough that some churches are eliminating them rather than put up with the regulations.

The gay lobby thinks of rights as legal constructs created by the State to allocate resources to collectivities (protected classes) and not in any way as derived from the individual's self-ownership. I am even in favor of gay marriage, even of the state based variety as long as that is how society is constricted, but it is intellectually dishonest to evade the fact that intrusion into the intimate lives of straight people and social unrest will not be the result.

Bruce Majors|3.13.09 @ 2:44PM|#

Smack Brian Miller is a 40-something (30-something?) white male IT worker from California living in Philadelphia.

A Dominican would be less likely to throw such a hissy fit. His picture is on face book if you really need to see for yourself.

|3.13.09 @ 3:45PM|#

Homosexism arises from a mind disorder, a mental illness.

Getting turned-on, popping a rod or becoming drippy wet, by someone of the same sex is a fetish, same as freaky folks who get off on giantism or S&M or golden showers.

Certainly, homosexism unnatural as it lacks congruency with the inherent design of humans as well as the notion of fully attained beauty through perfection -- becoming fully a man, becoming fully a woman.

The mind of the homosexual has become distorted during childhood such that the homosexual lacks a clear sense of proportion and relation both to and within the universe.

Yet, no one should concern themselves with the freakiness that adults share behind closed doors.

However, Political Homosexism brings forth insideous forces that erode individualism while buttressing the march toward the Platonic totalitarian ideal city-state.

Political Homosexists seek special privilege from Officialdom.

These Political Homosexists agitate for license to legitimize their libidinous fetish and to gain protected status as a conjured class.

Supporters of Political Homosexists fail to see the contributory effects that such acts have to those holding power through Collectivism.

|3.13.09 @ 3:52PM|#

Goodness, between the lunatics who bitch about "collectivism" while simultaneously assigning homogeneous agendas and beliefs to groups based solely on their race, and one of the more persistent Facebook chickenhawks who gets my origins, age and profession wrong, it's easy to lose sight of one simple fact:

Marriage as a government status didn't appear overnight, and it won't disappear overnight either.

While that's an inconvenient truth (haw haw) for the lunatics and chickenhawks of the liberverse, real-world libertarians understand that easing the strictures of government sanctions by reducing barriers to marriage contracts is a lot more productive and achievable than deranged libertopian discourse (and Facebook cruising too).

|3.13.09 @ 3:58PM|#

Effectively, arguing against marriage equality based on faux-libertarian purism is like arguing against a reduction in income taxes because the tax is collected in Federal Reserve Notes. Realists deal with the situation at hand and apply the Constitution accordingly to both circumstances -- achieving libertarian evolution in society. The crackpots insist on a false purity (except when it gets in the way of their own racist rants or efforts to bed Log Cabin Republicans)!

Pastor Christian|3.13.09 @ 5:48PM|#

Maybe the Hetro's are the ones that have this sick minded "fetish" to keep brow beating gay and lesbian's, and in doing so.. raise anger and hate toward other human beings.

Maybe it is the hetro's that have a fetish that is preverted,.

A hetro's fetish ( not sexual ) well it could be Im sure.. but, ) LOL
Maybe their extreme fetish that they enjoy more than sex.. is to cause others harm, and keep their ( hair toe )sexual agenda as if it is the only opinion that is out there.

LOL Hair Toe sexual.. thats a new word peeps :)

|3.13.09 @ 10:58PM|#

Here you can see homosexist Pastor Christian express his heterophobia, as all homosexists have.

This is typical of the homosexist living by homosexism.

They love to use name calling, labelling us "breeders" and "hets".

The homosexist suffers from homosexism, which arises from a mind disorder, a mental illness.

Because of such illness, the homosexist has distorted views of human nature.

Each homosexist suffers from narcissism as he or she cannot fathom existence without himself or herself at the center of the universe.

The narcissistic homosexist, as all homosexists are, laments because the greater world refuses to bend to the whims and demands of the homosexist.

Thus the homosexist lacks any faculty to see the truth of his or her deformed characters, his or her deformed being.

Pastor Christian|3.14.09 @ 1:33PM|#

-Smack,
It must be extremely hard for you assumed that you are a hetrosexual. Let me give you some news that is fact.
One in every two hetro marriages end in divorce.
Two out of Three hetrosexual men have lust for another mans wife- and one in three actually have sexual relations with someone else besides their wife.

90% of Hetrosexuals have adiction to Porn-,and try to fantasize about haveing relations with people in those movies, and books.

Bruce Majors|3.14.09 @ 1:43PM|#

It was very kind of you Pastor, not to also point out that 3 out of 4 heterosexual men cannot write a grammatical sentence or spell worth crap, because of your birth defect, your lack of connectivity between right and left hemispheres of the brain.

It was very kind of you just to illustrate it instead.

Bruce Majors|3.14.09 @ 1:51PM|#

Smack I am sure that you and I would not get along all that well in real life, but it is true that one of the times I was most offended in my life, and one of the few times I thought I should have gotten up and punched someone out, was when I visited my extremely pro-gay best straight woman friend who was then living in Monterey, California. This is a woman who had actually gone with a young lesbian employee to her first gay rap session to help the young woman come out.

So I am in town and she and I go out for drinks at happy hour because her husband is going to work late. She is very happy to show me Monterey's main gay bar, which she had never been to before, and we go 5ish and there are two or three regulars at the bar with the bartender. I get our drinks and we sit down at a booth away from the bar, and one of the hissy little queens says something to the other about "breeders" glaring in our direction.

He assumed we were straight because we were opposite sexed friends (apparently he hadn't seen "Will and Grace"); he assumed it was OK to talk offensively about people in a gay bar; he assumed that gay people aren't "breeders" (I have a 10 year old son) even though a gayby boom has been going on for over a decade now.

The term "breeder" should join the term "fag hag" in being banished from polite society.

Bruce Majors|3.14.09 @ 1:55PM|#

My goodness Brian! Do you still think of yourself as "chicken"?!?!

Your family must have a mighty powerful recipe for barbecue sauce.

By the way, did Outright Libertarians protest the coercion of E-Harmony to accept gay subscribers and perform gay matches against their will?

Of course it isn't rape when you force yourself on a heterosexual man is it. They all want it and they are all asking for it.

Bruce Majors|3.14.09 @ 1:59PM|#

By the way Brian, when the feathers have all fallen out, it isn't a chick anymore.

|3.14.09 @ 4:26PM|#

Bruce,

Your story entertains and opens eyes about the heterophobia that runs rampant among homosexists. Thanks.

As I stated in my first post (March 9, 2009, 10:47pm) that no man or woman should concern himself or herself with what other adults do in their private lives, even over Private Homosexism; and as I stated in another post (March 13, 2009, 3:45pm) that no one should concern himself or herself with the freakiness that adults share behind closed doors; yet all should oppose Political Homosexism, a kind of racism that tries to leverage the force of collectivist totalitarian governance.

Even though homosexism is a mind disorder, a bizarre fetish, it's harmless, relatively speaking. Yet, it does drive the sufferer to be preoccupied with lustful desires.

That said, the ignorant suffering homosexist lacks the wit, the intellect to see a bigger picture.

As the thought of establishing as a protected class those who are into having sex with animals or those into having sex with corpses or those into having sex with defenseless children is both offensive and unwholesome, so too is the thought of establishing homosexists as a political class with a full compliment of privileges on the mere basis of their sexual fetish (homosexism).

Giving such a protected class a full compliment of political privilege, such as Socialist Security survivor death benefits should offend the mind of anyone, not merely authentic libertarians.

That Political Homosexism has gained as much traction as it has by this time, the early 21st century, says much about the state of decline of America, all owing to Big Government Collectivism, as we march toward the Platonic totalitarian city-state.

|3.14.09 @ 5:28PM|#

Well, Bruce, when the man hitting on me in public (as you have) is twice my age (as you are), it's pretty uncomfortable, yes.

PS -- it doesn't matter how often you hiss in my direction, you still aren't gonna get to suck my cock. Deal with it! ;)

|3.14.09 @ 5:30PM|#

Political Homosexism, a kind of racism

You know, one of the things that hurts "libertarianism" the most is the behavior of certain people who self-identify as "libertarian."

An excellent example is the two gents above.

Carry on, kids!

|3.15.09 @ 12:37PM|#

Can anyone please tell me the difference between civil unions and marriage in the state of California? That was the only point of the article that caught my interest. If the only difference is by name, then why is there so much hubabaloo about this issue? Secondly, why is it necessary for the state to recognize someone's marriage anyway? I thought marriage was something that didn't need licensing or paperwork, an inherent liberty that doesn't trample upon the liberty of others. If this has to do with welfare benefits, coerced through force from the taxpayers, then as a libertarian I'm against it regardless on whether the union is heterosexual or homosexual, or other.

I think most posters here are overlooking the root problems with this issue. Both gays and straights should ask themselves, "Why should I care, and why should the state, with its monopolization of power, be involved?".

Pastor Christian|3.15.09 @ 4:20PM|#

There is a big differance here between "civil unions" and "marriage". In the State of california as with any other state, a marriage licence is required-and must be signed by either a clergy member,judge,justice of the peace. There are fee's for Marriage License.
Nonetheless, The issue at hand has little to do with tax, and welfare. It has much more in common with "equality", and by that it would include allowing same sex couples to file JOINT tax returns,
Have social security records showing same sex partner- and bennefits, It would also allow
Same sex couples to be legally bound to each other as hetrosexuals are that are married.

I believe that most GLBT ( Gay lesbian Bi and Transgender) persons want marriage equality,
giving them the same level playing field as Hetro's have had for years.

Visit my website www.hourforum.net and click on " News and Events". I have posted there a news article about Marriage equality.
That page does change at times, but for the next two weeks or so it will be up.

Meanwhhile, thanks for your question :)

Bruce Majors|3.15.09 @ 5:02PM|#

Uh, Brian, I don't know whether to think you are simply a liar, insane, or deluded. We have never met and to my knowledge have never lived in the same city.

I only know you as one of the intellectually dishonest people in Outright Libertarians who censors debate there. Just as you are here evading my question about whether Outright Libertarians EVER said anything against the law suit that forced E-Harmony to take on gay clients when it did not wish to do so.

Did you think this misdirection of an alleged encounter between the two of us would allow you to continue to evade that question? (And do you in general suffer from a fantasy life in which people all lust after you?)

|3.15.09 @ 8:08PM|#

PastorChristian:

Ah, thanks for the answer. Since gays in this issue desire to be treated the same as heterosexual couples when it comes to tax benefits, does that also mean they desire to be treated the same way in terms of tax penalties? If so, I'm fine with it.

But let's face it though; the taxes themselves are outrageous in the first place. It would be better if they didn't exist at all. That and the abolition of inflation and legal tender laws. Then we probably wouldn't be talking about this issue at all.

Concerning the legally-binding nature of marriage that you pointed out, I don't think government intervention is necessary. Can't a homosexual couple write up a contract? Hell, why can't EVERY couple (heterosexual or not) write up a contract instead of having to seek a "license"? Oh wait, it's because we want tax "benefits", which is a sad way of saying "less abuse from government".

Sorry for the rant. There's so much in this issue that I feel is pertinent to mention.

|3.15.09 @ 9:57PM|#

Since when have persons considered having government extort your time that you trade for cash as a "tax benefit"?

Income taxes are theft.

Why should homosexists -- those who have created a group -- receive a tax status for their bizarro sexual fetish -- homosexism -- a fetish which they have because of a mind disorder?

|3.15.09 @ 10:17PM|#

Brian Miller decries :

"... one of the things that hurts ... the most is ... people who self-identify as "libertarian.""

In typical, over-the-top, reactionary gay behavior, Brian kicks up his heels over Bruce Majors (a self-professed gay realtor) and myself.

Brian fails to see that Political Homosexism, a kind of racism, is group action, socialist action, the kind of action that is opposite, anathema to libertarians.

Man can attest the word 'libertarian' to 1789, meaning "one who holds the doctrine of free will", a word taken from liberty and modeled on words like unitarian.

The first use of the word 'Liberty' comes about 1375 from Old French 'liberté', in turn from Latin 'libertatem', meaning "freedom -- the state of a freeman".

Another use of the word 'libertarian' comes from 1878, meaning "person advocating liberty in thought and conduct".

You cannot be for privileges conferred to members based on group membership (Political Homosexism) and at the same time, be a libertarian, an individual living by individualism.

In short, Brian Miller is a socialist and homosexist.

All homosexists advocating for the extra Officialdom privilege (the license of gays to intermarry) to a protected class (Political Homosexuals) are socialists.

None can be libertarians.

Pastor Christian|3.16.09 @ 12:02AM|#

David W,
You seem to understand basic and vital parts of the whole issue here.
yes, if Gay and Lesbians were allowed to legally be married, have rights to joint tax files,social security, and the like.. that also means that they have to pay taxes in accordance with laws that everyone else has to.

Gay men and women presently do file taxes, and yes some are on social security. Nonetheless,
It is not to give gay and lesbians "special rights" but "equal" rights.
In the real world here, I am a television producer and a Pastor of a church.
I understand both sides of this issue maybe better than some here do.
In fairness to the laws, and what Gay men and women are wanting David, It is for equality.
Both in paying taxes, and tax relief.
Both in Buying a home, and selling the same.

The issue at hand is a federal one ( or should be ), because most all of what the GLBT community is asking for depends on the federal side not just the state side.

There is yet another issue here that has not been raised David.
The issue of some states being a "common law state" which means, in that state you legally only have to tell three adults that you are married and, guess what... you are.

Oklahoma is one of those states with common law marriages accepted. All though there isnt a document of sort issued by a state for a marriage as that, you still have to go before a judge in court to end that marriage as with any other.

Hope that helps you to further understand what the nut shell of the issue is :)

|3.16.09 @ 2:45AM|#

Every homosexist man or homosexist woman already gets equal treatment in legal matters and thus is equal before the law.

Political homosexists seek extra privileges granted by Officialdom on the mere basis of having a sexual fetish and living by it(homosexism).

Granting homosexists the license to intermarry for tax status and survivor death benefits from Social(ist) Security would be no different than granting pedophiles the same privilege or granting necrophiliacs the same privilege because they are pedophiles or necrophiliacs.

Privilege doling based on sexual fetishes, all which arise from mind disorder, is abhorrent.

No justice for each man or woman can exist if laws get enacted that favor members of particular groups.

Political Homosexism is dangerous.

|3.16.09 @ 3:52AM|#

Smack: Homosexuality is not a fetish. If you spent any time studying legitimate, peer-reviewed science regarding human sexuality, you would know this. You would also be able to engage in a discussion of such issues without needing to rely on silly made-up words like "homosexism."

Come back when you've received a proper education. We can wait.

Pastor Christian|3.16.09 @ 12:43PM|#

Smack wrote-
No justice for each man or woman can exist if laws get enacted that favor members of particular groups.

^^
This is just fruitless. This goes two ways here Smack. Let a gay Brother brake this down to you..
No justice for each man or woman can exist if laws get enacted that favors members of "particular groups"
IE, you mean the hetrosexual group? Those people? Or do you mean that "gay men and women" are wanting more?//...
Nonetheless, Smack your arguement here is a bunch of ill stated remarks.

If, and the word is IF- laws that govern would be laws that are enacted that treat all people with equality-then we have a mote issue.
"full faith and credit" however has not been afforded to Gays and Lesbians. The action word here is "Full".
yes, there are some rights per the state, but NO rights per the Federal Government.

I also will say, it is sad that you feel that our country is a socialist thing, not a republic.
Trust me, if you were that bright of a person your hero George Bush JR, would have had you on his team.
Meanwhile back at earth, there are over 18,000 GLBT marriages in California that are at stake here...
FOCUS watson, FOCUS

|3.16.09 @ 2:12PM|#

Tara tries to elevate herself to importance on this thread by waging a lame ad hominem attack against me.

Tara says making up words is "silly" and yet she fails to explain how all words have come into existence.

Worse, Tara accepts false beliefs because some in the Church of Academia with its high priests have set-up a self-referential system of fake truth ("peer review").

Because the APA changed is position on the sexual fetish -- homosexism -- from fetish to fringe normalcy does not make it so.

Homosexism arises from a mind disorder, a mental illness.

The sexual fetish of homosexism arises during childhood when the mind of the homosexist becomes distorted and fixated.

Getting turned-on, popping a rod or becoming drippy wet, by someone of the same sex is a fetish, same as freaky folks who get off on necrophilia or bestiality.

|3.16.09 @ 2:27PM|#

Pastor Christian tries feebly to insult me when he writes, "Trust me, if you were that bright of a person ..."

And yet, twice on this board, Pastor Christian writes the word 'mote', which means 'a tiny piece of anything' when he ought to use 'moot', which means 'Of no legal significance (as having been previously decided); irrelevant'

See by his own words, the context in which he misuses words.

"If ...laws that govern would be laws that are enacted that treat all people with equality-then we have a mote issue."

Moving beyond Pastor Christian's confusion (writing 'brake' when he ought to write 'break'), his expression reveals his scattered thought.

After slogging through his bad grammar and poor word usage, we discover his silly belief that the contemporary U.S.A. stands as a republic.

The U.S.A. has not stood as republic since 1913, when the republic fell with the establishment of the 16th Amendment, the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve.

Yet, all of his babbling acts more as a dust bowl than a smoke screen.

The issue remains -- Political Homosexists seek extra privileges (the license to intermarry for tax status and survivor death benefits) granted by Officialdom on the mere basis of having a sexual fetish and living by it (homosexism).

Pastor Christain|3.16.09 @ 2:31PM|#

Smack- Im sure some gay men and women have these "fetish" ideas. However, assuming that you are hetro.. Hetro's have fetishes also.
Some like to harm others, some enjoy wearing womens panties and bras, some enjoy dressing up in drag,some hetro's enjoy name calling, and being a total jerk about things too.

My issue here smack with you is why you keep saying over and over the same thing.
the isms,creed's and codes you attempt to write in is foolish.
As humans,as Americans,as fellow tax payers
we should all want the best for every other human being.
Your personal vandeta against gay and lesbians is your own idea, your own issue.
So, I offer an olive branch.
I want to see people getting along, addressing ideas, fears, etc... and enough already with who has what fetish.

Carry on :)

|3.16.09 @ 4:01PM|#

Pastor Christian,

Quit while you're behind.

Check out craigslist.org and hire someone who can teach you English skills -- how to write it and how to read it.

I wrote on March 9, 2009, that no man or woman should concern himself or herself with what other adults do in their private lives, even over Private Homosexism.

I wrote on March 13, 2009, that no one should concern himself or herself with the freakiness that adults share behind closed doors; yet all should oppose Political Homosexism, a kind of racism that tries to leverage the force of collectivist totalitarian governance.

I wrote on March 14, 2009, that even though homosexism is a mind disorder, a bizarre fetish, it's harmless, relatively speaking.

Yet, repeatedly Pastor Christian, you champion Political Homosexism, an insideous force whose followers seek to obtain extra political privileges (license to intermarry, taxpayer funded survivor death benefits) on the mere basis of being a group organized about a sexual fetish (homosexism), which would be no different if bestialists or pedophiliacs or necrophiliacs were to do the same.

This totalitarian tending action is more perverse than the sexual fetish homosexism itself.

Pastor Christian, your mind is shot, burnt, spent.

The same mind disordering forces that make you live by homosexism also bend your mind to stand as a champion for it. In doing so, you fail to see your illogic way, your inconsistency with human nature, truth and freedom.

Sanctioning fetish groups and rewarding them with political privilege has no basis in modern Western civilization (Euros and Americans since 1550). You cannot find an instance of this happening, ever, in modern Western Civilization.

Rewarding groups with specialized law and privilege is harmful. Doing so under the guise of a sexual fetish is perverse.

Pastor Christian|3.16.09 @ 4:37PM|#

_Rewarding groups with specialized law and privelege, is harmful,Doing so under the guise of a sexual fetish is preverse... stated Smack.

I must agree with you that it is harmful. Hetrosexual persons have brought harm to what you just stated. Hetrosexuals get "specialized" laws and prevelage where as gay and lesbians do not. THAT, yes I agree is harmful.
Under a sexual fetish? Ok once again, let a gay brother here break it down for you.
What you may deem as a sexual fetish may not be for another.
What you think a fetish is, is only limited to your own mind and way of thinking.

It is surely not what is happening in this case what so ever.

If we are going to extend rules,laws, and expect everyone to live by them-those same laws should protect each person, not just hetrosexual(ism).

You seem to be smart enough to understand logic, but do not understand what is in law presently- has not completely done way with ideas that say "gays just want special rights".
IN essence, no. gays want EQUAL rights. ) if gays had equal rights now, we would be allowed to marry, we would be allowed to see our relationships accepted by the federal government as well as state.
We would then see gay and lesbians living the American dream in equality.. not in the present state of disgaurd.

|3.16.09 @ 6:41PM|#

@Pastor Christian

Your post-modern relativism cannot wish away truth, that a fetish is no longer a fetish if looked upon from another perspective.

Homosexists have already equalitarianism (isonomy) to the same desgree that commoners have such relative to the elite.

What you continue to agitate for are extra privileges granted by Officialdom, privileges you want conjured into existence on the mere basis of belonging to a group whose members champion a fetish (homosexism).

The basis of your agitation is perverse.

No basis exists for your want of extra privileges of intermarrying and survivor benefits from an involuntary tax supported theft -- socialist security -- anymore than such a basis exists for pedophiles, bestialists, necrophiliacs, scatophiliacs, or nepiophiliacs.

Pastor Christian, if only you were smart enough to see that the answer rests in repeal of the 16th Amendment, which established insidious Collectivism and the dismantling of Social(ist) Security into a voluntary association.

End income taxation. End involuntary, forced participation into Social(ist) Security and you end the debate and bogus issue of "gay marriage".

Pastor Christian|3.16.09 @ 7:16PM|#

Smack- Once again you are talking down to me as if I were under your feet. You attempt to use "great big words"- that are mote. You should type your notes in modern day english.
That said, you are also still calling it " Social(ist) security..., as if we live in a socialist scociety.
We live in a republic- if you dont know.
The issue here Smack is not on taxes, social security, etc. It is about HUMAN RIGHTS.

It is about ALL men given the EQUAL chance to either do good, or bad. ( It is about Equality ), fairness.
As a matter of fact, soon Ill be doing another television program on same sex marriage.
You are welcome to be a guest if you like.
It is intresting to see why people feel the way they do, but more important to find a nuteral ground whereas freedom was born.

|3.17.09 @ 2:23PM|#

@Pastor Christian,

Your accusation that I "attempt to use "great big words"" amuses.

I have not attempted to do anything. I have written words. If the words appear "great big" to you, that's your deficiency.

In the rest of your absurd post, you continue to harp on false beliefs.

The republic of the U.S. ended in 1913 with the enactment of the 16th and 17th Amendments.

Today, the U.S. is a Collectivist Government that uses a mix of neo-mercantilist and socialist systems.

Homosexists, even Political Homosexists have already the same rights as each man or woman as enumerated under the Bill of Rights.

Homosexists, even Political Homosexists have already the same chances to do good (not run afoul of existing criminal law) or do bad (become criminals) as each man or woman in the U.S.A.

Again, you continue to agitate for extra political privileges granted by Officialdom, privileges you want conjured into existence on the mere basis of belonging to a group whose members champion a sexual fetish (homosexism), which would be no different if other fetish groups (pedophiles, bestialists, necrophiliacs, scatophiliacs) agitated for the same privileges.

Pastor Christian|3.17.09 @ 3:28PM|#

Smack- I want to be the first to thank you for placing Gay men and women in the same cardboard box where you have also placed
Pedophiles,beastialist,necrophilliacs, etc.
Is that the same box by the way where you also sit?
Intresting note, but thank you for doing that.
It means allot to see that.
(smerk).
It also shows on another note here that you might just have a fetish of slamming gay men and women into total submission.
That sounds like the workings and beginning of a dictator.
Note the first word in that one word is "dick"
carry on

2nd class|3.18.09 @ 4:10AM|#

If we left things up to "the will of the people" segregation would still exist in some states in the south.

Pastor Christian|3.18.09 @ 12:34PM|#

2nd Class-
I agree 100% to your statement. Sometimes it is better to be counted standing up for something, than to fail for nothing.