Adam B.: And *society* can feel about gay couples however it wants; the *state* cannot act with animus.

Read about this .

And *society* can feel about gay couples however it wants; the *state* cannot act with animus.

Adam B.:
Actually, that’s what makes this so winnable.Because if there were legitimate motives beyond pure animus, why let gay couples keep all the rights and just take away the label?

That doesn’t prove anything. No same-sex couple got married without understanding this issue was going on the ballot. In fact, part of the reason people rushed out to get married was to coerce others into voting Prop 8 down. They figured if a mass of them got married, people wouldn’t take their “rights” away. The state supreme court is responsible for that disparity, not the people of California.

Adam B.:
All it does is stigmatize one set of relationships compared to another.

That depends on if society already stigmatizes gay people.

Pretending that same-sex unions are marriages is not going to cause society to unstigmatize them.

Michael Ejercito: Yeah, buit taking away the label causes no harm.

All it does is stigmatize one set of relationships compared to another.

The California Supreme Court decision issued on May 15, 2008, regarding same-sex marriages did not invalidate or change any of the Family Code statutes relating to registered domestic partners.

You’ll have to check the other thread: for the link.

I tried posting it here, but the comment failed to appear… perhaps a victim of some anti-spam feature of the blog interface.

The California Supreme Court decision issued on May 15, 2008, regarding same-sex marriages did not invalidate or change any of the Family Code statutes relating to registered domestic partners.

see here

Adam B.:
Actually, that’s what makes this so winnable.Because if there were legitimate motives beyond pure animus, why let gay couples keep all the rights and just take away the label?

Yeah, buit taking away the label causes no harm.

Throbert McGee: Which is particularly tricky to prove given that “everything but the word marriage” domestic partnership laws continue to be in force in California, and were never jeopardized by Prop 8.

Actually, that’s what makes this so winnable. Because if there were legitimate motives beyond pure animus, why let gay couples keep all the rights and just take away the label?

Throbert McGee: (IANAL, so I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me that Prop 8 would be a particularly bad test case for pro-SSM advocates to bring before the US Supreme Court, precisely because California’s very comprehensive domestic-partnership protections substantially mitigate any hardships created by the absence of same-sex marriage.)

It certainly was not the best possible test case.

A better test case would be Bonilla v. Hurst , a petition for an injunction filed in the U.S. District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana, asking for the state to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

Louisiana forbids same-sex couples from having any marital benefits.

Now comes the tricky part of proving the sole basis for upholding traditional marriage is because they hate gay people.

Which is particularly tricky to prove given that “everything but the word marriage” domestic partnership laws continue to be in force in California, and were never jeopardized by Prop 8.

(IANAL, so I could be wrong on this, but it seems to me that Prop 8 would be a particularly bad test case for pro-SSM advocates to bring before the US Supreme Court, precisely because California’s very comprehensive domestic-partnership protections substantially mitigate any hardships created by the absence of same-sex marriage.)

Meet Frederic. He makes the case for us better than anyone else.

I don’t know what my denomination believes in this issue. I also don’t care. I decide my beliefs.

Goggins: To those who argue that Romer v. Evans precluded the people of California from amending their constitution as they did in Prop 8:If that is the case, then the people of the United States would also be precluded from amending the United States Constitution in the same way.

Actually, you’re completely wrong — the Romer case struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution on the grounds that it violated the federal constitution. Same thing can happen here — we’re not talking about an amendment to the US Constitution.

Relic: I, personally, would prefer a world without smug internet commentators who have deluded themselves into thinking that dictating what the public has to accept is the moral high ground. Sadly, my world will never be.

You do realize that from my point of view you are a “smug internet commentator” and that you are trying to dictate morals to the public.

Just to throw in one angle to the morals argument, I belong to a religious denomination that decided a decade ago that the only moral stance is to permit same-sex couples to marry. Mind you, I’m perfectly fine if people choose not marry same-sex partners, or if their congregations decide not to hold same-sex weddings. But why do you get to make that decision for me?

Is there anyone who can argue with a straight face that the court’s actions here were in any way excusable?

From what I read, changes to substantive rules must be either:
1) due to an emergency; or
2) preceded by a notice and comment period.

The court first tried to pass the rule without either, to which the pro-Prop 8 side objected. Then, the court passed the rule subject to a notice and comment period. Halfway through the period, the court claimed an emergency, retroactively applied the rule, and closed the notice and comment period.

The intent here of the court was clearly to rewrite the rules so that this particular case could be broadcast, over the objections of one side to the case.

By what measure have these acts been performed by a ‘neutral arbitrator?’ I could understand televising the trial if both sides consented. I could also understand televising the trial if the local rule had been in place (following an unbiased notice and comment period, because lets face it, if the period had been outside of the prop-8 arena, comments would have been very different in both content and authorship) prior to the lawsuit commencing.

For the court to decide that this particular isolated case, against the objections of one party, should violate the rules, is the height of judicial favoritism.

And I have heard it mentioned before that the first broadcasts of cases should be high profile cases. But for the reasons discussed in the SCOTUS opinion (technical details), the first broadcast case in a court should be relatively uneventful. At least that way you can get the cameras and internet feed working properly.

Neither the ability of a married woman to refuse her husband sex, nor the ability of a married woman to open a line of credit in her own name, qualify as a change to marriage in the same way that allowing gay marriage would qualify as a change to marriage.

I, personally, would prefer a world without smug internet commentators who have deluded themselves into thinking that dictating what the public has to accept is the moral high ground. Sadly, my world will never be.

Relic: The difference between Mather’s opinions on our marriage’s and redefining marriage to include gays is that marriages as we know them now are the product of organic growth and drift over hundreds of years, whereas attempts to recognize gay marriage have been unorganic, undemocratic, and take place over the course of a judicial opinion.

Funny, I thought expanding the franchise of marriage rights to include same-sex couples was due to the organic growth and drift over the last few decades. And, of course, many of the changes to marriage prior to this have been the result of judicial opinion. Can a married woman refuse her husband sex? The courts said yes. Can a married woman get credit in her own name? The courts said yes. This was not organic growth.

I realize that many opponents of same-sex marriage feel that those past judicial opinions have been good things that have improved society, yet this one is one change too far. I also realize that some of the opponents of same-sex marriage would like to turn the clock back to an imagined time roughly based on the early 20th century.

Relic: The difference between Mather’s opinions on our marriage’s and redefining marriage to include gays is that marriages as we know them now are the product of organic growth and drift over hundreds of years, whereas attempts to recognize gay marriage have been unorganic, undemocratic, and take place over the course of a judicial opinion.

Very good.

Mike:
Yes, when given a secret ballot, people behave as bigots.The KKK wore white hoods, and you hide behind the white curtain of a voting booth. That bigotry prevails when no one is watching, is not disputable.That you are afraid of being exposed as a bigot, too, is also indisputable.

There you go again with the bigot card.

The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862 defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and yet no one has credibly argued that the authors of the law were targeting homosexuals.

Mark Field:
You mean like the way Dinesh D’Souza outed the gay and lesbian students at Dartmouth?

Um, sure. That’s an argument, right? Because it doesn’t appear to, you know, make any sense.

Much appreciated.

And that makes it so much more justifiable here.

Just noting the hypocrisy involved.

Also, that particular article is of questionable quality. Do you have another?

AFAIK, there’s no dispute that he outed the students. The only debate was over his claim that he didn’t use private correspondence to do so. Here is a report of it in the Boston Globe.

It’s also about publically outing and identifying individuals who merely signed a petition.

You mean like the way Dinesh D’Souza outed the gay and lesbian students at Dartmouth?

Fredrick:
Sorry, you don’t get to redefine words just so you can force others to accept you.

Who then does get to redefine words and for what purposes can these redefinitions be put? Words do sometimes change meaning. Sometimes subtly. Sometimes it’s not so subtly.

I suspect that if Cotton Mather were to land in any part of the United States, he would look upon how we practice marriage with disfavor. Do you really think he’d approve of Maggie Gallagher? And not just because he’d take offense at her religious affiliation. What might he think of Rush Limbaugh? Cotton Mather would probably tell us that marriage, as it is practiced in the United States today, is not marriage.

The Reverend Mather would be wrong because we get to determine the contours of our cultural practices. No one gets ownership.

I’m interested to know if there is a historical analogue to the Prop 8 supporters who have started rumors that the judge hearing the case is secretly gay in an effort to discredit him. Did civil rights opponents start rumors that federal judges were part-black or somesuch? Wouldn’t surprise me, but I don’t know either way.

Now comes the tricky part of proving the sole basis for upholding traditional marriage is because they hate gay people.

Prop 8 removed the label “marriage” from gay couples, but did not remove any of the substantive rights obtained via marriage. There’s no explanation other than to express disfavor towards gays, and under Romer, City of Cleburne Living Center and Moreno, you just can’t do that.

Read “Not Like Other Boys”

I’ll pass on the propaganda.

Not Like Other Boys
Growing Up Gay: A Mother and Son Look Back
by
Marlene Fanta Shyer and Christopher Shyer

This book alternates between chapters written by Chris and his mom Marlene. In it, she admits that she knew that Chris was probably gay from the time he was in kindergarten. Read chapter 3 and look at the pictures of Chris as a child and as an adult. He’s gay to the core. Not all gay people have such overt characteristics, but the fact that some do enables most fair-minded people to accept that homosexuality is not a choice for most.

Propaganda, memoir, whatever. Everyone who loves an unrepentant homosexual is just part of the mafia, enacting an agenda.

Ex-gays? I don’t know what to make of them. Maybe they retreat back into the closet, maybe they were bisexual to begin with, maybe they have psychological issues I just can’t relate to at all. But presuming that all homosexuals could choose to cure themselves is bigotry, plain and simple.

Love your gay children, and other people’s gay children. Trying to reprogram a gay adolescent is an evil, evil act.