Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Yes, this was published in a major newspaper in the year 2009 Previous entry: I Look Forward To Months Of This

What will marriage equality supporters do during the Prop 8 rallies?

UPDATE: And as you already know, the CA Supremes upheld Prop 8, but those who were married in that small window while same-sex marriage was legal (about 18K), will remain married. A copy of the ruling is here. Predictable, because California’s constitution affirms mob rule.

As we await the 10:30 ET official word on Sotomayor as the President’s SCOTUS pick, and the 1PM ET ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8

, Here is a thoughtful piece by Christopher Geidner@ Law Dork. He discusses the forthcoming Prop 8 ruling by the California Supreme Court and the possible reactions in the LGBT and allies community if the ruling does not overturn it—either by nullifying all the same-sex marriages or allowing the thousands of existing marriages to remain intact while still affirming Prop 8. He believes the Supreme Court will have the split decision. He also shares my concern that we have to worry just as much about misplaced anger turning into violence as we do from the right.

Assuming that outcome, which I believe is most likely, I’d ask — and hope our national leaders would ask — that we all take a breath before acting.  As, I wrote Friday, the decision to be issued today is a legal determination about the structure of the California Constitution and the procedures available to the people to amend it.  A fair and vigorous debate has been had about whether Proposition 8 was the type of change envisioned as an amendment or if it was a revision, which would require a more lengthy and difficult process.

The California Supreme Court, at least a majority of its justices, already has shown its support for marriage equality.  There can, thus, be no claim made that this court comes at the issue of gay and lesbian equality with anything less than good faith.

I understood — and participated in — rallies held across the country following the passage of Proposition 8.  I understood the stark awakening that the vote was for many young LGBT people and our allies.  I supported this rejuvenated “gay movement.”  We have seen the fruits of that awakening in Iowa, Vermont, D.C., Maine and New Hampshire, as well as in countless other states, cities and communities across the nation.

We must not let today’s ruling change that momentum.

Geidner reminds readers that this ruling is not about the merits or legality of same-sex marriage—the same state Supreme Court is the one that decided gays and lesbians could marry. So what we—or perhaps Californians—should be angry about is a state Constitution that allows civil rights to be placed on a ballot measure.

More after the jump.
And:

Even if there is some overriding federal claim that marriage equality is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, it was not raised by the parties here.

...we have spent the past decade decrying those who demean the legitimacy of court decisions by attacking them.  It would turn that principled stand on its head to say that this court, which previously held that marriage equality was guaranteed by the California Constitution, is somehow responsible in today’s decision for “denying an entire group of people our civil rights.”

He’s right. For most of us, we won’t have our state legislatures to count on to give us marriage equality, and certainly not “the people” if measures like Prop 8 make it on the ballot—our rights will be ultimately be determined by the courts (and the President, Congress, and SCOTUS).

That said, if any or some marriages are nullified today, perhaps we can channel that anger in a positive way. I’m actually kind of skeptical that one can expect logical or rational reactions from angry people being denied civil rights by technicality, but one can try:

Rather than spouting anger at these rallies, organizers and speakers should be spouting information about legislative battles going on in their states and counties.  The California rallies should be an opportunity to sign up marriage equality precinct captains all across the state, people who will be the local voices changing minds across that state.

For instance, a Blender suggested that people hand out a Dallas Principles flyer at these rallies—ask and you shall receive. We do need to keep our eyes on the prize. After all, it’s easier to motivate people to attend a rally out of anger or joy; it’s unfortunately harder to get them to call their lawmakers or lobby their state elected officials to move the equality ball forward. The opposition however, has no difficulty getting people to call, write and show up at legislatures around the country on a regular basis.

There is also a postcard template available; download the front and the back elements.

Also:
* AP: Sonia Sotomayor is Obama’s SCOTUS pick
* Orcinus: there may be a violent right-wing backlash if Prop 8 is overturned
* My video contribution in support of The Dallas Principles

 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 10:01 AM • (63) Comments

Even if there is some overriding federal claim that marriage equality is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, it was not raised by the parties here.

Nobody brought up Loving’s finding that marriage is a fundamental right? Why?

Comment #1: asdf  on  05/26  at  10:33 AM

Sara at Orcinus has a brilliant piece looking at the possible right-wing reaction.  She mentions that left-wing activists she has spoken to are sanguine about the decision going against them - they know the tide is on their side.

Comment #2: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/26  at  10:44 AM

And, naturally, you have a link for it.  I need more sleep.

Comment #3: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/26  at  10:45 AM

Nobody brought up Loving’s finding that marriage is a fundamental right? Why?

Specifically in order to make the arguments based on state constitutions and not on the federal constitution. The strategy is to not bring this to the federal courts at this time.  You use arguments based on state constitutions in the state courts.

Comment #4: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  05/26  at  10:47 AM

“mentions that left-wing activists she has spoken to are sanguine about the decision going against them - they know the tide is on their side. “

True, and we do all know this and it is of great comfort.  But I’d still love to this oveturned today, not tomorrow.

Comment #5: Lady Vader  on  05/26  at  11:22 AM

Thanks for explaining, Jeff. I trust our legal strategists have good reason for that.

Comment #6: asdf  on  05/26  at  11:32 AM

The whole ballot initiative thing is way out of whack.  It is to the point where one wonders if California has the “republican form of government” guaranteed by the Constitution.

Comment #7: Magis  on  05/26  at  12:01 PM

The whole ballot initiative thing is way out of whack.  It is to the point where one wonders if California has the “republican form of government” guaranteed by the Constitution.

Exactly. When ballot initiative system allows Nuremberg-Law language (i.e. that subtracting the rights or privileges of a specific class of law-abiding citizen) to be injected into the state constitution by a simple majority of voters, it’s broken.

Comment #8: Gracchus.  on  05/26  at  12:17 PM

The whole ballot initiative thing is way out of whack.

The initiative, the referendum, and the recall, were all enshrined in the CA Constitution by the efforts of Hiriam Johnson, and allegedly his goal was to keep CA from having a Democrat as a governor.  It worked to the point where a three-toed sloth could use one hand/foot to count the # of Democratic CA governors not named Brown so far.

Comment #9: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/26  at  01:02 PM

Yes, the California initiative process is a wild card.

Upholding H8 would be a bad legal precedent for a thousand reasons, only one of which, of course, is gay marriage in CA.

Am I the only one who hopes for riots in West Hollywood and San Francisco if H8 is upheld?

Real, break-the-windows-in-the-courthouse riots, or even better, break-the-windows-in-the Mormon Tabernacle?

(Although I also believe a counter proposition in 2010 would be a boon to Democrats, really turn out the voters.)

I wrote the above on Americablog, yesterday, too, and got the below response:

from Screaming Queen—Oh yes, by all means. A break the windows rights really accomplishes so much! I mean, look at the WTO: It got rid of all those insane trade policies and was a boon for organized labor.

And look at how successful the White Night riots were! Wow, that got us all those rights, didn’t it?

Are you the only one hoping for riots? I sure hope so. We can’t all be that stupid.

To which I replied:

The White Night riots [after the slap-on-the-wrist sentencing of Dan White for the murders of Harvey Milk and the then Mayor of San Francisco] were the impetus for aggressive gay rights organization in San Francisco, and more respect for gay politicians and what all.

Don’t believe me?

“The show of strength from the gay community led to increased political power, which culminated in the re-election of Mayor Dianne Feinstein the following November. In response to a campaign promise, Feinstein appointed a pro-gay Chief of Police, which increased recruitment of gays in the police force and eased tensions . . .”

“Effects on LGBT Culture
On October 14, 1979, over 100,000 people marched on Washington for gay rights. Many carried portraits of Milk and placards honoring his legacy.[38] The rally, which was something that Milk had wanted to organize, was instead a tribute to him. According to journalist and author Randy Shilts, the White Night Riots provided a fitting end to the legend of Harvey Milk.”

“Effects on San Francisco Politics
With the 1979 municipal elections only months after the riot, many feared an anti-gay backlash at the polls. The expected backlash never came, and the gay community wielded unprecedented power. Although the virtually unknown gay Mayoral candidate David Scott finished third in the election, his showing was strong enough to force Acting Mayor Feinstein into a runoff election against conservative City Supervisor Quentin Kopp. Due to her promises of appointing more gay people to public office and her heavy campaigning in the Castro… “

“However, Murphy also vowed to maintain the progressive policy towards gays that his predecessor had implemented. By 1980, one in seven new police recruits was gay or lesbian.[39] ]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

“No More Mr. Nice Gay” indeed.

I couldn’t hope more for riots, and the aftermath of political power and respect.

So, who beyond me, is hoping for riots if Prop 8 is upheld?

Comment #10: judybrowni  on  05/26  at  01:48 PM

Disrupt heterosexual weddings at Mormon and Baptist churches with homosexual rights demonstrations.

Comment #11: mnsr  on  05/26  at  02:06 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/california.same.sex.marriage/index.html

Prop 8 upheld - but marriages performed prior to November still in effect.

So now let’s hope that getting an anti-Prop 8 on the ballot for 2010 is the agenda, and not (as suggested above) pointless rioting. Let’s concentrate on constructive rather than destructive measures since we have so many readily available right now.

Comment #12: kodiak  on  05/26  at  02:41 PM

“Prop 8 upheld - but marriages performed prior to November still in effect.”

Ooookay.  California’s SSC has finally suffered that mental breakdown all this pressure has been leading to.

How can new SS marriages be illegal but existing ones be still legal?

And if enough Mormon and Catholic money is spent, can they make condoms illegal?  How about the Democratic Party?  How about making the use of Spanish illegal?  What other civil rights are on the auction block in my state?...

Comment #13: MikeEss  on  05/26  at  02:53 PM

Mr Ess asked:

And if enough Mormon and Catholic money is spent, can they make condoms illegal?

Seems unlikely, since the use of artificial contraception is held as part of the right to privacy under Griswold v Connecticut, a United States Supreme Court case; a state initiative couldn’t overturn that.

How about the Democratic Party?

From your keyboard to God’s computer screen!  smile

But Mr Ess most important question:

How can new SS marriages be illegal but existing ones be still legal?

To have invalidated existing same-sex marriages would have required an ex post facto ruling, which would have, in itself, opened a can of worms, though your position might have been better served if that was what was done.  Then a formerly married same-sex couple that was either “civil unioned” or annulled agaist their will would have a federal claim to raise.

Comment #14: Dana  on  05/26  at  03:15 PM

From your keyboard to God’s computer screen

As a famous Republican said:

“Let us not say that God is on our side, but let us hope that in the end we
will be on the side of God.”  grin

Comment #15: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/26  at  03:40 PM

Dana, on a day like this, you might not want to stir things up any more than they have already been stirred.  And I could be wrong, but none of this seems very humorous, especially for those of us who don’t see LGBT people as anything other than just ordinary people who deserve to be treated with the same respect as anyone else…

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  05/26  at  03:41 PM

Dana,

STFU.

Sincerely,

LGBTs and our allies.

Comment #17: teac  on  05/26  at  03:51 PM

I’m really sorry for all of you out there who get to have assholes reaffirm that you are less than people.

You are not less than.

You are fully human, and you possess rights.

Just because the assholes have won this day and can suppress your rights for the moment, doesn’t mean they always will have that power. 

It’s just a sucky day.  But it will pass.  And a better day will come.

Comment #18: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  05/26  at  03:59 PM

Mr Ess asked:

How can new SS marriages be illegal but existing ones be still legal?

From a comment on Patterico:

The upholding of existing “marriages” does follow prior precedent. After California abolished common-law marriage, existing common-law marriages were permitted to stand. (Wells v. Allen (1918) 38 Cal. App. 586 26. While the Court could have overruled this precedent as it was an appeals court decision, they chose not to.)

Comment #19: Dana  on  05/26  at  04:05 PM

The California Supreme Court found that it did not have the strength to roll this particular boulder out of our path.

The vandals who rolled the rock onto the road are crowing now, proud of having stopped our advance.

Meanwhile, we will step forward and put our own shoulders to it.

Comment #20: Dr. Psycho  on  05/26  at  04:18 PM

To have invalidated existing same-sex marriages would have required an ex post facto ruling, which would have, in itself, opened a can of worms, though your position might have been better served if that was what was done.  Then a formerly married same-sex couple that was either “civil unioned” or annulled agaist their will would have a federal claim to raise.

As it is, though, the court didn’t want to open up that can of worms. So understand: you and your fellow bigots are now stuck with the State of California permanently recognising thousands of GLBT marriages, and me and my fellow liberals are stuck (for the time being) with the shameful situation of no further marriages in that state for a certain class of law-abiding citizen.

[I understand that you interpret the phrase “law-abiding citizen” differently, Dana, since you don’t regard GLBT folks as full persons deserving of all the rights of citizenship—similar to the way the Dred Scott ruling didn’t regard African-Americans as full persons, and the Nuremberg Laws didn’t regard ... well, you get the picture.]

Anyhow, here’s a little quiz, Dana: guess which situation will come “un-stuck” first (specifically, in Nov, 2010, using the same initiative system) and which situation will never come “un-stuck” (thanks to this court ruling).

I’m sure you know the answer—just as surely as we all know that your side is losing.

Comment #21: Gracchus.  on  05/26  at  04:22 PM

Let’s concentrate on constructive rather than destructive measures

“The urge for destruction is also a creative urge.”
- Mikhail Bakunin

Comment #22: BlackBloc  on  05/26  at  04:23 PM

“The urge for destruction is also a creative urge.”
- Mikhail Bakunin

I thought that was Schumpeter (kidding—sorta).

Anyhow, since I understand the court’s hands were tied by this borked ballot initiative system,  I’m willing to wait a year and a half for the voters to yank out the Prop 8 language, and trust that California’s liberals and progressives (not just LGBT people) will spend the time between now and November, 2010 putting together an effective and united campaign to make that happen.

Not as exciting and romantic as rioting, I know, but I’m a boring guy.

Comment #23: Gracchus.  on  05/26  at  04:38 PM

California is clearly a lunatic bin.  Why, dear Godess of Reason, would you requrie 2/3 of the Legislature to vote for an amendment but only a majority of the citizens who elected the same legislators.  Why would you only require 8% of the voter signatures for an initiative?  Sheer madness.  That isn’t democracy, it’s legalized anarchy.

Then to make matters worse the gays that are married can stay married.  But new gay marriages can’t be performed.  Is that sane jurisprudence.  How can you manage not only to create two disparate classes but create them out of the same subset of people?  Equal protection?  Where?  These are the same people that just voted less taxes and more services; in the midst of an economic melt-down.  Pod people, I tell ya, pod people.

So what now.  Suppose there is a ballot initiative to overturn 8.  Then there’s a ballot initiative to overturn the overturn.  Then….

Can you spray prozac from the air?

Comment #24: Magis  on  05/26  at  04:43 PM

So what now.  Suppose there is a ballot initiative to overturn 8.  Then there’s a ballot initiative to overturn the overturn.  Then….

I think one outcome of Prop 8—perhaps in 2010, perhaps in 2012—will be a change to the initiative system to require a 2/3 majority for amendments to the state constitution. The Know-Nothings will try to have it apply to the 2010 vote itself, but of course that’s not going to fly.

Maybe they’ll bump up the petition requirement from 8% to 10% of voter signatures, but I suspect those are the only changes we’re gonna see.

Comment #25: Gracchus.  on  05/26  at  05:01 PM

Caren at 2:59,

Thank you.

Comment #26: teac  on  05/26  at  05:01 PM

Teac,

I know it’s disheartening. But I hope you’ll take some comfort in the fact that even those (like Dana) who don’t consider GLBT folks people in full are too ashamed to admit that this is their basic justification for denying you the same rights and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.

Comment #27: Gracchus.  on  05/26  at  05:11 PM

Ooookay.  California’s SSC has finally suffered that mental breakdown all this pressure has been leading to.

How can new SS marriages be illegal but existing ones be still legal?

You gotta see, Mike, they’re just saying that “gay marriage” is an oxymoron that can’t exist, except for those that do.

Has anyone *ever* seen a coherent reason against gay marriage that didn’t crumble immediately when questioned?  “Gay marriage can’t exist” - here’s some.  “Marriage is about kids” - except that it isn’t.

Fuckwits.

Comment #28: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/26  at  05:12 PM

Oh, I’m sorry, Dana.  I forgot your extra special worry that once gay marriages are legal, pairs of mincing fairies are going to round up the Catholic priests and waterboard them into allowing big gay orgies in the middle of Catholic churches.  I should have remembered that one…

Comment #29: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/26  at  05:13 PM

Magis wrote:

Then to make matters worse the gays that are married can stay married.  But new gay marriages can’t be performed.  Is that sane jurisprudence.  How can you manage not only to create two disparate classes but create them out of the same subset of people?

Easily enough.  If a state allowed first cousin marriage, and then changed the law to restrict marriage to people no more closely ralated than second cousins, the previous first cousin marriages would still be considered legal marriages.  Similarly, a state which allows marriages no closer than between second cousins will still not normally fail to consider legal first cousin marriages from another state as legal in the first state.

This has a current application, in that New York state recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries, even though it does not recognize such as being legally performed in New York.

Comment #30: Dana  on  05/26  at  05:52 PM

Before anyone gets upset, I’m sure that Dana isn’t trying to imply that marriages between blood relatives (which are generally considered taboo on the basis of genetic science) are somehow analogous to marriages between same-sex couples (which are generally considered taboo on the basis of superstition). That would be stunningly moronic.

Right, Dana? Just tryin’ to help ya out here.

Comment #31: Gracchus.  on  05/26  at  06:06 PM

I honestly don’t know why the pro-8 people think that it is okay to make people conform to their ideas of acceptable sexuality.  I get that they think that homosexuality is wrong, and that gay marriage is against god’s will, but why do they think that it is okay to enshrine their religious beliefs in law?

Comment #32: Fatman  on  05/26  at  06:06 PM

Easily enough.  If a state allowed first cousin marriage, and then changed the law to restrict marriage to people no more closely ralated than second cousins, the previous first cousin marriages would still be considered legal marriages.

No, it’s not that easy.  At least no easier than “separate but equal.”  If you have disparate classes you must be able to show a reason for it that is not “capricious and arbitrary.”  In the case you cite, 1st cousins aren’t 2d cousins.  In the instant case you have two separate classes of gay people.  The ‘can’t marry’ and the ‘are married’ are subsets of the same group.  Try this:  1st ≠ 2nd.  Gay = gay.

Comment #33: Magis  on  05/26  at  06:19 PM

Do my eyes deceive me? Is Dana - our Dana - really arguing against DOMA?

So what now.  Suppose there is a ballot initiative to overturn 8.  Then there’s a ballot initiative to overturn the overturn.  Then….

In 2010 we’ll have the numbers. And our majority is going to keep growing - statistics show - they’ll never be able to reverse it. *knocks wood*

Comment #34: Rebecca  on  05/26  at  06:20 PM

Rebecca:

I don’t doubt what you say but how many times will this thing be on the ballot if the whackos only need 8%!  Lordy, they’re still fighting evolution.

Comment #35: Magis  on  05/26  at  06:23 PM

Eh, by 2010 they’ll just be wasting their time and money. (This isn’t to say that we don’t need to start organizing and fundraising now.)

Comment #36: Rebecca  on  05/26  at  06:27 PM

Do my eyes deceive me? Is Dana - our Dana - really arguing against DOMA?

On the Federal level, I’m sure he is against it. Dana’s a “states’ rights” kinda guy (at least in the George Wallace ca. 1963 sense of the term). If there’s gonna be codified discrimination against a class of citizen that’s an abomination in the eyes of Dana’s Invisible Bearded Sky Man™, it’ll be the states that do it, not the Feds. He’s reasonable that way.

Comment #37: Gracchus.  on  05/26  at  06:42 PM

“We do need to keep our eyes on the prize. After all, it’s easier to motivate people to attend a rally out of anger or joy; it’s unfortunately harder to get them to call their lawmakers or lobby their state elected officials to move the equality ball forward. The opposition however, has no difficulty getting people to call, write and show up at legislatures around the country on a regular basis.”

I posted my comment on Law Dork but it serves well here, too: Anger’s a great thing. It has powers to transform. I doubt I’d do half the things I do today if not for the fact that I’m just so frakkin’ pissed off at how the world is. But anger fades, and in order for lasting change, has to be replaced by something more fundamentally pragmatic or even self-serving to get people to keep up the fight.

Comment #38: BarbaraXenia  on  05/26  at  06:43 PM

I just finished reading the whole decision, and, frankly, if I were an anti-SS-bigot, particularly one who thought the California SC upholding Prop8 would mean complete abrogation a whole slew of GLBT rights, I would be completely losing it right now.  However, we all know most of those types are probably too stupid to read - or at least too stupid to understand that the CalSC explicitly rejected any and all assertions that, other than the use of the word marriage, upholding Prop8 would not effect all the rights, benefits and responsibilities conferred by “constitutional marriage”.  In fact, they state that they were “carving out” an exception, rather than removing rights.  This is significant, as I’ve always argued that the California justices felt so strongly about this, that they would be willing to sacrifice “marriage” rather than create a permanent “separate and unequal” status.  If you read the decision, it appears clear (to me, at least) that the justices are saying, okay, we’re willing to play by it your way for a while - you can have both marriage and domestic partnerships - but you’d better damn well make sure that there’s not a hair’s space between them, other than their name.  Of course, we all know you cannot have “separate but equal”, and since the Cal SC explicitly referenced last year’s decision where they deemed sexual orientation a protected class, they are clearly setting up the next moves in the chess game.

Was it a disappointment?  Yes.  But I believe that, in the long run, marriage equality advocates left holding a lot more chips than did our opponents.

Comment #39: mb_w  on  05/26  at  08:45 PM

Rebecca asked:

Do my eyes deceive me? Is Dana - our Dana - really arguing against DOMA?

I have problems with the Defense of Marriage Act, yes.  While I despise the idea that a few judges could impose same-sex marriage on a clearly unwilling majority, countrywide, I don’t see how DoMA falls under the Congress power to effectively regulate the full faith and credit clause.  It seems to me to be poorly written and bad law.

Comment #40: Dana  on  05/26  at  09:00 PM

While I despise the idea that a few judges could impose same-sex marriage on a clearly unwilling majority….

Sweet Cheezus, this is the stupidest argument against SSM I keep hearing. NOBODY is (or will be) “imposing” ANY same-sex marriages on ANYBODY!!  Is anybody “imposing” interracial marriage on you, Dana?  Anybody “imposing” interfaith marriages on you?

Merely existing as a marriage option is not imposing.  Stop saying it is.

And if you don’t want same-sex marriage, don’t get one.  But stop preventing me and my family and friends from getting one.

Comment #41: UncleMike  on  05/26  at  10:44 PM

Dana logic: imposing the view of marriage espoused by certain segments of one religion on the entire country is just fine. Allowing same-sex marriage to exist without anyone being forced to take part in it, though, is baaaaaad.

Whatevs.

Comment #42: kristin  on  05/27  at  02:12 AM

Mark Monford, from the San Francisco Chronicle, had a few words for folks like Dana:

Let us hereby be reminded, before sadness and frustration overwhelm once more: Proposition 8 and its ilk are merely the last, fitful gasps of a long-dying ideology, markers of a certain kind of sad, conservative desperation. They are the final clawings and scrapings of a reactionary worldview that attempts to outlaw and punish all it cannot, will not understand. Same as it ever was, really.

The pattern is as old as fear itself. Remember, only rarely does true progress appear as a single, momentous, Obama-like shift that reverberates across the planet and changes everything in an instant. Most frequently it comes in fits and starts and hiccups, small lurches and hard-fought battles shot through with little spitballs of hate and intolerance and heaps of misunderstanding. You know, just like now.

Evidence? Plenty. Just look at the numbers: Support for gay marriage is now the highest it’s been in American history, somewhere between 42 and 48 percent nationwide. Just a few decades ago, support was down in the 20s. It’s been rising steadily ever since, never once regressing.

Or, flip that data around. According to FiveThirtyEight, marriage bans like California’s are losing support at a rate of about two percent a year. According to that model, more than half of U.S. states will vote against bans like the contemptible Prop 8 as soon as 2012, if not sooner. By 2024, even miserably homophobic joints like Alabama and Mississippi will be flying the rainbow flag.

You could say, then, that we are, right this minute, at the tipping point. You could say that very soon indeed—sooner than many people expect, in fact—we will all look back on this inane gay marriage hysteria and wonder, what the hell was that all about? What the hell were we thinking? And by the way, isn’t President Obama’s second term going just astonishingly well?

As for massive, schizophrenic California, well, what can we say? In our convoluted, lurching, two steps forward eight steps sideways sort of quasi-progressive way, we flail and flip and frequently fail. It’s just our way.

We may be a die-hard blue state overall, full of revolutionary ideas and world-class academics, Nobel Laureates and wondrous alternative belief systems, but we are also messy and flat-footed and just too damn big for our own good, and our southern half is packed to the Orange County rafters with piles of aging social conservatives and religious zealots with far too little spiritual/sexual awareness and far too much money. Sorry.

Comment #43: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/27  at  02:55 AM

Marriage is not a right.  The right to vote, to assemble freely, to free speech, to vote, etc.  those are rights granted by the Constitution of the US and each state in the union.  Nowhere is it mentioned that marriage is a right, and even if it were, ultimately homosexuals are granted the same exact rights heterosexuals have: to marry someone of the opposite sex. They are not granted special rights because heterosexuals aren’t granted special rights either, and to ask for that would be ludicrous.  However, marriage is an institution that was created to foster a safe and stable environment so humans can raise offspring.  While some may argue that one can procreate and raise offspring outside of the institution marriage, and marriage doesn’t always work out the way it was intended, studies and statistics prove unequivocally that children’s best rearing takes place in the nucleus of a loving family and thus marriage occupies an important role in our society.

Homosexuality is not normal.  It is caused by a genetic defect or abnormality and influenced by the environment in those subjected to the defective gene.  Homosexuality is not conducive of furthering the existence of the human race.  Nature intended for people of opposite sex to procreate, that is why homosexuals cannot help the human race continue by copulating with those in-kind.  If the majority of the population were homosexual (not even the entire population, but the majority), that abnormal gene would become prevalent and it would get passed as a dominant gene, in essence spelling doom for the future of the human race.  We would all slowly perish.  However, nature always finds a way to overcome adversity, and luckily we all exist and will continue to do so due to heterosexuals.

Darwin predicted that natural selection would progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness (read homosexuality among other things detrimental to the existence of the human race).  So why does homosexuality persist?  Why hasn’t the defective gene been eliminated since it clearly goes against nature and natural selection?  Surprisingly, nature found a beautiful way to overcome the obstacle the homosexual gene presents by making use of that very gene in women to make them more fertile by orders of magnitude than women who do not carry the gene.  Therefore, while the abnormal gene spells doom for the human race in male carriers, when it is carried by women it overcompensates for the downside existent in men by orders of magnitude by providing them with the possibility to have more offspring than normal.  What a beautiful way of overcoming something that could be fatal to the human race.  Put it this way: had the original ancestors been homosexuals - whether you believe in religions or evolution - we would not exist today.  Homosexuality is a defect that developed later in the stages of human evolution but nature found a way to overcome it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014

Homosexual marriage is also bad for society at large simply because it would lead to far more unstable families defeating the very purpose of marriage.  There is an abundance of evidence that homosexual couples divorce each other far more often than their heterosexual counterparts.  Every single country where homosexual marriage is allowed has provided studies and statistics to that regard showing how much more unstable homosexual families are. 

Here is one example: http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html

In essence, homosexuality is bad for the human race and bad for society.  The only reason we exist today is because our ancestors were not homosexuals.  If they were, we wouldn’t even be debating this because we would not exist as a race.

Read more on the genetic and social research done on the subject, and provide arguments to the contrary if you can find any.  I am convinced you won’t because even the most simple of people know we would all be extinct if it were up to homosexuals. 

Fortunately heterosexuals come to the rescue of our wonderful race, and California got it right.  With that mentality, the human race will continue to exist.  That is progressive thinking, backed by a multitude of scientific discoveries.

Comment #44: Fandango  on  05/27  at  03:01 AM

California is clearly a lunatic bin.  Why, dear Godess of Reason, would you requrie 2/3 of the Legislature to vote for an amendment but only a majority of the citizens who elected the same legislators.  Why would you only require 8% of the voter signatures for an initiative?  Sheer madness.  That isn’t democracy, it’s legalized anarchy.

If you think it sounds crazy, you should try living here. ::headdesks::

Skipped a whole lot, but Fandango, people have actually *studied* how homosexuals fit into hunter/gatherer scoieties, instead of making assumptions like you. Gays are useful to the survival of their families’ genetic lines; they help raise and provide for all their nieces and nephews. You may be alive because your 32xgreat granduncle pulled your 31xgreat grandmother clear of a striking snake.

Comment #45: Samantha Vimes  on  05/27  at  03:40 AM

Marriage is not a right.

Sorry, but that’s not what the Supreme Court said in Loving Vs. Virginia:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.

studies and statistics prove unequivocally that children’s best rearing takes place in the nucleus of a loving family and thus/i marriage occupies an important role in our society.

So, if a marriage breaks up due to death, or divorce, then the children should be taken away and become the nucleus of a new loving family because only then can the best rearing for said children be assured by your standards.

Homosexuality is not normal.  It is caused by a genetic defect or abnormality and influenced by the environment in those subjected to the defective gene.

If that were the case, then this couldn’t be true:

Homosexual activity can also occur in situations where large groups of persons of the same sex are confined together for some length of time, as in prison, the military, single-sex boarding schools, or other sex-segregated communities, where members of those communities might engage in homosexual behaviors but otherwise identify as heterosexual.

Really, you could win the Noble Prize in medicine if you could prove such a preposterous tale.

Also, your simplistic theory doesn’t account for the following observations.

In a 2004 study, the female subjects (both gay and straight women) became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men. The study’s senior researcher said that women’s sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men’s, and it’s more changeable over time.[36]

Surprisingly, nature found a beautiful way to overcome the obstacle the homosexual gene presents by making use of that very gene in women to make them more fertile by orders of magnitude than women who do not carry the gene.

Not according to the latest data

We show that fecundity of female relatives of the maternal line does not differ between bisexuals and homosexuals. As in the previous study on homosexuals, mothers of bisexuals show significantly higher fecundity, as do females in the maternal line (cumulated fecundity of mothers, maternal grandparents, and maternal aunts), compared to the corresponding relatives of heterosexual controls.This study also shows that both bisexuals and homosexuals were more frequently second and third born. However, only homosexuals had an excess of older male siblings, compared to heterosexuals. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence of an X-chromosomal genetic factor that is associated with bisexuality in men and promotes fecundity in female carriers.


And bisexuals, unlike homosexual men, are able to engage in reproductive sex without faking it.

In essence, homosexuality is bad for the human race and bad for society.  The only reason we exist today is because our ancestors were not homosexuals.  If they were, we wouldn’t even be debating this because we would not exist as a race.

Gore Vidal demonstrated what your attitude is really about:

We’re supposed to procreate and society, god knows, is ferocious on the subject. Heterosexuality is considered such a great and natural good that you have to execute people and put them in prison if they don’t practice this glorious act.

  * “American psyche”, extract from interview with Anthony Clare on BBC Radio 4, “In the Psychiatrist’s Chair”; published in The Independent (2000-10-08)

Comment #46: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/27  at  04:04 AM

Gays are useful to the survival of their families’ genetic lines; they help raise and provide for all their nieces and nephews. You may be alive because your 32xgreat granduncle pulled your 31xgreat grandmother clear of a striking snake.
Samantha Vimes on 05/27 at 02:40 AM

Ha ha, you should do stand up; that was funny.  Have there been any scientific studies done to show homosexuals are more useful in the rearing of their nieces and nephews than heterosexuals?  Or is that just a feeling you have?  Do provide scientific proof, please as I have. 

Regardless, that is beside the point I was making; that if homosexuality were prevalent it would be fatal to the human race, and that it is a genetic disorder.  If you choose to ignore the studies and science, so be it, but the proof is out there if you are willing to open your mind.  More so, it is common sense; we would be extinct if the human race were predominantly homosexual.

Comment #47: Fandango  on  05/27  at  04:12 AM

Christ, it’s like an autobot of stupidity.

To take just the first paragraph briefly:

Marriage is not a right.

Yes it is.  See Loving vs Virginia.

even if it were, ultimately homosexuals are granted the same exact rights heterosexuals have: to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Nope.  That logic failed in Loving vs Virgina too.

They are not granted special rights because heterosexuals aren’t granted special rights either, and to ask for that would be ludicrous.

Failed again. Heterosexuals would have the same right to marry people of the same sex.  You are correct that this is ludicrious - but exactly so is your stupidity above about gays marrying members of the opposite sex.

However, marriage is an institution that was created to foster a safe and stable environment so humans can raise offspring.

Gays can raise offspring.

studies and statistics prove unequivocally that children’s best rearing takes place in the nucleus of a loving family

Studies also show gay couples are just as able as straight couples to provide a loving family and raise healthy kiddies.

What are you - 15 or 16?  We’ve seen these sort of arguments before, kid.  Go away and do some reading before spouting off wingnut talking points.

Comment #48: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/27  at  04:21 AM

Homosexuality is not normal.  It is caused by a genetic defect or abnormality and influenced by the environment in those subjected to the defective gene.

If that were the case, then this couldn’t be true:

Homosexual activity can also occur in situations where large groups of persons of the same sex are confined together for some length of time, as in prison, the military, single-sex boarding schools, or other sex-segregated communities, where members of those communities might engage in homosexual behaviors but otherwise identify as heterosexual.

Yes it can be true.  You conveniently missed my underlined text that it is also influenced by the environment.  let me summarize it in more clear terms for you:

Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment = Temperament
Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment
Temperament + Environment = Homosexual Orientation

Not according to the latest data

We show that fecundity of female relatives of the maternal line does not differ between bisexuals and homosexuals.

I wasn’;t comparing homosexuals with bisexuals.  I was comparing homosexuals with heterosexuals.  My claim still stands as shown by the study.  Even your own link supports my claim by stating As in the previous study on homosexuals, mothers of bisexuals show significantly higher fecundity, as do females in the maternal line (cumulated fecundity of mothers, maternal grandparents, and maternal aunts), compared to the corresponding relatives of heterosexual controls.  That is nature’s way of overcoming homosexual gene disorders.

I also see no counters to the overwhelming evidence about the negative outcome of homosexual marriages when compared to heterosexuals.

Comment #49: Fandango  on  05/27  at  04:22 AM

[q]Gays can raise offspring [/q]

That is beside the point.  My point was about the success of proper rearing a child would have in a stable environment provided by the family.  Since gays divorce at alarming faster rates than heterosexuals it stands to reasons children are better served in heterosexual families.

Comment #50: Fandango  on  05/27  at  04:25 AM

What are you - 15 or 16?  We’ve seen these sort of arguments before, kid.  Go away and do some reading before spouting off wingnut talking points.

Nothing like admitting you have no valid counter argument than resorting to ad hominem.  How is insulting someone going to prove your point; if anything it will deter from it because it shows you have no logical and reasonable way to counter and you are resorting to ridicule and personal attacks.

Please provide evidence homosexuality is not the result of a gene defect and influence the environment has as I provided proof to the contrary. 

Please prove proof the human race would exist if the abnormal gene would be prevalent. 

Please provide proof the human race would not go extinct if all humans were homosexuals. 

Tall order don’t you think?

Comment #51: Fandango  on  05/27  at  04:30 AM

Ha ha, you should do stand up; that was funny.  Have there been any scientific studies done to show homosexuals are more useful in the rearing of their nieces and nephews than heterosexuals?

You are misstating the kin selection hypothesis in your ignorance.  Further, it exists as a plausible mechanism among several. It is, of course, impossible to test it these days since we’ve moved beyond early hominid gangs - but the fact that chimpanzees and bonobos both exhibit homosexual behaviour would make a smarter person think carefully.

Or is that just a feeling you have?  Do provide scientific proof, please as I have.

Kid, you’ve provided fuck all cites.  You’re just spouting off your own uninformed opinion to people who are older, smarter, and far better educated than you.

Comment #52: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/27  at  04:37 AM

Since gays divorce at alarming faster rates than heterosexuals

Cite, moron.

Comment #53: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/27  at  04:38 AM

the overwhelming evidence about the negative outcome of homosexual marriages when compared to heterosexuals.

Cite, moron.

Comment #54: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/27  at  04:39 AM

Support is strongest, however, for the hypothesis that homosexual behavior comes from
individual selection for reciprocal altruism. Same-sex alliances have reproductive advantages, and sexual behavior at times maintainsthese alliances. Nonhuman primates, including the apes, use
homosexual behavior in same-sex alliances, and such alliances appear to have been key in the expanded distribution of human ancestors during the Pleistocene. Homosexual emotion and
behavior are, in part, emergent qualities of the human propensity for same-sex affiliation. Adaptationist explanations do not fully explain sexual behavior in humans, however; social and historical factors also play strong roles.

Link

Comment #55: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/27  at  04:40 AM

Please provide evidence homosexuality is not the result of a gene defect and influence the environment has as I provided proof to the contrary.

Please prove proof the human race would exist if the abnormal gene would be prevalent.

Please provide proof the human race would not go extinct if all humans were homosexuals. 

Don’t have to, don’t have to, and don’t have to.

But when you make your argument, as the burden of proof requires you to do so, please take into account the following:

i, Homosexuality exists in chimpanzees, bonobos, and throughout every human society.  Feel free to define “gene defect” in light of this.

ii, Nobody has ever made the claim that every human being is or should be gay.

Comment #56: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/27  at  04:42 AM

Nothing like admitting you have no valid counter argument than resorting to ad hominem.  How is insulting someone going to prove your point; if anything it will deter from it because it shows you have no logical and reasonable way to counter and you are resorting to ridicule and personal attacks.

You mean apart from demolishing your argument intellectually in the lines above, which you cut and failed to address?

Comment #57: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/27  at  04:49 AM

Let’s try that link again:

Link

From the same link.:

Homosexual behavior has existed throughout human
history and in most, perhaps all, human cultures (e.g.,
Blackwood 1986a, Greenberg 1988, Duberman, Vicinus,
and Chauncey 1989). Cross-cultural and historical stud-
ies qualify the breadth of homosexual experience, while
medical studies, primarily from the contemporary West,
quantify its depth. The Melanesian example of homo-
sexual behavior is well known, with 10 to 20% of Mel-
anesian societies requiring all men to participate in ho-
mosexual as well as heterosexual sex (reviewed in Herdt
1984a). In southern China at the turn of the last century,
100,000 women joined a marriage resistance movement
that included, for many, lifelong homosexual partner-
ships (Sankar 1986). And Mpondo miners of South Africa
in the first half of the 20th century commonly entered
into “mine marriages,” forgoing sexual liaisons with
nearby township women (Moodie, Ndatshe, and Sibuyi
1989).
Homosexual behavior is much more systemic than the
above isolated examples might suggest (table 1). In Pa-
cific Island societies other than in Melanesia, such as
Tahiti and Hawaii, homosexual behavior was common
prior to Western influence (Gunson 1964, Morris 1990).
In native North America, at least 137 societies had in-
stitutional roles for transgenders (berdache) commonly
associated with homosexual behavior (Callender and Ko-
chems 1983, Williams 1986, Roscoe 1987, Lang 1998).
Homosexual behavior has also been common in societies
of native South America (reviewed in Greenberg 1988;
Murray 1995a, b), Asia (e.g., Hinsch 1990, Leupp 1995),
precolonial Africa (reviewed in Sweet 1996), and pre-
modern Europe (e.g., Dover 1989, Rocke 1996). In Ford
and Beach’s (1951) world sample, homosexual behavior
is normative in 64% of the societies with available data
(n = 76), at least for certain classes of individuals

Temperament + Environment = Homosexual Orientation

If that were the case, you must then believe that Environment can overcome temperment,
otherwise,  you wouldn’t have

where members of those communities might engage in homosexual behaviors but otherwise identify as heterosexual.

Which is a different thing from people engaging in homosexual behaviors who identify themselves as homosexual, as would be the case if they were by temperament homosexual in the first place, and were in the position of a child in a candy store, sexually speaking, that is.

That is nature’s way of overcoming homosexual gene disorders

Except that in this case, bisexual men, unlike their homosexual relatives, would transmit their genes in the course of normal behavior for their orientation, thus not overcoming the ‘gene disorder’, but rather, passing it on so that they’d be more likely to have children with said ‘gene disorder’.

Here’s the logical outcome of your desire that human reproduction be encouraged by disallowing gay marriage, BTW.

Comment #58: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/27  at  05:10 AM

Please provide proof the human race would not go extinct if all humans were homosexuals.

Are you seriously concerned this is going to happen?

Comment #59: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  05/27  at  08:49 AM

“The only reason we exist today is because our ancestors were not homosexuals.  If they were, we wouldn’t even be debating this because we would not exist as a race.”

The only reason we exist today is because our ancestors were not eaten by lions.  If they were, we wouldn’t even be debating this because we would not exist as a race.

Therefore, it is obvious that we must eliminate all lions, everywhere, even in zoos, as well as tigers, and bears too, because it would be irresponsible to allow the human race to be killed off by lion and tigers and bears.

I am sponsoring a proposition in California to amend the state constitution to make the recognition of the rights of, and continued existence of, lions, tigers, or bears illegal in this state.  This will strengthen marriage and make us a better society in which to raise our children, who, of course, are our future.

Once we have strengthened opposite marriage, we need to go after the oil producers, who, while drilling for oil, irritate the turtle upon which the whole earth lies and in so doing put the earth at risk of destruction should the turtle decide to cast us off into the void.

In conclusion, I would like to state for the record that I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy…

Comment #60: MikeEss  on  05/27  at  09:54 AM

that abnormal gene would become prevalent and it would get passed as a dominant gene, in essence spelling doom for the future of the human race.  We would all slowly perish.

Hey idiot, you are simultaneously arguing that:

1. Homosexuality and the “gay gene” can spread to a majority of the population, making it “dominant”
2. Once that happens human reproduction could cease, dooming us to extinction.

How could the “gay gene” spread to a majority if homosexuals don’t reproduce?  If homosexuals do reproduce, how would a gay majority threaten the continuation of the species?

They can’t breed well enough to infect everyone with teh ghey, but not well enough to continue the species.

Comment #61: Amanduh  on  05/27  at  11:39 AM

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

That, Dana, is how they got away with DOMA.

Comment #62: Magis  on  05/27  at  12:28 PM

Anybody got a cite for a genetic link to Christianity? Until someone makes a convincing claim that religion (both its existence and the specific choice of franchise) is biological and immutable, claims that gay people have to prove to the satisfaction of uninformed morons that homosexuality is biological and immutable should be dismissed out of hand.

We get equal rights because we are CITIZENS, dumbfuck, not because we are MAMMALS.

Comment #63: Lymis  on  05/28  at  08:49 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.