1 Brace yourself for the idiots who will blather, mostly incoherently, about the evils of homosexuality.

2 Much as I'm opposed to "marriage" as something for gays, I'm pretty doubtful about legalized sex with children being the result.

The militant gays are trying to get that now, without marriage.  And not just the NAMBLA freaks.  See Age of Consent groups, Gay.

Will they succeed because they get marriage?  My take is that it's just as likely either way. 

Malor, you're a good guy.  But some of those who share your inclinations are pretty evil and twisted fuckers.  That's not your fault or a reflection on you, but you gotta expect backlash when such abhorrent voices are not completely marginalized.

3 It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.

4 Sincere question -- Which side is Gabe rooting for?

5

You need go no farther than the fact that the law prohibits both men and women from being married to more than one person of the opposite sex. No further rationale is needed as the law, as it stands, is clearly not discriminatory. Overturn this check on behavior and you get people marrying their pets, blood relatives, everyone in their contact list...The  anti8 people want chaos.

 

6 I personally think we all shouldn't be equal in the eyes of the law. some of us are more equal that others

7 I move for a mistrial! Do you realize there's not a single homosexual on that jury?

8 Brace yourself for the idiots who will blather, mostly incoherently, about the evils of democracy.

9 Most people I know favor legal rights for gay partners.  It seems to me the debate is over semantics, which is kind of dumb. 

I am sort-of anti gay "marriage" just on linguistic and traditionalist grounds (just in the sense of applying the word marriage to some new arrangement), but my feelings on it aren't very strong.

I think most people are on the same page, just arguing over what to call it. It makes it bizzare that it is so fractious.

Also I haven't followed this closely, because honestly it is not a huge issue for me, but what is the deal with the YouTube broadcast? Why were Ed Whelen and the anti-gay marriage flack at NRO so upset that it could be publicly broadcast?  OJ was on CourtTV, I don't recall anyone running to the Supreme Court over it.

10 Next interesting point, 30 years ago, the gays who were demanding the end to [almost entirely unenforced] sodomy laws were saying that gay marriage was impossible too.  25 years ago, those advocating for gay adoption said the same thing, it wouldn't lead to gay marriage.  THen teh anti-discrimination law advocates started saying "probably not" 15 years ago.

Gabe, you can get married now.  The State isn't there for "validation" but for regulation.  What's the state's interest in your bestest ever friend relationship.  Assuming single couples can adopt as well, it seems like procedures are in place already to deal with kids, particularly where it's men doing the adopting. 

11

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972

FEDERAL LEVEL:

1. Amend all federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation and government controls to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and public services.

2. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into the Armed Services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued, with retroactive benefits.

3. Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the federal civil service because of sexual orientation, in hiring and promoting; and prohibiting discriminations against homosexuals in security clearances.

4. Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single persons and same-sex couples.

5. Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and naturalization of homosexual aliens.

6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.

7. Appropriate executive orders, regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination of information on an individual's sexual preferences, behavior, and social and political activities for dossiers and data banks.

8. Federal funding of aid programs of gay men's and women's organizations designed to alleviate the problems encountered by Gay women and men which are engendered by an oppressive sexist society.

9. Immediate release of all Gay women and men now incarcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental institutions because of sexual offense charges relating to victimless crimes or sexual orientation; and that adequate compensation be made for the physical and mental duress encountered; and that all existing records relating to the incarceration be immediately expunged.

STATE LEVEL:

1. All federal legislation and programs enumerated in Demands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented at the State level where applicable.

2. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.

3. Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.

4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one's personal demesne.

5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.

6. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

12 if gay marriage comes to pass....fine....just don't expect or demand me to celebrate it.....

13 if gay marriage comes to pass....fine....just don't expect or demand me to celebrate it.....

Don't worry, they will.  And you will comply.

14 and you know, the next step is to demand that Catholic Priests offer them the sacrament of marriage and/or use of the beautiful churches... their agenda is to not to stop at just the right to marry it is to make sure the church is forced to accept what they cannot accept.

15 I personally think we all shouldn't be equal in the eyes of the law. some of us are more equal that others

That's absolutely correct.  Procreation should be "privileged" (ugh, pomo Newspeak) since it creates the next generation of society.  Fertile marriages (which by definition exclude gay pairings) should be encouraged.  Used to be infertile couples would have marriages annuled.  That's the damn POINT (sorry, formatting isn't working) of marriage. 

Now, how do we embrace enough marriages so that all marriages that could result in children are fostered, and without intrusive fertility tests and/or monitoring by the State?

Hmmmm, I dunno.  Limit marriage (the State's interest at least) to those who MIGHT reproduce themselves?

16

I almost want this to pass so we can stop reading about it here.

I have a question. Don't civil unions already exist? So, aren't there already legal ways  to "marry" one's sissy sailor?

17 The political question is whether or not another Gay Marriage drill will benefit conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms. If the law is upheld, then a wedge issue to break off minority votes is lost. If the court overturns the will of the people, then you get another fire under the conservative voter base (which is already red-hot) and depress or fracture the minority base in CA. This next election round in CA is going to be wild.

18 Rebels are we,
Born to be free,
just like the fish in the sea!

19

What's the safe word Gabe?

20
I'm on the side of Mother Nature.   Homosexuality ain't normal.  It never has been and it never will be, no matter how hard the Gay Activist Lawyers try to shove their agenda down our throats or up our rectums.

21 Why is there an ad for anti-gay, anti-marriage equality Scott Brown on this page?

22 6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality. And between now and then, homosexuality has stopped being about "preference" and is now claimed to be a normal physical trait, on a par with race, with not one scintilla of scientific evidence to back it up. Hmmm, let's see - a natural trait that manifests itself only as sexual behavior. Don't Mexicans take naps in the middle of the day? Shouldn't their behavior earn them status as a protected class? I have no value judgment to make about homosexuals. I just don't care. What bothers me is the agitating for recognition as an naturally selected human type, when this very group has stymied any scientific inquiry into the causes of homosexuality itself. The reason that homosexuality was removed from the DSM-IV as a mental disorder wasn't because of any new scientific evidence that it was a normal, natural trait, it was because homosexual groups were protesting and disrupting APA conventions. These tactics piss me off. And they're going to eventually backfire on Teh Gheys.

23 Put the corn where the hogs can get it.

24 I support gay marriage...why should we hetros be the only ones to suffer. Wait til the gays realize the court cost in ridding yourself of Mr. Wonderful.

25 I have to say, I don't see how the "motivations" of the people behind putting Prop 8 on the ballot is relevant in any legal sense.  And, more importantly, it is impossible to ascribe a single motive to the thousands of people who voted for it.  Ultimately, wouldn't that (the motives of the folks who made it law -- the people of California) be the relevant thing anyway (not that I think it's relevant)? 

The anti-Prop 8 case seems pretty damned weak to me. 

26 Wait til the gays realize the court cost in ridding yourself of Mr. Wonderful.

They won't.  They make a lot of noise about wanting to marry, make society acquiesce to their demands, but they don't actually GET married.  Check the stats of actually married homosexual couples in Mass.  Or Canada, for that matter.

27 My problem here is that gay marriage was defeated by a legal election.  By the will of the people.  And now the lawyers, politicians and activists are trying to steal that away from them.

28 My problem with gay marriage is (4) the people advocating it (3) the reality that the best way to raise a kid is with a mom and a dad; (2) approving gay marriage will make it impossible to give traditional couples priority in adoptions (1) girls growing up to not want to marry men (at least as often).

29

This is a long shot. No court has come right out and said that laws that affect gays get heightened scrutiny.

There is a reason for that Gabe. I am all for EQUAL rights. The problem is the gay lobby does not want equal rights, they want to be another privilidged and protected group.

That is what this BS "heightened scrutiny" is all about. That phrase in to itself is a liberal invention and is ludicrous.

 

30

Ok, here's the simplest argument and I don't understand why it's not out there in the public domain yet:

For over 2500 years before the founding of the United States virtually EVERY religion on the planet has in one form or another defined and blessed the sacrament of holy matrimony between one man and one woman. Various religions actually reject the entire concept of homosexuality. (Charismatic Southern Baptists? I dont' know...)  Right or wrong the United States was founded on the concept of Religious Freedom and that includes any religion that rejects homosexuality. Along comes the US Govt. and in the interest of public health they decide to "License" the otherwise "Religious Sacrament of Marriage". The point being they crossed the line when they started licensing a religious institution. They cannot now "redefine" the historical religious institution without again stepping over that same line and violating the instition(s) of religious freedom. Once that happens we have created another devisive issue just like abortion wherein both sides have an arguably intractable position.

The alternative is simple and satisfies all parties involved:

Government should recognize the mistake of "licensing a religious sacrament", by re-defining all former "marriage licenses" as "civil unions". If you were married in a church, that doesn't change a thing for you. Governments can define and license the term "civil union" any way that they choose. They then leave religious institutions to apply the religious sacrament of holy matrimony. IE: you wanna get married in a church, you go to church. And Churches are allowed to pick and choose "who they allow to get married" within the context of their doctrin. IE: Episcopalians and Catholics can recognize and perform  Homosexual marriages while Charismatic Southern Baptists might not as a matter of their faith. LEGALLY they have to have the "Civil Union License" (in lieu of the old Marriage License) with or without the religious sacrament. And that way under the law....all civil unions are legal and binding, but you're not stepping all over the toes of any religion that objects.

The people most concerned about this as a change would be anyone who was "married in Las Vegas" outside the institution of a Church. They now have a "Civil Union" instead of a "marriage" and would have to go through a church to get that designation. As far as they're concerned, hey ladies, sounds like you get a great reason to party and a 2nd anniversary in the process!

31

the United States was founded on the concept of Religious Freedom

Those days are long gone. 

crossed the line 

 again stepping over that same line and violating

It's what they do.

The alternative is simple

The Govt. can't do anything simple.  That would be logical.

and satisfies all parties involved:

They don't want to satisfy everyone.  Only the chosen ones.

32 #32, those who advocate gay marriage don't care about the past.  The past is Stupid.  No wisdom pre-dates the Beatles (or maybe Elvis).  It's simply a subset of the general Leftist outlook that pervades everything.

33

They won't.  They make a lot of noise about wanting to marry, make society acquiesce to their demands, but they don't actually GET married.  Check the stats of actually married homosexual couples in Mass.  Or Canada, for that matter.

Bingo. This isn't about building something up; it's about tearing down the rest of us.

34 I have to say, I don't see how the "motivations" of the people behind putting Prop 8 on the ballot is relevant in any legal sense. This is a sign of things to come. Here come thought crimes and 'moral' crimes.

35 Hey Hobgoblin, I'll let you in on a secret: you don't have to be married to have kids.

36

#29 - concur: - gay marriage in CA has been repeatedly defeated, but will be brought back again and again until libs get the result they want, ad infinitum. 

What concerns me is that if we allow the Courts to define this as a civil rights question and take the decision away from the voters, we're walking the road to making homosexuals yet another "protected class" entitled to special rights and privileges, opening the floodgates to an avalanche of special interest litigation and equal protection claims.

For those who're saying "homophobe" please note that I'd say the same thing if straight white Nebraska farmers were seeking to become another "protected class."  (BTW thanks to Sen. Nelson, they might have already succeeded).  I don't lose sleep over the idea that some states allow gays to marry, and I'm not leaving CA if it's allowed here.

I'm just fed up with end-runs around the voting public to the nearest courthouse steps, and I'm fed up with the Balkanizing identity-group-based politics that modern civil rights law encourages.

Wasn't there a holiday this week ?  Some guy who talked about a "colorblind" society ?  Perhaps gays could take a hint from MLK, fold their tent on this issue and help lead us to a colorblind society that also "pulls down the blinds" when it comes to bedroom issues ?

37 @Bruce,
There are plenty of studies that show a strong genetic component to homosexuality. And let's get real, except for the last few years, who in their right mind would choose to be gay?

Oh goody! I get to bang guys, but I might get beaten to death, or lose my job, or get kicked out of pretty much everything I like!

38 If homosexuality were an "immutable trait" then there would be one for every other variation of sexual behavior. Hey, geneticists! Please identify the gene sequence for sex with blow-up love dolls.

39

Does the N stand for naive?

40

And let's get real, except for the last few years, who in their right mind would choose to be gay?

You obviously have not been paying attention to modern "identity victim politics."

41

The reason why televising the court case is a bad idea is because people who support traditional marriage have already been harassed at their homes and their places of business. Judge Walker has already demonstrated that he plans to make this trial a circus; the foes of traditional marriage want to turn this into Scopes II.   Mail your concerns to:

Hon. Phyllis Hamilton
Chair of the Rules Committee
United States Courthouse
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612

Hon. Vaughn Walker
Chief Judge
United States Courthouse
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

 

42

Hey Hobgoblin, I'll let you in on a secret: you don't have to be married to have kids.

And how well *that* has worked out. "NJConservative", indeed....

43 Or should I say

44 Curmudgeon has hit on a few things I was going to say, NJC, but most importantly, the idea that the state should have a say in when you can begin and terminate a friendship can rest only on the idea that there are some relationships that need to be controlled for the greater good.  The only reason the state says to married couples "you can't run away from one another" is because usually there are children involved.  Does this apply to childless couples too?  Sure.  But being a little overinclusive does not mean that you eliminate all logical categories entirely.

The militant gays are constantly harping about staying out of the bedroom, but then they want the state to have a say in when they can leave an intimate friend.  Nonsensical is about the kindest thing that I can say about that disconnect, as is the disconnect between the idea of someone who supports gay marriage being "conservative."

"NJPolitically conservative to a limited degree" would be more accurate.

45 @s'moron
The idea that marriage's function is to promote procreation is a dead horse. No matter how much we conservatives (yes, I am one) huff and puff and stamp our feet, society is still going to ignore that idea. I don't know the statistics, but many, many children are born out of wedlock. And that trend accelerated long before there was any tendency on the part of the left to promote the idea of gay marriage. The argument that homosexual marriage is going to destroy heterosexual marriage is just laughable. We already did that with no help from the rump rangers.

The real issue for me is that the state is even involved. Change all marriages to civil unions, and let organized religion deal with marriage.

@Curmudgeon
You are correct, out of wedlock children do less well than those kids who grow up in homes with married couples. So? What the hell does that have to do with allowing gay marriage?

46

There are plenty of studies that show a strong genetic component to homosexuality. And let's get real, except for the last few years, who in their right mind would choose to be gay?

Strong Genetic component?  Methinks you do not understand Genetics the  way you think you understand Genetics.

The color-blind suffer far greter injustice than the homosexuals.

47

You are correct, out of wedlock children do less well than those kids who grow up in homes with married couples. So? What the hell does that have to do with allowing gay marriage?

Said the same lesbian Leftists, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." You really don't get the agenda behind this, do you?

48 "and you know, the next step is to demand that Catholic Priests offer them the sacrament of marriage and/or use of the beautiful churches... their agenda is to not to stop at just the right to marry it is to make sure the church is forced to accept what they cannot accept."

No, no, no.  That's just crazy talk.  We most likely will not bother the church.  We just want our civil rights and will almost certainly stop agitating at that point, probably.  I mean, no promises or anything, but nobody wants to be unreasonable.  Obviously.

49 @garrett,

I understand it far better than you. And check what I actually wrote*. I never argued that rump rangers are being persecuted today. My point was that until recently, being gay was not a choice that a rational person would make, considering the abusive treatment that most gays had to deal with. That point argues against homosexuality being a choice.

*Notice the tense. I was discussing the past.

50 Said the same lesbian Leftists, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

Well, you certainly proved your point.

Show me the studies that show that children in gay two-parent homes are worse off than those in regular two-parent homes.

Heterosexuals have fucked up the family unit very nicely already. I don't see how allowing gays to get married is going to make it even worse.

51

Founders didn't have this problem for a number of reasons, one of which being that if there were gays they either killed them or in Jeffersons case Castrated them.

 

my how times have changed.

52

We are supposed to be living in a secular society, yet the greatest arguments against gay marriage are sectarian in nature.  How does discrimination against homosexuals based on religious bias fit here?  Changing all legal marriages to civil unions in the eyes of the State is a good idea, and since the State cannot force a religious institution to condone a particular union against its will, the sectarians won't be affected.  With all of this empty rhetoric floating around it might as well be the Mormon Church before the '60s, telling us that blacks are inferior because of some stupid story in the Babble.  Or maybe Asians shouldn't be allowed to drive since they are so bad at it; Native Americans shouldn't be allowed to purchase firewater since they have problems metabolizing it; Jews shouldn't be allowed around large sums of money because they know how to invest it; whites shouldn't be allowed to listen to R&B music because they don't know how to dance to it; Parisians shouldn't be allowed on planes because they don't use deodorant (I'm actually in support of this one...sorry, some prejudices are really hard to put away). 

53

Show me the studies that show that children in gay two-parent homes are worse off than those in regular two-parent homes.

You can start with the 1994 landmark "Dan Quayle Was Right", by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and go from there. 

As loving as mom-mom-child or the less common dad-dad-child may be, your notion that males and females are like interchangeable parts in a machine is certainly *not* "Conservative", or libertarian for that matter.

Am I persecuting such groupings? Not at all. I wish them well. But, like single-parent families, they are not the norm, despite the attempts of the Left to make them so.

54 @Curmudgeon,

You are crediting me with things I never said, like: "males and females are like interchangeable parts in a machine." Wrong. Never said it, never meant it. If I had my druthers all children would be brought up in loving heterosexual households. But hoping doesn't make it so.

And as far as I know, Whitehead's point was that divorce hurts kids. That intact families were preferable to divorced families. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think you are full of shit. If you can show me where she discusses a study that showed that heterosexual families do a better job than homo families, I'll cheerfully apologize.

55

@55 Whitehead's essay has nothing to say about gay marriage, just about the consequences of divorce affecting children and liberal society's general (and possibly mistaken) view of single-parent families as a significant paradigm shift worthy of praise. 

56 This is all just a stalking horse for polygamy anyway, a marriage practice with a considerably better cultural lineage.