Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

Gay Marriage Ban Looks to Have Passed in California, but Is It Legal?

By Karen Ocamb, AlterNet. Posted November 6, 2008.


Lawyers and marriage equality proponents are calling Proposition 8 illegal, and they may have good legal ground to stand on.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Hundreds of gay people and their allies at the Music Box in Hollywood on Election Night thundered their approval when states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio were called for Barack Obama. Like so many others around the world, gay people, anxious for change, felt the pendulum of history about to make a huge sweep in a progressive direction.

In between the election results and foot-stomping music, a steady stream of elected officials -- including new hero Jack O'Connell, California's superintendent of education, who appeared in a No on Prop. 8 ad condemning the "lies" promulgated by the Yes on 8 campaign -- promised to "fight for equality" even if Proposition 8 passed. But for most, that was unthinkable. How could the people of California in 2008 vote to eliminate the existing fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry and write that prohibition into the state constitution?

When the news networks announced that Obama would be the next president of the United States, and the first African-American president, the theater seemed to shake with the explosion of joy. The cheers were even louder when Obama mentioned gays in his acceptance speech.

But as the night wore on, the revelers became more and more somber as it appeared that Prop. 8 would pass and make same-sex couples an unwanted part of history, too. By morning, while the world rejoiced at the prospect of a new beginning, lesbian and gay couples cried in despair at the profound loss of equality.

By Wednesday morning, with 95 percent of the precincts tallied, passage of Prop. 8 looked assured with 52 percent of the vote and a 400,000-vote advantage. But No on Prop. 8 leaders refused to concede until all the votes were counted.

"The fundamental fact is, the issue in this election race is too close to call, and people's literal fundamental rights hang in the balance," said National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell during a hastily called conference call.

Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors told reporters that the uncounted absentee ballots are not the same as those filed early by older conservative voters.

"People who do absentee and just basically bring them in that day or mail them in the day before -- like me -- tend to be more progressive and more likely to be with us," Kors said. "And then there are kind of provisional ballots -- which happen to a lot of new voters -- which we know tend to be with us."

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen is expected to make an announcement about the uncounted ballots by Thursday afternoon.

Meanwhile, California county clerks stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on the semi-official results and a provision in the state constitution that says that, if approved by a majority of voters, any amendment or revision should take effect immediately.

Several lawsuits were immediately filed seeking an injunction and arguing the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 to the California Supreme Court. Attorney Gloria Allred and her partner John West filed a suit in the high court on behalf of their clients Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, who were the first lesbian couple married in Los Angeles after same-sex marriage became legal.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gay marriage, marriage equality, prop 8, propostion 8

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Mishandling passage of proposition 8.
Posted by: aouie01 on Nov 6, 2008 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Proposition 8 was passed legally in accordance with the democratic principles set forth in Article 2 of the California Constitution Article 2. Some can say that the reform was not for "public good". While some of the people who voted for proposition 8 may have done so out of conditioned hate for same-gendered relationships, the vast majority probably did so for what they have come to believe as being for the good of society as a result of their religious, social or cultural conditioning.

We should have more regard for democratic processes. When the majority wants to discriminate against same-sex couples with respect to marriage, there is a conflict between avoiding such discrimination and valuing democratic ideals. In California (almost) all the state issued benefits that is provided to married couples is available to monogamous same-sex couples whether or not they are married as long as they are willing to register as domestic partners. If the state or the amendment were actively preventing same-sex couples from getting married as opposed to simply not recognizing or facilitating the marriages then I would not be voicing support for democratic processes in this post. Any disregard for democratic ideals should be carefully thought out and not resorted to in a mean-spirited manner. The benefits to be had by ignoring democratic processes should not only be worth more than the avoidance of the hate generated by ignoring democratic processes, but also the value placed on the usage of democratic processes as a good way for societies to resolve passionate disputes.

Attacking the democratic process (when not much more is at stake than with proposition 8) is divisive and wrongful. The attorney general may be deliberately misinterpreting the intent or meaning of a constitutional amendment, and hence be in violation of the oath to support and defend the constitution of the State of California.

As long as we can resort to honest discussion and education, in four or eight years, the voters of California are likely to amend the constitution by revoking the limits on marriage imposed by proposition 8. And this can be done without the increased hate brought about by challenging democratic processes in the state. Left to the likes of Lambda Legal and the attorney general we may increase the hate too much. While it is unlikely that the State of California may do anything worse than Proposition 8, the justifiable anger at attacking democratic resolutions can affect legislations in other states more severely. Do not let proposition 8 be mishandled. It is best to recommend to all the same-gendered couples who got married to also get their domestic partnership to secure their rights.

The majority of those who voted have indicated that they want to unjustly discriminate by not recognizing some marriages. Does it make sense to force them otherwise, rather than educate and reverse the constitution in four or eight years?

Sincerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mishandling passage of proposition 8. Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
» Good luck with that Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Good luck with that Posted by: Xynyx
Civil Rights Act
Posted by: akpasta on Nov 6, 2008 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Civil Rights act in the 1960s forced equal rights, de-segregation was enforced by the national guard if necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Civil Rights Act Posted by: akpasta
» RE: Civil Rights Act Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
2008
Posted by: chnbrkr on Nov 6, 2008 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are the WORLD. We've have moved on, I thought, with this election, and yet some still are bigots,racists and people of hatred. In the word's of an old time friend, "Can't we all just get along?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 2008 Posted by: DaBear
» RE: 2008 Posted by: Crazy H
anyone remember Proposition 13 which gave a tax advantage to landlords?
Posted by: Suzon on Nov 6, 2008 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was not successfully challenged while I was living in SoCal but it will eventually wither away as the minority that it served dies off.

Marriage is a religious idea foisted upon us despite the First Amendment. People should have legal rights on the basis of equality. There are many kinds of relationships--non-sexual as well as sexual-- which deserve the protection of law.

But marriage? Keep it non-legal but permissible within churches. Not everyone takes communion, do they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can anyone answer...
Posted by: Nodarse on Nov 6, 2008 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When did the Federal Government, or any State in our Union, invent Marriage?

What gives 51% of my fellow citizens the right to prevent me from marrying any other adult I choose?

Do the terms “freedom”, “liberty” and “Pursuit of Happiness” apply to individuals anymore? Or are they “Collective” concepts that can be granted, or denied, by a simple majority?

Do we have ANY inalienable rights left?

Anybody?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Inalienable? Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Inalienable? Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Inalienable? Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Inalienable? Posted by: Nodarse
» RE: Inalienable? Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Inalienable? Posted by: herronsmith
Honestly, the issue has been put to bed!
Posted by: Frish on Nov 6, 2008 5:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If marriage is a religious institution, as it was originally conceived, and re-defined to reflect that, fairness could be obtained.

No "special secular rights" for married folk, no tax benefits, no child write off, no visitation or survivorship, no nuttin' honey.

Those things can be defined in a "domestic relationship" agreement/contract if we so choose.

Some strange ideas about the connection of marriage to child bearing/rearing were expressed during the Prop 8 campaign.

Gay couples are no better or worse at raising healthy children than straight couples.

Besides, marriage as now defined, brings so many benefits that many older folk marry or re-marry to "game the system", nothing to do with procreation or children.

Finally, since only 50% or so of marriage are actually "until death do us part" perhaps our society has already put the issue to bed, so to speak.

As far as children, there are far too many in the world already, since 25000+ die daily and the world cannot withstand humanity and our monumentally destructive ways.

Any secular encouragement of bringing more children into the world has to be curtailed as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce human impact on ecology.

www.vhemt.org

That's the only way to ensure that humans no longer have ANY impact on ecology. I'm a volunteer and proud of it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The whole world
Posted by: Erin on Nov 6, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
celebrated the election of Obama, and the fact that the U.S. of America had finally overcome its racist and discriminatory history, not to mention the demise of the most reviled world leader. The people I know in other countries are just shaking their heads in disbelief at the blatant discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens. They cannot understand why so may Americans are still so bigoted and are still treating one group of people with such inequality. I would like to know the answer to that, too. It boils down to plain and simple HATRED. In my opinion, people who hate are not following the path that God intended.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The whole world Posted by: Nodarse
» RE: The whole world Posted by: DaBear
XPolygamistWife
Posted by: X-POLYGAMIST WIFE on Nov 6, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Mormon Church spends 20 million on Prop 8 but IGNORES polygamous cults in Utah that practice tyranny over women and children and receive tens of millions in taxpayer handouts (welfare, food stamps, state medical, etc.).

This short video will blow your mind:

BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM

**There are 50-100,000 polygamists in Utah!**

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: XPolygamistWife Posted by: arthurread
Changing traditional definitions is not easy
Posted by: Jim on Nov 6, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Changing traditional definitions is not easy. Marriage means man and woman to most people, and has for a long time. The state gets involved in marriage historically because families are the foundational unit in society. This does not apply in the same way to a homosexual couple.

To change a foundational definition by a court ruling can only create a big backlash. It is better for people to be able to choose whom they want to live with, to be able to visit them in the hospital, or inherit.

Do you really want to be subject to adultery laws?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gay "Marriage" in The UK is a Legal Civil Partnership Giving The Same Legal Benefits To Gay Couples
Posted by: opmoc on Nov 6, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whilst such ceremonies are generally known and accepted as Gay Weddings and Gay couples who go through the process of getting "married" are socially considered to be married and have exactly the same legal rights...There is a very subtle difference in English Law that for all intents and purposes is irrelevant.

This difference means that religious people who have studied the law in the UK and who don't believe in the concept of gay marriage can continue to believe that gay marriage is still not legal.

In reality it makes no difference.

Once legal rights have been given in this way, it will almost certainly be illegal to remove them unless other equality laws are also changed.

Its the equivalent of banning inter-racial marriage and is totally outrageous.

I don't know the detail of similar laws in US States - but it shouldn't be too difficult to come to a compromise which both religious lunatics and gay married couples find acceptable - with each believing what they want to believe.

It is a basic human right that long term personal relationships should have the same legal protections regardless of sexual orientation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have two gay friends who are married
Posted by: iluvtnp on Nov 6, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in California. I want them to stay married. I'm gonna be honest here. Some heterosexuals have made a mockery of marriage. And I might count myself among them. I have been married, divorced, married, divorced, and married again. (I used to favor abusive guys.) The sum total of my marriages equals the number of years my friends have been devoted to each in one relationship. Apparently they are better at it than me. They must be given the same rights that I have been afforded, over and over again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check out this site..
Posted by: brer on Nov 6, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks! Posted by: Bliss Doubt
Why do they care?
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Nov 6, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently heard that faith is the consolidation of what we hope is true. This, according to the TV announcer, supposedly came from something in "the Scriptures," which I assume meant the old or new testament. It got me thinking about why I don't adhere to traditional Christian - or any other specific - faith. In order for a person to believe something that has little or no observable proof, it has to resonate in some way. People must want the tenets of certain religious principles to be true.

Here's what I don't hope is true:

I don't hope that other people suffer eternal damnation for believing something other than what I believe. In fact, I don't hope there's a hell.

I don't hope that God likes one country or sports team or group of people more than others.

I don't hope that God condemns people for their sexual practices, choices in lifestyle, or the foods they eat. (Like, why should it be an abomination in God's eyes to eat pork? Why should it be a sin to eat meat on Friday? And, oh, yeah, why should that change just because the Pope says so?)

I don't hope that God is watching me, reading my thoughts, and judging my every move. Or anyone else's, either.

I don't hope that God created people with an inability to really know the nature and meaning of life and then punishes them for not believing in specific dogma.

I don't hope that God is jealous, cruel, and intolerant while professing to love his "children."

And I really, really, really don't hope that God cares about who marries whom.

Who are these people that they are so concerned with other couples' sexual orientation, their right to marry whom they choose, or what legal and religious ceremonies they wish to engage in? Such bigotry and ugliness should have died out with the Inquisition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i guess christian and bigot go together
Posted by: WyrdSister on Nov 6, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you people PRAYED for discrimination to become written into the law!?

you are a disgusting people. i havent liked christians for a very long time due to history, but this just takes the friggin' cake. you just showed the world just how bigotted and closed minded you really are and how DARE you hide behind a goddamn BOOK and claim that GOD is discriminitory, you're absolutley medieval!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I looked it up Posted by: LeeAnnG
Government By Fairy-Tale: Christianist Dictatorship
Posted by: mgloraine on Nov 6, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prop 8 results prove that real people attempting to live real lives are not as important in the minds of the fanatical christianist fairy-tale worshippers as the fictions, fabrications, and fables which comprise their world view.

You thought you had a Constitutional right to anything? Forget it! The Great Pumpkin commands otherwise! Shred that Constitution! Burn those science books! We will not allow law, science or common sense to interfere with our establishment of the Kingdom of Pumpkin on Earth!

Christianist "churches" are the most active sponsors of hate and violence on the planet. Every gay couple in California should file a lawsuit against the Mormon "church" (and every other contributing "church") for damages and mental anguish resulting from their campaign of hate and discrimination. California courts should issue injunctions and seek punitive damages to stop out-of-state corporations (like the Mormons) from acting as a political action committee to sabotage Constitutional democracy in California. They should lose their tax-exempt status and be made to pay all taxes back to 1862, hopefully bankrupting them. They should be made to pawn their gold candle-sticks to pay their fines, and sell their tabernacle to make way for a Wal-Mart.

Christianists are the enemies of freedom and democracy. Their institutions and organizations need to be defunded and dismantled to prevent them from impeding social progress forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Halo 3 time, baby!
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 6, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm grateful to Karen for writing this desperately needed article. Now I know the names of some organizations whom I can go support any way I can so we can finish this fight!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WAIT A SECOND
Posted by: Ahimsa on Nov 6, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with those that "simply don't agree" with the right to marry for homosexuals, is that their "lack of agreement" creates inequality and suffering to a group of people, other citizens.
Since when is there a right to not care, and since when does it need to be protected?
This is a fight for civil rights that became framed as an attack on tradition though a campaign of fear and deception.
Now, we are gonna have to wait until the next election cycle and put up a better campaign. There is a ton of work to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hypocrisy
Posted by: rem3864 on Nov 6, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am flabbergasted by the arguments of those that while opposing proposition 8 nevertheless accepted the legality of the voting process and voted against it. Now, because the results are not to their liking, they suddenly discover that the whole process is ‘illegal’. More astonishing is the fact that some comments express an unreasonable expectation that any vote for Obama, would also be a vote against proposition 8.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hypocrisy Posted by: lbrlw13
» Standing Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Standing Posted by: DHopper
The Meaning of Marriage Predates the USA
Posted by: VMRH on Nov 6, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, for one, am happy that Proposition 8 passed. The definition of "marriage" predates any country currently in existence. It is the way that humans who are male and humans who are female can become real and equal partners.

A major confusion is that we think of "marriage" not in terms of that ideal, but in terms of counterfeits that have haunted the marriage movement. When marriage means oppression and exploitation of women, that is not marriage: that is Narriage. When an 8 year old girl in Yemen is married to a 27 year old man, that is Narriage. Arguments in favor of marriage must not be made by an appeal to the prevalence and tradition of Narriage.

So, laying Narriage to one side, marriage as the way for men and women to become real and equal partners in the work of humanity deserves to be accorded special status by one and all. When marriage, defined in a truer sense, is no longer upheld, then we will have destroyed the possibility that men and women can have an equal relationship. To destroy marriage as a societal idea will, in the end, destroy feminism. That is the hidden social cost to gay marriage that is left unexplored in this debate. Heterosexual monogamy is a feminist ideal; destroying the first destroys the second.

Red State Gal
Red State Feminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I just have to nisagree. Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» VMRH now I remember you! Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: VMRH now I remember you! Posted by: morticia
» Enlightenment Posted by: LeeAnnG
» Red meat for brains Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: ed meat for brains Posted by: VMRH
Paul Cardwell
Posted by: Paul Cardwell on Nov 6, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have we fallen so far from democracy (rule of all the people with basic rights to all) into polyarchy (rule of the many with no regard to essential rights - what the founders of this nation called "the mob") that we can actually vote people's rights away if they come under our prejudices? Here is where we find out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prop 8 denies civil rights
Posted by: CaliJim on Nov 6, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is exactly the type of thing the constitution was written to protect us from...people who judge other people here on earth, because they believe their "God" is offended by them. It can be a Homosexual, or it can be a Gypsy, or it can be an Infidel or a Jew or a Protestant or a Catholic or any number of things. In the past it included people like Galileo and Copernicus - lately it seems to include Liberals. It's called Bigotry...and it has no place in our society.

Laws and policy simply can't be allowed to be controlled by religion...which the founding fathers clearly understood as a danger to the newly formed republic...as well as the threat it would continue to face in the future. That is why they clearly intended to separate church and state.

Yes, I know, people keep SAYING we were founded as a "Christian Nation"...which is, simply put, historical revisionism by Christian supporters and incorrect.

Thomas Jefferson is my favorite founding father...a brilliant man. Since he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, I think it's critical to read and understand his opinions on this issue.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Note the part at the end of the quote, because it's increasingly common for people to claim that the founding fathers had no intention of creating a separation between church and state. They claim modern anti-Christian's and Atheists retroactively interpreted it that way in a campaign against Christianity. Obviously, the reverse is true. Jefferson specifically spoke about a wall between church and state, and the notion that it doesn't exist is a recent case of historical revisionism created by Christian fundamentalists.

Prop 8 denies civil rights.

The arguments used against it simply mirror the arguments against Inter-racial marriage in the past.
1. Defining all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.
2. Insisting that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will.
3. Declaring, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural”.
“…Supreme Court of Virginia declaration used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878: The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.” (http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html)
What’s next? Re-instate miscegenation laws or even re-institute slavery if a majority of the population of a state votes for it?
Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how much lipstick you smear on it. The irony is that blacks and minorities voted strongly in favor of denying civil rights to gays…and have finally achieved total equality with the old white men who wrote similar laws against them – at the same time that a black man achieved equality with old white men in becoming president of the United States. They should be ashamed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY PROP 8 WILL BE FOUND ILLEGAL
Posted by: Fog on Nov 6, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

The gist of the lawsuit to nullify Prop Hate

In summary:

Prop 8 puts the California constitution in conflict with itself. California can not restrict issuance of benefits without violating the existing equal protection clause. That would require a REVISION of the Constitution, which the AMENDMENT would not accomplish.

Further, the revision requires 2/3 of legislation, not the 50% + 1 majority of the public.

Further, "the constitutional requirement of separation of powers... does not permit the use of the Proposition format to remove and/or circumvent the judiciary in determining the interpretation of what is or is not a fundamental liberty right and who is and who is not protected by the equal protection clause."

Silly Rabbits, ignorance is for kids.

Shame on you. Shame on 8. Shame on bigotry, ignorance and hate.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Simplistic View
Posted by: Ahimsa on Nov 6, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To bring it down to a one liner (how original, huh?):
Proposition 8 passed as law the aesthetic view of a majority.
It has done this in detriment of the civil rights and social well being of a minority.
The idea was sold to the public through fear mongering.
An illusion trampled a reality.
We gotta work harder

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go After All Discriminatory State Laws
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 6, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the HRC, ACLU or whoever will mount a co-ordinated campaign to strike down Defense of Marriage and these other discriminatory acts in the Federal Courts, I will gladly support it with my time and money.

I am a straight Christian man living in a southern state that went for McCain and am telling you this. I am not alone in wanting the right thing to be done.

Get busy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can thank religion for this decision!
Posted by: donl51 on Nov 6, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can anyone help me out here?
Posted by: helenwheels on Nov 6, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I am wondering about is this: The Mormon Church overwhelmingly funded this miserable, horrible hateful proposition, correct?

I apologize if I'm being incredibly naive, but aren't churches tax exempt as long as they don't push any political agenda? I remember reading, pre-election, the stories of some evangelical preachers that had "gone rogue" and decided to ignore the Federal Law stating that a church could not endorse a political candidate or tell its congregation who to vote for or against. I thought I had read that these preachers risked their tax-exempt status, but claimed they were going to do it anyway. In fact, the article may have even been up here on AlterNet. I only learned about churches being tax-exempt within the last 2-3 years, it's not something I ever paid much attention to. So correct me if I'm wrong.

Does the Mormon church pay taxes or is it tax-exempt? If it is tax-exempt and funded a major political campaign, shouldn't that remove their tax-exempt status?

Anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Can anyone help me out here? Posted by: helenwheels
At a time when the DIVORCE rate for traditional heterosexual marriages is at 50+ %,
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 6, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's amazing that some people will go all out to blame different marriage types as the cause for the cultural decline. Instead of worrying about more gay marriages, would these same people who voted yes to prop 8 in CA even consider finding ways to peacefully reduce the divorce rates of the traditional heterosexual marriages ? Besides, it's not as if same sex couples are gonna harm you in any way. CA does indeed have a long ways to go in reducing societal intolerance although I have to admit they're not as backward as OK and even moderated states such as VA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti 8 campaign was lame
Posted by: leafsong1 on Nov 6, 2008 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously, who made those commercials?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anti 8 campaign was lame Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Anti 8 campaign was lame Posted by: billslm
How to talk to a redneck about gay marriage
Posted by: sausage on Nov 6, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Next time you're at your favorite watering hole with your thrice-married redneck buddy, and he says, "I just don't know why these gays wanna get married? Marriage is between a man and a woman, period!"

You say, "Really? You mean you want to keep gays from having the fun of going through divorce court? I though you guys were pr*cks?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Patt5
Posted by: Patt5 on Nov 6, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If LGBT people are not full citizens of CA then they should not pay taxes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pay NO Taxes! Posted by: johnbradleycopeland
Gay Marriage will eventually be passed...permanently and retroactive.
Posted by: Dak on Nov 6, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will be the scenario:
1) Prop 8 will be found unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court, the upper part of the 52% will die off, The Marriage Amendment will be reintroduced, a more progressive, enlightened electorate will pass the Equal Marriage Amendment, and it will pass --- permanently! and be retroactive to the beginning of this silliness.
Just give it 2-4 more years.
Be joyful and happy in all marriages, gay or straight. Be blessed!
GMMelby, Pastor/Chaplain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Count ALL the Votes
Posted by: Puck108 on Nov 6, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone in my household voted NO on Prop 8 with absentee ballots. Is it Democratic to ignore our votes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ya' know, it wouldn't matter, if our nation wouldn't have turned the SOCIAL...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 6, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...institution of marriage into a GOVERNMENT affair.

Any group can form any "belief structure" and sanction or refuse to sanction any union. That we have decided that hitched folks should be entitled to certain protections under the law subjects such unions to the:

1) 4th

2) 14th

3) state

Amendments to the constitutions and state constitutions...

Back to the courts. You can't (as far as i can tell) have two separate but equal statuses for marriage under the CA state or even federal constitution.

There is a way to change that, but you have to play the game--it requires amending the Constitution to wipe out that silly notion that all folks should be treated equally by a government of, by, and for the people.

Bad luck with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leviticus Revisited
Posted by: billslm on Nov 6, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The man most responsible for funding the Proposition 8 backlash campaign, also has in mind to use his considerable fortune to return this entire country to live in accord with the Bible; specifically The Book of Leviticus.

This man,(wish I could remember his name; Howard something,) heir to a banking fortune, has also been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, among other illnesses of the mind.

It is in Leviticus that we find that it is proper for a man to sell his daughter into slavery. And that a man who lifts his hand to work on the Sabbath should be stoned to death. Leviticus also tells parents to behead their children if they give them any trouble.

And, of course it is Leviticus who proclaims the abominable sinfulness of homsexuality.

This is Howard's agenda; and he is not alone. Exactly why anyone who declares himself or herself to be a Christian, should be interested in investing heavily in the Old Testament, which essentially belongs to the Jewish heritage, is far beyond me. An outmoded book, whose precepts are now near pornographic in their implications: they also prescribe indentured slavery instead of prison; and which was written for a desert culture two millenia ago, on the other side of the world? Hmmmm.

When I asked my brother, who is a Jesuit, he said that the Bible is merely an early manifestation of God revealing himself to man, and that God continually reveals himself even in these in later times. So if you get stuck in those earlier revelations you miss the boat.

Myself, I'm a Buddhist meditator so it's far from my concern.

Nevertheless I have little regard for people who operate from behind the curtain--- kinda like The Wizard of Oz.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Howard Ahmanson n/t Posted by: DHopper
» RE: Howard Ahmanson n/t Posted by: billslm
Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Affects Civil Marriage, Not Religious Marriage
Posted by: Libertine on Nov 6, 2008 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious conservatives, who supported Prop 8, made much of the idea of "preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage".

But they're wrong. It wasn't the "sanctity" of marriage that was up for a vote; it was the legality of it.

The idea of sanctity has a religious base, thus is not subject to any law in a country that has the separation of church and state. It is a highly personal and private thing and properly is defined by whatever religious, ethical, or personal tradition one may believe in. It has never been the business of the government, nor should it ever be.

The legality of marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with religion in our country and never has. This is shown by the fact that getting married by a judge, a justice of the peace, or other non-clergy member is legal, where a wedding performed in a church or other house of worship without a civil marriage license is not a legal marriage, though it is a religious one.

Legal marriage has to do with practical benefits bestowed by the government, period. It doesn't concern itself with the emotional aspects of marriage or anyone's idea of sanctity. That's a wholly personal matter, up to those involved and whatever ethical beliefs they have to provide privately.

Even the Bible says to render unto Caesar (government) what is Caesar's, and to render unto God what is God's. Legalizing same-sex marriage, then, is "rendering unto Caesar", and has no effect on "what is God's".

Legal same-sex marriage will not affect religious marriage in any way. Houses of worship will be free to offer or deny religious weddings to same sex partners as they always have, as it will not affect their legal rights to be married in any way.

It just boggles my mind that such a basic right was put to the population to vote on, where people are likely to vote against the right to same sex marriage based on religious beliefs, that they think it's "icky", and other reasons that are properly considered to be legally irrelevant. Interracial marriage, for example, was finally legalized in all fifty states by a Supreme Court decision, and was never subject to voting from the general population. If it had, I'm guessing it would still not be legal in all fifty states.

And though I would vote in favor of same sex marriage (and did two years ago, unsuccessfully), I personally believe it's none of my business. I do not think it's my place to decide on the basic civil rights of fellow citizens, as same sex marriage does not affect my rights or my life any way, positively or negatively, Those who voted "yes" to Prop 8 based on religious reasons have effectively imposed their religious beliefs on the rights of others, which violates the separation of church and state in my opinion.

If it were up to me, I'd just abolish legal marriage altogether for everyone, as I don't think it's the government's place to define, legislate, or promote any form of private, personal relationship between consenting adults. As a non-monogamous heterosexual, I strongly believe this.

The practical rights and benefits that currently come with marriage could be granted under Domestic Partnerships that would focus wholly on such practical benefits that come with sharing a household on a long-term basis, and would be granted without regard to the nature of the personal relationship of those involved, sexual or non-sexual. That would be private, as it should be. Marriage would then be defined by those involved and optionally by whatever faith, personal, or ethical tradition those involved might have and would be unrelated and irrelevant to whatever legal benefits one would have as a Domestic Partner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

homosexual marriage ban in CA
Posted by: KRC on Nov 6, 2008 6:56 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is to all the pro homosexual marriage supporters in the USA. I stated on this web site a few months ago that the CA State Supreme Crt. was wrong in their ruling about homosexual weddings. I also stated that you perverts may have won the battle but that WE WILL WIN THE WAR IN NOVEMBER. And do not forget that the voters in AZ and FL VOTED NO TOO. There are two states that allow perverts to marry, look out MA and CT here we come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» he's just a wanna-be pervert Posted by: hurricane hugo
Brilliantly written brief seeking injunction...
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on Nov 7, 2008 1:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The brief submitted by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandate from the California Supreme Court is analytically brilliant, and I am actually hopeful that this brief will succeed in convincing the California Supreme Court that Proposition 8 was enacted in violation of Article XVIII of the California state constitution.

The chief argument raised by the petitioners is that Proposition 8 works a change to the California constitution that is so fundamental as to require the more deliberative approach specified by Article XVIII. Specifically, Proposition 8 deprives one, and only one, class of Californians of a right deemed by the courts to be "fundamental." Furthermore, Proposition 8 proceeds along facially suspect lines. In short, Proposition 8 attempts to deprive a suspect class of a fundamental right, in violation of the underlying principles of equality enshrined in the California state constitution.

The arguments and examples raised by the petitioners are brilliant. One point noted by the petitioners is that, if left to stand, the amendment of the state constitution by Proposition 8 could be followed by subsequent amendments to the state constitution withdrawing additional fundamental rights from a suspect class in piecemeal fashion -- turning the principle of equal protection on its head. The petitioners cited Pastor Niemoller's famous quote ("First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out...") in pointing out that Proposition 8, if left to stand, would make it possible for other fundamental rights to be withdrawn from a group already identified along suspect lines.

By eliminating the requirement of equal protection from such a minority, Proposition 8 would remove an essential structural check on the exercise of majoritarian power. Had Proposition 8 sought to ban all marriages in the State of California, principles of equal protection would not be offended; however, the selective identification of a group along suspect lines, followed by the withdrawal from that group of a fundamental right, is inconsistent with the constitution's mandate of equal protection. The petitioners drew an analogy to Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (in which the US Supreme Court invalidated a Colorado state constitutional amendment singling out gay persons and depriving them of protection from discrimination at all levels, in both the public and the private sectors). When Romer was handed down, gay persons had not been identified as a "suspect" class; now, on the other hand, Proposition 8 seeks to withdraw a fundamental right from a facially suspect class.

In previous cases where the Court had affirmed the modification of the constitution through the amendment process at the ballot, the substance of these amendments has never targeted a group identified as a suspect class and then attempted to withdraw from that group a fundamental right. By way of analogy, Proposition 8 is as flawed in the eyes of the petitioners as would be an "amendment" prohibiting black persons, and only black persons, from invoking fundamental rights under the state constitution. This is because the Court, in in re Marriage Cases, explicitly declared classifications on the basis of sexual orientation to be "suspect" and hence presumptively unconstitutional, thus placing such classifications on the same plane as racial classifications, at odds with the underlying, governing principles of equal protection. The petitioners noted that there would be a profound difference between a measure intended to deprive all Californians of their rights to free exercise of religion, and a measure intended to deprive only Catholics or Muslims of their free exercise rights.

Constitutional amendments imply "...an addition or changes within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed."

...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brilliantly written brief seeking injunction...(2)
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on Nov 7, 2008 1:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This cannot be said of Proposition 8, which strikes at the heart of equal protection and which, if allowed to stand, would strip the state courts of their crucial role in preserving the rights of disfavored minorities. Changing the bedrock foundations of the state constitution must be done through the revision process, not the amendment process.

It is the responsibility of the judiciary to enforce such principles as equal protection of the laws. The importance of the courts, in terms of their role in enforcing such principles, cannot be overstated. Proposition 8 would strike at the courts' ability to exercise their essential constitutional authority to protect minorities from overreaching by majorities. While the legislature may, under some circumstances, eliminate a right for all Californians, it may not eliminate a fundamental right as enjoyed by a particular disfavored group, and only by that particular group.

When a right has been deemed as "fundamental," or when a classification has been deemed "suspect," the usual presumption of legislative competence does not apply; to the contrary, laws that infringe on fundamental rights or that proceed along suspect lines are presumed to be unconstitutional until it is demonstrated that they are constitutional. Here, the measure in question proceeds along suspect lines and infringes a fundamental right, rendering ordinary deference to the legislature inappropriate and granting the judiciary enhanced powers to protect the group in question and / or the right in question. Thus, Proposition 8 would also strike at the separation of powers doctrine, which expressly requires that the courts employ heightened scrutiny under such circumstances.

The key analogy drawn by the plaintiffs demonstrates just how pernicious this measure would be were it to be allowed to operate. Substitute black persons for gay persons, and you would again have a measure that infringes a fundamental constitutional right and that proceeds along suspect lines. Such a measure would NEVER be permitted to take effect following the constitutional amendment procedure; if allowed to take effect at all, it could only do so following the deliberative process involved in a constitutional revision. For the purposes of illustration, this analogy is flawless. Both sex and race are suspect classes in California state constitutional jurisprudence, and the withdrawal of marriage from black persons is analogous to the withdrawal of marriage from gay persons. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT CLASSIFICATIONS PREMISED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION ARE SUSPECT, JUST AS CLASSIFICATIONS PREMISED ON RACE ARE SUSPECT. Thus, Proposition 8 is as offensive as would be a similar measure that singled out black people and prevented them from marrying. To take effect, such a measure would have to flow from the deliberative process associated with constitutional REVISIONS, not from the simple majoritarian vote required for constitutional amendments (even then, such a measure would run afoul of equal protection considerations).

If one such measure, eliminating a fundamental right as enjoyed by as suspect class, is permitted to stand, then additional measures that strip away fundamental rights from this class must necessarily be permitted to stand. This would lead the state down the road identified by Pastor Niemoller in his prescient observation.

In summary, Proposition 8 must fail because it infringes a fundamental right as enjoyed by a group identified along suspect lines. Any such measure must be the product of a constitutional revision, not a constitutional amendment, because it fundamentally alters the core values upon which the state constitution is predicated.

...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brilliantly written brief seeking injunction...(3) (CONCLUSION)
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on Nov 7, 2008 1:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granting the writ of mandate would not have a deleterious impact on the status quo; to the contrary, it would permit the continued enjoyment of the right to marry by both gay and heterosexual couples. The state would suffer no irreparable harm should the court grant the writ. Heterosexual couples would remain free to marry should the court grant the writ.

Conversely, failure to issue the writ would work irreparable harm on gay couples seeking marriage licenses.

It is unfortunate that this issue has been tossed back to the state supreme court. Should the court agree that the amendment violates the procedure established by Article XVIII for constitutional revisions, we can expect loud braying from religious and social conservatives, and we will doubtless have to suffer indignant, sputtering accusations involving interference with "the will of the people." What these people fail to grasp is the fact that it is the DUTY of the courts to protect suspect classes with special vigilance.

Should the court grant the writ, we will almost certainly prevail should the hard right attempt to ram this change through by using the constitutional revision process (which requires approval by a supermajority of the state legislature before the matter can proceed). This is therefore a crucial legal battle.

I believe that the state supreme court will hold that this measure violates the constitutional amendment process, and that this measure should have been submitted to the legislature in accordance with the provisions of Article XVIII of the state constitution, which requires a supermajority vote in order to enact a constitutional revision.

Together, we will take this ugly and bigoted measure down.


PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same Sex Marriage Proposition Passed Banning Marriage
Posted by: iwanarok on Nov 7, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of these articles in regards to the November 4th poll results, is a fool at best! I am never surprised at the self conceit that journalists apply when they excercise poor judgement and laziness in their reporting and writing! I am only going to use one example in my protest of the Author and this website for it's erroneous reporting! AlterNet.com Headline: The Christian Right outmaneuvers and Defeats Gay Rights Supporters!" The reporter goes on to say that "something is wrong in California!" These statements are absolutes, and they are wrong! The article actually proves that these statements are wrong by actually reporting a fact! 61 percent of California voted for Obama, and 52 percent voted to pass Prop 8 with their YES vote! Those statistics prove that the Author is wrong, and obviously BIAS!! It was the average of all Californians who voted, not THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT! California is certainly not 52 percent "Christian!" The so called Christian Right makes up only 10 percent of the entire US. So how could it be relatively possible that the 52 percent vote in California was "The Christian Right?" This is an example of writing used to deceive and create dissention and conflict. The Nazi party used deceptive media tactics, and look what they caused through their deceit, irresponsibility and intolerance. I am not married, I have 5 children, and my girlfriend and I have been living together for 5 years. We are married in Love and Devotion to one another! Our faith is of a true foundation of faith. One Creator, Father of All, and full of Love and Compassion. I am most definitely not a so called Christian! I don't feel one way or the other about a persons personal choice in a Love relationship! HOWEVER, I am offended by deceptive and divisive reporting! I voted YES on 8, for the simple fact that it opens the door for a massive influx of deceptive Marital Contracts that would put an additional, unnecessary and unneeded strain on State, Federal and Private Benefits Programs. It would be wrought full of abuse, and add an overwhelming strain to an already weighted issue in Government and Business! Does that make me "Christian Right?" NO WAY! It just says that I have common sense along with the majority of California Voters, and that the Author is actually full of bull! If your in love, be in love. Just don't make a case out of it. Love and intimacy are a private matter. Sit down, shut up and enjoy one another. More government involvement and regulation, is simply folly! Just like AlterNet reporting!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's about money (health insurance)
Posted by: Landbaron on Nov 9, 2008 1:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They can't argue or fight a marriage but they can a civil union.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gay Marraige Prop 8 must be revoked....Anti8.com
Posted by: pho on Nov 9, 2008 2:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is getting old, currently we are living in the past with old values and old lies, wake up California, time to overturn this bad vote.

Wake up NOW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MagStar
Posted by: mushipeas on Nov 9, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this somewhere and it makes a lot of sense...How about the government award EVERYONE civil unions and then each couple can get MARRIED AS THEY CHOOSE in a church that supports their individual decisions. SEPERATION of CHURCH and STATE. Love actualized.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MagStar Posted by: aouie01
We Need an Amendment to Allow Gays to be Married
Posted by: badthing on Nov 10, 2008 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am against discrimination and for the life of me do not understand those who feel that every human being who lives upon the face of the Earth must look, sound, dress and act exactly alike in order to be accepted by them.

If we conformed to these standards would we be TRULY satisfied?

Would we then live happily ever after in our All the Same world? My opinion is NO...this would be completely disastrous...it would leave us totally stripped of our uniqueness, which would be akin to life as a zombie.

I would rather not live than live a life such as that one.

Not allowing gays to be married is condoning an All the Same world.

I have just posted about this subject upon my blog and need people to join into the discussion there. Thank you.

http://onlyonemeandmymotherisglad.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]