gay_cityhall_gavel.jpgThe sponsors of California’s Proposition 8 have urged a federal appeals court in San Francisco to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that a trial judge who struck down the measure last month “invented” a right that doesn’t exist.

“There is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex,” the Proposition 8 sponsors wrote in a brief submitted Friday evening to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The filing was the opening brief in an appeal by the sponsors and their committee, Protect Marriage, of an Aug. 4 decision in which U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the measure violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

Walker ruled in a civil rights lawsuit filed by a lesbian couple from Berkeley and a gay couple from Burbank. The couples are due to file their response by Oct. 18.

A panel of the appeals court will hear arguments on the case the week of Dec. 6, and in the meantime, the higher court has stayed Walker’s ruling.

Proposition 8, enacted by a 52 percent majority of California voters in 2008, provided that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The measure’s supporters said in their brief that while the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marry, that right doesn’t extend to gay people because marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman.

“Even a cursory review of Supreme Court precedent makes clear that the fundamental right to marry recognized by the court is the right to enter a legally recognized union only with a person of the opposite sex,” the sponsors wrote.

The sponsors also contended Walker reached a “startling conclusion” and ignored history and tradition when he found that there is no good reason for excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage.

The reason for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the sponsors wrote, is “society’s interest in increasing the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by the couples who brought them into the world in stable and enduring family units.”

The sponsors contend the legal standard for determining the constitutionality of Proposition 8 is merely whether there was a rational basis for the measure. They claim that basis is supplied by voters’ wish to encourage responsible procreation by heterosexual couples.

American Foundation for Equal Rights president Chad Griffin, whose organization sponsored the lawsuit, said in a statement that despite the appeal, “the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial.”

“There is no getting around the fact that the (trial) court’s decision was based on our nation’s most fundamental principles, and that the Constitution does not permit unequal treatment under the law,” Griffin said.

Walker held a 13-day non-jury trial on the lawsuit in San Francisco in January before issuing his 136-page ruling in August. The proceeding was the nation’s first federal trial on a state ban on same-sex marriage.

A previous five-year battle over same-sex marriage in California centered on state rather than federal constitutional claims. That dispute came to an end when the California Supreme Court last year upheld the voters’ right to enact Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment.

The voter initiative overturned an earlier state high court ruling that had found a state constitutional right to gay marriage.

The three federal appeals court judges will hear the Proposition 8 case, and the exact date of the December hearing will not be announced until six weeks beforehand.

That panel’s eventual ruling can be appealed to an expanded 11-judge panel of the circuit court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Julia Cheever, Bay City News

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • Rosie

    RE THIS COMMENT:

    “American Foundation for Equal Rights president Chad Griffin, whose organization sponsored the lawsuit, said in a statement that despite the appeal, “the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial.”
    *************************************************

    So, if the perversion of homosexuality is now OK constitutionally, then does that mean that ALL perversions are now OK??? Just think about it; that means that all perverts that are now in jail for committing a perversion can now be let out!!! WOW, wouldn’t that save a lot of money??? So all of you perversion supporters should let these people into your homes when they are let out ’cause ALL PERVERSIONS ARE NOT OK, according to Chad Griffin and all of his supporters. Whoo Hoo!!! Now we can all have fun!!! Who cares if our country goes down the toilet? At least we can now all satisfy our “desires” and not feel like we should be in a closet. YEAH

  • Rosie

    RE THIS COMMENT:

    “American Foundation for Equal Rights president Chad Griffin, whose organization sponsored the lawsuit, said in a statement that despite the appeal, “the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial.”
    *************************************************

    So, if the perversion of homosexuality is now OK constitutionally, then does that mean that ALL perversions are now OK??? Just think about it; that means that all perverts that are now in jail for committing a perversion can now be let out!!! WOW, wouldn’t that save a lot of money??? So all of you perversion supporters should let these people into your homes when they are let out ’cause ALL PERVERSIONS ARE NOT OK, according to Chad Griffin and all of his supporters. Whoo Hoo!!! Now we can all have fun!!! Who cares if our country goes down the toilet? At least we can now all satisfy our “desires” and not feel like we should be in a closet. YEAH

  • Rosie

    RE THIS COMMENT:

    “American Foundation for Equal Rights president Chad Griffin, whose organization sponsored the lawsuit, said in a statement that despite the appeal, “the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial.”
    *************************************************

    So, if the perversion of homosexuality is now OK constitutionally, then does that mean that ALL perversions are now OK??? Just think about it; that means that all perverts that are now in jail for committing a perversion can now be let out!!! WOW, wouldn’t that save a lot of money??? So all of you perversion supporters should let these people into your homes when they are let out ’cause ALL PERVERSIONS ARE NOW OK, according to Chad Griffin and all of his supporters. Whoo Hoo!!! Now we can all have fun!!! Who cares if our country goes down the toilet? At least we can now all satisfy our “desires” and not feel like we should be in a closet. YEAH

  • Rosie

    RE THIS COMMENT:

    “American Foundation for Equal Rights president Chad Griffin, whose organization sponsored the lawsuit, said in a statement that despite the appeal, “the fact remains that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, as was proven conclusively and unequivocally through a full federal trial.”
    *************************************************

    So, if the perversion of homosexuality is now OK constitutionally, then does that mean that ALL perversions are now OK??? Just think about it; that means that all perverts that are now in jail for committing a perversion can now be let out!!! WOW, wouldn’t that save a lot of money??? So all of you perversion supporters should let these people into your homes when they are let out ’cause ALL PERVERSIONS ARE NOW OK, according to Chad Griffin and all of his supporters. Whoo Hoo!!! Now we can all have fun!!! Who cares if our country goes down the toilet? At least we can now all satisfy our “desires” and not feel like we should be in a closet. YEAH

  • Christiaan

    Would someone explain to these people that we’re trying to smooth over a very old oversight in our society, not play “jokers wild” with their traditions? Just because the oversight has been there for a long time doesn’t mean that it is somehow justified. It just means that we haven’t had time until now to correct that oversight. Besides, the gays were always so reclusive, until just before the 1970s, that nobody really noticed them.

    We didn’t really know what homosexuality was until around then, so a lot of us thought that it was because of something that had failed to click in their minds somewhere. A lot of the reason people thought the gays had some kind of mental illness was because their behavior did not adhere to any concept of planning. It struck us as opportunistic and sporadic. It’s only over the past century that we have had the leisure to really study their condition and understand the causes of these other symptoms that once made it seem so abberant. It turns out that the causalities are not linked together in the way we used to think.

    Well, we know better now. Now that we understand about the concept of “sexual orientation,” it is ideal for us to try to get the gays paired off with each other, for one thing because it’s simply more sanitary. We have known for a long time that coitus isn’t something that should be gone about with unthinking liberty, so we have a vested interest in normalizing the gays for a lot of the same reasons that we had a vested interest in maintaining stable heterosexual partnerships. I know that seems like a hopeless cause right now, but it is noteworthy that the rate of so-called “open relationships” in gay households roughly parallels the rate of infidelity in heterosexual, married men.

    Besides, failing to recognize that gay households exist is just poor record-keeping. If these households are out there and not being accounted for, it is going to gum up the works somewhere along the lines. With the gays taking a lot of initiative in trying to normalize, we’re going to end up with a steadily increasing number of gay households and a legal system that we have left crippled insofar as being able to handle them.

    And the problem with “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” is that they only serve to encourage the gays thinking of themselves as a social “other,” and this could be problematical. The gays need to be given a sense that they are as obligated to uphold our traditions and defend our soil as anyone else. If American soil were ever invaded, our lives and freedom would depend on everyone feeling sufficiently a part of “the USA” that they won’t scatter and/or defect due to lacking a sense of belonging anywhere at all.

    Now, if that reasoning doesn’t satisfy the most cast-iron conformist ever born, I don’t know what would.

  • Christiaan

    Would someone explain to these people that we’re trying to smooth over a very old oversight in our society, not play “jokers wild” with their traditions? Just because the oversight has been there for a long time doesn’t mean that it is somehow justified. It just means that we haven’t had time until now to correct that oversight. Besides, the gays were always so reclusive, until just before the 1970s, that nobody really noticed them.

    We didn’t really know what homosexuality was until around then, so a lot of us thought that it was because of something that had failed to click in their minds somewhere. A lot of the reason people thought the gays had some kind of mental illness was because their behavior did not adhere to any concept of planning. It struck us as opportunistic and sporadic. It’s only over the past century that we have had the leisure to really study their condition and understand the causes of these other symptoms that once made it seem so abberant. It turns out that the causalities are not linked together in the way we used to think.

    Well, we know better now. Now that we understand about the concept of “sexual orientation,” it is ideal for us to try to get the gays paired off with each other, for one thing because it’s simply more sanitary. We have known for a long time that coitus isn’t something that should be gone about with unthinking liberty, so we have a vested interest in normalizing the gays for a lot of the same reasons that we had a vested interest in maintaining stable heterosexual partnerships. I know that seems like a hopeless cause right now, but it is noteworthy that the rate of so-called “open relationships” in gay households roughly parallels the rate of infidelity in heterosexual, married men.

    Besides, failing to recognize that gay households exist is just poor record-keeping. If these households are out there and not being accounted for, it is going to gum up the works somewhere along the lines. With the gays taking a lot of initiative in trying to normalize, we’re going to end up with a steadily increasing number of gay households and a legal system that we have left crippled insofar as being able to handle them.

    And the problem with “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” is that they only serve to encourage the gays thinking of themselves as a social “other,” and this could be problematical. The gays need to be given a sense that they are as obligated to uphold our traditions and defend our soil as anyone else. If American soil were ever invaded, our lives and freedom would depend on everyone feeling sufficiently a part of “the USA” that they won’t scatter and/or defect due to lacking a sense of belonging anywhere at all.

    Now, if that reasoning doesn’t satisfy the most cast-iron conformist ever born, I don’t know what would.

  • Rosie

    IN REPLY TO THIS COMMENT:

    “Would someone explain to these people that we’re trying to smooth over a very old oversight in our society, not play “jokers wild” with their traditions? Just because the oversight has been there for a long time doesn’t mean that it is somehow justified.”

    ***************************************************
    An “OVERSIGHT”???? Really. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been a perversion and ALWAYS will be no matter how YOU or someone else tries to EXPLAIN IT AWAY. So, again, IF THIS PERVERSION IS NOW SUDDENLY OK, then it only is FAIR that ALL other perversions should now be OK also. THAT WOULD JUST BE UNFAIR. How can you possibly say that “suddenly” this perversion is “alright”? You and all of your supporters are just opening a “pandora’s box”. Now, slowly, all other perversions will have the “right” to plead their case because of the loosening of morality and the PUBLIC acceptance of this perversion. You and all of your supporters are “blinded” to what you are dooming our society to. Enjoy the immoral future that you are creating for generations to come. You SHOULD be ashamed but you are too blinded (by your lust or the lust you are supporting).

  • Rosie

    IN REPLY TO THIS COMMENT:

    “Would someone explain to these people that we’re trying to smooth over a very old oversight in our society, not play “jokers wild” with their traditions? Just because the oversight has been there for a long time doesn’t mean that it is somehow justified.”

    ***************************************************
    An “OVERSIGHT”???? Really. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been a perversion and ALWAYS will be no matter how YOU or someone else tries to EXPLAIN IT AWAY. So, again, IF THIS PERVERSION IS NOW SUDDENLY OK, then it only is FAIR that ALL other perversions should now be OK also. THAT WOULD JUST BE UNFAIR. How can you possibly say that “suddenly” this perversion is “alright”? You and all of your supporters are just opening a “pandora’s box”. Now, slowly, all other perversions will have the “right” to plead their case because of the loosening of morality and the PUBLIC acceptance of this perversion. You and all of your supporters are “blinded” to what you are dooming our society to. Enjoy the immoral future that you are creating for generations to come. You SHOULD be ashamed but you are too blinded (by your lust or the lust you are supporting).

  • Nicole

    Rosie, you’re missing the point. The issue that was on trial had NOTHING to do with perversions. The matter at hand was that the Constitution of the State of California, as amended by Proposition 8, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

    I’m going to make this VERY SIMPLE. Try your best to follow this example:

    A man and a woman find the love of their lives, and get married. Society rewards them with a lollipop. Yea for married people! Everyone is happy.

    Two other people, that happen to be the same sex, are every bit as in love with each other as the other couple, but they cannot get married. No lollipop for them; so they are sad.

    But wait! This is not fair. Why can’t the same-sex couple get a lollipop? They want to spend the rest of their lives together with the person they love, same as the man and woman. They may even want to adopt a child that some “straight couple” might discard.

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    It is NOT about judging whether being gay is a perversion; you are entitled to your opinion and beliefs. The issue has always been about the law. The Law is built around the framework of the U.S. Constitution, not the Koran, not the Bible, not the Torah or even the Declaration of Independence.

    Rosie, did you get that? Now do you understand, or do your blinders obscure your view?

    Just remember, EVERY gay child is born from a heterosexual union. That gay person you seem to hate so much, is some heterosexual couples child. That gay child, could even be your own son or daughter.

  • Nicole

    Rosie, you’re missing the point. The issue that was on trial had NOTHING to do with perversions. The matter at hand was that the Constitution of the State of California, as amended by Proposition 8, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

    I’m going to make this VERY SIMPLE. Try your best to follow this example:

    A man and a woman find the love of their lives, and get married. Society rewards them with a lollipop. Yea for married people! Everyone is happy.

    Two other people, that happen to be the same sex, are every bit as in love with each other as the other couple, but they cannot get married. No lollipop for them; so they are sad.

    But wait! This is not fair. Why can’t the same-sex couple get a lollipop? They want to spend the rest of their lives together with the person they love, same as the man and woman. They may even want to adopt a child that some “straight couple” might discard.

    The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    It is NOT about judging whether being gay is a perversion; you are entitled to your opinion and beliefs. The issue has always been about the law. The Law is built around the framework of the U.S. Constitution, not the Koran, not the Bible, not the Torah or even the Declaration of Independence.

    Rosie, did you get that? Now do you understand, or do your blinders obscure your view?

    Just remember, EVERY gay child is born from a heterosexual union. That gay person you seem to hate so much, is some heterosexual couples child. That gay child, could even be your own son or daughter.

  • Rosie

    Examples mean NOTHING to me or anyone else who dares so support “MORALITY”. I AM NOT JUDGING ANY ONE PERSON, I am NOT approving of immorality. There is a difference that YOU and anyone else who supports this immorality will NEVER understand.

    I do not feel I have ANY blinders on, I feel that you do, but that is my right which I am beginning to feel could be taken away from anyone who dares to support that which is moral. If “homosexuality” IS given public approval then my rights to disapprove of it Will be gone. I would summarily be told that it is not “Politically Correct” to say anything against it.

    I DO NOT HATE ANYONE WHO IS HOMOSEXUAL and I greatly take offense to that remark. I work with a homosexual lady and I like HER very much, she is a sweet person. BUT I do have the right to disapprove of the perversion that she is practicing, but I would and will not EVER say anything about it because it is none of my business. Just like it is none of her business what MY moral beliefs are. I do prefer not to know what people are doing behind closed doors. At the same time it is wrong to publically approve or support ANY perversion.

    Nicole; do you NOW understand my position? Probably not because it is a MORAL. one.

  • Rosie

    Examples mean NOTHING to me or anyone else who dares so support “MORALITY”. I AM NOT JUDGING ANY ONE PERSON, I am NOT approving of immorality. There is a difference that YOU and anyone else who supports this immorality will NEVER understand.

    I do not feel I have ANY blinders on, I feel that you do, but that is my right which I am beginning to feel could be taken away from anyone who dares to support that which is moral. If “homosexuality” IS given public approval then my rights to disapprove of it Will be gone. I would summarily be told that it is not “Politically Correct” to say anything against it.

    I DO NOT HATE ANYONE WHO IS HOMOSEXUAL and I greatly take offense to that remark. I work with a homosexual lady and I like HER very much, she is a sweet person. BUT I do have the right to disapprove of the perversion that she is practicing, but I would and will not EVER say anything about it because it is none of my business. Just like it is none of her business what MY moral beliefs are. I do prefer not to know what people are doing behind closed doors. At the same time it is wrong to publically approve or support ANY perversion.

    Nicole; do you NOW understand my position? Probably not because it is a MORAL. one.

  • iDavid

    Rosie,
    I understand how baking in your own feces Might somehow make you feel more superior, However last i checked, Natural Human sexual attraction includes Homo hetero and bisexuality none of which are perverted. I think christians assessment is accurate. You seem 2 b 1 of the monkeys That simply prefers to keep their hands over their eyes.

  • iDavid

    Rosie,
    I understand how baking in your own feces Might somehow make you feel more superior, However last i checked, Natural Human sexual attraction includes Homo hetero and bisexuality none of which are perverted. I think christians assessment is accurate. You seem 2 b 1 of the monkeys That simply prefers to keep their hands over their eyes.

  • iDavid

    Rosie,
    I understand how baking in your own feces Might somehow make you feel more superior, However last i checked, Natural Human sexual attraction includes Homo hetero and bisexuality none of which are perverted. I think christians assessment is accurate. You seem 2 b 1 of the monkeys That simply prefers to keep their hands over their eyes.

  • iDavid

    Rosie,
    I understand how baking in your own feces Might somehow make you feel more superior, However last i checked, Natural Human sexual attraction includes Homo hetero and bisexuality none of which are perverted. I think christians assessment is accurate. You seem 2 b 1 of the monkeys That simply prefers to keep their hands over their eyes.

  • Nicole

    Rosie,
    Perhaps I was hasty in my assumption that you hate homosexuals.
    Hate the sin, but not the sinner? I get it, I’m sorry, I made an assumption.

    No one is taking away your right to disapprove of anything. You are free to think or say whatever you want, just as I. We’re debating this openly and in public, are we not?

    Different people can have different beliefs, they choose what is right for them; the operative word here is “choose”. I’m not going to make the mistake of making another assumption, but I suspect that you believe human beings have “Free-Will”; that which differentiates us from the animal kingdom.

    But we cannot bully one another around, and force our personal beliefs on others. That is exactly what Prop.8 does. It denies a specific group of people, certain rights and privileges that are enjoyed by another group. Prop. 8 was a blatant attempt to legislate morality, nothing more. It doesn’t matter if 99% of the voters approved the proposition, it is discriminatory toward another group of people; which makes it unconstitutional.

    As far as homosexuality having widespread “public approval”, I think that is a long way away.

    There will always be one group or another, that is not tolerated by the rest. That is just part of being human, because we allow it to happen.

    That is exactly what is wrong with humanity. We have a difficult time getting past our differences, when what we should do is embrace our diversity, recognize others as the unique individuals they are, and accept them, warts and all. Regardless if our neighbors are of a different race, color, faith (or lack of faith), nationality, gender or sexual persuasion, we are brothers and sisters, and therefore, worthy of love and respect.

    Rosie, if you can look me in the eye, and say you don’t believe that everyone is worthy of love and respect, then I feel deeply sorry for you, and the rest of humanity.

    With all my love and respect,
    Nicole

  • Nicole

    Rosie,
    Perhaps I was hasty in my assumption that you hate homosexuals.
    Hate the sin, but not the sinner? I get it, I’m sorry, I made an assumption.

    No one is taking away your right to disapprove of anything. You are free to think or say whatever you want, just as I. We’re debating this openly and in public, are we not?

    Different people can have different beliefs, they choose what is right for them; the operative word here is “choose”. I’m not going to make the mistake of making another assumption, but I suspect that you believe human beings have “Free-Will”; that which differentiates us from the animal kingdom.

    But we cannot bully one another around, and force our personal beliefs on others. That is exactly what Prop.8 does. It denies a specific group of people, certain rights and privileges that are enjoyed by another group. Prop. 8 was a blatant attempt to legislate morality, nothing more. It doesn’t matter if 99% of the voters approved the proposition, it is discriminatory toward another group of people; which makes it unconstitutional.

    As far as homosexuality having widespread “public approval”, I think that is a long way away.

    There will always be one group or another, that is not tolerated by the rest. That is just part of being human, because we allow it to happen.

    That is exactly what is wrong with humanity. We have a difficult time getting past our differences, when what we should do is embrace our diversity, recognize others as the unique individuals they are, and accept them, warts and all. Regardless if our neighbors are of a different race, color, faith (or lack of faith), nationality, gender or sexual persuasion, we are brothers and sisters, and therefore, worthy of love and respect.

    Rosie, if you can look me in the eye, and say you don’t believe that everyone is worthy of love and respect, then I feel deeply sorry for you, and the rest of humanity.

    With all my love and respect,
    Nicole

  • StocktonJoe

    A few points in no particular order.

    * I believe that the “slippery slope” argument (if you allow same-sex marriage today, tomorrow it will be polygamy, and the day after that it’ll be marriage with animals) doesn’t really apply here. That is not to say that on another day we may or may not have to address those issues. But let’s “cross that bridge IF we come to it.” I believe that, in fact, the slippery slope argument is nothing more than a delaying tactic that has no basis or grounding in fact.

    * The arguments listed in this article as being in defense of Prop. 8 are, in my opinion, weak at best. I mean, if this is the best they they got, then they have no chance of winning. Certainly they have no chance of winning in the 9th Circuit. And I’m not sure that these arguments will win at the Supreme Court. Simply saying that “the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marry, that right doesn’t extend to gay people because marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman.” doesn’t make it so. I have not read the entire argument, but I do know that without relevant documentation to back up that assertion, it doesn’t mean anything.

    * The complaint “the court is ignoring the will of the people” is a false argument. “The Court” exists to protect the Rights of the Minority from the Might of the Majority.

    * You cannot argue that “historically marriage has been between a man and a woman,” and then turn around and say “but morality has nothing to do with it.” In other words, you can’t have it both ways. Back in the day (when cars didn’t have seatbelts and the Draft was in full operation), we loudly proclaimed “You can’t legislate Morality.” That was right then. It is right today.

    * The Law doesn’t require you to like everybody. The Law doesn’t require you to accept everybody. The Law doesn’t require you to approve of that which you don’t approve of. But, the Law DOES require that you treat everyone THE SAME. And the Law DOES prohibit having different sets of rules for different catagories (or “classes” or “types” or “races”) of people. Simply put, The Law doesn’t play favorites.

  • StocktonJoe

    A few points in no particular order.

    * I believe that the “slippery slope” argument (if you allow same-sex marriage today, tomorrow it will be polygamy, and the day after that it’ll be marriage with animals) doesn’t really apply here. That is not to say that on another day we may or may not have to address those issues. But let’s “cross that bridge IF we come to it.” I believe that, in fact, the slippery slope argument is nothing more than a delaying tactic that has no basis or grounding in fact.

    * The arguments listed in this article as being in defense of Prop. 8 are, in my opinion, weak at best. I mean, if this is the best they they got, then they have no chance of winning. Certainly they have no chance of winning in the 9th Circuit. And I’m not sure that these arguments will win at the Supreme Court. Simply saying that “the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marry, that right doesn’t extend to gay people because marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman.” doesn’t make it so. I have not read the entire argument, but I do know that without relevant documentation to back up that assertion, it doesn’t mean anything.

    * The complaint “the court is ignoring the will of the people” is a false argument. “The Court” exists to protect the Rights of the Minority from the Might of the Majority.

    * You cannot argue that “historically marriage has been between a man and a woman,” and then turn around and say “but morality has nothing to do with it.” In other words, you can’t have it both ways. Back in the day (when cars didn’t have seatbelts and the Draft was in full operation), we loudly proclaimed “You can’t legislate Morality.” That was right then. It is right today.

    * The Law doesn’t require you to like everybody. The Law doesn’t require you to accept everybody. The Law doesn’t require you to approve of that which you don’t approve of. But, the Law DOES require that you treat everyone THE SAME. And the Law DOES prohibit having different sets of rules for different catagories (or “classes” or “types” or “races”) of people. Simply put, The Law doesn’t play favorites.

  • David in Houston

    “There is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex,” the Proposition 8 sponsors wrote in a brief…”

    Actually, there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the opposite sex in the Constitution either. But the Constitution makes it crystal clear that if citizens have a particular right and you’re denying that right to a particular group (ie: children are allowed to drive a car), the state and government has to have a valid LEGAL reason to discriminate. There is NO legal justification to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Moral disapproval is NOT a legal reason.

    Rosie: You have every right to think gay people are immoral. I couldn’t care less. But you don’t have the right to discriminate against them because of your (religious) CHOSEN disapproval. — I think Rush Limbaugh is immoral because he’s gotten married 4 times. (Newt Gingrich, 3 times) I think Gov. Sanford is immoral because he cheated on his wife and family. Yet both of them STILL have the right to marry over and over and over again… regardless of my personal disapproval. How do you justify what they do, then deny gay couples the same right?

  • David in Houston

    “There is no fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex,” the Proposition 8 sponsors wrote in a brief…”

    Actually, there is no fundamental right to marry a person of the opposite sex in the Constitution either. But the Constitution makes it crystal clear that if citizens have a particular right and you’re denying that right to a particular group (ie: children are allowed to drive a car), the state and government has to have a valid LEGAL reason to discriminate. There is NO legal justification to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Moral disapproval is NOT a legal reason.

    Rosie: You have every right to think gay people are immoral. I couldn’t care less. But you don’t have the right to discriminate against them because of your (religious) CHOSEN disapproval. — I think Rush Limbaugh is immoral because he’s gotten married 4 times. (Newt Gingrich, 3 times) I think Gov. Sanford is immoral because he cheated on his wife and family. Yet both of them STILL have the right to marry over and over and over again… regardless of my personal disapproval. How do you justify what they do, then deny gay couples the same right?

  • Rosie

    Dear Nicole,

    Thank you for your respectful answer. Yours is the first one I have gotten from someone who does not agree with me.

    We all definitely need to find a middle ground in the sticky issue. I am just greatly troubled about what looks like the slow downfall of morality and the growing support of this process. I is very hard to see any good coming out of this ……… 🙁

  • Rosie

    Dear Nicole,

    Thank you for your respectful answer. Yours is the first one I have gotten from someone who does not agree with me.

    We all definitely need to find a middle ground in the sticky issue. I am just greatly troubled about what looks like the slow downfall of morality and the growing support of this process. I is very hard to see any good coming out of this ……… 🙁

  • Christiaan

    Rosie, I understand the point that you consider homosexuality to be a deviant behavior. However, the reason that deviant behaviors do warrant special attention is that we lack a context by which to respond to those behaviors. Therefore, the manifestation of those behaviors can cause awkwardness for those who are not accustomed to them. There are thousands of psychiatric conditions, not just homosexuality, that are not considered to be diseases because they neither endanger nor especially distress anyone.

    Now, homosexuality is prevalent enough that it is questionable whether it should even be regarded as deviancy. Most people these days have a plentitude of opportunities to interact with acknowledged homosexuals, so the gays are actually getting to be a fairly established minority group in our society.

    We have been adopting the homosexuals into our society in a fairly coordinated fashion, so it offends me on behalf of my culture when someone talks about it as if we’re just “busting the door open on the loony bin.” Working gays into the mainstream has been the work of several tedious decades, so there is a lot more to this issue than you seem to be giving it credit for.

  • Christiaan

    Rosie, I understand the point that you consider homosexuality to be a deviant behavior. However, the reason that deviant behaviors do warrant special attention is that we lack a context by which to respond to those behaviors. Therefore, the manifestation of those behaviors can cause awkwardness for those who are not accustomed to them. There are thousands of psychiatric conditions, not just homosexuality, that are not considered to be diseases because they neither endanger nor especially distress anyone.

    Now, homosexuality is prevalent enough that it is questionable whether it should even be regarded as deviancy. Most people these days have a plentitude of opportunities to interact with acknowledged homosexuals, so the gays are actually getting to be a fairly established minority group in our society.

    We have been adopting the homosexuals into our society in a fairly coordinated fashion, so it offends me on behalf of my culture when someone talks about it as if we’re just “busting the door open on the loony bin.” Working gays into the mainstream has been the work of several tedious decades, so there is a lot more to this issue than you seem to be giving it credit for.

  • Marco Luxe

    “History” and “tradition” are the false rationales of the sophistic scoundrel who has no articulable rational arguments for the court. I was shocked that the intervenors tipped their [empty] hand so obviously when they “contended Walker reached a ‘startling conclusion’ and ignored history and tradition when he found that there is no good reason for excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage.”

    This has to be the worst strategy to use in the progressive 9th Circuit. Ever.

  • Marco Luxe

    “History” and “tradition” are the false rationales of the sophistic scoundrel who has no articulable rational arguments for the court. I was shocked that the intervenors tipped their [empty] hand so obviously when they “contended Walker reached a ‘startling conclusion’ and ignored history and tradition when he found that there is no good reason for excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage.”

    This has to be the worst strategy to use in the progressive 9th Circuit. Ever.

  • Christiaan

    Last remarks to Rosie, seeing as I was pressed for time the last time I responded:

    What it would help you to realize is that, in modern times, we consider homosexuality to be a minor, non-treatable mental condition that is more notable for humorous content than for any dysfunction that could jeopardize the subject’s independence. In fact, the only inherent problems with it appear to be related to reproduction. While unfortunate, this problem is not something that warrants either clinical attention or any kind of preventative measure, though I would recommend discouraging gay youths from experimenting with behaviors that can serve as vectors for disease.

    In fact, the most positive outcomes have been obtained by attempting to treat the subject as if his or her behavior were normal. If the subject is given a comforting, supportive environment, he or she can function can at a level that corresponds with adults who are not affected with the condition of homosexuality.

    On the other hand, we have found that condemnation not only fails to correct the behavior, but it can leave the subject socially stunted or effect the development of a depressive disorder. Unlike homosexuality alone, these kinds of problems can inhibit the homosexual from maturing into an independent adult, and they can very expensive to treat.

    Therefore, by allowing for gay marriage, we are doing the only responsible thing that can be done in light of the circumstances.

  • Christiaan

    Last remarks to Rosie, seeing as I was pressed for time the last time I responded:

    What it would help you to realize is that, in modern times, we consider homosexuality to be a minor, non-treatable mental condition that is more notable for humorous content than for any dysfunction that could jeopardize the subject’s independence. In fact, the only inherent problems with it appear to be related to reproduction. While unfortunate, this problem is not something that warrants either clinical attention or any kind of preventative measure, though I would recommend discouraging gay youths from experimenting with behaviors that can serve as vectors for disease.

    In fact, the most positive outcomes have been obtained by attempting to treat the subject as if his or her behavior were normal. If the subject is given a comforting, supportive environment, he or she can function can at a level that corresponds with adults who are not affected with the condition of homosexuality.

    On the other hand, we have found that condemnation not only fails to correct the behavior, but it can leave the subject socially stunted or effect the development of a depressive disorder. Unlike homosexuality alone, these kinds of problems can inhibit the homosexual from maturing into an independent adult, and they can very expensive to treat.

    Therefore, by allowing for gay marriage, we are doing the only responsible thing that can be done in light of the circumstances.

  • Rosie

    Thank You Christiaan.

    I appreciate your civil, calm reasonable comment. It does help some. I do believe in the saying that “You catch more flies with honey”. The comments on this thread are the first reasonable ones that I have seen and it is a comfort. Have a wonderful day.

  • Rosie

    Thank You Christiaan.

    I appreciate your civil, calm reasonable comment. It does help some. I do believe in the saying that “You catch more flies with honey”. The comments on this thread are the first reasonable ones that I have seen and it is a comfort. Have a wonderful day.

  • rx7ward

    Rosie, you need help, badly! Please find a mental health professional soon, before you hurt yourself or someone else.

  • rx7ward

    Rosie, you need help, badly! Please find a mental health professional soon, before you hurt yourself or someone else.