Voters outlaw gay marriage in California

Barack Obama's candidacy made this win by the Prop 8 folks possible. Black voters went for Prop 8 by a margin of 9 to 1.

I knew Andrew Sullivan was going to eventually find a reason to realize his efforts on behalf of Obama were a mistake, and spend the next several years blogging about how wrong he had been, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I just didn't think it would be less than 24 hours after the polls closed.

TRP

The author you linked to misread the survey results. A Yes vote on 8 was to ban gay marriage. Seniors supported this measure. The under 30 crowd opposed it, i.e. they support gay marriage. I think this vindicates Rod's point.

Checking the California county numbers on turnout(which currently unavailable on the California Secretary of State's website), I was surprised how low turnout was in San Francisco county and relatively low in Marin, San Mateo, and Sonoma. If more voters in those counties had found the time to go to the polls, I do not see how Prop 8 would have passed. Given the enthusiasm for Obama, I wonder why so few San Franciscans decided to vote.

This was the most in-your-face ugly campaign I have ever witnessed. People who had Yes on 8 signs in their yards in my neighborhood had their homes vandalized and cars with Yes on 8 stickers at my place of work had them ripped off in the parking lots. The entire California political and media establishment were in the tank, full time all campaign season. There was no establishment support for 8. NONE.

Att. General Jerry Brown (remember gov moonbeam) reworded the amendment to make it appear as a negative which if you understand the California initiative process buys you at least a couple of percent.

The supposedly non-partisan Field Poll which is usually marginally accurate was wrong throughout the campaign. The only possible legitimate reason for this could be that people were genuinely afraid of reprecussions (employment being primary) for expressing an opinion in favor of 8. This is not paranoid as major employers (google or apple anyone) pumped money into the campaign and the teachers union pumped in one million without consulting their members in any way.

While the Obama campaign may have brought out more african-american voters who were in favor of 8, Obama brought out more marginal voters in general who tend to ride with the establishment tide. I wouldn't be so sure that gay marriage will pass in California in anything like the near future. Starting with the courts usurping the will of the voters in the previous election, and establishing gay marriage as the status-que position followed by the "change" campaign, this was almost a perfect storm for gay marriage supporters and they came up pretty darn short. It's pathetic that they would be throwing Newsome under the bus for this loss. He's sacrificed his future run for statewide office to support gay marriage.

"Most importantly, this result shows the strategic risk of trying to carry out a social revolution via the courts, without consulting the people."

It's certainly causing me to rethink the strategy of fighting abortion through the supreme court. Is it equally true that until we social conservatives "contend with the risk in pursuing [our] idea of equality through the courts without having first won a social consensus, [we're] going to set [ourselves] up for the prospect of a crushing failure like this" ?

And I say that as a so-called "single-issue voter" who voted for Bush twice and McCain this year, in no small part because I was concerned about the makeup of the supreme court. Are we doing enough to win popular support for the rights of unborn infants? (Is that even possible in this political climate?)

The spending was about equal. But anti-gay marriage initiatives have done well in California before. The trend on these kinds of initiatives is only going to improve for equal marriage rights. So despite the huge amount of money spent by religious groups and individuals, they only got 51% of the vote on an issue that has previously gotten 58-60 percent support in referendums.

Are they going to be able to come with $37M in three or four years when gay marriage supporters get another initiative on the ballot?

Luke,

I understand your point of view but there is a clear distiction. Roe v Wade, makes it impossible to overturn legal abortion regardless of what we achieve in terms of social consensus. While I'm sure that in the short term overturning Roe would just result in returning the issue to states that would create laws that are similar to Roe, we would then have the opportunity (and responsibility) to work one-to-one incrementally to restrict abortion.

With Roe in place, we're frozen out of the process and that is exactly where the pro-abortionists want us.

Bottom line: there's nothing noble in stripping people of constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The larger question is what this means for the culture warriors who want to "lock and load." The only ray of sunshine for culture warriors were anti-gay measures. Extremist pro-life initiatives lost, Washington approved doctor-assisted suicide, an anti-affirmative action initiative is too close to call in Colorado (but did win in Nebraska). These are not good times in Colorado Springs--where the vile Marilyn Musgrove was tossed out of Congress--and the Arlington Group.

I think Luke's post in effect answers elizabeth's question. The simple fact is that despite the fact that most Americans, according to survey after survey, say they think abortion is destroying a human life and thus wrong, the majority also think it should remain legal. This is often expressed in the cynical formulation that the typical American supports abortion "for rape, incest, or me". The overall social consensus is against gay marriage, though that may change with the younger generation. The overall social consensus is for retaining the legality of abortion, moral uneasiness aside. This is why fighting abortion in the courts is futile. It first assumes we can predict the actions of Republican-appointed justices (remember, Roe was passed and has been repeatedly upheld by GOP appointees); and it secondly assumes the Court will vote against the consensus of the majority of the American people, which is not likely (once again, refer to its repeated refusal to overturn Roe v. Wade. Thus, as I've said many times here, single-issue voting on abortion is a red herring, and we pro-lifers must pursue other strategies.

Daniel,

I know that I am quibbling over the language, but gay marriage is no longer a constitutionally-guaranteed right in CA. You clearly wish that it were such a right; however, the CA constitution will now read that marriage is one man/one woman only.

Prop 8 passed because of massive support in an African-American community that turned out in record numbers to support Barack Obama and split support in Latino communities. (your point #2) It is illogical to then claim that this demonstrates the error of creating social change from the courts. (your point #3)

The south would still own slaves were it not for the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Schools would still be segregated and Jim Crow would still be in force were it not for the Brown decision in 1954. The notion that African-Americans are far more greatly offended by such executive and judicial events than the white or hispanic populations stretches the imagination.

Here's something to chew on: Prop 5 would have required parental notification prior to a minor having an abortion. It failed in many places where Prop 8 succeeded. Clearly the driving force in these votes was not a commitment to a wider moral code, but rather a visceral distain for homosexuals in the black and latino communities, communities that apparently have no particular problem with kids having abortions.

I for one welcome our new Mormon overlords...

Can we now expect hordes of Moroni to disperse on their bikes throughout the land, invading the domiciles of implausible lesbians?

I do appreciate Rod's sensitivity in removing the "salt" from this post.

It would also be interesting to think about possible backlashes that may occur down the road for the proponents of proposition 8. I wonder if the LDS, Knights of Columbus, etc. realize what seeds of dissent they have sown in their own flocks?

The supporters *could* have pursued an amendment to the constitution that firmed up the line between the public, the private and the religious in a way that protected reasonable concerns about intrusion into the religious and private spheres, while ceding the public definition of marriage to stay per the courts.

If we look at what seemed to the most often-repeated concern, namely a situation similar to that facing Catholic Charities in Boston, what surfaces is the question of money. Should religious or other private institutions receive public monies to perform services in which they reserve the right to discriminate based on religious criteria?

The questions the young are going to ask will be questions that no sensible answer has yet been given: why did Catholic Charities balk (at the bishop's orders) on adopting out to gay couples, but for years placed children in homes where one or both of the parents had been divorced, without any objections from the diocese?

If you want a world where religous discrimination can play a role in certain publicly funded services, watch for more and more painful discussions and court rulings.

Perhaps some entprising faith-based institution can bid for a government grant to enumerate all sexual sins and rank order them in their degree of badness so when it is time to apply standards, there is some clarity around how to draw lines.

Why is it that people like you spend your lives being so obsessed about non-issues like this? Why don't you stop letting yourself be misled by people who feed your obsession with false promises (idols?) of overturning Roe v. Wade and try being a real Christian and obsessing over more important and real issues like helping the needy in this country, the country that you all supposedly love. Jesus spent more time talking about helping people than anything else. Maybe in your version of the Bible he didn't...I guess. Why must everyone have their rights taken away just because you say so? And because your Bible (you think) tells you so. To me, you want to achieve in this country the same type of government and control that is in place in a country like Iran. The only difference is Islam is replaced by your version of Christianity.

California's domestic partnership law already grants gay couples all of the legal rights that hetero couples have. This is about redifining a public standard and bullying private religious groups. If the laws of the state declare that there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships--and that's what the California Supreme court decision did--then anyone who continues to claim that there is a distinction is guilty of arbitrary discrimination. We've seen the effects of such a change in adoption cases. Catholic adoption agencies were set up as private organizations, by Catholics and for Catholics; their purpose was to enable Catholics who could not take care of their kids to give them up for adoption knowing that they would end up in Catholic households, raised in the Catholic faith. In a state that has enacted gay marriage, even private Catholic adoption agencies that receive no funds lose their license if they operate on the principle that it is better to put kids in heterosexual married households.

Here's an article describing how this happened in Mass.:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/16/bishops_to_oppose_adoption_by_gays/

the stupid Chris, note that many people in California rejected the Parental Notification (Prop 4, not 5) because minors who wanted an exception would have to go before a judge to keep their abortion a secret. They rejected the court's involvement, which is consistent with rejecting Supreme Court justices getting involved in the same-sex marriage decision.

"Catholic adoption agencies were set up as private organizations, by Catholics and for Catholics; their purpose was to enable Catholics who could not take care of their kids to give them up for adoption knowing that they would end up in Catholic households, raised in the Catholic faith"

In Mass., they took state money to provide state services to all citizens. And then they wanted to discriminate. I believe there could have been a compromise and it was a mistake not to find such a compromise, but let's be clear that what Catholic Charities seeks to do is discriminate on the government dime.

Never has any minority had to beg for its rights from the majority. If we had waited to convince people on miscegenation laws, there would still be places in America today where it would be illegal for my parents to marry. Rights have not been taken away from gay people, because they are inherent. However, they have been temporarily denied.

African Americans have tainted Obama's Victory today, but Barack himself claims this is one nation, gay and straight alike and I believe him. If we hear that for another four years, minds will change in four years. This is a battle against ignorance. The hearts of the young see the injustice of this, and we will outlive those whose minds cannot be changed.

Yes We Can!

"stripping people of constitutionally-guaranteed rights."

If you don't believe in natural law, only positivist law, then what could this claim of rights be based on? "Constitutionally guaranteed" becomes a moot point when the constitution is changed, so what's the issue? To me, this puts the issue back where it belongs - it is, first and foremost, a question of natural law.

"there's nothing noble in stripping people of constitutionally-guaranteed rights"

And we should be thankful that nothing of the sort has happened in this case.

Truthteller,

That must have felt good.

Oh, and you misspelled "Heterosexual".

>Putting civil rights up for a referendum is a pretty chancy proposition. What would have been the result had Brown vs. Board of Education been voted on by plebiscite, rather than by the US Supreme Court? Should we have put the 1964 Civil Rights act up for a referendum, state by state?

Whose civil rights are being violated? Homosexual couples in California STILL have the sames rights as heterosexual couples, they just can't call it a marriage. What's the big fuss? A marriage is between a man and a woman. No one is taking anyone's civil rights away.

I fully supported Prop 8, but I don't consider myself a bigot. I am appalled when people discriminate against gays. This is not discrimination. It's about changing the definition of a very sacred institution.

Here's today's press release from the LDS church concerning Prop 8. Thought some might be interested in it. A clip:

"Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

"Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues. "

trp, you are correct it was about licensing. As I said, there should have been a compromise. But the largest part of Catholic Charities work in Mass. was performing state functions, in which they wanted to discriminate.

An independent judiciary, especially at the appeals level, is supposed to see that legal protections and opportunities are provided equally, without favoring one group over another. That is not elitism or liberal activism, that's their job.

Well, it's too bad that fear-mongering won the day in this instance. What a shame that these couples are going to have to fight for their rights in court, but that's the next step.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10905867

Sometimes, I think these propositions are designed specifically to keep lawyers in business.

From Contra Coast Times:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_10904639

"Tyler, 66, and Olson, 54, married last June 16 in a traditional Jewish ceremony on the steps of the Beverly Hills courthouse, becoming one of the first two same-sex couples to marry in California under the new state nuptial laws they helped overturn..."

Good luck trying to explain to me how a couple of women getting married is going to bring down Western civilization as we know it, 'cause I just don't get it. The lesbian couple across the street from me have the nicest house on the block and they're great neighbors. I fail to see how it would adversely affect my spouse and me if they were to receive the same legal right that we take for granted.

It is going to create years of legal chaos.

Maybe the four judges who imposed SSM on the state should have thought about that possibility before denying a reasonable stay of their decision until the voters settled what the state Constitution actually says.

Also, I love the concern about saving us from years of litigation, when litigation has been the designated strategy all along to implement SSM in the first place.

With 44 out of 50 states having either statutes, state constitutional amendments, or both defining marriage as between a man and a woman, I don't see the country swinging left on the issue any time soon. I think California's vote (which I am relieved about) also forestalls a federal constitutional challenge for awhile yet.

But the largest part of Catholic Charities work in Mass. was performing state functions, in which they wanted to discriminate.

Except in order to do this, the state first had to take over the function. Unless the Catholic Church was enforcing the law, collecting taxes, operating courts, etc., it was doing something that is not a state function.

The 21st century will redefine what it means to be "human." Between genetics, medical advances, cloning, robotics, animal-human hybrids, etc., the impact will be felt on childbearing, marriage, sex, animal rights, and a thousand other things, including religion. "Gay Marriage" will be legal long before the middle of this century, and "marriage" will likely not be the majority adult tradition/relationship by the end of the century.

Zager and Evans were about 400 years too far in the future.

O brave new world.

I cannot believe in a religion that is not inclusive of all humankind.

"I cannot believe in a religion that is not inclusive of all humankind."

There are many others out there who share this thought, JC...a growing number of people.

I'm crushed.

When the majority is willing to use their personal beliefs to give themselves special privileges over others, then yes, there should be intervention, if only to give them time to realize that the sky will not fall if you allow people to engage in consensual activities that harm no one.

There is no compelling state interest to bar a class of citizens from marrying. There is a far greater argument for claiming that doing so is inherently wrong than there is in appealing to the religious authority of a few with the resources to whip up the kind of hate (yes, hate, don't try to wish that away) of people who are in no way harmed by equality in marriage.

We live in a pluralistic society that recognizes the human rights of its citizens. Already there are legal challenges to the amendment as the California constitution makes such an amendment in and of itself unconstitutional. To change what has already been declared a fundamental right in California would require a revision of the California constitution through a constitutional convention, not a nearly 50/50 popular vote.

We live in a society of checks and balances. One of those factors that needs to be checked is a majority that is so willing to set minorities as second-class citizens based off principles with no reasonable argument to back them up. The Supreme Court of California has been doing what it is supposed to be doing, and will again.

Mormonism is inclusive of all mankind. It is NOT inclusive, however, of all behaviors. One can be homosexual and a member in good standing of the LDS church. It's the homosexual act that is taught as wrong.

It's about changing the definition of a very sacred institution.

It's a sad day for marriage, no doubt about it. But Rod, there was bigotry aplenty in the campaign, ugly lies and blood libel, not just high-minded ideals.

It's kind of hard not to come away with the "they hate us" response, when it is so clearly demonstrated by the supporters of Prop. 8.

Yes, I too, hope that the conversation can continue to move toward a truly just resolution, but one thing I am sure of, is that this is not a settled question. A decade a go, opponents of ssm won 62% of the vote. This time, it was too close to call, and the Mormon-funded coalition for prop. 8 threw everything plus the kitchen sink at us, and barely won.

Time is on our side.

I realize, trp, that gay people can get married in religious ceremonies; I've been going to gay weddings for decades.

But the partnership laws don't have the same range of benefits that my heterosexual marriage does, and I happen to think that's not fair.

I hate it that Britney Spears' marriage, lasting only a couple of days, carries more legal weight than a long-term lesbian partnership.

"But by appealing to the courts to impose something as radical as same-sex marriage, something that has never in the history of human society existed,..."

Please do research. Belgium, Canada, Norway(in 09), Spain, South Africa, and the Netherlands all legalized same-sex marriage.

My only hope is that it is legalized permanently here in the U.S. in my lifetime. It is against the US Constitution to ban it.

I'm going to repost what I posted in another thread day before yesterday. And I'd love responses from those who supported Prop. 8 to explain the fairness, social justice of the situation, if you can.

Here's what I posted a few days ago, cleaned up a bit:

No. It's about being able to get a marriage certificate from THE STATE, which allows certain rights afforded to the couple.

Sure, homosexuals can draw up a contract to allow hospital visits, insurance benefits, death benefits, marriage benefits, taxes, etc. But why should they? Why can't they have those same rights, without having to jump through hoops. When I got married, my wife immediately got certain rights, without having to go to court, without having to create a seperate contract. Gay men and women just want those same rights.

Here's something else. My brother, who is gay, and came out when he was 19 (he's 35 now), lives in Spain, despite the fact that he loves the USA. Why? Because when he was 26, he went to Spain to study for a year, and fell in love with a wonderful man. After a year, they got married in Spain. Unfortunately, their relationship isn't recognized by the USA, so when they tried to move back here to Los Angeles, no go. My brother can't get a Green Card for his husband.

Had I fallen in love with a Spanish woman and gotten married in Spain (or in the USA), there would be no issue. I would be able to move my wife with me when I returned home, with some perfunctory paperwork. As a gay man in love, my brother doesn't have that option. He has had to make the horrible choice of love or country. That's right. He can either return to live in the USA, leaving his husband of 7 years in Spain, or he can live in Spain with his husband.

Think about that for a moment... Think about having to leave your husband or wife if you wanted to return to your home country.

Yeah... Homosexuals have all the rights straight people do. Tell it to my brother. It's bullshit. They don't.

As a reform Jew, I resent the idea that other people's religious beliefs about marriage take precedence over my beliefs and those of my religious faith. I realize Jews are a small minority of the American population as well, but it is still another example of the infringement of religious liberty for one group at the hands of another religious group.

Rod, thanks for posting on this. There's so much here to ponder and chew over. Look forward to reading all the comments. The revelation -- based on exit polls -- that it was overwhelming support from an Obama-energized African American voter base that put Prop 8 over the top ... is absolutely fascinating. How ironic!

Much wisdom in what you have written. Of course, the dessert you provided to complement this meaty substance was the video of that nitwit mayor of SF -- a gift that keeps on giving.

Bonnie,

Asserting that Californians would have passed Prop 5 if it weren't for the section that allowed a judge to exempt a kid from its restriction seems far-fetched. Imagine this: "Well, kids, we could've saved thousands of you but we didn't want any judges to have any say in any of it, so we let you die instead."

DeeAnn et al who would just forbid the "acts":

Maybe you can help me out - what is the tipping point for "homosexual act"?

Is the feeling of attraction OK?

Is affection OK? You know, really caring about the person, empathy, etc. Sometimes friendship turns into something more. What is the tipping point that would distinguish acceptable friendship from unacceptable affection?

Is expressing that affection OK? Is is OK to say "I love you"?
Is hugging ok?
Holding hands?
Kissing on the cheek?
Holding each other's glance during a nice dinner in a restaurant?
Cuddling on the sofa?
Kissing on the lips?

Just no 3rd base or more, or is 3rd base OK?

I realize this comes across as snarky - but seriously I just wonder if you've ever really tried to think this through. Maybe it would be easier for you to think of it as where you'd draw the line for your unmarried adult children.

What range of emotional and physical affection would you allow them to have?
Would the same emotional and physical affection be permissible if they were homosexual and their romantic interest was a member of the same sex, or would any start down that path simply be wandering into temptation and therefore had better be avoided? What sort of long-term friendships could be formed in an emotional environment where deep affection must be mistrusted?

For some reason, the "its the acts not the orientation" line just strikes me so as a rather cruel reduction of a person, as if homosexuality consists strictly of degraded sexual impulses and, if uncontrolled, specific bodily actions on those sexual impulses, and that a simple "no acts!" somehow makes it clear how we should behave, manage our friendships and our emotional lives.

Don Altabello
November 5, 2008 6:40 PM

A quick point--CA *does* have a civil unions law that affords gay couples the same rights as married couples.

NO. IT DOSN'T AFFORD THEM THE SAME RIGHTS. See my post above. A gay US Citizen who marries someone outside of the USA cannot bring their spouse to live with them in the USA legally, like a straight person can.

My brother is living proof that there are two different sets of rules, so the idea that they have the same rights is pure bullshit.

Borat had a little song that's on-topic:

...
In my country there is problem
And that problem is the Jew
...
Throw the jew down the well (repeat line)
So my country can be free (repeat line)
...

Replace jew with gay, and there you have the essence of the Mormon position on Measure 8.

There are a lot of real problems in America today, and yet so many of you would obsess about an issue of zero importance. If you had only spent as much time thinking about the consequences of voting for GWB twice, maybe gay marriage would really be one of the most important issues in America today instead of our bankrupt economy and our unwinnable wars.

It's time for some soul-searching, people. Stop hating. Stop destroying the country.

"...something that has never in the history of human society existed, except for in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Spain, South Africa, and the American states of Massachusetts and Connecticut."

Fixed.

You lost me at "judicial elite."

I ask one thing, Rod. If someone in your family decides to get married, please don't post the wedding announcement on your blog and rub their special status in my nose. It's offensive to me as a tax payer who contributes to the tax-supported benefits of marriage in every state in the union.

And I do hope you will tone done your heterosexual chest-thumping superiority. It makes me ill.

Who knows. I may shortly be responding to to Christians who say:
"You don't like Rod because he's a Christian,"

with

"No, I don't like Christians because of of Rod Dreher."

Oh, how quickly we forget. How much we rationalize.

Gay rights issues have been on the ballots of many state elections not because gay rights activists have put them there, but because fundamental conservatives have created a 'cultural war.' Hence, Prop 8. These are issues put on state ballots by the likes of Rove and his army in order to drive conservatives to the polls. They are being fought in courts because gay families are merely trying to defend what they believe is just, and if they can't get the results they deserve and demand though the electoral process, they will do it through the justice system. Let's not forget that this is precisely how Jim Crow laws and other civil rights battles have been fought for decades.

Gay men and women, and I among them, are merely fighting for the rights people like yourself are afforded. You are seriously going to tell me to my face, to my partner, to my parents, to my family, to my kids, that I am not entitled to those same rights? That as a gay father, my child will have more rights as an adult than I will? The fact that you seriously don't see that as fundamentally backwards and wrong is deeply troubling.

As frustrating as the Yes on 8 results are, I take great comfort in knowing, as your own piece suggests, it is merely a matter of time. Youth and its inclusivenss, its ability, as demonstrated last night, to look beyond a person's skin or gender or sexual orientation will ultimately win out.

If religious conservatives want so badly to protect the sanctity of marriage, the value and purpose of marriage, the cornerstone of what they believe is a just and grounded society, I would suggest they also stand up and propose a new ballot measure: making divorce illegal.

Your argument doesn't work in Arizona, where there was no court case "forcing" the issue. Instead it was an obnoxious conservative Christian group and a state senator who wanted to curry favor with the Born-Agains who foisted the amendment onot the ballot. And then the millions of dollars from the Mormons, Knights of Columbus (Catholic), and the Focus of the Family (Protestant). So basically, gays and lesbians get to be second class citizens in Arizona because of religious folks. Think I'm bitter about any/all religions right now? You betcha...

" rub their special status in my nose"

What special status? Every single person in this country has the right to marry any other person of the opposite sex. That's a common status, actually, not a special one. It's anything but special.

Gay marriage is the special status.

> I fear for the religious liberty implications of constitutionalizing same-sex marriage...

But by forbidding it, you're already denying the religious liberty of those denominations and congregations who choose to celebrate same-sex marriage. Why do these congregations' decisions get set aside in the face of other denominations' beliefs?

This is why minority rights should NEVER be put to popular vote.

To EddieInCA
I'm not sure you are trying to understand the points being made by the people on the other side. Obviously, this is a highly charged emotional issue for you and your arguments reflect that. And in the other thread you attacked how much I "know." I am going to respond to your personal attack with a sound recommendation made in genuine kindness.
Get an immigration lawyer. If you and your brother are serious about getting your brother's partner to this country, the odds are good that it can be done. There are millions of legal residents and legal immigrants in this country, especially in California. The USA lets a million plus people into this country legally every year as permanent residents.
If you want the residency issue resolved, talking to an experienced immigration attorney is a great idea. If you'd rather have the issue, that says more about you than any one else.

Stevereno
November 5, 2008 8:38 PM

To EddieInCA
I'm not sure you are trying to understand the points being made by the people on the other side. Obviously, this is a highly charged emotional issue for you and your arguments reflect that. And in the other thread you attacked how much I "know." I am going to respond to your personal attack with a sound recommendation made in genuine kindness.

Get an immigration lawyer. If you and your brother are serious about getting your brother's partner to this country, the odds are good that it can be done. There are millions of legal residents and legal immigrants in this country, especially in California. The USA lets a million plus people into this country legally every year as permanent residents.

If you want the residency issue resolved, talking to an experienced immigration attorney is a great idea. If you'd rather have the issue, that says more about you than any one else.

Stevereno -

Thanks for the response. We've already gone that route. Do you have any idea how hard it is to immigrate legally to the USA from a European country? My family has already spent an aggregate of $35,000 in legal fees, trying to get a green card. It can't happen. If he was a Doctor, or a Nurse, it would be easier. If he owned a business which sells a product needed in the USA, it would be easier. I thank you for your suggestion, but we're already doing what you suggest.

But you miss the larger point, which is that if he were straight, my brother wouldn't have such an issue. Period. My cousin married a woman from Sweden. They're comfortably ensconced in New York City. Another cousin married a woman from Costa Rica. Again, no problems. They're living in McKinney, Texas. Both of the spouses are legal residences. My brother is stuck in Spain.

So the point isn't that my brother can get an immigration lawyer and spend tens of thousands of dollars and years to attempt to get legal status for his husband. No. The point is simple, and it's one you and others refuse to answer:

Why should he have to?

Why can't he have the same rights as I do? Or why can't/shouldn't he have the same rights my cousins do?

I appreciate your suggestion, and know you offer it in good faith, but it doesn't address the larger issue, which you choose to continue to ignore. But thank you sincerely for the response.

How completely and utterly sad. I can only hope that the California Supreme Court will once again, step in and set things right. This is exactly what they are for, to make sure that all citizens have equal rights not just those "deigned" sufficient by those who have differing opinion but equal rights for all. For those who don't agree with gay marriage for religious reasons, fine, that's your belief but it should not have any baring on a citizens rights in this country. We, the U.S., is a republic not a democracy, which means ALL citizens are to have equal rights, even when a majority or minority says no. Religious beliefs have no meaning or place in this decision. I hope the Supreme Court does what they were created to do and nullify the vote. I hope that they restore dignity to all people, whether gay or straight.

Just to save some readers the trouble, I am pleased to have dissenting commentary published here, but I am going to unpublish any screed that simply repeats, "You're nothing but a bunch of Bible-thumping bigots." When you tell the rest of us, as one of you just did in a bit I unpublished, "There is no room for such people as you in decenet society," that's just asking to be taken down. I won't tolerate conservatives telling gays that on this site -- and if you see it somewhere, tell me, and I'll unpublish it -- and I don't want to see it from gays. This site is not about lock-step agreement, but I have to make it possible for us to exchange conflicting opinions with a modicum of civility. If you can't manage that toward your opponents, whichever side you're on, don't waste your time posting here.

The issue may end up in the Federal courts relatively soon. After all, you have lots of people who were married under that decision.

Rod, defenders of marriage shouldn't gloat at any time, cause, as you know it is a prideful hubris and a sin. But any factual objective survey done by, say a Martian, or a computer would conclude there is only one side in this debate that is incredibly INtolerant, bigoted, and consistently closed-minded in their tactics, and that is the homosexual normalization side. Andrew Sullivan has effectively declared the worldwide global Catholic Church (at least the overwhelming majority who adhere to dogma) to be some form of evil "Christianist" fundamentalism, because we dare to reject the modern fashion that approves of male homosexuality and lesbianism. And I'm to believe that MY side is the "intolerant" one?

I feel sorry for some of the younger people on this board and in this country who illogically equate past anti-miscegenation laws with resistance to the redefinition of matrimony, an 'analogy' that I find to be repulsively patronizingly racist and ignorant of the past struggles black men and white women and vice versa have suffered in our country. I feel sorry for them because they never make a case FOR homosexual marriage which, by definition, must include a case for homosexual normalization beyond, to use Bork's phrase, 'radical autonomous individualism'. They simply assume the presupposition in society of the existence of Bork's example. In other words, they are blind to the total triumph of moral relativism in Western Man and society and culture. This is why critical and moral reasoning is impossible when relativism has triumphed; there is no basis for ideas like 'civil rights', 'justified discrimination vs. unjustified discrimination', etc. And I can only conclude that many, young people especially, are oblivious and blind to this because I never hear any intelligent arguments beyond the most simplistic of demands that a 'civil right' must be vindicated or an injustice like 'homophobia' must be defeated. Presumably, such people are assuming that, say prior to the Stonewall riots, all practicing homosexuals shared this presumption. Such a presumption is provably, historically false. Many may have felt resentments against the majority's 'revulsion' of their behavior, but all or almost all recognized themselves as exercising behavior that was a deviation from the norm, whether they were comfortable with that or not. In response to these differences that now ENGULF us as Americans and Westerners, we traditionalists are just dismissed as 'haters'. Where is the argument from the other side for why this is a good? Buchanan and other pessimists are right; we are no longer a people that believe the same truths at all.

"And the religious conservatives do not believe that our relationships deserve equality."

Of course conservatives believe that you deserve equality, because we are all already equal in this respect: each and everyone of us has the exact same right to marry any single person of the opposite gender.

THAT is intellectual honesty.

Denton freedom to marry anyone of the opposite sex isn't equality anymore then if we said you had the freedom to only marry someone of the same sex. Loving individuals of the same sex is what defines homosexuality, denying us that is not equality. That would be like saying that black people are equal because they have the freedom to be white if they want to. Or like saying women don't need the birth control pill because men don't.

Canadian, you are defining "Equality" in a way that is completely alien to me, and I imagine to Denton. You're defining it as I described above; a "right" to behave as, to use Bork's phrase, a "radical autonomous individual". An "equality right", as it were, to live as one pleases irregardless of consequences, so long as, I'm presuming(?) one is not physically harming another human being. I don't recognize any such "right", and furthermore, no society of ordered liberty can exist or could ever exist, whether in a democratic republic or any other kind of goverment, if one were to define equality in such a way. Now, at the very least, when we don't even agree on the definition of these terms, can you begin to see why pro/con sides of this issue are so far apart?

Arlington,
That is the only compromise that I see feasibly working.

DeeAnn

"But any factual objective survey done by, say a Martian, or a computer would conclude there is only one side in this debate that is incredibly INtolerant, bigoted, and consistently closed-minded in their tactics, and that is the homosexual normalization side."

*****************

What an interesting view of empiricism you must have! I was unaware that teh gaayysss(!) were denying you employment, shutting you out of hospitals, telling you your family has no value because of "family values", making utterly vile accusations that you are a monster, child abuser and a pervert or making sure that you have been beaten, assaulted, raped and murdered well out of proportion and expectation to the general population.

Hey, I'm sorry. I didn't know that teh GAAAYYYSSS had done that to you. My bad.

************************************

"...because we dare to reject the modern fashion that approves of male homosexuality and lesbianism. And I'm to believe that MY side is the "intolerant" one?"

***********************************

I don't care if you like me and my family, or approve of us one iota. I don't get into your business, and I will thank you to stay the frak out of mine. Funny how we Republicans used to believe in that silly stuff. Who I marry is simply none of your business. I will type *very slowly* for you.

None. Of. Your. Business.

Incredibly, I have actually had to warn off at least one "Christian" who seemed a little too intent on inserting himself into my family dynamic. I am still a decent shot (even if I only have crappy Chinese corrosive core 75 gr. surplus ammo in my SKS) and I have absolutely no problem sending someone to talk to God in person if he wants to bother me, my spouse or my son.

**********************************

"I feel sorry for some of the younger people on this board and in this country who illogically equate past anti-miscegenation laws with resistance to the redefinition of matrimony, an 'analogy' that I find to be repulsively patronizingly racist and ignorant of the past struggles black men and white women and vice versa have suffered in our country."

***********************************

Nope! We wouldn't want to equate hatred, marginalization, discrimination and violence today with that of 40 years ago! Nope...can't have that! Quick! Change the subject!

Let's say the victims are really the aggressors!

It's all their fault, you see...

*********************************************

"I feel sorry for them because they never make a case FOR homosexual marriage which, by definition, must include a case for homosexual normalization beyond, to use Bork's phrase, 'radical autonomous individualism'."

*****************************************

I guess you just want to ignore the case that includes...let's see now...hmmm...

Equal civil rights and protections that are granted to marriage under state and federal laws which are now denied to gay people...

Encouraging gay people to have a greater stake in open civil society with the added responsibility and stability that marriage brings...

Admitting that even though you may not like it due to your religious convictions, it really isn't up to you to say why someone should prove (to you) why THEY ought to be married!!!

******************************

"In other words, they are blind to the total triumph of moral relativism in Western Man and society and culture. "

******************************

I'm sorry, but I am a Hobbesian realist. The State, King or Leviathan is here to protect us from each other, not enforce your notions of moral imperative.

**************************************

"This is why critical and moral reasoning is impossible when relativism has triumphed; there is no basis for ideas like 'civil rights', 'justified discrimination vs. unjustified discrimination', "

**************************************

I suppose so, since I regard moral reasoning largely as a "non sense" (as Hobbes might have it) in most cases. We adapt morals to suit our advantage and disadvantage others to our profit. C'est la vie. Again, I think this well beyond the proper role of government. To borrow from Jefferson, this issue of who marries whom neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket. Mind your own business.

*****************************************

"And I can only conclude that many, young people especially, are oblivious and blind to this because I never hear any intelligent arguments beyond the most simplistic of demands that a 'civil right' must be vindicated or an injustice like 'homophobia' must be defeated."

****************************************

Why do you feel the need for them to justify anything to you at all? Why is it any of your business? Did somebody tell you to marry a man against your will?
*****************************************

"Presumably, such people are assuming that, say prior to the Stonewall riots, all practicing homosexuals shared this presumption. Such a presumption is provably, historically false. Many may have felt resentments against the majority's 'revulsion' of their behavior, but all or almost all recognized themselves as exercising behavior that was a deviation from the norm, whether they were comfortable with that or not."

*****************************************

Yes, I'm sure that many GLBT people LOVED being arrested, beaten and discriminated against in the name of Jesus and good, clean decent church goin' folks. They didn't want civil rights at all.

Also, I love how you get the whole "deviancy" angle going. Cute.

***************************************

"In response to these differences that now ENGULF us as Americans and Westerners, we traditionalists are just dismissed as 'haters'. Where is the argument from the other side for why this is a good?"

**************************************8

Since Rod has chastised me for speaking bluntly earlier, I shall refrain. If you don't want to be labeled as a hater, than refrain from doing and saying hurtful and hateful things. I have no idea what is in your heart, nor do I really care. You do not share my meals, and you do not pay my bills. ( If you want to stop by for a meal, give a few hours warning and tell me what menu items you like. Most anybody is welcome, if you happen to be in the Greensboro, NC area.)

Again, it really should not be up to you to demand justification on why this has to be good. I don't demand that YOU justify to me how your marriage is a benefit to society. It isn't my place, and you shouldn't have to answer such a question. Neither should I.

To start with I totally agree with Arlington. I certainly don't believe that religions should be forced to perform ceremonies or recognize unions they believe to be unholy. However marriage is not just a religious institution. If it was then it would belong in the realm of the Church and the State would idealling have nothing to do with it. But Marriage as a union has many civil properities which as tax paying, law abiding citizens, gay men and women have a right to enjoy. Denying them that right is a form of oppression. Their taxes help to fund the benefits which heterosexual married couples get to partake of, therefore they should either be given the same rights as everyone else in the country or be allowed to pay lower taxes to indicate their differing status. As for the historical argument that there has never been a state with gay marriage, times change. The norm in America and the world at large used to be that slavery was ok (provided you weren't a slave), but things changed. The norm used to be that women were considered less then men, and were not permitted to vote, things change. Just because it is traditional does not inherently mean it is in line with modern values or the correct choice. America unless I'm mistaken was founded on the idea that "All men were created equal" and yet gay men and women are still stuck with inequality. Gay marriage may not be traditional, but as your country's very existence proves, things change and often times for the better. If tradition had never been challenged there would be no America only a colony of Britain. So live up to your illustrious past and be revolutionary.

If married Proposition 8 supporters would just close their eyes for one minute and imagine what it would feel like to wake up tomorrow and not be married to the person you love, how that would feel.

I'm sorry, such feelings are IRRELEVANT. It matters not a bit.

These hypothetical two people haven't changed. Their emotions, sexual proclevities (or lack of, I don't care), who sleeps in the bed at night, or doesn't, these are all irrelevancies. Because nothing in their personal life changed. Nor have they lost any rights.

You see, THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT RIGHTS. Nobody has the "right" to marry anyone. Before there was a California Constitution, or a US Constitution, or a Magna Carta, or even Moses, there was an institution of Marriage. It has survived the millenia, and has proven its worth to the survival of civilization. In fact, one of the most striking factors in the advancement of various civilizations is the presence or absence of marriage as a societal and family institution.

Skip down to the last part of the last century and into this one, and along comes a microscopic special interest group. Even worse, one that defines itself by it's emotional and sexual proclevities, which are deviant.

And, militantly angry that the public sees it as 'deviant', the group has done everything within its power, including co-opt a political party to expend massive energy and time to advance its agenda... which is to be declared morally and culturally "normal" via political action.

It has not done so socially, culturally, religiously, or logically. So, it defines its wants as "rights" and demands that the institution it covets be redefined as a "right". And some judges and a few people aquiesce.

So we find ourselves at the hypothetical juncture in which on November 5 these people wake up and find that the institution and the label they sought to redefine so as to claim "normal" status for their specific and self-identified emotional and sexual deviancies...

Merely woke up to find that the people they sought to take the institution from just took it back from them and restored its historic meaning and role. What did they lose? Nothing, really. They never owned anything to lose. They had merely stolen someone else's word and cultural blessings, and now they faced the day of reckoning.

This has nothing at all to do with hate, prejudice, or anything else. It is merely the application of good judgement, wise thought, and prudence. Oh, some have flipped out, the vast majority haven't.

I, for one, find it important that those of us who believe in the value of prudence, worthy institutions of family, culture and society, defend marriage as worth defending. Be it from those who seek to redefine it in an attempt to deflect their own deviancy from being called deviancy, or from those who dramatically belittle or besmirch it with horrible behavior. And from those who seek to devalue it to nothing more than emotional attachment.

It IS worth defending. In its highest definition and its highest expression and its highest traditions. In short, the survival of our society and even civilization depend upon it.

So, again, our hypothetical people woke up to find the institution they coveted for the purpose of trying to claim "normalcy" gone. In truth, they never had it. For all the coveting did was to affirm its value, and in doing so, they made the case for thier own exemption from it - for if it meant anyone and everyone, without any preconditions or purpose, it would cease to have any cultural or societal purpose or value. It would have become like a gold star... Meaningful only when affixed by virtue of specific conditions. Pointless if everyone has one for any or no reason.

Groucho Marx was once reported to have said that he wouldn't belong to any club who would accept him. For gays, or any other non-traditional union to be awarded status of "marriage" would mean that marriage means literally...Nothing. The value of "marriage" to gays exists precisely because it excludes them and defines the highest values. Their own actions would make it common and meaningless (this can be said of others as well), and having succeeded at redefining it, they would then, in a matter of a relatively short period of time, have ceased to covet it and would have become meaningless, even to them.

Nightstalker the reason that gay people want to marry is because marriage as an institution holds the cultural significance of representing one of the highest expressions of love and commitment that you can show to another human being. Gay people want to be able to wed (even if it's only in the Civil sense) because we want society to recognize that the love and devotion we feel for our partners is equal to the love and devotion that straight people feel for theirs. Allowing gay people to marry does not defeat the institution of marriage as a recognition of love and devotion. If anything allowing gay people to marry confirms that marriage, and only marriage can be the highest form of romantic love and devotion that you can show another individual. The only reason that gay people should not be allowed to marry is because either conservatives believe that we are incapable of the same depth of romantic emotion and commitment as they are (which would be impossible to prove), or that marriage is not about love and commitment.

If marriage isn't about love and commitment then it must be about something else, and our civil laws must be made to reflect that. Given that the only thing that a gay couple can not do that a straight couple can is produce children with each other. Therefore marriage if not about love would need to be about the production of children. If this is the case then those couples who have proven unable to produce children should not be allowed to marry. Along with that the State would need to legislate a number of children that a couple would need to have in order to remain married. Then you get to the issue of couples who have failed to meet that number, or have lost the ability to produce children. Should their marriages be annulled as you would propose ours be? After all as you said they like us would never have had the right to marry in the first place. Instead they simply stole the recognition from the fertile couples who are actually married.

Gay people didn't steal the right to be married they just assumed that marriage was about love, and therefore believed they were due to have their love recognized officially by the rest of society. Since marriage is not about love, but instead must be about the production of children we in the gay community stand corrected. We eagerly look forward to future initiatives to ensure that those couples who have besmerched the name of marriage by refusing or being unable to produce children, have their marriages annulled as ours will be. After all if we're theives then so must they be.

Gay people didn't steal the right to be married they just assumed that marriage was about love,

Wow, you thought it was about infatuation or emotion? And you conflate that shallow and pointless tripe with a "legal right"? Now look, I may be just a hick from the sticks who can't speak the language or have the ability to read, or understand anything sophisticated like... say, ridiculous doublespeak, but I can still recognize nonsense when I see it.

and therefore believed they were due to have their love recognized officially by the rest of society.

Really! Well, I hope their egos can survive the crushing blow of being told "your emotions don't matter here." If not, well, that .02% of the population will just have to...well.. Agonize, I guess.

Since marriage is not about love, but instead must be about the production of children we in the gay community stand corrected.

I have pointed out that this whole argument REALLY is about redefinition of a societal and cultural institution called "family", and you're doing your utmost to bolster my claim. I do appreciate that, but seriously, I'm completely right without any help from you, or opposition from you.

I work with a lot of people under 16 on a volunteer basis and after having raised a few kids of my own along with having long term experience with scores of other kids as well each year, I've become immune to the "false set of options" bilge. In other words, you're not capable of redefining either the question, the meaning of things, or reality in my mind so that I'll fall for the rather juvenile tactic, even when it is gussied up with adult ernestness.

Marriage is not either of your false choices.

Marriage as a principle and institution is an integral foundation for the concept of family - and family is the basis by which each generation passes on the rules, the mores, the morals, the principles, and the cultural traditions that make civilization possible, worthy, and valuable.

No society or civilization without a solid, two-parent committed relationship has been successful in consistently improving the society and civilization from generation to generation - over centuries of time.

All societies (we tend to call them tribes, for they are merely collectives of similar cultural or genetic markers) which lack this either are primitive, or fail from within and fall apart.

So, feel free to post away with the drivel, it doesn't impress me much. You're not even addressing the question, much less have a clue what the argument's even about.

EddieInCA

It did occur to me that I'm right precisely because I DO think, but I do appreciate your affirmation on the topic.

However, I know that wasn't what you intended to say, and your intention was a dismissive insult.

Whatever shall I do? Can my ego stand the strain? Will my fragile emotional state wreak havoc upon my health?

Naw. Some of us are actually well adjusted and don't depend on the approval of posters on a blog for either emotional or psychic wisdom or insights into our "inner child".

Frankly, years of living a life that required recognition of reality just to preserve your own life, and coming to grips with things like success, failure, survival, danger, hardship, responsiblity, consequences... Have taught my "inner child" to grow up and, well, I've been a lot happier for it for quite a number of years.

Everyone should be so blessed.

Nightstalker:

Ok so you're posts up so now I have to reply.

First off primitive societies? Really? We're going that root, 'cause I thought we left that kind of language off at the turn of this new century if not before that. Just because someone has found a method of forming a functional society which does not conform to your values does not make them primitive. Also the main reason many of these so called primitive societies failed is because people like you came around and collapsed their society in an attempt to either enslave or civilize them. Many of these so called tribal societies represent the ancestory of the current model of marriage so if we want to be traditional then tribal it is, otherwise we must admit that over time the definition of marriage can be changed to be more or less inclusive. Shocking I know, but try to deal with it.

Second 0.2%? Really try more like 10% if not more. In California which has both L.A. and San Fran in it the population is probably even higher. We are a minority, but we aren't that minor.

Third love is not the same as infatuation, it's love. Love is an emotion with far more depth then meer infatuation. I'm sorry that you don't feel that emotions and love especially has no place within a marriage, but I have to disagree. We've passed the point in time where marriages (for most of us) are arranged, so personal choice and romantic feelings are relevant. I really don't know what else to say to the argument that love isn't relevant in a marriage, I really don't, so I'll leave it at that. Maybe someone else can explain to you the relevance of love in a permanent relationship I don't have the will.

Fourth you state:

"Marriage as a principle and institution is an integral foundation for the concept of family - and family is the basis by which each generation passes on the rules, the mores, the morals, the principles, and the cultural traditions that make civilization possible, worthy, and valuable.

No society or civilization without a solid, two-parent committed relationship has been successful in consistently improving the society and civilization from generation to generation - over centuries of time. "

I agree with you whole heartedly but why does that two parent dynamic need to be of the opposite sex. Gay people can adopt or produce children via artifical insemination, much as infertile straight people do, therefore we are not a challenge to the family unit. If anything the inclusion of gays in the marriage system would allow for a higher percentage of children to be raised by the two-parent dynamic of which you are so found.

On another note does it always have to be two parents? Are single mothers and fathers some how tearing down the walls of society in their mad quests to raise their children?

As for the redefinition of the institution of the family...that's already happened. The nuclear family where mom stays at home with the 2.5 kids was toast well before the gay rights movement became active. It died when we allowed inter-racial couples to participate. It died when we allowed women to work and thereby have a life outside the home. But you propose taking neither of these away from women or other ethnic minorities. In fact many people would now scoff at the idea of preventing women from working or black men from marrying white women, but once that was not the case, and now these features are an accepted part of the definition of family. If other groups have been permitted to enhance the definition of family then why shouldn't gay people be afforded the same privilege? And if not then why not? Why was it ok to change it then to include them, but it isn't alright to change it now to include us. We wish to have a two-parent system to help pass on the values and norms of society to our children by what right do you deny us this given that you've allowed other new groups to be included in the past?

My comments have to be brief, out of necessity. Won't be around for at least 30 hours again.

Ummm... yeah. You keep repeating that you're being denied.

Denied what? Societal approval. You want this to be gays considered "normal" and valuable to the continuity of society.

Sorry Charley, tain't so.

And, yes, of the vast numbers of gays there are (about 2%, really), and further, the ones for which "marriage" matters at all, and then removing those who want it just for spiteful and vengeance purposes (to spite straight people for whatever reasons) i arrivate at about .02% for whom it matters in any significant way.

Does that union of two need to be man and woman? Why, YES, of course. It's not even a question or open to consideration.

I'm sorry you can't grasp all this, and I'm sorry that you have to invest so much emotion and struggle and money for petty gratification at society's future expense.

However, it's little different from those who deliberately engage in creating bad family environments, or whose impulses literally take apart thier families and conduct wholesale harm upon those they leave behind, in thier wake of self gratification.

And, though you see it merely as an excuse to simply lower everyting to the lowest common denominator, those of us who have actually learned lessons that use the word "responsibility" in their description find your arguments the utmost in compelling reasons to NOT comply and to work at redefinition upward, NOT downward.

YOU may not see it so, and I have no expectation of convincing you, at least not publicly. However, the long view is perfectly clear and true. We need to do the reverse of your wishes for the betterment of what we leave behind.

It really is that simple.

And, gays' emotions... just do not matter. Reality, future, and civilization do matter. Why not invest your time and emotion into something constructive, instead of self gratification?

There is no such thing as gay marriage. There is only marriage. This is about ending the unjustified discrimination that prohibits same-sex couples from participating in a civil institution available to everyone else.

This is not about redefining marriage. This is about ending bigotry. Obviously, as evident in California and in comments on this blog, ignorance always puts up a nasty fight.

This is not about redefining "normal." The science of sexual orientation is there. The studies that show children of same-sex households are as healthy and well-adjusted as other children are there. I can provide all the citations. Only the ignorant and hateful refuse to admit these things.

Celticdragon-You assume all sorts of things I didn't say and misconstrue what I did say. I wasn't even speaking of employment, or hospital visits, although since you mention them, fine. What about employment? You seem to assume that WITHOUT federal legislation creating a special protected class of "rights" for homosexuals that such discrimination is/will take place/be rampant everywhere in America. (Something you already have I believe in the last Congress {though maybe thats just govt. jobs? dknow} though with these new majorities, the Dems will include transgendereds most likely.) I don't assume nor have witnessed such automatic discrimination against homosexuals, per se. Is what you're really talking about OPEN homosexuals? I find it fascinating that this rush to quickly institutionalize homosexuality in marriage 'rights', legal employment 'rights', etc., has taken place and is taking place in our country without marking this distinction. We both know there is a difference, and we both know that is the real objection to the current military 'don't ask, don't tell' policy which allows homosexuals to serve in the military. They (you?) want a "right" (which doesn't exist) to serve AS open homosexuals. I've visited homosexuals I'm not related to in hospitals and know of no such burden that exists today despite the media hypothesizing about such mythical barriers. I made no such accusations vile or otherwise regarding the rest of what you said.

Again, equating discrimination against "homosexual marriage" with prior interracial marriage bans is a completely false analogy. The latter did not change the definition of marriage, which is the union of husband and wife with the former being a man and latter being a woman. In fact, I'd say interracial bans were implicitly unconstitutional based on the colorblindedness of the Constitution and the 9th and 10th Amendments at least, though that is arguably debatable. And yes, considering the overwhelming majority beliefs of traditionalist Christianity concerning marriage among blacks, even more so than other groups; equating the past Unconstitutional bans and beatings and suffering that black men and white women and vice versa lived under for simply wanting to exercise the "right" (as Nightstalker points out above, it isn't a right so much as a "tradition" which a MAN and WOMAN entered into prior to our Republic and our Constit.Rights, something homosexuals are, BY DEFINITION, incapable of exercising) of marriage with a "right" to homosexual sodomy or to redefine marriage smacks of racism to me, and deeply offensive to a religiously-oriented and long-persecuted group of people who have always overwhelmingly disapproved of such behavior. That's why 70% voted for 8. Would've been higher too as the total would've been if Jerry Brown hadn't dishonestly and unconstitutionally reworded it. There is no "right" to redefine marriage based on equal application of the law, despite how badly that phrase has been perverted by political judges. You're (and political leftist or progressive judges) assuming that that "right" is there, to redefine marriage into a union of two persons of any sexual orientation. That's NEVER been the definition of marriage.

I'm certainly NOT a Hobbesian realist(!), though, I most certainly do have the right, along with fellow countrymen through democracy and majoritarianism, to exercise my self-government thru the processes! Did you even mean to imply this? What do you think self-governement within our Constitutional republic means? It means we influence the Law, almost all of which is moral in nature in some part. Tell me a law that has NO moral component. You're arguing for a WHOLE SYSTEM of govt. that DOESN'T exist. Until the (blatantly unconstitutional) Lawrence v Texas SCOTUS decision five years ago, we had right to legislate sodomy (homo or hetero). We never did really, but that's beside the point. THere's no dialogue when you insist you have rights that you don't, from a simple legal and historical framework. I'm not telling you how to think on issue, but our Republic is most certainly not a island of "Hobbesian realism". WE, the American people, certainly have "moral imperatives", whether you acknowledge them or not, (how could we not, if we didn't we'd have no law!) and we exercise them thru democratic process which CA just did. You didn't like the result.

"I'm not 'demanding'(?) anything"; nothing other than to exercise with fellow citizens Constitutional rights of self-govt. and democratic action! THis is how we control our society/culture at all; there is no other "fair" way. Your concept of the "law" or lack thereof, celticdragon, seems woefully confused. Why not petition your fellow citizens to change law to live in Hobbesian "realism", whatever that anarchic law could be? Just don't assume we already live in such a place. (And God Almighty, read some Jefferson for yourself! He certainly did not believe in your vision of Hobbesian realism)

Uh, marriage equality advocates didn't "carry out a social revolution via the courts, without consulting the people". Marriage equality was favored by the legislator and the governor. But they were unable to act without the approval of the court. Further, judges in California are...elected.

In the future, it may benefit you to obtain knowledge knowledge of the basic facts and think them through before opining.

Until gay activists contend with the risk in pursuing their idea of equality through the courts without having first won a social consensus, they're going to set themselves up for the prospect of a crushing failure like this.

If we accepted this line of reasoning over controversial social matters generally we would still be debating whether we were ready to let negroes integrate with the rest of us, whether women athletes should compete in the Olympics, whether women should be allowed to own property without their husbands' permission, etc., etc., etc.

Conservatives never want to change anything.

"I do not think there exists a right to same-sex marriage"

Equally, there is not "right" to opposite sex marriage in either the Constitution OR the Bill of Rights, Rod. America prides itself on beingg the "Land of the Free" (TM), and of 'promising "Liberty and Justice for ALL". It prides itself on 'guaranteeing' the (actual) right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So speak to us about the liberty to marry, the freedom to marry, the right to pursue our own happiness.

"I fear for the religious liberty implications of constitutionalizing same-sex marriage"

And what of OUR religious liberties, Rod? How many faiths DO (or would) perform same-sex marriages?

"I recognize that this is a tremendous blow to good men and women who disagree. It seems to me to be unseemly, even cruel, to rub salt in their wounds."

Why change the course on hate now, eh?

"Barack Obama's candidacy made this win by the Prop 8 folks possible."

No, millions of Mormon $$$ made it possible, enabled by hate and mis-/dis-information on the part of 'Conservatives'.

"Black voters went for Prop 8 by a margin of 9 to 1."

Odd, that, considering how long they had to put up with injustice and the denial of equal treatment before the law for ALL.

"Most importantly, this result shows the strategic risk of trying to carry out a social revolution via the courts, without consulting the people."

When were heterosexuals' 'rights' to marry and to equal treatment before the law ever put 'to the people' for 'consultation'? Let's vote on that. Meanwhile, your statement ignores the fact that 'the people' (via the legislature) voted twice to allow same-sex marriage.

"Had gay activists in California pursued a gradualist strategy building democratic support for same-sex marriage measures incrementally, they would be well on their way to getting what they want."

Would heterosexuals accept that - 'gradual equality'? And don't forget the other States' measures which forbid the 'trappings' (i.e. 'benefits' of being alllowed to visit partners in hospital and making life decisions, inheritance rights, etc.) even to heterosexual couples who aren't "married".

"I could live with compromise legislation that erected a zone of protection around religious liberty."

Again, what about OUR religious liberty, Rod?.

"if the US Supreme Court should in the next decade or so discover a same-sex marriage right in the US Constitution, there will swiftly arise a movement to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman."

I wonder why you don't question this, Rod. Has the Supreme Court ever "discovered' a "right" for opposite-sex marriage in the US Constitution? Speak to us of the equal protections clause and the full faith and credit clause. Remember, many of us are legally married already, whether in Massachusetts or California (or Canada, or Belgium, etc.)

"Yes, the Federal Marriage Amendment failed in the Senate in 2005, but I think that's because the idea of court-imposed gay marriage was an abstract threat. In California, it was a reality"

Our marriages were a reality. There was no "reality" of any kind of a "threat". It wasn't "court-imposed" (again, remember the CA legislature twice voted for it). The courts found that forbidding equal treatment was UN-Constituional. They had to change the Constitution to make discrimination legal.

"I expect that the anger among the gay community and their supporters over this result will make rational discussion of the matter impossible, at least for a time."

There was no 'rationality' in the discussion to beginwith, if conservatives believed heterosexual marriage was 'threatened', Rod.

"If you blame it all on bigotry, that doesn't require you to think about other reasons why people voted for Prop 8 -- like, for example, resentment over something as radical as same-sex marriage being imposed by a judicial elite."

Again, you ignore both the Legislature and the UN-Constitutionality of not allowing for equal treatment before the law. Why do you "resent" our being treated equally? Why do you never question THAT, Rod?

"because of the treatment of all civil unions under federal law."

by which I mean the treatment I am proposing, of course. Sorry for the ambiguity.

As a gay ex-Catholic, I don't recall being allowed to vote on the court case that resulted in the California Supreme Court's finding for same sex marriage. I had favored domestic partnership because it confers the right to redundant health insurance coverage between partners as well as the right to make medical decisions for one another.

Punishing an entire group of people for the actions of a few is a Nazi tactic.

As for friendly, Christian warnings of backlashes against gays, over the past twenty centuries little if anything has been needed to start such backlashes. Such natural disasters as storms and earthquakes have sent the Faithful into frenzies of holy bloodlust in which they burned gays to death.

As a cancer patient who will die without insurance coverage or someone to make medical decisions when I'm in chemotherapy, the outcome will be the same for me.

So, I intend to fight Prop. 8 by any legal means necessary.

Scurvy,

Just to be on record - yeah, I'd be perfectly happy with civil unions for all and employers being prohibited from extending benefits to anyone based solely on their religious status.

In other words, Cracker Barrel and Exxon may not choose to extend benefits to religiously married folk that are not offered to all civically united couples.

A religious institution should of course be free to only allow religious marriages to be performed on its premises. Publicly-owned facilities and private enterprises that are not strictly religiously affiliated should not be able to discriminate. If they would permit a Catholic wedding reception to be held on their premises, they must allow a Jewish wedding reception or a Unitarian/Universalist same-sex wedding reception or a service/reception for a couple that chooses to have no specific religious ceremony as part of their civil union.

"something that has never in the history of human society existed"

Are you actually that ignorant? I strongly suggest you do some of the following things an intelligent person would have done before writing this article: read, research, learn. "The history of human society" streches far beyond your limited definition and apparently encompasses more than your limited imagination can grasp.

Go, Susan in Ann Arbor, go! As a society offer certain rights a privileges to married people because of the perceived benefits to society. If these benefits are around the raising of children, then childless married heterosexuals should also be denied these privileges. If, as I believe, there are benefits to society in having people in committed long term relationships (ie: energy for life's other activities besides mating, etc) then we should offer some mechanism for offering these benefits to same sex couples.

Jim H, many thanks for the reply. What you suggest are good additions to the proposal and I certainly agree with them. (This doesn't surprise me, by the way; I've liked you from the first post of yours that I read, quite a while back.)

Susan in Ann Arbor, thanks for adding the point about France. I should have realized that this was how the issue was approached there. I have heartburn about some of the more virulent laicete, but this is a context where les grenouilles have the right approach.

Jelperman, Jefferson and others supported such as an idea, to an extent, as a libertarian philosophical principle, they never thought it was possible to enshrine it in Law! How could you? You're arguing that everyone has a right to do whatever they want so long as they're not hammering their neighbor's head in w/a hammer. You're arguing effectively that there be NO LAW. It's silly and ignorant of American history to say the founders supported such a thing. Moreover, it's logically impossible. Take gay marriage. After it was (unconstitutionally) created in MA., it had to be applied in law. Catholic Charities could no longer stay in the adoption business, because they were told they MUST place adoptees w/homosexual men and lesbians. OBVIOUSLY, their "rights" (as you are interpreting the founders) have now been obliterated; they wanted to place newborns w/adoptees they deemed fit, they now can't. Assuming the founders believed you could apply such an anarchic libertarian idea into the Law just tells us how little you really understand the founders. (Or the law)

Again, celticdragon, you are not correctly interpreting what i said. I don't know the reasoning of the opinion of LovingvVa. off top of my head; I'm saying IT WAS ALWAYS unconstitutional to have anti-miscegenation laws. THat is, at least, debateable, cause as nightstalker and i have both said, "marriage" is not an explicit right in the text of Constit., it is a traditional "right" that had been exercised prior to founding. Exercised by whom? By unions of MEN & WOMEN! Saying the court "allowed marriages that had previously been banned!" shows me you support the FALSE idea that courts can CHANGE the law. They can't. They can CORRECTLY interpret the law; in this case apply the principle of colorblindedness implicit, i'm arguing, in the Constit. In Loving, they (or at least, they should have, again, lots of court decisions are right result w/bad, wrong, illogical reasoning. Look At BrownvBoard of Ed.) were maintaining interracial bans on marriage WERE unconstitutional. In that decision, in the future, and in the past, since the founding. THey were correcting that injustice, BY interpreting the Constit. PROPERLY. California, Connecticut, Massachusetts supreme courts have/are doing no such thing; they are unconstitutionally changing the definition of marriage, and completely misapplying (which left-wing judges do constantly) the principle of equal application of law. Denton above is correct; every one already HAS ability to marry someone of opposite sex-that is the correct application of principle equal access to law. Changing definition of marriage MUST be done legislatively.

One last thing. Lots of people here keep repeating the idea that 'they don't care what religious/traditionalist people think of them'; they want the rights they're entitled to. My own experience tells me this is patently false. Among plenty of homosexuals i know, many, perhaps most agree w/notion of homosexual marriage, but some don't. Ones who don't are overwhelmingly Republican-voting libertarian type people who couldn't care less that I, as a Catholic conservative, don't approve of their sexual habits. We are friendly because we share interests, like each other, etc, etc, same reasons any people have in friendships. They don't NEED MY APPROVAL, or the approval of majority of Americans to say that their "marriages" of family relationships/setups are O.K. They ALREADY LIVE the way hetero marriages do, and honestly admit so. The others, like Andrew Sullivan for example, deny there are such people, and insist they are persecuted beyond the comprehension of normal hetero Americans. That's because what they REALLY want is not gay marriage or any specific change in law. What they want, what they are loudly DEMANDING, without specifically saying so, is APPROVAL for their sexual behavior. And that says to me that they are much LESS comfortable with themselves and the decisions they make than the libertarian types. They define themselves almost entirely BY their sexual orientation, and this is what convinces me they are much less certain about the rightness of that orientation and their own behavior. Regular traditionally-minded Americans recognize this, and that is why they resent this political campaign to change (and yes, diminish if not destroy) the institution of marriage.

I am deeply opposed to Proposition 8. I find it to be offensive on the deepest level of humanity in the United States. I am expected to work hard, pay my taxes, support my country, etc. the exact same things asked of those against marriage equality. HOWEVER! I am not allowed the same rights, lets be honest...I am not allowed to use the same word for my relationship because it is special to other people and they do not want to share. Sure, civil unions are great, here in California we get so many of the same benefits as the heterosexuals. But the vehemence of some people to insist that I am different is what is offensive. This is offensive because it is based on a valuation of sexuality. The undertext is that I am inferior and dangerous. I do all the same things and for the most part live an identical life to heterosexual people and I expect to be treated the same and provided the equality promised to ALL citizens of the United States.

Of course this is mainly about equality! I don't know if I will ever get married, I haven't met someone I want to marry yet but I want to know that I can, that I am valued the same way in the legal documents of the place I am asked to support every day of my life.

The fact that people want to isolate me and differentiate makes me want it even more, to support my community. You may be unaware but if you had any inkling of the emotional and psychological issues the majority of the queer community must face due to the differentiation and hurtful actions of "pro-family" people that unfortunately raise us, you too would want to be equal. I hope NO child will ever have to rationalize and explain the atrocious events I dealt with growing up. They are told they are bad and wrong and inappropriate and unlovable and inferior and ill and dirty and demonic and going to hell. Most gay people are told this at some point, usually at a young age, by someone hoping to keep them from becoming gay, but they already are and now they have just forced a child to try to understand a lot of complex philosophical questions and most likely made them too scared to ask for an explanation. Well guess what my friends, that has lasting effects on self-worth and development of a balanced self. At some point, hopefully, you just refuse to live a lie and accept who you are and as you grow you start to see what the differences between hetero and homo are. We are "fags" because you labelled us "fags," but we will work to prove that the negative connotation associated with that word is unsubstantiated and the work of bitter people trying to find some way to feel better than others. Maybe my community won't have to battle the drug problems it does if most of it's members weren't raised to feel inferior?

On a quick digression...look up the word fag and the historical usage of the term and then consciously choose to use it and at the same time claim to be sharing the love of God, or pursuing the characteristics of Jesus Christ.

The Republicans criticisized Obama for acting superior and elitist. The majority of support for Prop 8 came from the Republican party and guess what it is...an attempt to enshrine one group as superior or "more equal than other's."

"marriage" is not an explicit right in the text of Constit., it is a traditional "right" that had been exercised prior to founding. Exercised by whom? By unions of MEN & WOMEN"

Slavery was also a traditional right exercsized prior to founding. As was the tradition of ignoring women's contributions and value. And not allowing inter-racial marriages. But all of these things were proved to be explicitly unjust along with many other "traditions," why is differentiating homosexuals not the same? This argument for tradition is a poor disguise for the real, religious reasons for discrimination. If you look into US history, and you all seem very intelligent so I am sure you know, tradition seems to be discrimination. I would feel confident to say that US "tradition" has constantly had to be opposed by minorities, starting with indigenous groups and reaching today to homosexuals, to ensure their equality. And throughout this history, much of the justification has been religious or imposed by a majority religious group. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, no one is entitled to impose their beliefs on anyone! It says so in the constitution, we realized that long ago.

Before being a homo, I am an American. This is a battle about democracy and equality. It isn't petty or a spiteful attempt to impose homos on the religious but rather a real push for equality in this country.

Marriage is provided to any adult regardless of their intentions, history, religious affiliation (or lack there of). The only requirement is that you hitch yourself to the opposite sex. Every "rational" reason for denying marriage to homosexuals is something that heterosexuals are guilty of as well. Heteros set bad examples for children, they get divorced, they threaten the sanctity, they abuse the meaning, they ignore tradition. I just once would like to hear a real argument that doesn't, once deconstructed, come down to religion and the tyranny of the religious majority over the minority.

I don't hate you but I am hurt by you. I am offended that you think I am too ignorant or drugged out or immoral to see through the true reason for discrimination. Some day I will be married. While we lost our right in California it will only make us stamp our feet harder and scream a little louder for our rights.

We are not the same, you are correct in that belief! But our differences are cultural and social, we have different values and experiences, and it is despicable to push for discrimination on these grounds.

"All men are created equal" and I will always fight to prove that and to ensure this country provides what it promises. Until that day the "American dream" is just false advertising but I believe it is more and should be more than that!

I know this is ridiculously long but I needed to get some of this out there. You all sound intelligent, not like the vast majority of internet commenters wishing us death and beating, which is why I bothered to comment. I know you are Christian and have been taught to believe that homosexuality is a flagrant slap in the face to God's principles. But I am a Christian too and I was taught, above all, that God loves everyone and doesn't want us to wander alone and in the next sentence was told that the homos are going to hell. I still don't understand the faith required to make a fundamental leap from God is love to God is hate but I think I know who God is. And God loves me as much as He loves you and He made me in His image. Under California's new legislation I suppose homosexuality is a slap in God's face because every single homo is incapable from having sex inside of marriage. I am sure most people don't think all the gays should be celibate, the Catholic Church (unfortunately and disturbingly) has seen first hand what can happen from fear and intolerance.

I hope this hasn't fallen on deaf ears and I hope, even if you think I am a crazy fag, that you will challenge yourself to think exactly what this legislation is saying. And try to fathom the statement made to the many homosexuals who wish only for the same legal recognition and possibility to publicly profess their love. Someday, I hope you too will see why I think marriage needs to be open to everyone.

Well said Andrew!