You can remove the quotes; Gay Marriage is the law of the land. New York's governor is moving to have New York state agencies recognize gay marriages performed in California and Mass back in New York. Equal rights for everyone.

You might want to check in with your Log Cabin brothers about them being on the Left.

So please explain why it is fine to cite "the will of the people" when referring to the Prop. 22 result, but not OK when the tide begins to turn against government double standards with respect to a civil contract.
I'm not understanding.

Both Jubal's and Mr. Stern's op-ed are well stated and well written.

As Mr. Stern correctly points out, the history of the courts' jurisprudence in this area is that the courts will quickly enforce the "no establishment of religion" portion of what is known as the "establishment" clause of the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution and rarely, very very rarely, find a case to uphold the "free exercise" portion of the same clause.

That has already been proven by the forcing of the Catholic Charities to close its adoption operations in Boston and San Francisco because the church wishes to put into practice its beliefs by not placing children into same sex households. I do not think this serves the children well who were being placed into loving homes by the church. But it appears that their well being is secondary to making sure to silence the church and allowing homosexual couples to adopt a child - even though other agencies were already open and available to homosexuals who wanted to adopt.

The courts in California have also sided against churches that operate other institutions, such as hospitals, when the legislature restricted the exemption for religious organizations to the anti-discrimination laws extended to homosexuals that was passed in California in the 1990s. The courts ruled that the restriction to only apply the exemption to the churches' "ecclesiastical" functions (the hiring of a pastor and church staff) did not violate the churches' religious freedoms under the state and U.S. constitutions. This forces churches (and the people that make up the church) that hire hospital staff or other operations that the state determines are not "ecclesiastical," to hire people that do not accept their tenants of faith and practices.

In other words, according to the legislature and the courts, your religious opinions and convictions are OK as long as they are limited to the inside of the four walls of your church. Don't even think of applying them outside of the church facility.

These are only two of many, many examples.

The plain fact is that the issue of homosexual marriage is not a "settled" issue in the minds of millions of citizens in this nation and state. However, the courts in California (or at least 4 justices of the State Supreme Court) have decided that their opinions trump the will of the people, including those of millions of Californians who hold these convictions from sincerely held religious beliefs.

It remains to be seen if the courts and or the legislature now find a "right" of homosexuals to have church marriages even if the people inside the church, who pay for it and maintain it, object for the same sincerely held religious beliefs.

The right to hold and exercise one's religious beliefs has been called our first freedom - after all it was the desire for this religious freedom that propelled the Puritans to leave England and settle in the new world. It was this desire for religious freedom that inspired the Founders to place the establishment clause into the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The restriction of this first freedom by the Courts, is a very dangerous path that makes it much easier to restrict other freedoms.

Be careful what you ask for, you may receive it - and the consequences that go with it.

Surrender Dorothy!

Equal rights for everyone.

I'm sure bigamists and polygamists agree with you, Dan. And now that there's really no rational, principled basis for denying them the "right" to marry multiple spouses, I'll not be surprised if they get it.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT SODOMY (HOMOSEXUALITY)?
Genesis 19:5-8
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Exodus 22:19

19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 18:22

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 18:23

23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Leviticus 20:13

13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 20:15

15And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Leviticus 20:16

16And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 1
1These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab.
2(There are eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadeshbarnea.)
3And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;
4After he had slain Sihon the king of the Amorites, which dwelt in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, which dwelt at Astaroth in Edrei:
5On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to declare this law, saying,
6The LORD our God spake unto us in Horeb, saying, Ye have dwelt long enough in this mount:
7Turn you, and take your journey, and go to the mount of the Amorites, and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the plain, in the hills, and in the vale, and in the south, and by the sea side, to the land of the Canaanites, and unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates.
8Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.
9And I spake unto you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone:
10The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude.
11(The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!)
12How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife?
13Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
16And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
17Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
18And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do.
19And when we departed from Horeb, we went through all that great and terrible wilderness, which ye saw by the way of the mountain of the Amorites, as the LORD our God commanded us; and we came to Kadeshbarnea.
20And I said unto you, Ye are come unto the mountain of the Amorites, which the LORD our God doth give unto us.
21Behold, the LORD thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess it, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged.
22And ye came near unto me every one of you, and said, We will send men before us, and they shall search us out the land, and bring us word again by what way we must go up, and into what cities we shall come.
23And the saying pleased me well: and I took twelve men of you, one of a tribe:
24And they turned and went up into the mountain, and came unto the valley of Eshcol, and searched it out.
25And they took of the fruit of the land in their hands, and brought it down unto us, and brought us word again, and said, It is a good land which the LORD our God doth give us.
26Notwithstanding ye would not go up, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God:
27And ye murmured in your tents, and said, Because the LORD hated us, he hath brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us.
28Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.
29Then I said unto you, Dread not, neither be afraid of them.
30The LORD your God which goeth before you, he shall fight for you, according to all that he did for you in Egypt before your eyes;
31And in the wilderness, where thou hast seen how that the LORD thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went, until ye came into this place.
32Yet in this thing ye did not believe the LORD your God,
33Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.
34And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,
35Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers.
36Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD.
37Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither.
38But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.
39Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
40But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.
41Then ye answered and said unto me, We have sinned against the LORD, we will go up and fight, according to all that the LORD our God commanded us. And when ye had girded on every man his weapons of war, ye were ready to go up into the hill.
42And the LORD said unto me, Say unto them. Go not up, neither fight; for I am not among you; lest ye be smitten before your enemies.
43So I spake unto you; and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD, and went presumptuously up into the hill.
44And the Amorites, which dwelt in that mountain, came out against you, and chased you, as bees do, and destroyed you in Seir, even unto Hormah.
45And ye returned and wept before the LORD; but the LORD would not hearken to your voice, nor give ear unto you.
46So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there.

SODOMITES
1. 1 Kings 14:24
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.
1 Kings 14:23-25 (in Context) 1 Kings 14 (Whole Chapter)

2. 1 Kings 15:12
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.
1 Kings 15:11-13 (in Context) 1 Kings 15 (Whole Chapter)

3. 1 Kings 22:46
And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.
1 Kings 22:45-47 (in Context) 1 Kings 22 (Whole Chapter)

4. 2 Kings 23:7
And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.
2 Kings 23:6-8 (in Context) 2 Kings 23 (Whole Chapter)

More from King James Version
1. SODOMITES
2. BLINDNESS » Miraculously inflicted upon the Sodomites (Genesis 19:11)
3. JUDGMENTS » Sodomites (Genesis 19:23-25)
4. SODOMY » See SODOMITES
5. ADULTERY » INSTANCES OF » Sodomites (Genesis 19:5-8)
6. DEATH » AS A JUDGMENT » Sodomites (Genesis 19:12,13,24,25)
7. LASCIVIOUSNESS » INSTANCES OF » Sodomites (Genesis 19:5)
8. OBDURACY (HARDNESS) » INSTANCES OF » Sodomites (Genesis 19:9,14)
9. SIN » INSTANCES OF » The Sodomites (Genesis 18:20)
10. WOMEN » INSTANCES OF » The sodomites of the southern kingdom (Judah) (2 Kings 23:7)

Howard Ahmanson, is that you?

There's nothing "Gay" about homosexuality - it's behavior that should not be rewarded with ability to marry as God designed for a man and a woman only.

This link says it all:

http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzp0S3yO1QA&hl=en&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"

Jubal, is there a way for you to hyperlink the above so anyone can go straight to it from here?

Dale Carpenter, June 17, 2008 at 8:24pm] Trackbacks
Religious liberty and SSM: As wedding bells begin ringing for gay couples and families in California, opponents of gay marriage are turning up the volume on a relatively new argument: that same-sex marriage is a threat to religious liberty. Just today we have seen two passionate salvos. Maggie Gallagher, writing at NRO, warns that gay marriage means "the official harassment and repression (by our own government) of traditional religious faiths." Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, writing in the L.A. Times, warns that "it is religious rights that are likely to be 'obliterated' by an emerging popular majority supporting same-sex relationships."

There was nothing very surprising in either of these op-eds. Maggie began pressing the religious-liberty argument against gay marriage at least three years ago. Stern has a chapter on "Gay Marriage and the Churches" in a forthcoming book of essays by several authors entitled Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty. The book is being sponsored by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which officially takes no position on gay marriage, but regularly files amicus briefs in gay-marriage cases warning of "looming conflicts" with religious freedom.

More surprising was a report broadcast yesterday by National Public Radio, which pointed to "signs of a coming storm" in the "collision" of two legal principles: "equal treatment for same-sex couples" and "the freedom to exercise religious beliefs." The radio version of the report offered two examples of this "collision" that have been widely circulated by gay-marriage opponents. A written addendum to the report offered several more. The most commonly cited examples, summarized below from the report, include:

*Adoption services: Catholic Charities of Boston refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. The group withdrew from the adoption business in 2006.

*Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. In 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination and the school now lets same-sex couples live in the dorm.

*Medical services: On religious grounds, a Christian gynecologist in California refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship. (He referred the patient to a partner in his practice group, who agreed to provide the treatment.) The woman sued and the case is pending before the California Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in favor of the lesbian. [UPDATE from Andrew Koppelman, with info not provided by NPR: "Right now the dispute is being litigated on a motion for summary judgment, so there's been no trial, but Benitez's allegations are on pp. 4-6 of her Supreme Court brief, which you can find at http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/benitez/benitez-opening-brief.pdf. If she's right, then she had no choice but to go to that group under her health insurance plan, received significantly inferior health care for nearly a year, evidently because of the doctors' scruples, and was finally told, after wasting a year waiting for appropriate treatment, that she wouldn't receive treatment from that group at all."]

*Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

*Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination and ordered her to pay the couple's legal fees. The photographer is appealing.

*Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the state civil rights commission. The commission ruled that the property was open for public use and therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. The case is ongoing.

These examples, and others given in the NPR report and by gay-marriage opponents, illustrate many things. They show that there are indeed antidiscrimination laws that apply to those who provide services to the public. They show that these antidiscrimination laws sometimes require individuals and organizations to do things that these persons and organizations claim violate their religious beliefs. They show that conflicts between antidiscrimination laws and religious belief often wind up in court, requiring judges and other decisionmakers to decide how the conflict should be resolved under the law and the Constitution. They show that on at least some occasions antidiscrimination laws are held to trump religious beliefs and that, as a result, religious individuals and organizations must sometimes decide whether to comply with the law or to stop providing services to the public. They even show that many of these disputes arise in the context of religious actors who object in particular to gay relationships.

What these examples do not show, however, is that gay marriage is "repressing" or "obliterating" religious rights or that "a storm is coming" because gay couples are marrying. With the exception of the Vermont clerk refusing to perform a civil union ceremony (about which more below), none of them involve a claim of discrimination provided by the gay couples' status as married or as joined in a civil union or domestic partnership. All of the cases involve the application of state laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that pre-date the official recognition of gay relationships. Neither the viability of the discrimination claim nor the viability of the religious objectors' desired exemption turns on whether the gay couple is officially recognized. In most of the cited cases, in fact, the couples' relationship was not recognized by the state, but adding such a status to the cases would change nothing about their legal significance.

The most egregious abuse of these examples to undermine gay marriage is the Catholic Charities case, which involved the application of a 1989 antidiscrimination law. That dispute arose because the Catholic Church objected to complying with the law for the first time only after gay marriage was permitted in the state. It was a fortuitously timed conflict for gay-marriage opponents given that the state legislature was at that very moment considering a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

So it is not true that (as NPR put it) gay couples "armed with those legal protections" newly provided by marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships, are suddenly challenging religious objectors. The conflicts between the law and religion that NPR points to have been around for a very long time. They go back some three decades, to the very first state and municipal laws that protected gay couples from discrimination in employment, housing, and education. (Indeed, conflicts between antidiscrimination law and religious objectors go back even further, to laws that forbade discrimination on the basis of race and sex.) NPR could have broadcast this same story using similar cases ten or even twenty years ago. But, apparently drawing on complaints by gay-marriage opponents, NPR chose to do so on the day California began to sanction same-sex marriages. That's misleading and irresponsible.

What Gallagher and many others in the anti-gay marriage movement are really objecting to is the extension of antidiscrimination law to gay people — at least insofar as this extension conflicts with someone's claim that their religious scruples require them to discriminate against homosexuals.

That's an argument we've been having for a long time, and it's worth continuing to have it. It is useful to continue to think about how antidiscrimination principles can accommodate religious faith. Religious freedom is a first and founding principle of this country. I think religious accommodation to private persons and organizations should be generously provided, even where not required by the Constitution. At the very least, accommodation should be made where it can be offered without harming the protected class. For that reason, I think an exemption should have been offered in several of the cases cited in the NPR report, including in the case of Catholic Charities of Boston (as I wrote at the time).

(In my view, public officials like the Vermont clerk cited in the NPR story, should be distinguished from private persons. As enforcers of the law and representatives of the state, they should be required to do their duty and enforce the law evenhandedly, regardless of their personal objections. While I'd be generous about accommodating the religious objections of private persons, I am very wary of introducing a system of exemption for public officers serving the public with taxpayers' money and charged with administering the law.)

In the larger national debate over gay marriage, the biggest problem for gay-marriage opponents has been to demonstrate what Eric Posner recently called it "impossible" to demonstrate: that recognizing gay marriage causes some tangible harm. They have tried many harm-based arguments but so far nothing has stuck. Not "evidence" of social decline from Scandinavia or the Netherlands. Not polygamy. Not population implosion.

So opponents of gay marriage are now using what is basically old news in the culture war as an argument to warn the country about the supposedly novel dangers "looming" ahead because of gay marriage. It is an attractive argument because it appeals to Americans' basic sense of fair play, their commitment to the country's fundamental principles, and of course their own deep religious faith. It casts good religious people as victims and gay couples as victimizers who care only about themselves. If you don't look at the complicated facts of the cases, if you disregard the applicable laws involved, if you ignore the difficulty of deciding how to administer exemptions in a consistent and principled fashion, this new harm-based argument is an appealing one.

Even the examples of conflict arising from antidiscrimination law are often exaggerated and oversimplified. The New Jersey beachfront pavilion case cited in the NPR report, for example, involves a plausible claim that the pavilion is quasi-public, not religious, property since the religious group got a $500,000 tax break after representing to the state that the disputed property would be open to the public. The group also reportedly gave up a degree of property ownership rights for the boardwalk and beach in the 19th century to avoid taxation. All of this is disputed, and the legal significance of these matters is open to debate, but it's hardly a straightforward case of a church being required to sanction a gay wedding on its own undisputedly exclusive and private property.

Now it's true that some states and cities (and to a limited extent, federal civil service law) protect people in various ways from "marital status" discrimination. It might be thought that such laws, where they exist, will provide more ammunition to married gay couples who face discrimination. But these laws already protect people even if they're single, much less if their marriage is a gay or straight one.

It's also true that we are likely to see a rise in conflicts between antidiscrimination law and religious objectors in the future. That's not really something gay marriage is "causing," though married gay couples will probably be most prominent among those complaining about discrimination. They don't see themselves as second-class citizens and are more likely to object when they think they're being treated as if they are.

Instead of gay marriage causing a collision, both gay marriage and religious conflicts with antidiscrimination law are themselves the product of a much larger trend that is moving the tectonic plates of our culture. That trend is the increasingly common view that homosexuality is a natural and harmless variation of human sexuality, that gay people are entitled to be judged on their merits and not on the basis of outdated opprobrium, and that these beliefs should to a significant degree be reflected in law.

Many people in our society object strongly to this trend. I think the law should make room for them to a considerable extent. It should be possible, in particular, to recognize gay marriage and to continue to protect religious faith at least to the extent we have already done so when religious views about marriage diverge from the secular law of marriage. Of course no religion should be required to change its doctrine to recognize gay unions. Of course no religious official should be required to perform a same-sex marriage (or an interracial wedding, as some once objected to, or a second-marriage wedding, as some object to now, or any other wedding he objects to). These things have never been required and nobody is asking that they should be.

While marriage and religious belief are one creature in the minds of many people, they are separate things in the law. Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, for example, refuse to recognize secular divorce. But few argue that we should refuse to let people divorce for this reason. One can be divorced under the law but married in the eyes of the church. The statuses can be separated without a diminution of religious liberty. And nobody thinks that this de-linking of the two constitutes official oppression or the obliteration of religious freedom. Similarly, in principle, it should be possible to have a regime in which same-sex couples are married under the law but not married in the eyes of a given religion — all without extinguishing religious faith.

Matters are more complicated when religious persons and organizations provide services to the public or ask for public funds while at the same time requesting to be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else. These conflicts come up in a dizzying variety of contexts, where the equities vary wildly and the costs of allowing exemptions are sometimes great and sometimes small. No person of good will should have a one-size-fits-all approach to this — everybody gets an exemption all the time or nobody ever does, no matter the circumstances — and our courts and laws don't usually adopt a categorical approach. Let's think hard about the hard choices involved, but let's not exploit pre-existing conflicts to gain the upper-hand in the gay-marriage debate or scapegoat gay couples who want their families protected by the law.

"I'm sure bigamists and polygamists agree with you, Dan. And now that there's really no rational, principled basis for denying them the "right" to marry multiple spouses."

I'm also sure that the racists and the bigots would agree with you & Stern, Jubal. Your arguments that the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals could equally be applied to any "religious" group that discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity. If a doctor refused to provide medical treatment to an African-American or a Jew and claimed "religious" grounds, would that be acceptable to you? Can you explain the difference, other than saying discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is OK, but not on the basis of race or religion?

Just Ain't Natural sounds like Homer Simpson angry that gays took away that word from him!

Qazi --
Since we're quoting Leviticus -- Leviticus 11, "in which God tells Moses that the people must not eat pork or rabbit or shrimp or lobster, or anything in the seas and rivers that does not have fins and scales? "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the water shall be an abomination to you," Leviticus says.

How was your bacon this morning?

Matt -- nice strawman. Are you going to use Chuck DeVore's argument that fathers will marry daughters and mothers will marry sons to avoid paying the estate tax?

Just Ain't Natural,
You are right on and that youtube piece is right on as well. I'm copying it and sending it to everyone I know. I think it's a perfect way to remind regular folks that homosexual behavior is self-destructive and can't procreate.

Also, the chickens are coming home to roost in "progressive" Mass. as well. Seems the divorce rates for married homosexuals is sky-rocketing there! Surprise, surprise. The inherent behavior of homosexuality is variety, i.e. multiple partners - that's the dirty, dark secret no one is talking about. HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS AN OXYMORON!!!

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

"Just ain't natural":

thanks for the chuckle. I haven't head that one in while. It's the argument I used to hear about white women dating black men when I was growing up. Biblical quotes and all.

But of course, that was long ago and far away. Surely history will be kinder to you.

"Just Ain't Natural" obviously hit a bullseye as evidenced by the taffy pullers stretching all sorts of things to try and justify the deplorable.

Look, if you people want to act queer behind your own closed doors and you're over the age of 18, that's totally your right. But, if you're going to try to force your diviant sexual behavior down our throats and try to spin it off as if it's the same thing as a race, gender or religion issue, fuggitaboutit!!! We ain't buying it and the November General Election will fix that wagon real quick. Enjoy your folly while you can.

Todd:

I realize the pro-gay marriage side wants to make this an equal rights issue, but it is not.

What the court has done is to re-define marriage and make it something it has not been before. Throughout history, regardless of restrictions put on it or permutations such as polygamy, marriage, by its very nature, is between a man and a woman.

However one wants to label a committed homosexual relationship, it is not and cannot be marriage.

Dan:

It is not a straw man at all. Please tell me on what basis you would deny making polygamous relationships legal marriages?

Cabana Republicana - Thanks, that was hilarious.

Jubal,

I wasn't talking about marriage, but discrimination by non-governmental actors(per my example of the doctor refusing services, which you've posted on before and is discussed in the article). I'd appreciate if you (or someone else literate) could answer the questions: If a doctor refused to provide medical treatment to an African-American or a Jew and claimed "religious" grounds, would that be acceptable to you? Can you explain the difference, other than saying discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is OK, but not on the basis of race or religion?

I really would like to understand the marriage protectionists view on this.

"Throughout history, regardless of restrictions put on it or permutations such as polygamy, marriage, by its very nature, is between a man and a woman."

In a polygamous marriage, isn't it between a man and a woman and a woman? Aren't the woman also married to each other? Even in the example you give, you are selectively editing out the relationships you don't agree with.

Human relationships have always varied greatly between cultures and individuals. Certainly I don't need to tell you about homosexual relations between men in Ancient Greece. Of course this was not marriage, but it was openly accepted by society and would create certain rights for the parties.

Marriage doesn't exist in nature, marriage is simply a relationship recognized by society as creating a certain set of rights. Remove society, no marriage exists.

My legal view of a marriage is a contract between the parties. If two consenting (because thats all we as a society permit) adults want the state adopt the set of regulations the state has assigned for them, why not? If not an issue of Equal Rights (which I'm not conceding, your simply stating something without basis or explanation doesn't make it true), why not an issue of freedom to contract, individual rights?

In a polygamous marriage, isn't it between a man and a woman and a woman? Aren't the woman also married to each other? Even in the example you give, you are selectively editing out the relationships you don't agree with.

No, Todd. You are showing you don't understand what a polygamous marriage is. It is when a man has many wives. The wives are married to the man, not to each other.

I don't need to tell you about homosexual relations between men in Ancient Greece. Of course this was not marriage, but it was openly accepted by society and would create certain rights for the parties.

Exactly. It was not marriage. The Greeks never made it marriage, or considered it marriage. In other words, this example doe nothing to buttress your argument.

Marriage doesn't exist in nature, marriage is simply a relationship recognized by society as creating a certain set of rights. Remove society, no marriage exists.

Marriage has taken root wherever human beings are found -- regardless of culture, race, location or climate. You argument that marriage isn't found in nature flies inn the face of the human experience throughout history.

...why not an issue of freedom to contract, individual rights?

That freedom already exists, and existed prior to the state Supreme Court ruling.

Jubal,

"No, Todd. You are showing you don't understand what a polygamous marriage is. It is when a man has many wives. The wives are married to the man, not to each other."

Actually, polygamy is when a person has more than one spouse, regardless of gender. You are referring to polygyny, which is when a single man has multiple wives. Also there is polyandry, when a woman is married to more than one man, and group marriage, which I guess is absolute anarchy.

“Marriage has taken root wherever human beings are found -- regardless of culture, race, location or climate. You argument that marriage isn't found in nature flies inn the face of the human experience throughout history.”

This is a pronouncement about the condition of all of human societies throughout history, and almost certainly wrong. I would venture that if we study through the hundreds of thousands of human societies that have existed throughout time that there have been times and places when there was nothing which we could identify with marriage. I would also bet there were a couple where monogamous same sex unions were accepted openly. Based on your lack of knowledge about the types of marriage that have existed, I doubt you’ve really done enough research to be a credible expert on the subject.

Your argument that marriage is fixed in human society rests on many flawed assumptions. Can we even define society?

Is Canada a society? What about Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands or Norway? They all have recognized gay marriage. Don’t we live in history now? If not, when will today’s actions be history? In 100 years will you accept gay marriage when it is part of “history”? 50? 5?

I think the issue is not that no society has ever recognized gay marriage and that its therefore “unnatural,” but simply that it is incompatible with you religious views/world view. That’s fine, you are 100% entitled too them. If enough people feel like you, that's basically what creates the laws/social mores. It's nothing in "nature."

Also, I notice you never responded to those questions about doctors refusing to perform services on the basis of someone’s race or religion if it were to be incompatible with the dr’s “religious” beliefs. I think the answer would also support that the idea that you oppose gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws protecting gays because of your world view, and not anything objective or rational.

I just have to say I just love a conservative blog such as this that isn't timid about using homoerotic language and imagery ("try to force your diviant sexual behavior down our throats") to bolster your arguments. I may have to marry one of you yet.
Cheers!

"No, Todd. You are showing you don't understand what a polygamous marriage is. It is when a man has many wives. The wives are married to the man, not to each other."

Ignoring the mistaken definition of polygamy, what makes this so? Who decides who is married to who? You or the participants? For some, their belief is that the wives are also married to each other, even if it a non-sexual relationship. Of course they would certainly be some examples of the contrary.

I.e. freedom to contract, "That freedom already exists, and existed prior to the state Supreme Court ruling."

Ummm, of course it already exists. I'm viewing gay marriage through that legal analysis, not one of equal rights per se. Marriage should legally be viewed as a contract regulating the relationship between the parties, enacting certain rights in property (marriage dissolution and intestate distribution) and certain other matters like health care decisions. This is the only reason that marriage is recognized by the state, not to sanctify it in the Eyes of God (He doesn't need their approval). As people should have the right to enter agreements according to their will, we should not deprive them of the right to have that status recognized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObGIkqhJJw

In other words, Todd, you want to re-define marriage away from its millennial old meaning. What you propose isn't marriage at all, but it is something they can currently do.

June 18, 2008 It's Your Move, Says Log Cabin's Patrick Sammon Today hundreds of committed, loving gay and lesbian couples in California will affirm their relationships by becoming legally married. This is an historic day for all fair-minded Americans who believe that all of us—gay and straight—are worthy of the same dignity, responsibilities, and rights that only come with a civil marriage license. This is a bipartisan issue. All of us in the LGBT community must stand together and fight to keep marriage equality and defeat the proposed constitutional amendment in November.

The campaign ahead will be a difficult one, but victory is possible. Log Cabin is committed to doing all we can to convince Republicans to oppose the amendment. I am proud that Governor Schwarzenegger chose the Log Cabin national convention in San Diego to announce his opposition to this amendment. We appreciate his support.

I am optimistic about the campaign ahead but victory will take a lot of hard work. Every LGBT American has an obligation to step forward during this important time. Victory will be determined by what of each of us does to help the effort. Some might go door to door or give speeches to community groups or call talk radio stations. Others may write a check. Others might simply have a conversation with a friend, a family member, or even a stranger.

Think about how you can help this effort. Everyone must step forward in big and small ways to help this cause. It doesn’t matter if you’re from California or Connecticut or Sacramento or Savannah. This is the fight of our generation—now is the time. If not this, what? If not now, when?

The story of our lives is the strongest tool we have as this campaign begins. In moments like these when our dream of freedom and fairness for LGBT Americans becomes a little closer to reality, I urge everyone in our community to share their personal stories—their lives, their loves, and their relationships— to everyone they know. But especially to conservatives and Republicans.

We all know that when hot-button issues like gay rights are taken out of the abstract and made real and personal, the vast majority of Americans become more accepting of LGBT people. As we continue to share our stories and come out to our friends, our family, our co-workers, and our neighbors, we all take our movement closer to the day when every American, regardless of sexual orientation, is treated with the same respect and dignity.

Many millions of votes will determine the outcome in California. Each vote is an individual. Each decision a personal one. Each of us has the power to influence votes in California. All of us must put aside partisan differences to step forward and work together to secure this win. History is not destiny. Victory is possible but not assured. The outcome depends on you.

Sammon is president of the Log Cabin Republicans and the Liberty Education Forum.

Just Ain't Natural:

I deleted your most recent comment. This is an emotional issue, and I expect tough debate. But if you cannot be civil but insist on being personally insulting, then I'll have to ban you.

"In other words, Todd, you want to re-define marriage away from its millennial old meaning. What you propose isn't marriage at all, but it is something they can currently do."

No, I am stating that you are incorrect in asserting your understanding of marriage as being millennial old or even accurate.

I never proposed what marriage is. I've simply cited to you facts about what has actually existed, to the best of my abilities based on ethnographic research available. Not just stated that my gut feeling or religious beliefs are true and natural and hence the laws should conform to them.

It is OK sometimes to admit that you're wrong. The propositions upon which you based your opposition to gay marriage are false, there is no question about them. You might have a perfectly valid reason for opposing gay marriage, i.e. it makes you feel icky, but you should say that and not some BS about it being unnatural and out of line with human history.

Todd:

I have been stating my reasons for opposing gay marriage, if you care to acknowledge them.

gay marriage is unnatural. It is an oxymoron. It is an impossibility because it against the very nature of what marriage is.

You are free to think that is BS. You are also free to think it is BS if I say the Earth orbits the Sun, but in both cases you are still wrong.

No doubt resolutions to boycott Heinz will be coming out shortly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cXNzcxDrN4

LOL. I think it funny, Jubal, how you conflate your sense of what is natural and unnatural with the Earth orbiting the sun. Your argument that gay marriage is unnatural, that it's an oxymoron(not clear on in what you are trying to say except perhaps that marriage is defined as between a man and a women, which as I explained previously, is not based in observable phenomenon), is contrary to any objective evidence, of which you've presented none. You've basically said gay marriage is bad because Jubal thinks it’s bad. This of course is contrary to the sun orbiting the earth, for which we can find and present objective evidence.

I have always attempted to acknowledge your arguments, and give them the (limited) credit they deserve. If I'm missing your points, it’s unintentional and maybe you should try replying to the questions I've asked so as to further clarify my understanding of your POV.

Mr. Irving Berlin
Often emphasizes sin
In a charming way.
Mr. Coward we know
Wrote a song or two to show
Sex was here to stay.
Richard Rodgers it's true
Took a more romantic view
Of this sly biological urge.
But it really was Cole
Who contrived to make the whole
Thing merge.

He said the Belgians and Greeks do it
Nice young men who sell antiques do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love.
Monkeys whenever you look do it,
Aly Khan and King Farouk do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love.
Louella Parsons can't quite do it,
For she's so highly strung,
Marlene might do it,
But she looks far too young.
Each man out there shooting crap does it,
Davy Crockett in that dreadful cap does it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love.

Our famous writers in swarms do it,
Somerset and all the Maughams do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love.
The Brontes felt that they must do it,
Ernest Hemingway could-just-do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love.
E. Allan Poe-ho! ho! ho!-did it,
But he did it in verse.
H. Beecher Stowe did it,
But she had to rehearse.
Tennessee Williams self-taught does it,
Kinsey with a deafening report does it.
Let's do it, let's fall in love.

In the Spring of the year
Inhibitions disappear
And our hearts beat high,
We had better face facts
Every gland that overacts
Has an alibi
For each bird and each bee,
Each slap-happy sappy tree,
Each temptation that lures us along
Is just Nature elle-meme
Merely singing us the same
Old song.

In Texas some of the men do it
Others drill a hole-and then do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love
West Point cadets forming fours do it,
People say all those Gabors do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love.
My kith and kin, more or less, do it,
Every uncle and aunt,
But I confess to it-
I've one cousin that can't.
Teenagers squeezed into jeans do it,
Probably we'll live to see machines do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love.

Each baby bat after dark does it,
In the desert Wilbur Clark does it
Let's do it, let's fall in love.
We're told that every hormone does it,
Victor Borge all alone does it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love.
Each tiny clam you consume does it,
Even Liberace-we assume-does it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love!

Scenario:
On. Nov. 4, let’s say for discussion purposes the anti-gay ballot measure that says marriage is between a man and a woman is approved by voters. At first glance, because my partner and myself are men who plan on exercising our right to bet married in Massachesutts, our marriage would be declared invalid by the state of California . But, when our friends, George and Brad filled their own marriage license application in West Hollywood on Tuesday, George filled out Party A section and Brad filled out Party B section. Nowhere on the form did they say they were men, or did they say they were women, for that matter. So, if the government on Nov. 5 sends them a letter saying their marriage is no longer valid, how does it know they are men? How would the state know to inform Don and myself that we are no longer married, especaily if we re-deed our home as married men? Wouldn’t it be a witch hunt for the government on Nov. 5 to start demanding that those who married using the Party A/Party B forms declare their genders? Or as to out of state married refuse to do so? What if all of use refused to declare our genders, saying our genders are PROTECTED BY THE RIGHT OD PRIVACY THAT WAS NOT AMENDED and therefore not any business of the government? Well, I could go on and on. Even man/woman couples beginning on Tuesday are now filling out Party A and Party B — no longer, bride and groom.

Gay rights advocates seek to stop marriage measure

AP via Yahoo! News - Jun 20 8:58 PM

Gay rights advocates asked California 's highest court Friday to keep off the November ballot a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage.

· 2.

Advocates seek to stop Calif. gay marriage measure

AP via Yahoo! News - Jun 20 5:46 PM

Gay rights advocates are asking California 's highest court to keep a measure that would again ban same-sex marriage off the November ballot.

· 3.

Groups seek to block gay-marriage initiative

San Jose Mercury News - Jun 21 1:49 AM

Civil rights organizations Friday asked the California Supreme Court to block a November ballot initiative that would restore the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that it was not drafted properly.

· 4.

Gay rights advocates seek to stop marriage measure

Los Angeles Daily News - Jun 20 7:59 PM

SAN FRANCISCO -- Gay rights advocates asked California 's highest court Friday to keep a citizens' initiative that would again ban same-sex marriage off the November ballot.

· 5.

Gay marriage backers want ban issue off ballot

San Francisco Chronicle - Jun 20 1:16 PM

Gay-rights advocates asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to remove a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that cannot be legally altered by a voter initiative. The...

· 6.

Civil rights groups seek to block California gay marriage ballot initiative

San Jose Mercury News - Jun 20 5:16 PM

Civil rights organizations today asked the California Supreme Court to block a November ballot initiative that would restore the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that it was not drafted properly.

http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/20080620.pdfKevin Norte, a research attorney for the Los Angeles Superior Court was the first legal analyst to publish articles on the "revision versus amendment" position since the Supreme Court's historic ruling on May 15, 2008 in the In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757. Norte's articles were published on May 21, 2008 and June 17, 2008 editions of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Norte has commented on the writ matter entitled BENNETT v. BOWEN (HOLLINGWORTH) S165420 filed on June 20, 2008 which seeks to remove the "Limit on Marriage" initiative from the November ballot. The Court has requested that the oppositions be filed by June 30th and the reply by July 10 and the Legal Analyst believes the Court, at a minimum, will issue an alternative writ and a stay removing the initiative from the November ballot pending a determination or, he surmises that the Court may even break tradition and hear the matter in July or August even though the Court is not traditionally in session during those months. Norte believes the measure will eventually be removed from the ballot and the Court will further expand the legal precedent by setting forth the criteria for what can and what cannot be on a voter initiative ballot in California The Superior Court research attorney noted that the "right to marry" itself is not expressed in the California Constitution but is implied by legal precedents. To accept any amendments limiting the right to marry would open the doors to limit an implied constitutional right by amendment and not revision. Furthermore, Norte even pointed out, prisoners under Legislature v. Yu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 492 would have more rights than same gender couples if taken to an illogical extreme. The Legal Analyst expressed the opinion that the the problem with the Limit on Marriage proponents' position is that in a constitutional democracy, equal protection and fundamental rights cannot be put to a popular vote. While not raised in his articles, Norte sees a similarity between the "Limit on Marriage" initiative and the City of Riverside anti-gay initiative that was removed from the ballot because it violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Citizens For Responsible Behavior v. Superior Court (1991) 1 cal.App.4th 1013.) Otherwise if permitted, Norte opines, "the people could adopt an initiative barring Jehovah's Witnesses from doing door-to-door proselytizing, or barring Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in public schools. This initiative raises a whole host of issues." In Norte's most recent article he stated, "One may wonder if an initiative that was submitted to the Secretary of State and its language approved by the Attorney General, and reviewed by the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance and stated that the initiative “would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments is valid due to the findings of the Supreme Court subsequent to the petition being circulated. Prior to the case it was true there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state” was valid. Subsequent, however, to its circulation but prior to its certification, the California Supreme Court changed the law. Based upon my research, there is no precedent on this issue in California . However, to seek a pre-election review of the initiative, there appears to be only one viable option. That would be a challenge based upon the impropriety of the voter initiative itself."