Town Square

Post a New Topic

Stanford prof: Prop. 8 will be 'unconstitutional'

Original post made on Aug 4, 2010

A Stanford Law School professor, Michael Wald, is predicting a federal judge will rule that Proposition 8, the state law banning same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is expected between 1 and 3 p.m. today.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, August 4, 2010, 8:49 AM

Comments (34)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by clarence applegate
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 4, 2010 at 4:48 pm

What is marriage? In my book and what I got from school and the dictionary was that it was the legal union of a man and a woman, the basis of the creation of a family, which in turn was the hub of society. If definition is to included any consenting adults, whatever their sexual orientation, then all forms of love and sex between adults no matter what their gender will have to be concluded to be normal if marriage itself too is normal. In that respect sociological textbooks will then have to say that human beings are created not as man and woman, but as men, women, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, etc. with the conclusion by gay activists that all behavior is normal. What a quigmire this will present to our children in their textbooks and teaching as to what the creator had in mind in the first place, and the results produced in society thereof. I look to the children of the future and wonder about the dilution and lack of absolutes and guidelines in socialigical definitions and if in the end it just produces a sense of no boundaries and an "anything goes attitude," in all human relationships. I wonder, do you?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 4, 2010 at 5:04 pm


As I pointed out on the other thread this decision by one Federal judge will lead to a bad outcome for the gay advocates in the long term, the WSJ has a good analysis and an interactive map of the different states position on this matter-- no matter how people feel about it on the west or east coast-- look at the map--
Each state has 2 Senators irrespective of there population -- the votes in the Senate on this matter are overwhelmingly against same sex marriage--one should never start a culture war without the Powell Doctrine on your side--
I guess the judge felt he had nothing to loose personally and something to gain for his personal legacy in the gay community in SF.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 4, 2010 at 5:46 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Some day a judge my determine that people have a right to any academic degree they desire, and that denying that right deprives the flunk-out his civil rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 4, 2010 at 6:15 pm

yup..

A "judge" who doesn't follow the Constitution, as written and intended in the context of its time, not just as "living" and "interpreted" by his or her own social goals, is no judge, and results in precisely what you have said.

As such, if I am lucky enough to live ANOTHER 50 years, I know the day will come when the 14th Amendment will come to mean it is a "right of equality" to live in a polygamous marriage of any sort, or a marriage between a 14 year old and any other person.. At one time, and "adult" was 21, not 18...so why not?

It will come.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 4, 2010 at 6:21 pm

Just in general, not related directly to "gay marriage" or not..

just general form of government

if you have an open mind and can "connect dots" in a big picture, slippery slope sort of way, I encourage you to watch this video. Be careful what side you are on for the best preservation of EVERYBODY's liberty, including gay or not.

Web Link

If the link fails, go to wimp dot com forward slash thegovernment forward slash.

it is incredible..and points out why we MUST follow our laws..change our laws if we wish, yes, but we must follow our laws, blindly.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm


The outcome from SCOTUS will not please gay activists.
Another issue is Religious Freedom, the Christian, Traditional Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist traditions do not approve of homosexual behavior.
96% of the American voters belong to one of these faiths and will not support restrictions of their religious practice in this regard, in the UK these religions are now forced to hire practicing homosexuals.

The self interested ruling of the judge probably felt good to him but it will dramatically weaken activists judges moving forward-- he is close to retirement and does not care about the sleeping giant he has provoked---Americans do not kill nor imprison gays, up until now we have not held male gays accountable for the huge public heath costs they impose on the rest of the population---50% of Black gays have HIV/Aids -- the gay community could have spend their $43 Million on helping prevent that tragedy rather than spending that money on a futile campaign--

Tolerance is one thing, approval is another, advocacy is another.
Americans support legal tolerance of gay orientation, religious groups do not support moral tolerance of homosexual behavior-- it is what it is--


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 4, 2010 at 7:37 pm

Addendum
A key step in the US was the ruling that marriage was between one man and one woman-- the US Army invaded Utah to establish that founding fact.
If that definitional concept of marriage is challenged then polygamist should claim a friends of the court motion to establish their rights-- sharia law on that matter is now in practice in Canada and the UK where the multiple wives get government benefits and recognition-- do we want that here? 98% of the voters say no.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by stephen levy
a resident of University South
on Aug 4, 2010 at 7:49 pm

stephen levy is a registered user.

Just curious -- the Prop 8 vote was 52 to 48. In 3 years or 10 years at the outside the vote will be in favor of gay marriage.

Then what will you "will of the people" folks say?

This is not about religious freedom in any sense. People are free to believe what they want. It is when these beliefs threaten the rights of other people that courts need to step in.

Overturning Prop 8 is about constitutional rights, not religious beliefs. What is a majority of religious peoplr believed in slavery?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 4, 2010 at 8:12 pm

stephen levy says---
"People are free to believe what they want. It is when these beliefs threaten the rights of other people that courts need to step in."

Very dangerous and strange, Orthodox Jews do not allow women nor practicing homosexuals to become Rabbis, Christians and Buddhists have the same policy re practicing homosexuals.
So you claim the courts should force them to advocate and adopt homosexual practices that are against their faiths?--- think again

This decision was made by a retiring gay judge in SF who had been in the closet in his life-- ok it was personal, pervasive and permanent-- for him-- when it gets to the SCOTUS it is going to be a matter of the US Constitution and the result will be the consequences of a bridge too far for the activists.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by TJ
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 5, 2010 at 12:02 am

Why bother to get married, I've lived happily with my partner for 25 years and we never got married. I'm against marriage for everyone gay or straight.

The only reason for same sex marriage is they want to file joint tax returns and inherit from each other. This is all about money and duping the government out of some taxes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 5, 2010 at 2:39 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Long ago I suggested that if fringe benefits were taxed as ordinary income, the impetus behind Gay marriage would go away.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 5, 2010 at 6:12 am

"The outcome from SCOTUS will not please gay activists."
The case has not yet reached the Supreme Court and Sharon already knows what the result will be. This suggests that the court is not acting in good faith and releasing their rulings before arguments are even held. Perhaps some of the justices need to be removed ASAP due to this breach in jurisprudence.

"Another issue is Religious Freedom, the Christian, Traditional Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist traditions do not approve of homosexual behavior. "
That is quite an all encompassing statement but not true. But, so what if they do not approve of homosexual behavior. That is not an issue in this case, nor has it ever been.

"96% of the American voters belong to one of these faiths and will not support restrictions of their religious practice in this regard, in the UK these religions are now forced to hire practicing homosexuals."
Prop 8 has nothing whatsoever to do with the practice of any religion.

"Tolerance is one thing, approval is another, advocacy is another."
Gay people in favor of major are not asking for approval of any religious group. It is not the business of any religious group to approve or disapprove of gay marriage

"Americans support legal tolerance of gay orientation, religious groups do not support moral tolerance of homosexual behavior-- it is what it is-- "
Sharon's whole line of argument is a red herring--this has nothing to do with religious freedom.
BTW, wasn't it the marines, sharon, who said "it is what it is"?

"Very dangerous and strange, Orthodox Jews do not allow women nor practicing homosexuals to become Rabbis, Christians and Buddhists have the same policy re practicing homosexuals."
ANd what does this have to do with gay marriage? Answer--nothing.

"So you claim the courts should force them to advocate and adopt homosexual practices that are against their faiths?--- think again"
Nothing of the sort. If a church does not want to marry a gay couple, then they can have a civil wedding. There is nothing in this case that will force religions to approve or disapprove of gay marriage. Red herring argument.

"This decision was made by a retiring gay judge in SF who had been in the closet in his life-- ok it was personal, pervasive and permanent-- for him-- when it gets to the SCOTUS it is going to be a matter of the US Constitution and the result will be the consequences of a bridge too far for the activists."
Once again, it appears that Sharon knows how the Supreme Court will rule. Where does she get this information from?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 7:17 am

If you leave the historical context and pre-writings out of an understanding of the Constitution, then ANYTHING can be declared "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional".

Sort of like trying to "suspend disbelief" that a retiring gay judge could have even considered NOT overturning Prop 8..if he hadn't he would have been banned from all social life and future friends for life. The left is extremely intolerant of not lock-stepping with them ( read anything by Tammy Bruce, who was a full-blown leftist until she saw the light..and she is a very courageous lesbian). I knew the moment I read his bio what the outcome would be, it was simply a matter of him choosing which phrase(s) to cherry pick out of any context to use to support his predestined outcome.

Using his argument on the SAME Amendment 14, Due Process words, I can, as an activist judge who chooses to ignore the background and context, promote my personal social goal of polygamy.

Due Process: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ok, 4 consenting adults who are citizens of the USA have the right to marry each other in a group marriage, because I use this clause in a "living, breathing" way.

Like that? Equal protection under the law for MY beliefs on what marriage means!

Or, how about equal protection under this clause for changing contract law ? ( that is what this is..) I, as a citizen of the USA, want to enter into a contract with another person, also and adult and also a USA citizen, which states that we can kill each other whenever one of us has the urge.

It is our right, we are citizens, and we deserve equal protection for contractual law as anyone else.

Oh, wait, you say, murder is against our laws, both judicial and moral throughout our history? WHAT?? Can't use that argument!

Would have been better to go for a different name, same privileges ( what few are left) and responsibilities, without causing infringement on everyone else's rights to practice their beliefs as they saw fit
( 9th Amendment of the "Bill of Rights" " "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I have been partnered, like TJ, whoever that is, since the mid 1980s..did it all legally..Will, DPAH, DPAF, Contract between 2 adults with severe financial consequences to one of us is that person broke our deal and left without counseling. We adopted, first me as a "single person", then my partner when I gave that ability to be a "co-parent' through co-adoption.

Would love it if we could have a pre-made set of laws to have made all that easier on us to decide, on the other hand, who needs my government to determine what MY relationship looks like legally? I can do it all myself.

We can't legislate changes of hearts, we can't impose our will on people. We can only teach and live and slowly change hearts.

This is going to harden hearts against gays..

Very sad.


geez


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 5, 2010 at 7:40 am

"This is going to harden hearts against gays..:

Ridiculous contention.
I guess we should not have signed the Civil Rights bill sin the 60's because it would have hardened hearts against african-americans in the south
To say that a certain group of people should be denied a basic right, which will not in any way impact the lives of others, because of the intolerance of a group of religious fanatics, who have demonized gays for years is laughable.
Your whole argument is full of holes!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 7:59 am

Marriage is not now nor ever has been a "basic right". It was ALWAYS a "privilege", granted by either a village, a religious group, or another form of government, with caveats attached galore.

BTW, the Civil Rights bill was a REPUBLICAN Bill, supported by virtually every Repub and maybe 1/2 the Dems. It would not have passed without full Repub support. Never forget, Lincoln founded the Repub party.

This act did not change any definitions of anything at all. Try to think clearly. It DID, unfortunately, do exactly what opponents feared it would do...forced busing based on RACE across vast areas to "enforce equality"...

You have to remember, "conservatives" want to NOT take away freedoms while ostensibly giving freedoms. We think of unintended consequences.

Many black kids suffered horribly, at the expense of their education, as a result of this poorly crafted law. Read Thomas Sowell on Black Education. It is an eye opener.

So, again, to get back to the point...most Americans support gay unions,with all the tax/benefit etc laws that go along with straight unions. They just want a different name to avoid the unintended consequences of the "name" marriage.

If we listen, and let it rest for a generation to let the dust settle, we will have a generation of happily unioned gay couples with a generation of "seeing" by the rest of us, and then we can revisit the word "marriage". My guess is that by then nobody will care what the word is.


The Civil Rights bill in 1850 would have kicked off a wall of resistance that would have set back slavery who knows how many years.


Militancy drives people against the opposite wall.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 5, 2010 at 11:14 am

"Orthodox Jews do not allow women nor practicing homosexuals to become Rabbis, Christians and Buddhists have the same policy re practicing homosexuals. So you claim the courts should force them to advocate and adopt homosexual practices that are against their faiths?--- think again."

This common fallacy dupes many intellectually-challenged individuals and groups.

Religion is a marketplace - one is perfectly free to shop around for a religion and deity that supports their tastes and career goals. Faith-based practices that thereby become obsolete naturally die out. That is not the case with sexuality or for skin color, the other common basis for bigotry. Both of the latter therefore merit protection against the tyranny of the majority group.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 5, 2010 at 11:21 am

"Never forget, Lincoln founded the Repub party."

You forget that what used to call itself "The Party of Lincoln" now goes by "The Party of Reagan." Modern Repubs consider Lincoln an extreme embarrassment and never mention him. Not only does his Emancipation Proclamation put a damper on recruiting, but Lincoln grossly flouted that most Republican of constitutional provisions - the fifth amendment prohibition against taking - when he freed the slaves without compensating their owners.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 5, 2010 at 11:33 am

"BTW, the Civil Rights bill was a REPUBLICAN Bill"

Why are you trying to sabotage the Republican Party? What has it done to you?

But the Party of Reagan owes a lot to the Civil Rights Act even though the Civil Rights was Lyndon Johnson's doing, and Johnson was a Democrat. Under Nixon the Republican Southern Strategy quickly exploited the backlash to this legislation, recruited boatloads of new members from the south, and that's why southern states always vote Republican today.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 5, 2010 at 11:45 am


" I was fascinated to read Judge Walker's decision to rule California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

From the "Findings of Fact" section, #77:
"Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."

The implication is chilling.
One of the jobs of government is to protect citizens from unjust harm.
If, as Judge Walker seems to believe, as do many others, traditional views of sexual morality unjustly harm gays and lesbians, then the next step is clear.
We've got to stop the harm, which means putting an end to the religious beliefs that homosexual sexual acts are immoral.

Perversely, in the testimony Walker cites, one of the clear signs of harm inflicted on gays and lesbians can be found in this fact:-
84% of regular church-goers voted for Prop 8.
In other words, what's so bad about traditional views of sexual morality is that they are . . . opposed to progressive views about sexual liberation.
And that's an injustice that Judge Walker simply won't allow.
Web Link

The opinion goes on to cite a official documents from a number of different Christian churches and organizations: a hit list of sorts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 5, 2010 at 1:00 pm

"Perversely, in the testimony Walker cites, one of the clear signs of harm inflicted on gays and lesbians can be found in this fact:-

84% of regular church-goers voted for Prop 8. "

This is a bogus claim, since Sharon does not provide what percentage of people consider themselves as regular church goers/ This could well be 84% of a low number. This is not 84% percent of the people!!

I think it is time for the religious right to stop telling us how to live. A married gay couple does not adversely effect the life or personal/religious freedom of anybody


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm



Judge Walker cited the published exit polls in his report -- "84% of regular church-goers voted for Prop 8"--- he cited Edison Media Research Exit Polls.

"However, a detailed examination of Election Day exit polling shows that the single, most determinative, identifying factor of Prop. 8 supporters was not race, gender, age, education, or income - but whether or not they attend church regularly.
As Mark DiCamillo, director of the statewide Field Poll told me, "Religion trumped politics."

The exit polls, done for TV networks by Edison Media Research, shows that:

* 84 percent of those who said they attend church weekly, who represented one-third of the electorate, voted for Prop. 8"-----Web Link

By judge walker's own reasoning, the following would also be true:

1. Gay activists believe that my religious beliefs are inferior;
2. Ergo, I am harmed.

Should I then file a lawsuit?


Biden, Obama and Elton John are all on record as opposed to same sex marriage-- they support civil partnerships instead.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 5, 2010 at 2:12 pm

"By judge walker's own reasoning, the following would also be true:
1. Gay activists believe that my religious beliefs are inferior;
2. Ergo, I am harmed.
Should I then file a lawsuit?"

Not sure where you are coming up with your ideas Sharon, but they are way out there. Unfortunately it is the religious people that believe that gays are inferior and should not be treated like others.
Anyway, your link is reporting lod news--polls from almost 2 years ago.
Here is a more up to date story:

Web Link
"The PRRI survey of more than 3,000 Californians found that if Proposition 8 were on the ballot today, it would not pass."
and
"Solid majorities of Latino Catholics and white mainline Protestants, along with a majority of white Catholics, say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry."



"Biden, Obama and Elton John are all on record as opposed to same sex marriage-- they support civil partnerships instead."
And so, Sharon, what is your point? I can list republicans, democrats, gays, straights and on and on that are in favor of gay marriage

Feel free, however, to file a lawsuit.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Beny
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Aug 5, 2010 at 3:10 pm

This is truly a great step forward, but only a step. No doubt that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they choose.

However, isn't it equally prejudiced to limit marriage to being just between two consenting adults. If three or more wish to form a marital union then why should it not be permitted, as long as it is consensual among all parties involved?

Moreover, isn't barring marriage between related individuals also equally outmoded and outdated? What is truly wrong with two brothers, a mother and a daughter, or a brother and a father entering into a marriage as long as all parties are consenting adults?

If you say no to any of the above, then aren't you imposing your moral and value framework onto free thinking and free willed adults. Isn't this the very same behavior that those opposed to gay marriage are accused of indulging in?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 7:32 pm

Benny, well said.

Therein lies the inherent fallacy with trying to change a definition of a word that has been such for thousands of years.

Where does the definitional change stop?

This will not pass the SCOTUS..I simply can not believe, even with Sotomayor and Kagan on board, the other 7 will be this stupid and finish the destruction of our respect for our Supreme Court ( which is already hanging by a thread into becoming unelected for life tyrants, instead of impartial judges who are meant to uphold our Constitution, not whatever "living, breathing" version of it they would like to believe in)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 5, 2010 at 7:34 pm

Paul, honestly, where on earth do you pull your thoughts and/or sentences from? I would love some citations.. I would love to see where you go to learn to think like you do. After all these months of reading what you write, I simply can't place any of it anywhere. So, give up your secrets!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm




Even for those in favor of gay marriage, I would think this is a bad decision by Walker who had a conflict of interests.

The supreme court has a rational/scientific bias, this Walker, self serving opinion, will probably be overturned, and then we will a constitutional precedent.

In addition, this could stir a further backlash, 38 states have put in places bans on gay marriage, that's also the number required for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If that gets enacted do you think it would ever be likely to be overturned?

Anyway, I think the focus on marriage is fool hardy. Gay's want gay marriage, because they want the rest of society to say that their lifestyle is morally ok, and right.
But most of society doesn't think it is.
They don't want they gay agenda taught in schools, or forced in their face (although most are also willing to live and let live with regards to civil unions).

This was a bad move all around IMO.

The laws of unintended consequences again.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by stephen levy
a resident of University South
on Aug 6, 2010 at 7:03 pm

stephen levy is a registered user.

The prop 8 vote was 52-48, not 98-2 or some of the other strange ratios being thrown around. Given the preferences of young voters and their low voting percentage, the actual ratio among voting age folks is probably 50-50 and will certainly favor passage of gay marriage rights this decade.

So there are roughly equal numbers of people on both sides to get upset either way so all of this hot air about unintended consequences and "most people" getting upset is just that, hot air. Anger cuts both ways.

So let's settle this as it should be, based on the law and protecting equal rights as we did with slavery, discrimination in schools and equal rights for women.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 6, 2010 at 7:12 pm

@ stephen levy

Too late for that now.
The issue is out of the hands of all voters--

it is now up to the SCOTUS-- who will probably rule that domestic partnership is a fair remedy.
Meanwhile the activists have poked the sleeping tiger of the Culture War in the nose and she is awake and angry--- bad decision--bad outcome.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 6, 2010 at 7:59 pm

Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived. -Oscar Wilde, writer (1854-1900)

And, I seem to remember that the Roman Catholic wedding ceremony admits that the church doesn't marry people, people marry each other: "With this ring, I thee wed." Clergy only sanctify the unions, each in their own particular version of reality. They perform a civil function because they have been given the equivalent of a county clerk's power to issue a marriage license.

Marriage at it's heart has been about the acquisition of property...the groom of a bride and whatever worldly goods she has, or the creation of a national or tribal pact by uniting, however tenuously, two ruling families...see the crowned heads of Europe and elsewhere. It has evolved, perhaps for the better because some segments of modern society have trouble with the antiquate idea of male domination of another equally capable human being. These people work toward a more equal-partnership form of relationship.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 6, 2010 at 8:23 pm

A SF gay Judge dismisses 2000 years of a foundational practice of Western Civilization? on his own?-- knowing that expert witnesses from the other side were intimidate by threats of loss of employment and worse?
SCOTUS knows all that-- the activist should have let the sleeping tiger sleep-- too late-- if the activists had waited a couple of years and asked for another vote things might have been different-- now there will be no more votes--- two heterosexual attorneys will get get their last chance at fortune and fame in a loosing case before SCOTUS-- the filing of the case ends all votes on the matter in CA.
The Roe vs Wade case led to 40+ years of Culture War, women are 50% of the population, gays are 1-2%.
This was a foolish act by some gay activists, as most of their own senior legal team told them it was.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 7, 2010 at 3:10 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Paul, Lincoln turned down a proposal to purchase the slave from their owners and free them. Distasteful, but then so was the slaughter of the Civil War.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 7, 2010 at 10:37 am

"A SF gay Judge dismisses 2000 years of a foundational practice of Western Civilization? on his own?-- knowing that expert witnesses from the other side were intimidate by threats of loss of employment and worse?"
Please provide evidence that the expert witnesses were intimidated. This is another example of posting a deliberate lie and then expecting everyone to believe it is true.
In fact the pro-Prop 8 expert witness testified that gay marriage would be good,.

"The Roe vs Wade case led to 40+ years of Culture War, women are 50% of the population, gays are 1-2%."
Sharon, your numbers are wrong.

"if the activists had waited a couple of years and asked for another vote things might have been different"
So you are saying that if they had voted again and people would have supported gay marriage, then the losing side would not have gone to court to overturn the decision? Where do you get your "facts" from?

"two heterosexual attorneys will get get their last chance at fortune and fame in a loosing case before SCOTUS"
what does the sexuality of the attornies have to do with this case?
Also I ask again how do you know that they will lose the case before the Supreme Court?

We are still waiting for you to tell us, Sharon, how having gay married couples will affect your life and personal and religious freedoms. That is a question that you seem loathe to answer, instead posting factoids, rumors and fantasies.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 7, 2010 at 9:36 pm


When asked to cite a mainstream Church that would prove the spurious allegation that Christians hate gays-- the only thing they keep on coming up with is the Westboro Baptist Church

Now everyone knows that the Westboro Baptist Church is in fact a group of ex civil rights lawyers who try to provoke illegal reactions so that they can sue in civil court for money
They say they hate Catholics, Soldiers, Jews or anyone they feel they can provoke-- most communities completely ignore them-- good idea.

Linking gay marriage to the Black civil rights cause has been completely discredited.
Christians and Jews do not hate homosexuals, they have been in the forefront of providing aid to gay HIV/AIDS victims since the beginning of the epidemic.
The gays wasted $43 million on their campaign which could have been spend on AIDS prevention and treatment for Blacks and Latinos-- instead it was wasted---

Elton John and our President and Vice President are opposed to same sex marriage, they support domestic partnerships for gays, as do the Prop 8 supporters.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Real Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 8, 2010 at 12:22 pm

"When asked to cite a mainstream Church that would prove the spurious allegation that Christians hate gays-- the only thing they keep on coming up with is the Westboro Baptist Church"

SHaron has tried to make this an issue of religion, when it is not. This is an issue of rights, pure and simple. Not all religious people oppose gay marriage, some do. Not all secular people support gay marriage. The "religion" issue is a red herring.
One has to be either blind or deaf to not realize that for years so-called "religious" leaders have tried to stigmatize gays.

But if you want soem "evidence":
Web Link
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
and
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah's chariotters."

and
"Web Link"

and
"Web Link"

One ha sto look to Uganda, where because of the influence of so-called "religious", "christian" ministers a delath penalty for gays was put into place.
Does SHaron want more?

"Linking gay marriage to the Black civil rights cause has been completely discredited."
More red herrings. What does this argument have to do with the current court decision? Sharon is talking about issues from two years ago.

"Christians and Jews do not hate homosexuals, they have been in the forefront of providing aid to gay HIV/AIDS victims since the beginning of the epidemic."
Once again, not all christian and jews hate gays--some due. Look on the web or read links, above. But the issue of aid for HIV+ people is irrelevant, once again. Let's try to stick to the facts of the case.

"The gays wasted $43 million on their campaign which could have been spend on AIDS prevention and treatment for Blacks and Latinos-- instead it was wasted---"
ANother factoid? What price do you put on individual rights. What about the money the LDS and Catholic church wasted on the campaign---if they are so into helping HIV+ people,as Sharon states, this money could have been used for that also or for any other cause that would have helped people, instead of trying to continue a policy of discrimination to comes out of a dislike for people that are different. But again, this point is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

"Elton John and our President and Vice President are opposed to same sex marriage, they support domestic partnerships for gays, as do the Prop 8 supporters."
we have heard this point over and over again. What does it have to do with the current discussion? absolutely nothing. Another red herring tossed out by Sharon.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 3,712 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 13 comments | 1,571 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,520 views

A Surprise!
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,488 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 773 views