Gay rights is not the issue. Gay marriage is not the issue.

[nichomachus]

On October 19, I married my partner of 25 years in Palm Springs. On Nov. 4, we were attacked by Prop H8.

That has sparked a storm of protest across the country, but still many people mistake what the fight is about. Newspapers, TV stations, and even people here think the protests are about gay rights or gay marriage. At one level, they are, but at a deeper level, they're about much more.

The issue is not about "gay rights" or "gay marriage" any more than World War I was caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The shooting of the Archduke was merely a trigger, but the causes of the world-wide conflagration were much deeper issues.

What really happened on November 4 was that a group of people who enjoyed rights guaranteed by the constitution were stripped of those rights by a mob action based on a well-funded campaign of breathtaking mendacity. The proponents of that action used lies and fear to whip their mob into voting against a vulnerable group.

This time, that group happened to be gays and lesbians, but while that's important to gays and lesbians, the really crucial issue is that if it can happen to one group, and if it's allowed to stand, then every other identifiable group in society is in danger.

What's telling about the Prop H8 situation is that almost every pro-Prop H8 voter who speaks out repeats one of the lies as his/her reason. One woman in the local paper today said she was in favor of gay marriage but didn't want her minister to be forced to perform gay marriages or have his church shut down -- one of their lies.

One Mormon guy quoted in the paper said: “The people that advocate redefining marriage are saying basically that every religious and secular tradition from the recorded history of mankind is immoral."

That is so bizarre as to defy belief, but it was part of the campaign of lies funded by the Mormons.

Tomorrow, it could be Jews, it could be blacks, it could be Latinos, it could be Muslims. And, ironically, it could even be Catholics or Mormons, although they're too stupid to realize that. If history has taught us anything it's that once Christians run out of external enemies, they turn on each other. Someone uses the wrong translation of the bible. Someone believes in consubstantion instead of transubstantiation. Someone uses the wrong fingers to make the sign of the cross (that was a huge controversy in Russia at one time). Some of the most terrible persecution of Christians has come at the hands of other Christians. It could happen again.

So, while the trigger has been the anti-gay amendment, it was really an assault against a principle that the constitution should protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. That's what's at stake here.

And every one of you here -- gay, straight, bi, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, Unitarian, Wiccan, red-haired, left-handed, Asian, black, Latino, Pacific Islander, whatever -- has a direct interest in seeing this issue defeated. If it's not, then you might find yourself fighting it down the road. And, once the precedent has been set, the next time will be easier.

So, while it's gay people and their supporters in the streets right now, they're fighting for everyone else, because everyone else is in danger.

This is not a gay marriage or gay rights issue, except on the surface. It is a pressing issue of civil and human rights for everyone.

Thank you for your attention.

[Brazenly Liberal]

1. Absolutely right and beautifully said! K&R

This is exactly the point too many people cannot see. They have the bizarre idea that civil and human rights are some kind of zero sum game wherein any rights granted to gays are subtracted from straights. How else to explain the insane notion that gay marriage threatens their straight marriages?

Congratulations on your marriage! I wish you many, many years of love and laughter together.

[MuseRider]

2. K&R

[Starry Messenger]

3. kicked rec'd & bookmarked.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. I hope it is widely read. Congratulations on your marriage!

[uppityperson]

4. k&r. Civil Rights. I'm waiting for "marriage can only be between people who can and do reproduce" or

some such. After all, it should be between people who can and do, who MUST reproduce. :sarcasm:

And people of the same skin tone and hair color (white and blond) and religion (fundamentalism).

[iamjoy]

37. Yeah, They Don't Think Much Of My Marriage Either

I'm one woman married to one man, but every time I hear some one say that marriage is for the purpose of raising children, I realize this isn't about gays. They are disparaging my marriage too since I can't have children and my husband refuses to adopt.

This argument is not what changes my mind about whether or not consenting adults of the same gender should have the opportunity to obtain the same legal protections as an opposite sex couple. I would have been okay with same sex marriage anyway, but "the children" argument makes it personal to me. When they talk about "the children" I realize that for many this is more than homophobia. This is about some people's nostalgia for the patriarchal family culture in which women had no rights and were essentially the property of their husbands.

:rant:
It's probably true that in general kids do best in a stable home with a mother and father. The key phrase here is "in general." That isn't to say children can't do well in non-traditional families (or do poorly in a "traditional" family). Certainly, a child raised by two loving women or two loving men is going to do better than a child raised by intolerant parents. They're going to do better in a loving, if non traditional home, than in one with opposite sex parents who constantly argue and stay together "for the children." Certainly if they are worried about children you would think they would recognize the strain financial difficulties can place on a marriage. Then you might think that instead of spending millions to write hate into the constitution and ram their religion down other people's throats they could spend that money to help fight poverty.
:rant:

[GinaMaria]

58. interesting thought

Would they separate infertile couples? Something to think about in the 'Who's next after the GLBT assault'

[Tikki]

5. I think I understand what you mean.....

For most of us a marriage is an institution for us to thrive or fail within...

Barring adults the right to enter into this institution is exclusionary and
prejudicial.

Mormons and other religious zealots think they own the marriage 'country club'.


Tikki

[nichomachus]

6. Yes, but

the marriage issue is just the wedge. Once they find they can do this, there will be other issues and other groups that will "threaten society." This is just the convenient issue for them to use now. If they succeed, they will be back. This will repeat itself over and over until people finally draw the line. We might as well draw it here and now.

[Tikki]

10. Yes, yes....

We have attended protests and have identified store owners in our community who
made donations to 8.

We will not reward their bad behavior with our dollars.

The Tikkis

[tavalon]

15. You are so right!

That said, I'm beginning to see Prop 8 as a gift from the mormons. How so say I? Well, the culture war already has a foregone conclusion - look at now versus 20-30 years ago and you'll see that gays have made great strides, but thanks to the mormons, they will go so much further in a lot less time.

It's delicious irony.

[GinaMaria]

60. I agree with you.

I don't think the Mormons expected this strong of a pushback. I don't think they expected to be called out for the bigots that they are. They must be lamenting the tarnishing of their 'brand'. They tried so hard to package and market themselves as main stream in an attempt to gain political power. Let's hope this was enough rope for them to hang themselves, figuratively. This is not a group that can be trusted with political power, as recent events indicate.

[tavalon]

68. They aren't the only ones

I was raised Southern Baptist. I got better.

[RedLetterRev]

55. Exactly -- the long goal is total theocracy

this was a test case to see if they could successfully remove existing rights from a previously-protected class of people. If they could successfully remove existing rights from a class of people, then the precedent is set for removing any other right from any other class of people. The dominoes begin to tumble until the constitution is exactly what * said it is -- "just a goddam piece of paper".

I've been yelling this for years. It's sad that it took such a slap in the face for people to listen. I read where one WeHo call center couldn't find anyone to make calls before the vote, but afterward the phone was ringing off the hook with folks wondering where the victory party was going to be.

Harrumph. Party, my fruit-flavored arse. :mad: Some folks didn't have time to treasure their rights beforehand, but they were certainly ready to whoop it up after someone else had done the footwork. :mad: :nuke: :mad:

Well, it's up to all of us now. The first blow has been struck, hard, it's real, and it's serious.

The question for my LGBTQ brothers and sisters is: it's reality time, kids. Do you want to live like a dignified human beings or not? If so, then you shall have to earn it. One day of demonstrations is not enough. One month of demonstrations isn't enough. One election cycle isn't enough.

It will take the rest of our lives.

Commit now to stand on your feet as men and women equal to any in society, or remain on your knees as non-citizens.

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. Would they prohibit me marrying because I'm an atheist?

I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try.

(not that I have ANY intention of marrying again - two was more than enough for my lifetime)

[Norrin Radd]

7. kr

[tpsbmam]

8. Bravo -- beautifully said! K&R n/t

[madmadmad]

9. i've said it before in a gazillion threads

this is not about defining marriage, this is about redefining the very basis of our government. these people want the constitution and bill of rights replaced by biblical law, and CA's prop 8 is part of a over-reaching strategy, a test case to see if it's possible to do so. alarmingly, they have discovered it's pretty easy. and it's also pretty easy to paint the people spaking out against this injustice as bad sports who going going against the will of the people. terrorizing innocent individuals for no reason except that they exercised their right to vote.

believe me, the mormon church has enough money to amend the constitution of every state, and when they are done, it won't seem so unusual to amend federal laws to their position. in fact, it will seem quite reasonable to most people- why not? if the "people" have spoken in 50 states, then why shouldn't be the law of he land?

maybe i'm wearing a tinhat on this one, and overstating the nature of this conspiracy, but do you really want to wait and find out if i'm right or worng? or do we try to fix things now, while it's not such an uphill battle?

EVERYONE, not just gays should be concerned by this alarming turn of events.

[tclambert]

86. You are right. And it's happened before.

I used to attend a Pentecostal church (like Sarah Palin!). Way back when, they were very active in the temperance movement. Remember that from the history books? Those religious activists/extremists got their very own constitutional amendment passed (#18). But Prohibition had some problems. And theirs is the only amendment ever repealed (by #21). You don't hear much about the temperance movement anymore. (I don't count drunk driving laws. That's more a practical issue.)

The religious zealots got their way for awhile. Then there was a backlash, and the movement ultimately surrendered. It took 14 years in the case of Prohibition. Here's hoping it takes less time for gay rights.

[NMMNG]

11. Very well stated

As one of my protest signs says:

Whose rights next? Stop the RRRW Taliban!

Anybody who thinks they'll stop at eradicating our rights is wrong. They'll take down anybody who gets in the way of their "Christian Nation" fantasy. We're just the first targets.

[Lincolngirl]

12. Very well said, and point well made

This is very simply a civil rights issue. Once you remove civil rights for one group it is easier to do so for another.
Perhaps there will be a time when a group decides I shouldn't marry again because my first marriage didn't succeed.

This is opening a door that shouldn't be opened. We need to make sure our rights under the Constituition are equal. It is clearly stated there. Why can't people see that! :shrug:

Once it was necessary to get a marriage license from the state to wed, it opened marriage up to all, equally.

I will fight with you! And I wish you luck in your marriage.


:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Once more Pastor Neimoller's quote is appropriate.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Social Democrats,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Social Democrat.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew,
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

[JeffR]

14. Perfectly argued.

K & R. This should make the top of the Greatest Page. Everyone should read it.

[prayin4rain]

16. I agree with you..... civil rights should not be put up for vote. n/t

[yellowdogintexas]

17. Like my mama always said, If they can do it to _____ group, they can do it to you"

see my sig line.

my Old Testament Professor would add: balderdash, gutter rubbish, hogwash and claptrap.


The state licenses the marriage, the state dissolves the marriage. The church is only involved in it at the express wish of the participants. Yes there will be independent, liberal congregations that will bless GLBT marriages, but for the most part these will be civil ceremonies.

[Unvanguard]

18. You know what's sad?

That we live in a world where you (understandably and justifiably) feel the need to argue that Prop. 8 isn't just about gay rights. As if it were not enough that a group--any group--was denied their equal rights under the law. As if we should not rally in solidarity with any such group automatically, even without consideration for what that denial might mean for us in the future.

:(

[gollygee]

19. Once one state is allowed to vote to restrict one right from one minority group

Any state can vote to restrict any right from any minority group.

[Starry Messenger]

20. kick. n/t

[sohndrsmith]

21. excellent essay. Thank you. I have so many questions on this issue

that concern me deeply. One (of many) is that - as so many are proposing - that marriage is and should be defined as between one man and one woman, then I want to know.... exactly.... WHY?

None of the answers I've heard make much sense. We don't define marriage on the basis of reproduction. If we did, what would be the reason to deny same-sex marriage but support marriage between opposite-sex 90 year olds? If the basis is that they are of the opposite sex, and given the fact that reproduction is not and cannot be the basis of this argument, then what IS the reason for this discrepancy?

I understand cultural norms and discomfort some may have with things that they don't consider the "norm" but that's very different from constitutionally legal definitions that provide the foundation of our actions and the rules concerning them.

The whole issue also seems to be predicated on the fact that there is (or has been, until more forcefully challenged) no "definitive", legal, specific definition of marriage... or is there? A definition of this sort must carry a reasonable argument supporting it, and without that - or without either - how can we propose to prohibit it? It makes no sense to me...

[kevinbgoode]

23. Conservatives like to claim that, unless there is a specific right to marriage

written into the Constitution, there isn't any constitutional right. In other words, conservatives believe that the ONLY rights we have are those that are expressly written and interpreted literally in the document. All the other kinds of "rights" affirmed by the courts, such as an inherent right to privacy, or the determination that the right to marry is a fundamental, foundational right aren't legit.

That has been one of the most heinous affects of these constitutional amendments in 30 states - they have "defined" marriage as a constitutional right - for heterosexuals only. We've been trying to point this out for a couple of years now, but it seems like the only people who have been listening are the gays - and they are the targets.

We have 30 states with these heinous amendments on the books - and in many cases the GLBT population had to fund and fight the battle without a lot of assistance. IF it isn't too late, we need to end this campaign of religious tyranny over our Constitution.

These "religious" groups believe this is a "Christian" nation founded on "Christian" principles that their churches just coincidentally believe as well. . .and so they believe the documents should reflect THEIR selected "religious" belief or the United States is defying GOD. These are the front battles of the dominionist drive to turn America into a theocracy. Pat Robertson didn't say that only "Christians" (meaning, the ones HE claims are "Christian") should be allowed to hold public office for nothing. If they thought they had enough Americans ready to believe that our elected leaders must profess a single faith, they'd push that as an amendment, too.

[The Wizard]

54. The fallacy in that is

The Constitution was put in place to define limitations of the government's power over its citizens,
and specifically states the power of the government is derived from the governed.
Thought disorders and loose associations play a major role in Republican philosophy.
Simply put: Republicans are bat shit crazy and self deluded. They should be allowed to run water let alone government.

[hfojvt]

95. actually the Bill of Rights did that

The Constitution does not give any rights, except the right to vote, and that came from State Constitutions. From Article 1 Section 2 "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." There are some protections in Article 1 Section 9, most notably Habeaus Corpus and a prohibition against ex post facto laws and titles of nobility, but in general I gotta give kudos to those who insisted on a Bill of Rights as a stipulation for passage. :applause: I just read that there were originally 12 Amendments in the Bill of Rights but that only ten of them passed the State Legislatures. One of them that didn't pass was the 27th Amendment which passed in 1992 and which requires an election before any Congressional pay raise takes effect.

[tclambert]

87. The tenth amendment addresses this.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is so ironic that the descendants of the Pilgrims who fled religious persecution now want to do the religious persecuting. This is a failure of education, in particular, American History.

[hfojvt]

97. more pointedly, the 9th

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

However, that is only negative. Meaning the Constitution does not say that there is NOT a right of privacy but neither does that mean that there is. It is clear though, that any right not mentioned by the Constitution, nor generally acceptable in the years after the Constitution was passed, are not "Constitutional rights", although they still may be considered rights by the vast majority of society.

[madmadmad]

22. so, so true. gay rights is the start of the fundies war on the consititution.

next stop, theocracy!

[AntiFascist]

24. K&R, excellent points...

tomorrow it could very easily be illegal aliens who are targeted in California, and that should have the Latino communities concerned. What if it becomes majority opinion in California that the children of illegal aliens should not have the same rights as other Californians?

[Neshanic]

25. Great post.

[AndrewP]

26. 100% right on

[leftstreet]

27. K&R

Well done

[Kajsa]

28. Nichomachus, you nailed it!

It starts with denying people their rights,
or taking them away as they did here in CA,
and ends with the most heinous crimes
committed in the name of " traditional values".

Well, guess what?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are
also "traditional values".

Thank you for a great post.

:)

[foxfeet]

29. Excellent post!

Amazing how they ignore "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." INALIENABLE RIGHTS, not rights they get to vote on. "AMONG THESE" are Life, etc.; there are many more than the three named.

[Kajsa]

30. "Then they came for me"

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

- Pastor Martin Niemöller

[Starry Messenger]

31. kick.

[Maven]

32. K/R

[bluedawg12]

33. K&R

.

[grannylib]

34. Yes it is a civil rights issue, and no, that should never be determined

by a majority vote. God knows where we might be today if civil rights for African Americans had been subject to a vote instead of legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president.
This is NO DIFFERENT. Right is right, and discrimination of ANY kind is WRONG.

[amb123]

35. 100% or 0%

When the Constitution guarantees Equal Protection Under the Law, it means you either have 100% of your Rights or you have 0% of your Rights. There is no such thing as some Americans having 99.9% of their Rights, 50% or 10%. There can be no in-between, no hedging, welshing, trimming or watering down. When a government takes away rights from one American or a group of Americans, they can take away rights of ALL AMERICANS.

So when the rights of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender Persons simply to LIVE is taken away, then my right to LIVE can be taken away. This is why all True Patriots who believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are duty bound to come to the aid of our GLBT brethren.

We WILL save Liberty and Justice for ALL and ALL will be welcome in America - Period. HOMOSEXUALITY IS LIFE, NOT A LIFESTYLE!

From one who is Straight but not Narrow.

[codjh9]

36. Absolutely. Fundamentalists - of all type - must always be reigned in.

[matthieu]

38. Thank you!

[meowomon]

39. Congratulations!

I just celebrated my 15th anniversary with my "not wife" of fifteen years. We have no rights. When did hating become so popular?

[Radical Activist]

40. This is a very good argument to use with mormons

who have a history of being violently attacked by mob action for their religious views. Too bad you waste that opportunity and undermine your own argument against bigotry by calling mormons "too stupid" to get it. I bet some of them would get it even if their church leaders don't.

I can't blame anybody for calling mormons every name in the book right now. But people have to decide for themselves if mormons are the enemy or if prejudice is the enemy and then act accordingly.

[Cerridwen]

41. "Fly in the ointment" incoming.

And every one of you here -- gay, straight, bi, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, Unitarian, Wiccan, red-haired, left-handed, Asian, black, Latino, Pacific Islander, whatever -- has a direct interest in seeing this issue defeated. If it's not, then you might find yourself fighting it down the road. And, once the precedent has been set, the next time will be easier.

Ah, nice you think this is the first "shot over the bow." Not accurate, but nice.

This war between "churches" and "religion" has gone on long before Prop H8. I will, for the moment, presume you weren't aware of this.

In reality, "churches" and "religion" have been used since the advent of recorded history to maintain and perpetuate the status quo. "Christian" pulpits have been used to justify slavery, separation of the "races," women's role as chattel, the role of "aliens" and other non-dominant-society groups.

I'm glad you finally see what has been happening lo these many millenia. Prop H8 was just the latest. Thank FSM that it's come to the awareness of "the masses." But, this ain't new. This isn't the first time. This does NOT presage a precedent but just a continuation of effective measures from history.

Nice you could catch up with what's been happening for centuries. The LDS fought against women's rights in the 70s. The Catholic Church funded and founded the anti-choice movement at the dawn of Roe v. Wade. The early Christian Church used women to recruit Christians and then sequestered the very women who recruited Christian members.

Same song; different day.

[nichomachus]

63. I think you miss an important point

Yes, religious powers have long denied people their rights. However, and this is an important point, this is the first time in US history that a public vote has been held to remove constitutionally protected rights. This is a watershed moment. It's not merely a denial of rights, but a withdrawal of rights previously ruled to be guaranteed by the basic structure of the state constitution.

[Cerridwen]

69. My point was

that this attack on people by allied "religions" is not new and that people have been denied their rights based on these attacks and that "religion" has a long history of creating division.

The passage of the 14th Amendment which was intended to give freed slaves the vote had the effect of removing the right to vote from those women in those parts of country in which they had gained the vote. The Women's Suffrage movement was using a state-by-state strategy that was completely derailed by the passage of the 14th.

Please understand, I in no way mean to belittle or make light of what happened with all the damned anti-gay measures that passed on Nov. 4th. I'd just like people to see the pattern through our history so that we stop repeating the same damned thing over and over.

The 14th was used to create racism and division within the Women's Suffrage movement; many of whom had come from the Abolitionist Movement. That same division would be carried over into later Women's Rights movements. Just as I've seen the passage of the anti-gay measures creating yet more division within the Democratic Party.

I'll shut up now. Perhaps by trying to point out the pattern I'm just helping to perpetuate it.

[tclambert]

88. "Same song; different day?"

That's not what the second S in SSDD stands for. But I am gonna use your version when kids are around.

I have hope regarding the "religion v. progress" issue because the Catholic Church did eventually apologize about the Galileo thing.

[Cerridwen]

90. Yah, I was just feeling a little melodious at the time.

So I left it. It was a freudian typo. LOL

Yeah, well, I hope we don't have to wait as long as St. Joan or Galileo.

[ksimons]

42. huge K&R !!!

Well put! look at the divisions in Ireland for so long - wars and attacks amongst the very same people, just one half protestant, the other catholic.

So much for religion being the big 'uniter' -

[hfojvt]

43. this is so bizarre as to defy belief

"What really happened on November 4 was that a group of people who enjoyed rights guaranteed by the constitution were stripped of those rights by a mob action based on a well-funded campaign of breathtaking mendacity. The proponents of that action used lies and fear to whip their mob into voting against a vulnerable group."

Is this one of those "let us create our own reality" things that the Bush administration believes in?

"a group of people who enjoyed rights guaranteed by the constitution"

Which constitution? Because that group of people did not enjoy those rights in 1789, or 1889, or 1989, or 2006. They got those rights, not because the Constitution either of California or the United States was modified. Instead it was done by fiat, by some benevolent dictators.

I suppose you could say that the Emancipation Proclamation was done the same way. Except that hundreds of thousands of soldiers were fighting for that very thing and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were later ratified.

That "mob action" that you decry, was, in fact, due process of law. It was an election. Elections in America always involve money, propaganda and misinformation, and they always impose something on the losing side. My own school district passed a school bond that I voted against. Because a vast majority voted for it, thanks to a big advertising blitz pushed by the school district itself, my taxes are gonna go up, and both of my neighborhood grade schools are gonna be closed. A new grade school will be built, to the profit of one of the people pushing it who owns the cement plant, and it will be miles away from my neighborhood.

Of course, that is a bagatelle, a fairly trivial complaint, but sometimes the results of an election can suck bad. Sometimes, you get a President Bush. Ridiculous to say that the vote in California sets a precedent for over-turning the bill of rights, like it over-turned some 200 year old precedent or habeus corpus.

[Usrename]

51. You should buy a clue.

Most legal analysis that I have read completely disagrees with your point of view. The California Supreme Court just ruled on this a few months ago. Can you cite any opinions that agree with your take on this whole mess?

Article XVIII of the California Constitution allows for amendment of the Constitution by the Legislature, or initiative and revision of the Constitution by the Legislature, or a constitutional convention. There is no other method for revising or amending the Constitution.

“ ‘mendment’ implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.” (Livermore, supra, 102 Cal. at pp. 118-119, 36 P. 424.) The “revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.” (Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336, 350, 276 Cal.Rptr. 326, 801 P.2d 1077 (Raven).) “n enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also.” (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 223, 149 Cal.Rptr. 239, 583 P.2d 1281 (Amador).)...

...According to the In Re Marriage Cases (May 15, 2008) 2008 WL 2051892: “Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution.... In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. “

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm

[hfojvt]

89. "The California constitution properly must be interpreted ..."

I would like to see those past California cases. I think the California SCOTUS may be full of crap. It's not impossible. Try these thought experiments for example.

Suppose you could take a time machine and go back to when the California Constitution was being written and ratified. Ask the people then, "does this document allow gay people to marry?" I can almost guarantee you that if those people had even considered that within the realm of possibility, that they would have explicitly written it into the constitution a measure PROHIBITING such a thing.

Take another trip back to 1955 with Marty McFly. Take some newspapers with you from 2008 and tell the Californias of 1955 that they need to pass a Proposition 8 to maintain CURRENT law against their own SCOTUS. Do you think it would not have passed by 90% to 10%?

We liberals seem to like to make the Constitutions say what we think they SHOULD say instead of what they actually DO say. That is "my take on this whole mess". That it WAS NOT a Constitutional right back when the Constitutions in question were actually written. Nor was it a Constitutional right for 50 or 100 years after that. Maybe it SHOULD BE a Constitutional right, I am not arguing that on one side or another. I am talking about what actually was, prior to 15 May 2008 when CSCOTUS over-turned some 400 years of precedent.

Maybe it is about tanjed time, but is a SCOTUS supposed to over-turn precedent, or is that the job of the voters? I think I prefer courts to stick with stare decisis, but I am reading about Brown v. Board, which was a 9-0 vote done twice.

[Usrename]

108. Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

I was just trying to help inform you of the facts so that you may join the reality based community. As far as I know, it has ALWAYS been the role of the courts to interpret the constitution.

:)

The issue in CA right now is whether a super majority is required in order to alter the constitution rather than a simple majority that would be required if this were simply an amendment.

The court has recently ruled on the question at the heart of this issue, so it seems obvious that a super majority is necessary to change the existing interpretation.

It sounds simple enough. I don't agree with your proposition that California had some unwritten and unspoken design to intentionally discriminate against any specific class of citizen. I just don't buy it at all. These kind arguments go back to the initial Congressional Congress, where they decided NOT to endorse any particular religion. It was a necessary compromise. Polygamy was not discussed in the document. I just don't agree with your premise.

[hfojvt]

115. my view is that the court should uphold and preserve the law

stare decisis. Let it stand. The courts should not change the law or the constitution. That is not their prerogative. If something is not a constitutional right at some point in time, in order for it to become one, it should require a change to the constitution. A change to the constitution made by a Supreme Court ruling is illegitimate, IMO, and should not trump the "consent of the governed." But that's only if you believe in a democracy rather than a rule by unelected and unaccountable judges.

[Usrename]

116. I disagree wholeheartedly.

I believe that our rights are inalienable and are granted to us by our creator. The law does not give us any rights, we are born with them.

But hey, that's just the American way to look at this thing. And I was raised an American. So perhaps that's the rub.

This whole idea that the courts or the constitution somehow can issue rights to people is flawed, I think. All the law or the constitution can do is protect the rights that we already have. That's what the Constitution is about, limiting the government's ability to infringe on our God-given rights, or at least that's how the founders viewed it. I think your interpretation is the made-up, new, or more modern view, and I tend to agree more with the classical view and not the one that is espoused by Scalia, et al.

[nichomachus]

62. Thanks for underscoring my point

>>Elections in America always involve money, propaganda and misinformation, and they always impose something on the losing side.Elections in America always involve money, propaganda and misinformation, and they always impose something on the losing side.

>>sometimes the results of an election can suck bad.

Excellent points, but this is exactly why things such as human rights should not be subject to such a flawed process. They should be decided by saner and more rational means.

This is why the church you are allowed to attend is not put up for a vote. This is why we don't get to vote on how many children you have -- or if you have any at all. This is why voters don't get to decide which books you can read, speakers you can listen to, or people you associate with.

These things, along with my human rights, are so central to who you and I are as human beings that they should not be held hostage to propaganda, misinformation, well-funded hate campaigns -- all parts, as you correctly point out, of a flawed election process.

Yes, we do vote incorrectly sometimes on the structure of government, who we put in office, public finances, etc -- again as you point out. But this is the nature of the beast. These are all proper subjects for public votes. Your rights and my rights are not.

[hfojvt]

85. saner and more rational means

such as what? A benevolent dictatorship of judges? That's not what the constitution calls for. "Governments are instituted by men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Consent of the governed is the key principle. Not some "fundamental rights" which are nowhere delineated.

Actually I would like to see regulations of breeding. I think it would be both good for society and necessary considering world population problems. An economics professor I had said that everything is regulated by the state with POP rules, that is, it is either Prohibited, Obligated, or Permitted. Reading, for example is still regulated, and it was regulated even more, by obscenity laws, for example, in the past.

Many rights are protected by hundreds of years of precedent. Therefore, they are not subject to voting. However, new rights, or an advancement of rights should be decided by the will of the majority. It may not be the best of all possible worlds or copacetic to those in the struggle, but I still prefer it to a dictatorship, no matter how supposedly benevolent the dictators think they are.

[AntiFascist]

106. You don't understand how it works in California...

the lawsuits against Prop 8 are not defending "the judgement of benevolent dictators" they simply point out that once you remove a Fundamental Right from a protected minority then it has tremendous ramifications with respect to the Equal Protection Clause and everything it stands for, eventhough redefining marriage based on the status quo may seem relatively harmless on the surface. The people can still make these radical changes to the Constitution, they just need to work through the legislature first, or have a Constitutional Convention, which would be the proper way to do this without eviscerating equal protection for other minorities. This is why Civil Rights groups representing racial minorities and women are filing their own lawsuits against Prop. 8. For them, this is not about protecting gay rights, its about preventing Prop 8 from setting a very bad precedent.

Minority classes and rights have to be protected by the Judicial Branch, there is no other fair way to deal with them. These judges were all Republican appointees, btw. You may disagree that gays an lesbians deserve to be a protected classification, but years of oppression, discrimination, and bigotry have allowed us to create a good case for it.

[donco6]

117. Just because people vote on something, . . .

doesn't mean that what they voted on was appropriate.

Take Colorado's Amendment 2, which was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. It was overturned by the "benevolent dictators" (mostly RW, BTW), because the new amendment prohibited access to redress by one particular group, namely, gays:

In the Court's majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that Amendment 2 "identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification...is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."

"It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort," Justice Kennedy continued. "Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance."

In other words, if a group of citizens thinks they've been wronged, they have the right to go to the government and ask for help. The government doesn't necessarily have to provide that help, but every citizen has the right to ask. It was this right to "seek assistance" that Amendment 2 would have cut off for those seeking to prevent discrimination.

In colonial times that right was known as the right to petition government for redress of grievances. It seems like we were taught back in grade school that the right to petition had a lot to do with why we had a revolution against King George III.

The proponents of Amendment 2, like the OCA here, still haven't figured out that connection. The Supreme Court got it. Again, quoting Justice Kennedy:

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

So, if there are in fact amendments that are passed by a majority of voters but which are then later determined to be outside the bounds of what CAN be passed, then why are you condemning Californians their right to get this clarified through the courts?

[Kitty Herder]

44. K&R

[Dorisye]

45. Very nice post and good point of view

I read your post, and you talked about a point that most people will not think of, which is this issue is not only about gay rights or gay-marriage. It's a much wider problem that relates to the human rights and equality. Most people can't understand and accept gay, lesbian or bisexual people. People usually think they are immoral, and they go against the entire society. According to something people may not know is that sexual orientation is not a moral issue, it's about biology and psychology. So, the people who prefer yes on 8 really don't have rights to decide whether the marriage for homosexual or bisexual is legal or not. The homosexual people and the bisexual people really should do the decision by themselves, because they are the ones who will be affected by it. So there's no point for the rest of people to make an irrelevant decision for them.
Even though, I'm not married yet and I'm not a homosexual or bisexual, but I still support no on prop 8, not only because I'm an ally. It's also because this is not only about gay right and gay-marriage. Next time this kind of thing may happen to another group of people. People can't always say support human rights and equality,but at the same time do something that go against their believes. I think this problem will be an issue in our society until the day that both side get an agreement.
By the way, congratulation and hope you will have a happy life forever.

[Dorisye]

46. Very nice post and good point of view

I read your post, and you talked about a point that most people will not think of, which is this issue is not only about gay rights or gay-marriage. It's a much wider problem that relates to the human rights and equality. Most people can't understand and accept gay, lesbian or bisexual people. People usually think they are immoral, and they go against the entire society. According to something people may not know is that sexual orientation is not a moral issue, it's about biology and psychology. So, the people who prefer yes on 8 really don't have rights to decide whether the marriage for homosexual or bisexual is legal or not. The homosexual people and the bisexual people really should do the decision by themselves, because they are the ones who will be affected by it. So there's no point for the rest of people to make an irrelevant decision for them.
Even though, I'm not married yet and I'm not a homosexual or bisexual, but I still support no on prop 8, not only because I'm an ally. It's also because this is not only about gay right and gay-marriage. Next time this kind of thing may happen to another group of people. People can't always say support human rights and equality,but at the same time do something that go against their believes. I think this problem will be an issue in our society until the day that both side get an agreement.
By the way, congratulation and hope you will have a happy life forever.

[TexasObserver]

47. First, congratulations on your marriage! Second, well said!

I believe your marital rights are secure. Jerry Brown has stated his position as AG that such marriages are valid, and cannot be affected by passage of the resolution.

I realize your status doesn't help everyone else, but to the extent I can, I'd like to reassure gays married in California during the period between the SC decision and the passage of the resolution they do have valid marriages, untouched by the resolution passage. Does the passage mean you may face people who refuse to recognize it? Unfortunately, yes.

The right of gay marriage must be made a federal constitutional right. Prop 8 is about the California constitution, but the answer to the problem can only be a US Supreme Court case holding that gay marriage is constitutionally guaranteed under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in conjunction with the 14th's equal protection provisions.

I've given it a lot of thought, and nothing else is ever going to free gays in America to be first class citizens. This fighting every state's bigots, every year, is never going to get it. Of course, these fights must go on until we have five Supreme Court votes. That means until Kennedy either changes his heart or retires and is replaced by a liberal, such a landmark case cannot be won.

When Kennedy is replaced, I believe we will have a favorable case on gay marriage from the US Supreme Court within two years thereafter.

[davidthegnome]

48. Excellent Post

I agree with you completely. In small, conservative communities like mine, these campaigns based on lies and distortion tend to be pretty popular - and the republicans tend to swallow them whole. I do have an interest in seeing this defeated, though I think that as we come under new administration the wrongs of the past will (to some extent) be righted. Proposition 8 was a load of shit from the start, and most of us (around the Nation) know that.

I'm a severe social recluse (social anxiety), but if there's anything at all I can do to help you and support your cause, please PM me any time. As long as it doesn't require speaking in public and trying to talk some sense into these stone-headed republicans (it's more likely I'd stutter and babble and make a fool of myself), I'll do what I can to help.

[PatrynXX]

49. abstaine

or however the heck to spell it. One issue I always get myself into trouble is this one.

I do want to make one comment though, I've come a long way from my Lutheran High School days on this issue. But I am dismayed that some in the Gay rights community felt it worthy to call blacks with a racial slur. I think I already explained why saying the censored version of the slur is pointless. So say it out loud or don't say it at all. Well if 70 % of blacks voted yes. That's not a good thing to be in the middle of. I sure hope that the Gays and the Blacks don't get violent. The protests are cool. But let this go the legal route. File the appeals, find out if they overstepped their bounds. (which they probably did) even revote. How many times does a school board measure go thru to get a voting measure. Usually alot of no's means that school closes. The votes getting closer everytime they hold one of these things.

[caseycoon]

50. K&R Exactly right!

Equal rights for everyone and every group!
:applause:

[66 dmhlt]

52. It's hard to disagree that there's just not one too many "Ms" in Mormons

... and I'm NOT talking about "Ormans"

[RobertDevereaux]

53. Beautifully put!

[terrya]

56. What a great post. Recommended and thank you.

[Doodler71]

57. K&R - Yes. It is a civil rights issue and it's current incarnation

is Gay Marriage. In other times the civil rights fights have been in different dressings. Just as important now that we fight, as it was then. Everytime we diminish the freedom of others we diminish our own.

[unpossibles]

59. K&R!

Well said. I've been trying to speak to people in my area about this being a Constitutional equal rights issue which goes far beyond a "gay issue" - and imo, this is the only way people will change their minds.

[jmg257]

61. Hear hear! It seems there will always be those who are too short-sighted

to see how the denial or infringment of one group's rights threatens us all. They put selfishness, fear, bigotry and/or even so-called "morals" above all else - because it is a curse of man that they forget. They forget that the ballot they point to with blinded glee this time might be against them the next. They forget that there is a 50/50 chance that the candidate who won this time won't win the next. They forget that in the future the right at stake may very well be one they care about. They forget the most basic moral of all - that we are all created equal. Equal and basic and inalienable rights should not have to be left to the courts to decide, and should never be put to vote. Equal & secured rights are NOT a matter of opinion!

Never forget that we all give up certain rights when submitting to government, precisely so ALL those that remain will be secure. We must never allow fear cause us to give up more. We must never allow bigotry cause us to give up more. We must NEVER allow short-sighted selfishness cause any among us to give up more. It is not necssary - our freedom does not require it. None among us should be made to surrender the slightest bit of liberty, not to the government, and not to an over-reaching majority - because in the end we all will suffer from such a loss.

It is unfortunate that it seems there will always be blind spots in this country due to race, or sex, or life-style, or religion, or region, or WHATEVER. So we must all strive that it is never the case again that any group should have to fear the loss of what is most basic, and most common, among us all - a right.

[electron_blue]

64. Well put. It's amazing these fundies "allow" atheists to marry.

[RufusTFirefly]

80. Actually, in some contexts atheists are even more reviled than gays and lesbians

A USA Today/Gallup poll from 2007 asked

"If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be {see below}, would you vote for that person?"

[NJCPA]

65. Be careful when you lump people (Catholics and Mormons)

As a practicing Catholic, in one of the liberal Catholic churches in NJ, we openly accept gay couples and no one cares. We had a visiting priest once who made some comments against gay relationships and our pastor heard a fire storm the next day from the gay and straight (lousy term) parishioners, which he responded to and denounced.

So be careful when you lump everyone into a group. Otherwise you are showing your prejudice. If you say some in the Catholic church believe those things, OK. But not all.

I often quote, the simple commandment, love your god and love your neighbor as yourself. There are no asterisk after neighbor.

[VaYallaDawg]

77. Same here - my church (RC) is very open and welcoming to gay folks. And welcome to DU!

[d_r]

66. it is a basic rights issue

the thing is, I have never heard any sort of rationale for opposing gay marriage that wasn't simply someone's religious beliefs. What you have is people imposing their religious beliefs on others. I'm not saying this is a "Christian" belief - I am Christian and support gay marriage. What I am trying to say is that people who oppose have no rationale other than their interpretation of religious beliefs. imho, those are just to rationalize prejudice.

I was reading Juan William's reader for the "Eyes on the Prize" series. It is amazing how much what some of these people say today sounds like what their parents were saying about civil rights in the 50s.

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Brilliant and clear post

I stand with all of that. Great work and thanks for it.

Edited due to bad typing.

[satansmissionary6669]

70. RE: Gay Marriage

Not to be a noodge, but MY church welcomes, marries and ordains gay people: They're kind of sacred to US!
But we ARE Satanic Hindu Pagans, so---you know.

IO, Pan! IO, Diana! IO, Kali-ma!!!

www.churchofsatanprotestant.com, no bullshit. (It's against our religion, like vegetarianism.)
:evilgrin:

[montanto]

71. This is what I said to a fellow protester

at the recent Silver Lake rally. He stopped to comment on my wife's
sign which contained a quote from Jefferson. After some conversation
he said to me "you must have gay friends." I was a little stunned.
I said "Its OUR Constitution, its about OUR civil rights." He said
"Oh, yeah, thats right." After that I felt a little like the "token"
straight guy. The wide perception is that this is a "gay" issue, but
not to me.

Our civil right. Our Constitution.

[keith the dem]

72. Prop 8 is an attack on religious liberty!!!

My church, the United Church of Christ, sanctions gay marriage. How dare those bastards say they are any better Christians than the gay couples from my church. I'll be the first to say that I am ot half the Christian of some of those gay couples and families.

p.s. The UCC is Obama's church also

[AntiFascist]

107. Excellent!

Perhaps a group of churches could also file a petition against Prop 8? This does sound like a "freedom of religion" issue as well since not all churches would choose to define marriage in the way the Proposition dictates. Suppose that the groups behind Prop 8 attempted to further define what a real Christian church is, and the principles they should support?

[keith the dem]

113. They are way ahead of both of us!

http://www.ucc.org/news/religious-bodies-issue-legal.html

[AntiFascist]

114. Excellent again!

I'm surprised that groups representing Native Americans haven't addressed this. You would think that if anything they might have a complaint against a group calling itself 'The Knights of Columbus'.

[ekelly]

73. I spoke with a woman yesterday

who said something along the lines of, "I don't like it, but the people of California voted and this is how it turned out."

I told her I doubted that she "didn't like it".
I also asked her how she would feel if a group of rich, powerful MEN decided they're fed up with WOMEN being able to vote.

She said "Something like that will never happen".

I said, "Oh yeah? Something like that just did happen. Pay attention!"

She didn't have anything else to say.

[hfojvt]

93. What kind of racism is this? I don't sepArate my laundry by color!

p.s. it is sepArate not sepErate.

and if people wanna take away women's right to vote, then bring it on. All it takes is a 2/3 vote of Congress and a ratification by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. That's how they got the right to vote, first proposing the amendment in 1868 and then agitating for it for 50 years before it passed Congress in 1919 and the state houses by 26 Aug 1920. And they did it without having the right to vote except in Wyoming. Good old progressive Wyoming :patriot:

p.p.s If you wash your laundry in the more environmentally correct cold water, the colors generally do not run.

[ekelly]

104. Thanks for the spelling lesson...uh...maybe not

p.s. It's go to, not goto


Apparently an act of Congress is not necessary in order to strip people of their rights.


p.p.s. I wash my clothes in cold water. The sentiment of my sig line is obvious.


Edited to add: "...bring it on." Bring it on? Where have I heard that before and how did that work out?
Thanks, but no. I prefer not to tell people wanting to take away rights to "bring it on".

[hfojvt]

112. flattery will only get you so far

I use goto on purpose because I am an old quasi-programmer, although my work partner who was a much better trained programmer said that using the goto command was a programming faux-pas anyway.

Not just an act of Congress, but a vote by 2/3 of Congress, a super-majority and then a vote by 3/4 of states. That's what it takes to strip away rights that are protected by the Constitution. Anybody trying to take them away would be on a fool's errand and would get their a$$ handed to them.

That's the protection that rights have when they are established by Constitutional amendment instead of by a 4-3 SCOTUS vote. Almost 90 years of tradition does not hurt either.

p.s. My headline and my p.p.s. were meant to be humourous. Clearly I need to work on my delivery, but thanks for reading my sig-line, although I need to update it. Now that McCain has been defeated, I hope AMT repeal is off the table.

[bean fidhleir]

75. Tom Paine said it most clearly: "He that would make his own liberty secure

must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

[noiretextatique]

76. tyranny of a hostile, hateful majority

is precisely the issue. it does affect everyone, but a part of the problem is that some people believe they are exempt from the potential effects.

[windoe]

78. We are a Republic, with a Constitution that protects the individual.

So even if you are 1% of the population, these rights cannot be taken away. We are a Republic that practices democracy, but I believe the founders did not intend democratic process to trump individual Constitutional rights.
This is a very important post and point to make.

[bdamomma]

79. check out this petition.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce

and this also

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cca5e8a78a/protect-marriage-protect-children-prohibit-divorce-from-jonathan-smith

[2QT2BSTR8]

83. My response on the petition

11:44 am PST, Nov 17, Name not displayed, Texas
If you choose to elect who I can and can not marry, then I deserve the right to tell you if you can and can not get divorced. Please know in advance that since more than likely you were married "under the eyes of God, and death has not "put you and your loved one asunder" that a marginal number of divorces will be granted after you have done your own damn petitions, had your own rallies, and you are angry enough to take back the right for you to divorce will your rights as citizens of the United States of America be reinstated. Thank you in advance, and our apologies if you have to endure 30+ years of red tape.

[LibertyLover]

81. Well said

First, congratulations on your marriage. May you and your spouse enjoy many years of love, life and laughter together.

According to some of the fundy Christians, my husband and I should not be allowed to be married. We married when I was 45 and pretty much over the hill in terms of child-bearing and he had had a vasectomy 18 years prior to our marriage which, while technically reversible, would probably not have rendered him "fertile" enough to impregnate me or, had we tried in vitro fertilization, donor eggs. We did however adopt a lovely little bundle of energy from China and so have a 6 year old daughter. But, added to the problem of not being able to have our own kids, is the additional fact that we are not members of any Judeo-Christian religion.

I have had members of fundamentalist Christian churches tell me to my face that I should not have been permitted to get married or adopt a child because I am Wiccan and my husband is a Pagan. I have been told to my face by these same people that I am not married in the sight of God (their God of course, since mine and my husband's very kindly attended our handfasting conducted by my then High Priestess). But what really seems to cheese them off is that, although we were legally married by the Clerk of the Court at our county court house (which we did for my mom's sake since she was an agnostic and not thrilled that I had a religious preference), we could have been legally married by said same High Priestess because she had taken the time and effort to incorporate her group as a church under state law and had the authority to conduct perfectly legal marriages.

I'll be honest and say that I believe all marriages should be conducted by the civil authorities in order to be legal. Couples would then have the option of a church ceremony conducted by their preferred flavor of cleric. Heck, if the couples wanted to maintain that the religious ceremony was their "real" marriage, that would be fine - heck I call my handfasting my "real marriage ceremony and the civil service the legal marriage. By making all legal marriage ceremonies civil ceremonies, it would mean that any couple, same or different sexes, who wanted to be married could be. Churches could still say "no" to providing religious ceremonies to same-sex couples if their theology prohibited such unions. But churches would be out of the business of deciding who can and who cannot be married.

It will be a wonderful day when I can attend the legal wedding ceremony of good friends of mine who are Lesbians. They were married legally in Massachusetts, but that union is not recognized here in Maryland or by the federal government. I look forward to the day when the only thing that matters at a legal wedding ceremony is that the couple before the officiant wants to be there getting married, not that one of them is male and the other is female.

[2QT2BSTR8]

82. Happy to be the 100th REC on this story!

I live in Dallas and we had a small but otherwise enthusiastic turnout in Dallas this weekend. I wish that nationally there had been more time to pull things together, and that Dallas would have marched in a district that mattered. On a Saturday in downtown Dallas it is DEAD! The only people there besides us were the obligatory protesters (7 of the them), and the police.

That aside, I want to thank everyone that pulled together the Dallas event, as it is VERY hard to pull our people out, especially on a weekend to City Hall. Thank you to everyone who turned out. And more importantly I want to thank everyone on DU that is keeping this issue at the forefront of the topics. As a gay man with my spouse of 10 years, we appreciate everything that you are doing to help us in this civil rights fight. If you need material sites to "educate" the ignorant people out there, please drop me a line. Lets keep the momentum going, and turn this issue around and on the right track at least with President Obama, the new administration and Congress!

I have my pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/tccturtle/

and my video at http://www.youtube.com/user/TCCTurtles (and still uploading)

p.s. Can anyone recommend a good picture hosting site that would have .jpg or .gif in the URL so that I can post pictures directly to posts? I tried using Flickr, and since that ends in a number, I can not seem to get the actual picture to show in my post.

Regards,

2QT

[sui generis]

110. Hola Dallas chico!

Not a whole bunch of us Dallas supermodels here :P . . . but keep up the good work!

Hey, I didn't even know there was a planned activity at city hall this weekend and my partner and I usually stay pretty dialed in.

In Other News:

My partner and I have been doing this activity for seems like a hundred years: remind as many people as you can to drop by and bring extra staples and food for the Resource Center food pantry before Thanksgiving (parking lot behind Crossroads). Do it on the way to happy hour or something.

They'll take frozen turkeys, fixins', and all the usual staples and package extras, or cash, and I think they're really hurting this year.

Better yet, make it a group activity! Everyone bring a bag or two of groceries. PM me for more info if you need.

M

[Zuiderelle]

84. Wonderful post!

:patriot:

k&r

[Starry Messenger]

91. Wish I could rec again.

Another kick for you.

[hangman86]

92. This is the first time I've heard someone argue about dire consequences

that could result from not allowing gay marriage. It's always the Christan-right making horrific claims about our future.

"If we allow gay marriage people will start marrying goats." "All our children will become gay." "God will open up a trap door and America will fall into Satan's pit."

The only difference is that your arguments kinda well...actually make sense. :-)

[Richard D]

94. Exactly

It's what I've been telling pro h8 people. They don't seem capable of getting it though.

[JuniperLea]

96. Yep! It's a slippery slope!

If we give in, some people will take it they can H8 on anyone else they choose!

[Spryboy]

98. Ten lies the anti-gay marriage people tell -- and how to respond

1. Gay people are trying to change the definition of marriage.

Answer: No, we're not, any more than we're trying to change the definition of your car by buying a car of our own. Nothing about the existence of gay marriage alters heterosexual marriage. What we're trying to do is obtain the same rights that straight people have. The definition of marriage between heterosexuals remains exactly the same.

2. The institution of marriage is under attack.

Yes, it is: by straight people. By a high divorce rate. By infidelity. You will not protect the institution of marriage by preventing people from participating in it unless marriage is only defined for you by the people you exclude… which is kind of pathetic if it's true. Allowing gays to marry does not in any way threaten heterosexual marriages or the institution.

3. If gay people are so big on tolerance, they need to be more tolerant of people with different points of view.

No group needs to tolerate its own oppression or the people who make it possible, any more than black Americans needed to find "middle ground" with Southern sheriffs or Jews with Nazis. There is never any need to compromise with people who would seek to take away their rights.

4. The public voted and gays lost. Why can't you just let it go?

The courts decided and we won. Why didn't YOU just let it go? We're fighting for a right. You should be aware that we will never let it go until we have it.

5. Yes, but the courts overruled the will of the people, and in a democracy, the will of the people is what counts.

The particular democracy in which we all live created the judicial system in part to prevent the tyranny of the majority -- to prevent large groups from stepping on the rights of small groups. Our pursuit of justice via the court system is actually much more in keeping with American values than your pursuit of legalized bigotry through the mob rule of hate-driven ballot initiatives.

6. But this has nothing to do with hate. I don't hate gay people -- I just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Part of being an adult means taking ownership of the consequences of your actions. When you are voting to deprive gay people of a right they should have, it really doesn't matter whether you are doing it out of bone-deep hatred or out of adherence to something your preacher said. You are taking an action that is designed to hurt people. If you can't own the consequences of that, you're a coward and a hypocrite.

7. But I'm acting out of a deeply held religious conviction.

How would you feel if my deeply held religious conviction told me that blacks or Jews or women or Mormons shouldn't have equal rights? Your right to enact your religious conviction within the secular law of our society stops when that conviction tramples on someone else's civil rights. Moreover, "religion" is not a magic word that gives you license to hurt other people. Besides, this isn’t a religious issue. This is about a civil marriage license you can get at City Hall.

8. But there's no comparison between the fight for equal rights that black people went through during the civil rights movement and what gay people are doing now.

Of course there is. Both are civil rights issues. The opponents of the black civil rights movement often argued that the separation of the races was ordained by God. And opponents of equality often boasted, then as now, that "the people" would never put up with this. They lost then, as you will lose very soon.

9. But we're not actually hurting anyone because gay people in California already have domestic partnerships -- which is the same thing as marriage, minus the word.

It's not the same thing, and the religious leaders who told you it was were knowingly lying to you. (Isn't that a sin, by the way?) A vast number of rights afforded straight married people by organizations ranging from the IRS to health-insurance companies to private employers are denied to gay people in domestic partnerships.

10. Well, you're not going to win any friends by staging these protests.

The protests are not designed to win friends; they're designed to make our enemies aware that they can't use money to hurt us and expect to escape public notice, attention and condemnation. If you think that people should have the right to give large sums of money to campaigns secretly without ever being identified, well, I suppose you can try to get that passed via ballot initiative. Good luck.

Incidentally, we have plenty of friends, as you'll see when "Repeal 8" is on the ballot in 2010. When it passes, we hope you'll remember everything you've been saying for the last week about how "the people have spoken".

[Starry Messenger]

99. Nice post!

That would make a great OP, too.

[Spryboy]

100. Ten basic truths of the fight for equal marriage rights for gay couples

We need to be working harder at the grass roots level to be spreading the truth here, to innoculate people against the lies, smears, and fear-mongering that already exists, and the flood that is yet to come:

1) We're not asking for 'special rights'. We just want the same rights as every other American Citizen has. If anything, marriage is currently a "special right" of heterosexuals, and like you say, "special rights" aren't fair.

2) This has nothing to do with religion. We aren't asking for any changes from the church at all. We just want to be able to go to City Hall and get a marriage license, like anyone else can. Just because The State approves of a marriage, doesn't mean any church has to support or perform the marriage. Many churches will not marry interfaith couples, requiring anyone getting married in their church to convert to the church before marriage. This is fine. Churches can set their own rules. It has nothing to do with the state.

3) Gay people do NOT already have these rights, and civil unions or domestic partnerships do not provide equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Separate is not equal.

4) This isn't redefining marriage for any heterosexual. It doesn't affect any straight person's marriage, or definition thereof, in any way.

5) Marriage is constantly being redefined by straight people already. Marriage never used to be about love, now it is. Divorce never used to be allowed, now it is. People of mixed race used to be unable to get married, now they can. It goes on and on. Marriage has never been this pure, static, unchanging thing.

6) Marriage isn't solely about religion. Atheists can and do get married all the time.

7) Marriage isn't solely about children. Elderly people passed the child-bearing years, men who have had vascetomies, women who have had their tubes tied or who have had hysterictomies, as well as couples who have no interest in having children, all get married all the time.

8) If you don't "believe" that gays should get married, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it... however, your opinion should not be enshrined in the secular legal system as a law, forced upon everyone. It is wrong to legislate opinions.

9) Many, many churches actually support same-sex unions, and some have performed them for decades. This is about religious freedom. Just because YOUR religion doesn't like it, doesn't mean your religion should trump every other in terms of what is legal under secular law. Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, the Reform Jewish Synagog, and Liberal Quakers all peform same-sex marriage ceremonies, as do many other individual churches within broader religious sects (Methodists, Episcopalians, and others). Why should marriages performed by those churches be "less real" in the eyes of the law than those performed by, say, the Mormon church or the Church of Scientology?

10) This is simply about equal civil rights for all Americans. Gay marriage will eventually pass. Our country has always moved forward, expanding civil rights for all Americans and struggling towards being that more perfect union. History is on the side of gay marriage. It will happen. It's sad that our country is not leading on this issue though, and that we're so far behind countries like the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, and South Africa. All these countries have legal and full marriage (and more are being added to the list all the time), and there simply hasn't been any negative effects in these countries. This country should be leading and championing equal rights for oppressed minorities. It's a shame we're being held back by irrational fear and ignorant bigotry.

[Jamastiene]

102. I wish this was an OP so I could recommend it.

Great post. :thumbsup:

And Welcome to DU. :hi:

[bluedawg12]

103. This is very well said and succinct

worth saving since it seems to require repeating and reminding very often.

[Jamastiene]

101. Too late to Recommend, but I'm kicking and adding this:

"When they came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

When they start actively taking rights away by popular vote, when will they stop? Who will have any rights left when they are finished?

And do straight married couples REALLY want this precedent set where marriage can be defined by the government?

REALLY?

Think about this:
How long before you are required to have two, four or even six children to be considered married? How long before the wife is required to stay at home and not work outside the home or vote or speak in public or show her face in public to be considered married? How long before they stone you to death for various trivial reasons for doing something outside what the government defines as "marriage?"

Do you really want to go down that road?

If you answered that you think I am full of shit, remember this:

Once the precedent of the government defining marriage is set, there is no turning back. Greedy control freaks in the cult like "moral majority" movement will keep right on going until this country is just like Afghanistan under the Taliban. There will be NOTHING to stop them once the precedent is set.

Remember that.

And remember, we told you so.

Where will the stripping away of rights end? It's not just gay people who will be losing rights in this "1984" world we are living in. Remember the Patriot Act? There is no end in sight to the stripping away of our civil rights. Big Brother is very transparent to those of us who are paying attention.

[gtar100]

105. Too late to recommend but I can kick it. This is right on. Thank you.

[lame54]

109. kick ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ucqDoP2FZw

[AyanEva]

111. Wow!

This was really well written and laid out beautifully everything that's at stake. I confess that while I support marriage equality (or I wouldn't be here), in my own head I was having trouble personalizing and connecting to it in any way. Your post pretty much solved that problem and when I read it, it was kind of like, "OIC!" and I was able to make the connection. Maybe that makes me sound incredibly stupid but there it is.

Thanks! :3