Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
And in the process reveals the utter hypocrisy of the religious right when it comes to the role of the courts, the nature of democracy and "judicial activism." The Family Research Council immediately put out a press release condemning the court ruling which said:
It's outrageous that the court has overturned not only the historic definition of marriage, but the clear will of the people of California, as expressed in Proposition 22. said FRC President Tony Perkins. The California Supreme Court assumed the powers of a legislative body by imposing same-sex marriage. However, in 2000, the people of California spoke loudly and clearly on the value of marriage when 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22.
Got that? It's outrageous when courts overturn the "clear will of the people," especially when that will is expressed directly through popular referendum. That's absolutely wrong. Or is it? Let's hit the rewind button back to 2006 when the case was Gonzales v Oregon, where the people of Oregon passed a law authorizing voluntary assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
In fact they did it twice, once in 1994 and once in 1997, before the law took effect. Religious right groups immediately filed suit to have those evil activist courts overturn the law and the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2006 by a 6-3 vote. Guess what Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council thought about the "clear will of the people" in that case? They filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down the will of the people and screamed bloody murder when the ruling went the other way.
All of this talk of the "will of the people" is pure hypocrisy and demagoguery. No one cares about the will of the people if they think the people's will is unconstitutional - NO ONE. And anyone who pretends to is lying. Including Tony Perkins in this case.
Politics
Comments
I was listening yesterday to some of the fulminations on right-wing radio concerning this court ruling. Hugh Hewitt was especially upset and came to the highly rational conclusion that the only remedy for this sort of "heinous decision" is to recall all judges -- including those who dissented from the ruling! I guess he thinks his listeners are too stupid to be able to vote against judges selectively.
I'm not really surprised, because the right-wing talkers are particularly irrational about this topic. An interesting note: the California Supreme Court is packed with Republican appointees (six out of the seven justices were put on the bench by GOP governors).
I summarize some of Hewitt's comments here.
Posted by: Zeno | May 16, 2008 9:55 AM
Well, the will of the people as exercised through the legislators was twice vetoed with the comment that the courts should deal with that, by their own REPUBLICAN governor. I guess they hoped the court would go with them and now that they didn't, they scream murder!
Posted by: Kim | May 16, 2008 9:58 AM
Well, obviously that Will of the People isn't the real Will of the People.
It's not entirely obvious that the California Supreme Court didn't properly reflect the will of the people. The California legislature has passed bills to authorize gender-neutral marriage in the past. The Governator has vetoed them each time.
Oh, wait. Those must not be real representatives of the people, either.
Posted by: Tenax | May 16, 2008 10:05 AM
Hmm, darn my Googling. I have nothing to blame for my inability to beat Kim's post, except for my own pathetic attempt at research. Why, oh why, must I be so slow on the internets! :emo-tear:
(Nice job, Kim. I forgot that Arnold said that when he vetoed the legislation.)
Posted by: Tenax | May 16, 2008 10:09 AM
Ed said:
I think that argument extends too far when you go beyond some groups on the far left & all groups in the moderate and far right. For example, Randy Barnett clearly expresses the opinion that the Clean Water Act is unconstitutional and promotes the need to amend the Constitution for that and similiar environmental laws and regs, though he believes that current precedent and legislation better expresses the will of the people than what is truly delegated to the gov't to regulate/prohibit.
Also, I care. I'd like to see our citizens much better educated regarding what is and what is not constitutional. I believe we'd see more amendment activity that better engineers a more just and free society, though I shudder to think of the restrictions to liberty we'd face if our current collective understanding of the Constitution were used to amend the constitution. I also struggle with the Kelo decision, thinking Kelo was unconstitutional yet also realistic enough to believe we need to redevelop certain urban areas (e.g., Baltimore).
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 16, 2008 10:43 AM
I was up most of the night reading the decision -- fascinating stuff. There's lots of comments I'd like to make if I had a spare moment, but one thing that I'll mention is that, in the course of clearing up lots of muddled side issues, the decision explained what I hadn't understood at the time: why Schwarzenegger, who had said he supported equality, nonetheless vetoed the legislation that was intended to achieve it? Turns out that the veto was on technical grounds, he said that the legislature didn't have the authority to pass such a law, and the court agrees with him -- it was all about technicalities. Almost no-one, either at the time (me included), or now, understood that, therefore they're blaming Schw. as anti-gay. You can't pass a sloppy law just because the intention behind it is good.
Posted by: Vasha | May 16, 2008 11:09 AM
Unfortunately, California's constitution is easy to amend. A petition with the signatures of registered voters equal to 8% of the vote in the prior gubernatorial election (currently 694,354 signatures, according to the Secretary of State's website) will get a constitutional amendment on the ballot, and then it takes only a majority vote to pass it.
As the overturned statute was also an initiative, that passed with 61% of the vote, I don't think this battle is over.
The real question is what happens if voters pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but thousands of gay couples have already gotten married. Can those marriages then be annulled? Can California legally allow some gays to be married but not others?
Would some of the lawyers who read this blog chime in on that?
Posted by: James Hanley | May 16, 2008 11:21 AM
@James
There is more to it. What you get is that one part of the constitution demands discrimination, while other parts forbid it. The major question to be asked is whether an amendment can overrule other aspects of the constitution, so I guess that will end up in court again......
Posted by: Kim | May 16, 2008 11:40 AM
Ed, here is a link to Dahlia Lithwick's article on this in the Slate Magazine. http://www.slate.com/id/2191500
Superactivist-hero powers lol
Posted by: BonnieJ | May 16, 2008 12:12 PM
Kim,
The conflict in the state constitution that you speak of--if it arises--is actually not very problematic. An equal protection clause is a general statement, whereas a later amendment would be an explicit exception to the general statement. An amendment clearly can overrule other aspects of a constitution--many, if not most, amendments actually do that. Later additions overrule prior ones, and specific exceptions limit the applicability of general rules. So I don't see that as legally problematic at all.
However in California the courts do play a big role in the initiative process, so if a constitutional amendment does get passed by initiative, I would expect it to be challenged. If the amendment is not written carefully, it could violate the California constitutional requirement that an initiative cannot embrace more than one topic.
The relevant law is Article 2 of the Cali Constitution.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 16, 2008 12:44 PM
California has got to be one of the most corrupt and poorly run states in the nation. With all the problems - crappy schools, crumbling infrastructure, massive budget deficits, gang violence, hospitals closing down, etc. - our legislature is more concerned with pushing pro-gay legislation to benefit just a small minority of people, even after the people of California said NO to gay marriage with Prop. 22. This court ruling has little real impact because the CA legislature has already set aside Prop. 22 and given all the rights of marriage to gay couples registered as domestic partners. The California Constitution says that it is ILLEGAL for the legislature to overturn a referendum, yet they have arrogantly done so. On top of that, it is almost impossible to vote the morons out because the districts are rigged to insure a Democrat majority with every election. The corruption and incompetence of the CA legislature is absolutely legendary.
Posted by: mroberts | May 16, 2008 12:59 PM
Generally speaking, yes, it can. Constitutions can't "contradict" themselves, since they will be interpreted by the courts in ways to make them consistent. And specific provisions usually take precedent over general ones. In a case like this, any referendum that did away with gay marriage would normally just be deemed an exception to the individual's general rights.
However (there's always a "however" when dealing with lawyers), the California Supreme Court may have been signaling some resistence to that outcome:
Now whether they would attempt to extend that to an actual constitutional change by referrendum is another matter.
... so I guess that will end up in court again....That's another thing you can count on when dealing with lawyers.
Posted by: John Pieret | May 16, 2008 1:00 PM
Wait, everyone in California is forced to get a gay marriage now?
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 1:08 PM
From page 113 of the decision:
It is indeed a very interesting paper to read, even for people, such as I, who are not lawyers.
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2008 1:10 PM
>> Wait, everyone in California is forced to get a gay marriage now? >>
No, but everybody is going to be forced to have their kids sit through pro-gay propaganda in the classrooms. It's already happening in Massachussetts and a judge there recently said parents have no right to pull their kids out of it. Excuse me, but parents are responsible for their kids, not judges. Pisses me off when an arrogant judge decides he knows better than parents what is good for their kids.
Posted by: mroberts | May 16, 2008 1:13 PM
What's pro-gay propaganda? Isn't it pro-acceptance? I don't think anything in this world would turn a straight person gay. But I agree, parents should always have the option of sheltering and stifling their children to a certain extent, legally.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 1:17 PM
mroberts said:
...and given all the rights of marriage to gay couples registered as domestic partners.
Starting at page 8 of the decision:
Basically, you can't call it something else and pretend it's equal.
In fact, during the discussion of remedy, they point out that there are two ways to make "marriage" and "domestic partnership" equal: either designate every couple to be in a "marriage", or designate every couple to be in a "domestic partnership". They decided to retain the name "marriage" for it's wide public acceptance and common usage.
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2008 1:26 PM
Re Dennis N
Pro-gay to fucktards like Mr. mroberts is any curriculum which does not advocate boiling gays down to soap.
Posted by: SLC | May 16, 2008 1:50 PM
>> Basically, you can't call it something else and pretend it's equal. >>
Sorry, but gay relationships aren't equal, they are now better than equal! There are plenty of other people out there that would like to have their own versions of marriage as well - polygamists for example. Are they now second-class citizens because they can't legally marry the "person (or persons) they love"? Marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman, and yes, even gays had access to it. They just had to follow the same rules as everybody else. Can't see how that is not equal. Instead, gays didn't like the rules, so they got their own version of marriage. How is that not SPECIAL TREATMENT? Don't like the rules? Well, get your own rules! That's not equality, it is special treatment. In fact, I really would like to know on what basis we would deny any other group of people their own version of marriage? If some group of people wanted to engage in group marriage, should we allow it? Why or why not? On what basis could we deny it now?
The whole notion that gays are somehow this poor, subjugated group of people is just stupid. Gays, on average, are some of the wealthiest and most highly educated people in the country. They can vote, they can enter any restaurant they want, they can use any drinking fountain they want, and they can sit in whatever seat they want on the bus. If you think life for gays is tough, take a drive through the predominantly gay communities I live near, like West Hollywood, Laguna Beach, and Long Beach. See how tough life is for those poor, poor gays.
If gay marriage ever becomes a permanent reality in CA, we will soon see who really has been imposing their morality on who. The next thing will be making sure that every child in CA's already lousy schools is taught the glories of gay sex. And like has happened in Mass., some judge somewhere will say that parents have no right to opt out of such indoctrination. I also predict that the next step would be to force private and home schoolers to get state certifications that would require adoption of state curriculum, which of course would be very pro-gay. The move toward this has already been going on for years. The gay lobby has shown that it is more than willing to impose its version of morality on those that disagree.
Posted by: mroberts | May 16, 2008 2:00 PM
"Marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman, and yes, even gays had access to it. They just had to follow the same rules as everybody else."
Question, how is this claim not like the old laws preventing interracial marriage? Let's see...
"Marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman of the same race as ordained by g-d, and yes, even blacks had access to it. They just had to follow the same rules as everybody else and marry their own kind."
Why yes, I do believe it's the same thing.
Posted by: Hypatia | May 16, 2008 2:13 PM
"Marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman, and yes, even gays had access to it. They just had to follow the same rules as everybody else."
Question, how is this claim not like the old laws preventing interracial marriage? Let's see...
"Marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman of the same race as ordained by g-d, and yes, even blacks had access to it. They just had to follow the same rules as everybody else and marry their own kind."
Why yes, I do believe it's the same thing.
Posted by: Hypatia | May 16, 2008 2:15 PM
mrroberts forgot to mention that gays go into the restrooms at shopping malls and piss all over the toilet seats, plus they don't wash their hands properly afterwards. Oh, and they are pedophiles. And....
Posted by: kehrsam | May 16, 2008 2:15 PM
Wow, I've not seen such frothing at the mouth bigotry on here for a while. Who wants to play with him?
Posted by: guthrie | May 16, 2008 2:15 PM
This is awesome news! Perfect as I start my summer. :D
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 16, 2008 2:22 PM
mroberts said: "Sorry, but gay relationships aren't equal, they are now better than equal! "
How are they better than equal?
Posted by: Kim | May 16, 2008 2:23 PM
Well, at any rate the Governator said yesterday that he supports the Court's ruling and that he will oppose the current measure to amend the California Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages if it reaches the ballot.
Don't know how that will translate into public attitudes, but at least it's something.
One thing I did find interesting is that some of the legal analysis after yesterday's ruling was handed down seemed to say that even if the new proposition gets on the ballot and is passed, the way the justices' decision is written will likely result in any new anti-same-sex-marriage law being shot down by the courts. I haven't actually read the ruling yet, but those doing the analysis seemed pretty convinced. Don't know if that was wishful thinking or not.
Posted by: Elaine | May 16, 2008 2:41 PM
mroberts said:
Marriage has always been an institution between a man and a woman, and yes, even gays had access to it. They just had to follow the same rules as everybody else. Can't see how that is not equal.
From page 93 of the ruling:
Please read the last sentence carefully...
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2008 2:43 PM
mroberts said:
In fact, I really would like to know on what basis we would deny any other group of people their own version of marriage? If some group of people wanted to engage in group marriage, should we allow it? Why or why not? On what basis could we deny it now?
Now these, it appears to me, are good questions. I don't know the answers to them right now.
However, not knowing the answers to these questions should not be an impediment to fixing a problem that we do know the answer to.
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2008 2:46 PM
>> Question, how is this claim not like the old laws preventing interracial marriage? Let's see... >>
Equating race and homosexuality is one of the biggest examples of dishonesty in this whole push for gay marriage. You CANNOT equate the two. A person can go from straight to gay and back to straight again but I have NEVER heard of somebody going from white to black or black to white. Homosexuality is a behavior, not an immutable characteristic. To tell if somebody is gay, you have to look at the BEHAVIORS of the person, which can change from one day to the next, whereas you can typically tell a person's race by looking at their immutable physical characteristics. Tell me, how would you tell if a newborn baby is gay or straight? It's awfully easy to tell what race they are, right?
Posted by: mroberts | May 16, 2008 2:47 PM
From mroberts: "Tell me, how would you tell if a newborn baby is gay or straight? It's awfully easy to tell what race they are, right?"
Why yes, it is easy to tell what race a newborn is.
The human race.
Posted by: carl_pdx | May 16, 2008 2:53 PM
It would be the height of poetic justice if the constitutional amendment saying "In California, marriage shall be recognized only as the union of one man and one woman." and in response, the legislature removed marriage entirely from state law, giving everybody nothing but civil unions.
Posted by: NinjaDebugger | May 16, 2008 2:59 PM
Actually, mr. roberts, that is only true in about half the country. there are still more than 20 states where it is completely legally permissible to discriminate against gays in public accommodations, like restaurants, etc. In fact a couple of years ago a gay couple in Texas were refused landscaping services by a good "Christian" couple because they were gay - and it was completely legal.
Although racial and sexual orientation discrimination have completely different faces, they are, at heart the same thing - judging someone based on an arbitrary characteristic. In fact, it took a series of Supreme Court and other federal court decisions to ensure that gays and lesbians have the right to free speech, free assembly and liberty. Even if you believe that homosexuality is not immutable (which it is), that simply makes it a lifestyle choice EXACTLY comparable to religion, which is protected by federal anti-discrimination laws. After all, you choose your religion and can change at will, so why should that be a protected class?
As for the marriage decision, let us remember that the GOP is about to nominate a man who, under the rules of Christianity, is either an adulterer or a polygamist. Why should good Christians be forced to accept the immoral lifestyle choice of John McCain as equivalent to the sacrament of marriage and allow him to install his concubine as First Lady?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 16, 2008 3:07 PM
"A person can go from straight to gay and back to straight again"
I LOL'd
Posted by: John | May 16, 2008 3:08 PM
I'm starting to make a scorecard of mroberts trotting out EVERY stereotypical right-wing argument. You can't really be such a straw-man, can you?
Let's see:
-"it's special privilege"
-"marriage = man+woman"(look up Solomon in the Bible)
-"they already had the right to marry the opposite sex" (would you say something like this if only same-sex marriages were allowed and you wanted to marry a woman? you already have the right to marry a man!)
-"they can choose to not be gay"
-"it's not civil rights"
-"stats say they're already better off"
-"its a slippery slope to teaching gay sex in schools!"
-"gay lobby" (how gay was that judge?)
I'm counting down to:
-"gay agenda"
-Bible quotes
-"activist judge"
You, sir, are a parody of yourself.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 3:16 PM
Add "gay sex isn't natural" to that list.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 3:19 PM
First, I'm ecstatic about the ruling. Check out California on the States of Equality Scorecard. I'm not even close to wanting to get married right now, but knowing that when I decide to marry my relationship will be protected with all the rights and protections of a legal marriage (at least at the state level) is an awesome feeling.
Second, I'd find mroberts absolutely hilarious if I didn't know there are millions of idiots who think just like him and they are the reason that this nation (and 26 states specifically in their constitutions) has legalized marriage discrimination. I personally think that they are very childish, religiously repressed people who can't think about gays without getting grossed out by thinking of anal sex. I mean shit, check out this post on GoodAsYou.com, it's the very same thing. Oh no, they're going to come in and teach our kids that there are gays in the world, it's all about SEX! I mean, it's even in the name "homoSEXual"!! Fucking retards.
Sure buddy, we were always equal, all we had to do was suppress our sinful desires and settle down with a god sanctioned member of the opposite sex. You claim that we now have special treatment under the law, I say that we have simply gotten what has been wrongfully denied us. What is your argument that a man/man or woman/woman relationship should be treated differently than a man/woman relationship? Let's leave out polygamy right now. Why should a homoSEXual relationship be treated differently than a heteroSEXual one? I'll give you a cookie if you can come up with a rational reply that doesn't include god or tradition. Procreation doesn't count either, because of adoption, and if you base relationship status on procreation, you need to annul the marriages of barren couples, because then they're just having sex for fun, and we couldn't have that, could we mroberts?
And lastly, we will definitely have a major fight on our hands against the religiots come November. I'm hopeful though, given that the republican governor will fight the amendment (let's hope he keeps that promise), and democrats (especially younger ones, who tend to be less homophobic) are mobilizing in record numbers for the presidential election. So hopefully sanity will win out, but we've already seen that the voters won't blink at writing discrimination into the statutes, and I don't think many will see an amendment as any different.
Posted by: paul | May 16, 2008 3:21 PM
mroberts stated: "A person can go from straight to gay and back to straight again but I have NEVER heard of somebody going from white to black or black to white."
It is clear that ignorance rules here, because it are the people opposed to gay marriage who claim we can change our orientation, that t is a choice, but believe me, if I had a choice to change my feelings, I rather would be straight so that I would not be discriminated against in so many ways. Unfortunately, sexual orientation is not changeable, despite the claims of the ex-gay movement, who fail to prove their case in the scientific literature.
The second item is also wrong, just look at Michael Jackson... ;-)
Posted by: Kim | May 16, 2008 3:28 PM
LOL, all you people proposing that homosexuality is immutable are a crackup. Tell me, if a guy says he is no longer gay, what are you going to point to as evidence that he is wrong?
And again, tell me people, what basis will you deny other people the right to get their own versions of wacked out marriage? The polygamists for instance?
Posted by: mroberts | May 16, 2008 3:44 PM
Thanks for the nonanswer, crackpot.
I don't give a shit if homosexuality turns out to be 100% "curable". You still have no arguments to say why it should be, other than your bible.
And answer your own question by imagining Jesus curing you of liking women. But Jesus wouldn't do that, he just hates the fruits, huh?
Posted by: paul | May 16, 2008 3:48 PM
>> Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation. >>
Absolutely absurd statement from the ruling. It assumes equivalence (and from where is that conclusion derived? the feelings of the judges?) - something that majority of people that have ever lived would disagree with it. If that was not true, then gay marriage would have been widespread already. When a gay couple can figure out how to have children naturally with each other, I will consider their relationships equivalent. But somehow, a few arrogant judges know better than us all what is right and true. The arrogance and absurdity of this is astounding.
Posted by: mroberts | May 16, 2008 3:49 PM
>> The second item is also wrong, just look at Michael Jackson... ;-) >>
LOL, Kim I thought of that as I was writing it. :)
Posted by: mroberts | May 16, 2008 3:51 PM
m.roberts: "Homosexuality is a behavior, not an immutable characteristic."
BULLSHIT! Fucking is a behavior, sexual orientation is NOT. You BIGOTS really need to hang onto that lie because otherwise you are just hateful bigots beating up on a minority.. Well you are WRONG.
Read the fucking opinion - the ENTIRE thing and open you hateful heart. This opinion put homosexuals in the context of a SUSPECT CLASS - do some research - find out what that means. READ some history - READ anything but read and EDUCATE yourself. You are WRONG.
YOU need to look into yourself and figure out WHY you hate gay people so much. WHY?!?
Posted by: W. | May 16, 2008 3:54 PM
mroberts, polygamy is untenable currently. It has been abused, and by religions to oppress women. That alone is not a reason to prevent it. The details are too hard to work out. A legal marriage only serves to provide benefits to couples. For example, property rights, medical rights in the event of an emergency, tax breaks, etc. How would that work under polygamy? There would be constant dispute. Are health benefits required to extend to all 7 wives? Who gets to be the medical stand in decision maker? It's an issue of arity. The rights of marriage are easily transferred to 2 people, but not 2+ people. This really isn't a solid argument. It does nothing to show how gay marriage should be denied.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 3:55 PM
I take it you find marriages with infertile people to not be equivalent too? And marriage with people who choose to not have kids? Marriage isn't based on the ability to conceive.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 3:59 PM
Since the entire argument against gay marriage is based on theology why is this even an issue in a country that doesn't impose theocratic laws on its citizens?
Oh, right, because most of those citizens are ignorant theists.
How silly of me.
Posted by: Rob Jase | May 16, 2008 4:00 PM
m.roberts:" When a gay couple can figure out how to have children naturally with each other, I will consider their relationships equivalent"
Another fucking idiocy. What about sterile straight folks? Folks beyond child bearing years? Oops - your argument just fell apart. I guess all you are left with is hate.
Why not just say it: I HATE GAY PEOPLE, THEY ARE GROSS (ICKY!)It is what your crap boils down to. IDIOT!
Posted by: W. | May 16, 2008 4:01 PM
m.roberts: The arrogance and absurdity of this is astounding."
The ONLY way one could read the very thorough legal reasoning and often soaring language in this opinion is if you already have your mind set and your heart hardened. OPEN your heart - READ the opinion. It speaks of DIGNITY and EQUALITY and FAMILIES and yes rearing of CHILDREN.
Read it - I challenge you to do so. ALL 172 pages. READ it and then come back here and dissect the legal arguments with it's very careful grounding in constitutional law.
If you are going to restrict access to a FUNDAMENTAL right you gotta have more than "lots of people think it is wrong" and "you can't make babies".
Posted by: W. | May 16, 2008 4:07 PM
OOPSY:
I meant The ONLY way one could read the very thorough legal reasoning and often soaring language in this opinion AND END UP WITH YOUR POSITION is if you already have your mind set and your heart hardened.
I am shaking I am so mad. Sorry.
Posted by: W. | May 16, 2008 4:09 PM
I've never understood why right-wing morons care so much about gay people getting married. What the hell is it hurting you? Why do you seek to actively try to oppress people and deny them rights? Its like the words tolerance and acceptance are curses, and only bigotry and hate are good. I don't remember their Jesus preaching that; its kind of sad, but if their Jesus wasn't an imaginary figure, and came back, they'd probably call him a far left liberal "fag".
Posted by: sabrina | May 16, 2008 4:13 PM
Absolutely, just like the Bible says! Just look at Abraham, and Jacob, and David!
Absolutely, just like the Bible says! Just look at Abraham, and Jacob, and David!
Oh...wait a minute...
Posted by: Tulse | May 16, 2008 4:16 PM
m.roberts:"LOL, all you people proposing that homosexuality is immutable are a crackup. Tell me, if a guy says he is no longer gay, what are you going to point to as evidence that he is wrong?"
So I guess the reverse is true: if you can cure the gay, than you most definitely can catch the gay, right?
Posted by: rjw | May 16, 2008 4:17 PM
mroberts said:
<< Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation. >>
It assumes equivalence (and from where is that conclusion derived? the feelings of the judges?)...
California State Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, paragraph a:
So, yes, all people are equivalent in the eyes of the law.
When a gay couple can figure out how to have children naturally with each other, I will consider their relationships equivalent.
As others have pointed out, and the opinion addresses, procreation is not a defining characteristic of marriage.
But somehow, a few arrogant judges know better than us all what is right and true.
I don't believe that the judges know better than us all; only better then some.
-Richard
Posted by: Richard | May 16, 2008 4:19 PM
Mroberts said "Homosexuality is a behavior, not an immutable characteristic. To tell if somebody is gay, you have to look at the BEHAVIORS of the person, which can change from one day to the next".
That's a tired old lie. No, gayness is not a behavior, its a romantic/sexual attraction to the same sex. One is gay if they are same sex attracted regardless of what behaviors they may or may not undertake. You knew you were heterosexual the first time you were attracted to the opposite sex regardless of the fact that you were a virgin, and its the same with gays.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 16, 2008 4:21 PM
mroberts frothed:
"LOL, all you people proposing that homosexuality is immutable are a crackup. Tell me, if a guy says he is no longer gay, what are you going to point to as evidence that he is wrong?"
Oh, I dunno. How about the frequency of "relapse" into homosexuality - even among former leaders of the "former gay" groups? How about the frequency of failed heterosexual relationships among "former gays?" How about the frequency of celibacy being claimed as evidence of a successful cure for homosexuality, rather than those "former gays" actually becoming heterosexual?
If I claim to be a giraffe, are you going to start looking 18 feet in the air to talk to me? Claims are easy - let your mutable former gays actually live a happy heterosexual lifestyle, then we'll talk.
Posted by: BobApril | May 16, 2008 4:34 PM
Not to sound like I'm agreeing w/ the crackpot bigot, but gay/straight is not an either/or, but more like a normal distribution. People like to talk about "situational gayness"; e.g., prison populations, but the reality is that we wouldn't even care which sex the partners in a marriage were if it weren't for religious bigots. Marriage used to be about property ownership, and women were part of the property. Are those the good old days we are talking about?
Posted by: ildi | May 16, 2008 4:35 PM
Well, I see where Mr Roberts gets his fears from. He thinks that us gay people can turn him into a faggot. Because if gayness is mutable, we could make him GAY. So, with the same ease with which we can make him gay, he could make us ungay. But if turning gay and ungay are possible, they are equal, and so where does the differential treatment from?
Another point is that he just chooses to display (bigoted) heterosexual behaviour, just as we gays choose to display gay behaviour. But if behaving gay and ungay are possible, they are equal, and so where does the differential treatment from?
In the end, everything that can be changed back to "normal" (=heterosexual) can also be changed to "deviant" (=homosexual) and the other way round. So, what we have to explain now is why being heterosexual is "normal" and homosexual behaviour is "deviant". Let me guess:
1. Natural law (Ok, where the hell comes this law from? Not from rigorous science al least).
2. The BIBLE. (Ok, why choose that religion over the many other larger and smaller religions in the world?)
3. .....
Posted by: Kim | May 16, 2008 4:37 PM
I don't understand how after Ted Haggard anyone can think homosexuality is a choice. You can't tell me that dude didn't know that his homosexuality was "sinful". You can't tell me that he didn't think the Bible was against it. You can't tell me he wouldn't think his church and family was be seriously upset about it if they found out. And if he was going to cheat on his spouse, why not with a woman?
Not only was it against his religion and his upbringing, but there was a huge social pressure against being gay as well. So, the question remains, why have sex with a man? The answer obviously is that this isn't something he was taught or an idea he got watching Will and Grace, it was something innate, that he couldn't get rid of no matter how much he preached about it or prayed about it. If it was a choice, of all people, don't you think he would have chose not to be attracted to men?
mroberts, look into yourself. Do you think you could choose not to be attracted to women?
Posted by: MyPetSlug | May 16, 2008 5:31 PM
Well said "MyPetSlug".
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 16, 2008 5:33 PM
>"LOL, all you people proposing that homosexuality is immutable are a crackup. Tell me, if a guy says he is no longer gay, what are you going to point to as evidence that he is wrong?"
How about "bisexuality"? It does exist, and hey, they'd like to marry the person they fall in love with, too. And there's a roughly 50% chance* that it's going to be someone who shares their gender.
Outside of the "ex-gay" movement, I know a lot of folks who've discovered they were bisexual late in life, straight and gay alike. The problem isn't that their sexual orientation necessarily changed; they were probably bisexual their whole lives. The problem is that people like mrroberts thinks that the only PROPER sexual orientation is "absolutely heterosexual" and that the state should rigidly enforce that, jackboots and all.
(* yeah, I know, there's a bit of a standard deviation issue :-)
Posted by: Mojave66 | May 16, 2008 7:06 PM
MyPetSlug,
THANK YOU - very well said indeed.
I wish I could figure out which collection of words, which horror story, which plea will open the hearts of my enemies. How do you explain the humanity of another human?
What is the true cure for homophobia?
Why are you so oddly homophobic mroberts?
Posted by: w. | May 16, 2008 7:09 PM
I remember in the mid-80's when friends of friends were having a gay commitment ceremony; and I thought it was ridiculous (marriage wasn't even conceivable to me then). I'm so happy that we've all progressed so far towards "equality for all" since then.
Posted by: nottheothergayrobert | May 16, 2008 7:38 PM
Of the few verses that pertain to homosexuality in the Bible (there's much more said about the evils of the love of money than homosexuality) NONE of those words were uttered by Jesus.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 16, 2008 8:47 PM
Sorry dude, I was being flippant. Maybe I should have said god. But in fairness to my flippancy, these people really don't worship the Jesus that's portrayed in the bible. Jesus is just an icon that they can pin their own beliefs to.
Posted by: paul | May 16, 2008 8:54 PM
I'm confused; does this mean I have to marry someone of the same sex?
Posted by: khan | May 16, 2008 9:35 PM
Yes, khan. Yes you do. Right now.
I'm still free, by the way.
Posted by: Brian | May 17, 2008 12:52 AM
Equating race and homosexuality is one of the biggest examples of dishonesty in this whole push for gay marriage. You CANNOT equate the two. A person can go from straight to gay and back to straight again but I have NEVER heard of somebody going from white to black or black to white.
Chiming in a little late, but this fallacy always bugs me: saying that gay marriage is different from inter-racial marriage because race is immutable actually demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of why it's wrong to ban inter-racial marriage, long before you even get to any question of the alleged mutability of sexual orientation.
Your own race is not a choice, true. But inter-racial marriage isn't about your race: it's about the race of the person that you CHOOSE to marry. This CHOICE to marry the person that you find most fulfilment with, even if you could potentially find someone else of the same race to marry and be just as fulfilled, is protected, and rightly so: people should have the opportunity to CHOOSE for themselves with whom they believe they would find most fulfilment in marriage, without being limited in their pursuit of happiness by an arbitrary consideration like race.
The irrelevancy of the immutability of race to the reason why inter-racial marriage is wrong apparently whizzes by many opponents of gay marriage completely, which suggests that they not only see no problem with discrimination based on sexual orientation, they're also hazy on why discrimination based on race is wrong as well. This does not surprise me.
Posted by: Neil H | May 17, 2008 1:02 AM
Khan - You could always marry mrroberts -
oh wait "mrroberts is completely hetrosexual" (just like Ted Haggard). -DJ
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/roy_zimmerman_on_ted_haggard.php
Posted by: DingoJack | May 17, 2008 1:34 AM
Just like to say that "race" is a complete furphy.
If I gave you the genome of a person to analize you could guess what "race" a person was in a probablistic way, but you could not know for sure. There isn't a bit at the begining of the genome that has a tag on it saying: "white" or "black" or "asian" or whatever. Humans have been around for too short a time (c120000 years) and have interbred to much to allow anything more than weak subspecies to form, so weak in fact, how you divide them is a matter of personal choice (I might look perfectly "white" but identify myself as a Powhatan, for example.)
Argueing that "race" is immutable therefore is not strictly true either. It depends on how and who defines it -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 17, 2008 1:47 AM
I like the idea of mandatory gay marriage, as long as I get to pick my mate. Does anyone know where Donnie Wahlberg lives?
Posted by: wrpd | May 17, 2008 5:55 AM
mroberts said:
And I would love to see you explain how this is relevant, even if were true.
A person can go from owning a dog to owning a cat and back again.
A person can go from favoring blue to favoring green and back again.
A person can go from decorating cakes to making balloon animals and back again.
Does this mean that people who love green, own cats, and make balloon animals shouldn't be allowed to get married?
Posted by: Gretchen | May 17, 2008 12:01 PM
MyPetSlug wrote- "mroberts, look into yourself. Do you think you could choose not to be attracted to women?"
You may be starting from an unwarranted assumption.
Posted by: Rick R | May 17, 2008 12:05 PM
What would that be Rick? That mrroberts is human?
Mrroberts, people can chose how they identify themselves to others. Sadly, light skinned blacks often passed for white in order to avoid legal and social restrictions. Have you ever heard of the one-drop rule?
People can't change their genetics, that's obviously true. But we can in some circumstances control how others perceive us and in doing so push the boundaries and, more or less, move back and forth between categories. (Or at least appear to. That's the problem with these kinds of categories. People just don't always fit them because we are considerably more complicated and nuanced than our definitions are.) The one drop rule, as well as other similarly foolish fractional ancestry rules, were meant to circumvent the fact that sometimes you couldn't tell how badly to treat a person simply by looking at them.
...
Also, I also wanted to second NeilH's excellent point that laws against inter-racial marriage, like laws against gay marriage, has the primary effect of preventing consenting adults from marrying each other. Well said, Neil!
Posted by: Leni | May 17, 2008 1:02 PM
Frankly, I think that's an excellent justification for making interfaith marriages illegal. In fact, I also propose that the left-handed not be allowed to get married at all. It's a choice, after all. Why can't they just be like the rest of us?
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | May 17, 2008 4:20 PM
There is a great deal of "family law", both statuatory and common, which has evolved over centuries to regulate the relationships involved in marriage, cohabitation, and reproduction. As some poster mentioned, those civil laws mainly determined property rights and paternity concerns, and they were mostly to the benefit of the males who were creating the legislation. As we no longer need laws to determine paternity (we have a much more accurate scientific system now), and as we could easily write a standard nuptial contract valid for the whole nation (instead of the hodge-podge of sometimes conflicting state marriage laws), maybe it is time for this country to grow up and to give up this romantic notion of marriage altogether? Oh, my, but that would put a lot of wedding planners and divorce lawyers out of work, wouldn't it!
Exactly what is the purpose of marriage today in our postmodern American culture? From reading this thread, I get the notion that people see various purposes, mostly providing them with either economic or emotional security, or both. When divorce is so easy, can marriage do that?
Posted by: Elizabeth | May 17, 2008 7:08 PM
This is a good ruling. The majority should not be allowed to violate the rights of the minority. This is the spirit of our Constitution and is repeated throughout the Federalist Papers. Gays are discriminated against and should be allowed to marry. The only possible exception would be if the state legislature passed a law but I think if I was on the Federal court I would declare it Un Consitutional.
If some are wondering why I changed my mind as usual my own words came back to me. I have said time and time again that for me to ensure my rights by violating someone elses rights is wrong. Any law used against a gay person could one day be used agaisnt me as a Christian. I am not better or no worse. Both groups deserve protection to pursue happiness anyway they want as long as it does not hurt anyone else.
Ed I stand corrected on this issue and stand with you in your fight to ensure that gays are treated no different than anyone else in this country. I guess that means that if it takes it I would die to fight for there rights to marry just like anyone else and I do not say this lightly and have come to this conclusion through much thought, and yes, prayer about it. The minority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It is foundational to the Constitution and is a big part of the Federalist Papers.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 17, 2008 7:16 PM
KoI -
I applaud you sir. I understand how difficult it is to actually change one's mind and how much more difficult it is to admit it. Unfortunately, being wrong on a regular basis, I have learned all too well about such changes.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 18, 2008 2:49 PM
Duwayne,
Like I have said many times over the last few years, I do not agree with myself half the time. I wonder if Priya will stop calling me a bigot? I would think the homosexual community would want people on their side even if they do not necesarily agree with the lifestyle of whatever. I would want people on the side of freedom of religion even if they were not religious and even if they thought we were all truly moronic. Just to be clear I am not saying Homosexuals are moronic by saying that or anything close to it.
Anyway, I have not forgotten about your books on evolution you were going to give me. I just got slammed when I went back to teaching. Non stop for 40 days. No time to do anything else. Their teacher died and then the replacement quit. Hard job to go into this time of year but a few of the parents actually thanked me the other day. I will get around to it with the books though. I was also going to ask Henry Neufeld to explain to me why he thinks evolution is true. I will get some time sooner or later to tackle it the right way.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 18, 2008 6:48 PM
KoI -
Jumping into the fray this late in the semester isn't a lot of fun. My old rhythm player is a sub and preferred for long term assignments, so he's done the same thing on several occasions over the years.
Don't worry about emailing me soon, I'm not generally on top of things either. It will happen when it happens. It will also give me time to find a couple of references that might be of use.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 19, 2008 12:26 PM