Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Day 7 preview and more from Mayor Sanders

Press Statements

By Eden James

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization that has funded the legal challenge to Prop 8 in this court case, announced in a press release that the following gentlemen will be taking the stand on Wednesday — Day 7 of the Prop 8 trial:

  • Ryan Kendall, a gay man who will testify about the “conversation therapy” he underwent in his youth and how he has been affected by discrimination
  • Gary M. Segura, Ph.D,Professor of American Politics in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. He will testify about the relative political power of gays and lesbians as a class of citizens, and their level of political vulnerability.

The rest of AFER’s press release is below the fold, including comments by Mayor Jerry Sanders and his lesbian daughter Lisa at the daily post-trial press conference on Tuesday (as well as the YouTubed speech by Sanders shown at the trial on Tuesday). A staunch Republican and conservative, Sanders made this provocative point at the press event about the meaning of equality:

“I think denying marriage equality is just as wrong as telling blacks that they couldn’t use white-only drinking fountains. It’s government action that’s founded in prejudice,” Sanders said to reporters at the courthouse. “The first step towards equality in society is equality under the law.”

Longtime reporter Rex Wockner also attended the Sanders presser and has photos and quotes here.

It’s early morning on the west coast but no matter what time zone you’re in, feel free to use this as an Open Thread to discuss whatever is on your mind in relation to the trial.



Trial on Unconstitutionality of Prop. 8 Begins Day Seven in U.S. District Court;
For latest information, visit

The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will continue Wednesday, January 20 at 8:30 am. The legal team, led by Theodore Olson and David Boies, will continue to illustrate the discrimination and negative impact of the initiative.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights launched the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case and brought together Olson and Boies to lead the litigation.

The court has so far been presented with compelling testimony from gay men and lesbians about the discrimination they have experienced first-hand, in addition to eminent experts from Yale, Cambridge, Harvard, UCLA and other prestigious institutions who have testified to the harm caused by Prop. 8 and the lack of a justification for its denial of fundamental rights, creating a powerful, fact-based record of evidence pointing to the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8.

Testifying today under the direct examination of City Attorney Dennis Herrera was Jerry Sanders, the current Republican Mayor and former Police Chief of the City of San Diego. He spoke about his decision, as Mayor, to support the City of San Diego’s participation in an amicus brief advocating against the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and why he concluded supporting marriage equality was and is in the best interest of local government and the larger community (powerful video of that announcement can be found here:

“If government tolerates discrimination against anyone it is very easy for citizens to do the same thing,” Sanders testified in court.

“I had been prejudiced,” Sanders testified in reference to his previous opposition to marriage equality. “I was saying one group of people did not deserve the same respect, did not deserve the same symbolism of marriage, and I was saying their marriages were less important than those of heterosexuals.”

“I think denying marriage equality is just as wrong as telling blacks that they couldn’t use white-only drinking fountains. It’s government action that’s founded in prejudice,” Sanders said to reporters at the courthouse. “The first step towards equality in society is equality under the law.”

Testifying after Sanders was M.V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who spoke about the harm caused by Prop. 8.

“Prop. 8 has inflicted substantial economic harm on same-sex couples and their children who live here in California,” Badgett testified. “I have the opinion that letting same-sex couples marry would not have any adverse effect on the institution of marriage or on different sex couples.”

Tags: , ,


  • 1. kristin  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    I was really impressed with Sanders' testimony and I think he handled his cross-examination very well. I've been really impressed overall how well the plaintiffs' witnesses have held up under cross-examination. I think our side is doing a great job and presenting a strong case.

    Despite all these good feelings, I'm not allowing myself to be too hopeful. I've been hopeful only to be disappointed too many times in the past.

  • 2. BobbiCW  |  January 19, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    I've got to say I had my doubts about this legal team when their case was first announced, but whether we win or lose it's clear that our side has fantastically well represented.

    I'm so glad that AFER is going to present testimony on "conversion therapy." If it gets wide enough press it might just save some lives.

    This whole trial shows why anti-gay groups/people hate having to go to court against us: Once their arguments see the light of day they appear to be just what they are — petty and mean and just plain not too bright.

  • 3. Rikaishi  |  January 19, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Quick correction:
    “conversation therapy” = “conversion therapy”

    R. Kendall's testimony should prove interesting. Conversion therapy, as most people who visit this site would know, is really getting into one of the "crazy" (not to mention insane, misguided and utterly ridiculous) aspects of the oppositions philosophy.

    I imagine the plaintiffs will also use the opportunity to show that sexuality is highly resistant to change, something they haven't spent a lot of time on yet. Should be fun since the proof is just as evident in those "ex-gays" conducting the therapy as it is in their utter failure to show any results.

  • 4. Ian leland  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    I went on wilipedia and looked up conversion therapy . American psychological association reccomends that ethical practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy or from referring patients to those who do

  • 5. BobbiCW  |  January 19, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    The operative word being "ethical"… 😉

  • 6. David from Sandy UT  |  January 19, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    As a citizen of Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah), I am shocked and appalled that The Salt Lake Tribune has not provided daily coverage of the trial. This proceeding should be above-the-fold front page news in Utardia considering the millions of dollars and uncounted hours of volunteer time donated to the Prop. H8 campaign by members of the Locally Dominant Sect. If you know someone at the Trib (and if you don’t, pick one of the news editors at random), tell that individual to get off their flabby editorial backsides and cover this trial.

    Sandy UT

  • 7. Robyn  |  January 19, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Just wanted to send in a message of support and thank you for your incredible coverage. I'm a Mainer who is still recovering from our recent gay marriage vote and your blog has me glued to my screen. Keep it up!

  • 8. Barb  |  January 19, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    I think the level of disappointment you feel, and the lack of government treating us as equals has been shown quite well in this trial. Throughout my life I have never quite felt fulfilled as a person. This trial and the people I have been reading about certainly makes me feel like I finally have a fight for my own life and livelihood. If anything, it's a step forward towards us feeling the humanity than the heterosexual community have felt throughout their lives.

    Thanks to everyone for their work here, their support and showing us we finally matter.

  • 9. Lance W  |  January 19, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    I wonder when will we have a ruling by Walker…

  • 10. George  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    To suggest that the government's laws on marriage are founded on anti-homosexual prejudice is disingenuous.

    Marriage has always been about men and women procreating and the rights/obligations to the children produced in the marriage. The fact that two homosexuals cannot produce a baby is not prejudice, it's fact.

    What's prejudicial is when a politician changes his views on a subject when he seeks votes and when he finds out that his daughter is a lesbian. That would be changing the law based on personal bias.

  • 11. Josh  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    After what proved to be a very tedious back-and-forth yesterday, I'm really looking forward to today's testimony. Here's hoping both witnesses knock it out of the park!

    I'm more optimistic after every day (and after every time the defense shoots their own foot), but nothing's a certainty yet. In the end, I'm just not sure how much all the personal testimony will matter. To us, it's all very personal and touching and it seems self-evident how damned convincing it all is; but does it mean anything legally? Will it carry any weight at all in reaching a decision?

  • 12. Stephen  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    Marraige was always about procreation?You need some evidence to back up your claims mister.

    Also, how is changing your views to pro-equality prejudice?

  • 13. Barb  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    The only thing I can think of for this whole marriage is about procreation is a fear that opposite sex couples will somehow stop procreating if same sex couples were allowed to marry. The justification is dense at best and makes no sense. I have never known of any test a couple had to take to see if they could procreate before marrying.

  • 14. George  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    As I see it, plaintiffs are throwing everything they can on the wall to see if it sticks; defendants are electing to not object (on the grounds of relevance) to the evidence presented, so that when this thing goes to the Supremes, the matter will be settled for a loooong time with all issues having been considered. Plaintiffs are looking for sympathy; defendants are counting on the conservative Court.

  • 15. Jon Childress  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    Marriage has been about men and women procreating? At what period of time?

    History is riddled with examples of marriages performed for property rights, political clout and recently, kinship, but nothing regarding the ability to bear children.

    Does that mean sterile heterosexual men and women should be barred from "traditional" marriage as well. What about conscientious objectors to procreation?

    If the current gay marriage laws aren't based upon anti-homosexual prejudice, please list what they ARE based upon.

  • 16. Anne  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    oh, I understand Utah not covering it much – at least until the defendants are onstage. But I'm surprised the San Fran Chronicle hasn't done more. Thank goodness for this site!

  • 17. Mike  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    I am admittedly not a fan of most conservative Republicans, who often cloak their ignorance and predjudices in false facts, biblical references or misrepresentations of patriotism and their poorly based beliefs of what the founding fathers meant. Over the years I have lost quite a few so-called friends over discovering what their true poltical/social leanings were. I have to say though that I was deeply moved by Mayor Sanders' press conference remarks. While my partner and I are not certain, after being together for 31 years, that we would actually get married unless it does become recognized in all 50 states, we certainly would demand the option to do so. We both hope that this may indeed be a Rosa Parks moment for the GLBT community.

  • 18. Richard  |  January 19, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    I want to thank all of you involved with the Prop 8 Trial Tracker once again for doing this. I also wanted to let you know that I have created a special folder in my email box just for everything I get about the Prop 8 Trial. I am a writer, and will be contacting everyone involved about putting all o this together in book form and finding a publisher who believes in marriage equality to publish it, with all the funds from the book going to continue the fight for marriage equality and civil rights for all.

  • 19. Callie  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:00 am

    Speaking of "conscientious objectors to procreation," I know of three straight couples who are exactly that. One couple never had an interest in having kids, doesn't really like them unless they're someone else's. Another couple likes the freedom that being childless brings. They can travel and do whatever they want, when they want, and how they want. The other I'd swear that the man is gay, but they're big Christians (Baptists, in fact) and the woman pretty much raised her siblings so she has no interest in doing it anymore in her life. Should their marriages be null and void because they chose not to have children? If it's about procreation and the kids, then if anyone should be getting married it should be me and my partner who have a kid and want another one.

  • 20. Alan E.  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:03 am

    A lot of the opinions on the blog asks why this stuff is being presented when it supposedly doesn't have anything to do with the constitutionality of the prop. The writers probably see through the case, but they sure aren't letting their constituents know about it. It takes more than just the constitutional aspects, so Olsen and Boies have taken it 2 steps further.

  • 21. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:04 am

    That is where you are wrong, George. The plaintifss are putting out the facts. The defendant are saying nothing because they know that they have been brought out of their darkness into the light. This is what the defendants were afraid of. That is why the defendants kept whining until they got their way and kept the trial from being broadcast via tape-delay on YouTube. The fascists who do not want marriage equality for ALL couples over the age of 18 will use any tactic they can to kee the general public in the dark and to continue tospread their fear and hatred of anyone who does not match their ideas of "perfection." Just the way Hitler did when justifying his mass murdering of Jews, Christians, Catholics, the elderly, the mentally challenged and the physically disabled. Do you really want to condone that type of behavior, or do you want to be a real man?

  • 22. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:04 am

    Common sense: Does anyone believe that there would be such thing as marriage but for the fact that men and women create babies? Why would the state care about who couples up with whom without kids? The state's interest comes about when kids are born, because someone needs to take on the rights and obligations with respect to the children. You make the kids, you're responsible for them; and it's ideal for the kids to be raised in a stable environment with the people who created them.

  • 23. Dave  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:07 am

    Hi George,

    Although some have labelled you a "troll", I think it's good to have your contrary view expressed here in the forums and I'd like the thank you for expressing your opinions without stooping to the level of insults & name calling that one usually sees on forums about sensitive issues. Although the discussion got a little heated yesterday, it was nice to see that it was (for the most part) conducted in a civil manner.

    I asked a question yesterday which kind of got lost in the back-and-forth of the discussion, so I'd like to ask it again so we can get a better idea of your views.

    You've talked about the right of the child to know and be raised by the people who created him or her (I'm paraphrasing). If one person has a right, that usually means another person has a duty or an obligation. For example, if you have a right to speak freely, I have a duty not to interfere with your speech (along with everyone else).

    So, if a child has a right to be raised by the people who created him or her, then those people have a duty to raise that child. The parents cannot give the child up for adoption because that would violate the child's rights.

    Is this what you believe? Can you clarify your position on this?

  • 24. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:14 am

    No, George, what Mayor Sanders did is actually called Waking up to see the true effects. ZIt is the same principle behind the American Cancer Society having the Survivors' Lap at every Relay for Life event nationwide. By doing so, you can see the effects not only of cancer itself, but also the effects that awareness brings through increased research, funding , training and improved care. Open your own eyes and be a real man, instead of just a sheep following the herd.

  • 25. Petr Tomeš  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:22 am

  • 26. Petr Tomeš  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:27 am

    Why pro-gay-marriage side wouldn't examine Dr. Herek as an expert plaintiff?

    He is highly competent and relevant to answer questions about conversion therapies, stigma, prejudice, hate crimes and so on.

  • 27. Patrick Regan  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:30 am

    Everyone just ignore George. He keeps beating his "Procreation is the only reason marriage exists" drum. Despite repeated examples of hetero couples who don't have kids, or will never have kids. He seems to think that even the appearance of the possibility to have kids is reason enough to allow heteros who are sterile to get married. His arguement of "common sense" is that everyone thinks of marriage as man+woman. I'll tell you my common sense arguement. Marriage is between two people who love each other.

  • 28. Warren  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:32 am

    George, how about this for common sense. Throughout history men and women have made babies by accident that they didn't want. Once born those children are often abandoned, given up, abused, left to be cared by others. Gay people are often willing and able to give those unwanted children a loving and stable home. the state has an interest in promoting the well-being of those children by ensuring that the couple raising them has every legal protection. To your other point, the evidence presented in this trial has shown that married people have higher incomes, are more likely to own and maintain property, contribute more taxes, have lower rates of substance abuse and a whole host of other social goods that the state has an interest in promoting outside of child rearing. Obviously when a couple produces a baby that baby is best served by having married parents, but to maintain that is the exclusive interest the state has in being in the business of marriage is not only patently false but extremely damaging to society as whole. Your argument is a logical fallacy and provides no sane basis for position. Thus we are left to assume your logic and justification can only stem from your moral disapproval of gay people and your bias against their nature which your consider to be somehow defective. I wish you would just admit that instead of tying yourself up in all these knots. You are entitled to that opinion. this case is asking the question of whether the state can act against its own interest through the legislative process based on that disapproval. As a matter of law it should not be able to though that of course does not mean that the judges who will view the facts will be able to see past their own prejudice.

  • 29. evenevan  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:41 am

    My feeling is that George hasn't been paying attention to the testimony in the case. His position re: marriage for the sole purpose of procreation was clearly and unequivocably disproven early in the trial.

    See that's the problem when you have experts who study marriage for their entire lives…The "common knowledge" that people commonly believe is proven to be uninformed and flat out wrong. Darn those experts! You can just be ignorant when they're around. 😉

  • 30. Jon Childress  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:46 am

    I'm included in that group, as well. I refuse to abandon the freedom that childlessness brings, and will soon guarantee that philosophy surgically.

    I wonder if George wants my ability to marry removed when that occurs, since the inability to procreate will no longer be a choice but a physical characteristic.

  • 31. Jen  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:49 am

    George, let's unpack a few things in this statement:

    1) "Marriage has always been about men and women procreating and the rights/obligations to the children produced in the marriage. The fact that two homosexuals cannot produce a baby is not prejudice, it’s fact."

    The fact is that many, many gays and lesbians have biological children. Does the government have zero interest in providing equal protection to these children simply because their DNA doesn't "belong" to one parent? Why not ban step-parents? Why not prohibit adoption? The facts state very clearly that children of gays and lesbians are just as well adjusted as children of straight people. The state has every reason to legally recognize these relationships for what they are – they are families deserving of equal status. These kids deserve loving parents. Whether they are biological or not doesn't matter.

    2) "What’s prejudicial is when a politician changes his views on a subject when he seeks votes and when he finds out that his daughter is a lesbian. That would be changing the law based on personal bias."

    Mayor Sanders' daughter, Lisa, had been out as a lesbian long before his position on gay marriage evolved. He's on the record for a long time as a supporter domestic partnerships – thinking they were adequate and there was no need for marriage. He realized over time that domestic partnerships are not adequate, that gays and lesbians who are not able to say they are "married" cannot participate in society on an equal footing, that it places an unjust burden, and that separate is not equal. His views in favor of domestic partnerships were based, he says, on prejudice. Sure, his daughter is gay, but so are many members of his staff, and roughly 10% of the overall population. Your statement falsely assumes that his daughter is the only gay person he knows.

  • 32. Joe Lee  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:53 am

    I am impressed with Sander's statement. I do hope that Sander sheds light on all conservatives and show how the LGBT community will not harm anyone if same-sex marriage is legalized. Every Californian needs to recognize that homosexuals, in any given society, are entitled to equal love and happiness the same way heterosexuals live.

  • 33. Linda  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:54 am

    I just paid a visit to the protectmarriage site. Are those people witnessing the same trial? They're recounting of events/testimony starkly differ from the transcriptions I've been reading. Is it common practice for 'that side' to lie to their own supporters? How sad. No wonder they have their comments option turned off.

  • 34. Linda  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:55 am

    should read 'their'…sorry :)

  • 35. Jen  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Can you explain a little more about why you think "defendants are counting on the conservative Court"? Can you explain why this is a "conservative" issue specifically?

  • 36. Cindy  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Do you mean the posts on the blog (I only see one writer)? Comments are off on almost all posts, and on the older posts where comments are on, there are no comments. Do they delete comments, or does no one on their side actually care enough to post?

    It always boggles me why Prop 8 supporters get worked up about the issue of same-sex marriage when it doesn't effect them at all, yet it has a huge negative impact for gays/lesbians.

  • 37. Mykelb  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:57 am

    And thanks to Scott Lively, et. al., Uganda is considering making conversion therapy mandatory for LGBT in their Kill the Gays Bill.

  • 38. Mykelb  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:58 am

    Nothing ethical about Exodus.

  • 39. Michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:00 am

    I am a conservative in Massachusetts, and I fully, 100% support gay marriage in the United States. This is an issue of civil rights, of equal protection, and of liberty. I suspect I wouldn't find many areas of agreement re: politics with folks on this website, but for what it's worth, I am on your side. God bless you all.


  • 40. Patrick Regan  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:04 am

    While I think you may be correct on not agreeing with a ton of politics of many people here, I think you'll find that you are not the only conservative who supports gay marriage.

    That said. Thanks for supporting the right side 😉 You are a conservative who is most welcome here!

  • 41. pepper  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:13 am

    His daughter Lisa is very pretty! :)

  • 42. ron  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Judge Judy has said she gives no weight to those just because they can get pregnant and have a child- the truth is its parenting that gets credit. My mother died in childbirth with me and even though I have her wedding picture on my wall its my Uncle and Aunt who raised me from birth. My Italian grandfather made the decision with his 4 boys to place me with them since they had just lost a child (RH Factor) This was in 1948. They are my mom and dad and even though they are gone now I still love them as such.
    I have learned 1st hand its the love and upbringing that count.

  • 43. Mykelb  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:21 am

    It is quite common for religious people to lie to everyone.

  • 44. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:22 am

    George got this link from NOM folks. Everything he says is right off the darn website. Rational arguments are wasted on someone like him.

  • 45. StaceyB  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:26 am

    Thank you to Rick Jacobs and the Courage Campaign who have brought us this daily coverage. As returning adult learner (I'm 43) first year law student and a bisexual who has been in a long-term partnered relationship for over 13yrs, this entire trial has held my interest from the first day. I currently live in Pennsylvania where we don't even have protections for GLBT employees to keep from getting fired just for being gay! Before my partner and I moved here we lived in Illinois where I volunteered with EQIL (Equality Illinois) to push to get ENDA protections for LGBT workers. Less than a year after having been signed into law, we moved out of state. In other words, we've lived our entire lives scared and angry.

  • 46. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:29 am

    George wrote: Marriage has always been about men and women procreating and the rights/obligations to the children produced in the marriage.

    Except, of course, when it wasn't.

    I am absolutely *confident,* George, that you will read these scholarly articles and appreciate that it your position that marriage has been and always will be one way is incorrect.

  • 47. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Jen –

    1. I think the government's interest with marriage is to protect and promote the union of men and women so that their kids can have the security and benefit of knowing and being raised both parents.

    Does the state have an interest in protecting adopted kids of gay couples? Yes, but the answer is not marriage for gay couples, because that would be promoting the production of children for adoption by gays (I also don't think kids should be produced for adoption by heterosexual couples).

    I don't think that having as good a chance to be "well-adjusted" is a good enough reason to deny children their moms and dads.

    2. As for Sanders, if you want to believe that he is not kow-towing to the gay population to get votes, good on you for your faith in politicians. And if you don't believe the fact that his daughter is a lesbian has any impact on his personal views, well, ok, if you say so.

    And 10%? Please. Kinsey's data was crap. 2%-5% are the more commonly accepted figures.

  • 48. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:30 am

    George wrote: Common sense: Does anyone believe that there would be such thing as marriage but for the fact that men and women create babies?

    Um, no. You're incorrect (again). The primary reason for marriage was to cement contracts between families, with daughters serving as chattel (what amounted to hostages) to make sure that the contract was kept up.

    I wonder, George, whether you have ever cracked a book that *wasn't* the Bible …

  • 49. jm  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:33 am

    I'm a strong and religious conservative in Arizona who knows that I, also, would find little idealogical overlap with most readers here. I note that I apparently have NO overlap with President Obama who has done … what? .. to further the cause of gay rights, much less same-sex marriage during the first year of his presidency.

    That all said, I strongly support same-sex marriage; my gay partner of six years and I were taken aback by the blatantly prejudiced Prop 8 passing as we were planning to be wed in CA in December 08 at his parent's home in NORCAL.

    Finally we decided that while we still had a chance to get married somewhere in the USA, we would marry in MA & did so last Oct.

    Our marriage still, because of DOMA and the refusal of our home states to recognize it, still leaves us little better off than if we didn't have our marriage certificate but have it we DO at least!

    We're *awfully* grateful to and the livebloggers & commentors from all political and spiritual streams for keeping us so well informed.

    Thank you all.

  • 50. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Cindy I watched a debate yesterday that that had Maggie G and our Attorney Boies on the panel. The issue for her/them, from Maggie's mouth to God's ears, is that fact that she is worried that her platform will be damaged. She is working to stop SSM because she is worried that she is going to be in danger of being sued. She is more concerned about protecting her rights to tell all her lies, which she would never be in danger of doing, that she will go to any new depth to protect herself. When she was just talking about everyone just staying married she was broke. When she changed her argument to be against the gays and got all the Faithful involved she became a very wealthy and powerful woman.

  • 51. tom  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Didn't State Senator Buttar's just come out in support of his church new position on equal rights for GLBT? House and employ 'em, just don't let 'em commit violence to marriage policy?

  • 52. Michael Herman  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:43 am

    I remember meeting Rick in a small church (of all places!) in Modesto during a meeting for the Courage Campaign’s Equality Team. There was only 7 of us there around a small, round table. I was actually glad I took the hour and a half to drive there. XD I actually wrote a small speech I was going to give if there was enough people there, but instead I handed it to Rick with my contact info and a few other Constitutional tidbits. Even though a local politician and I were bickering for a little bit about avoiding vs. framing questions, it was an enjoyable roundtable discussion.

    Even though I’m currently in Oregon, I’m still following this case closely, and I deeply appreciate the live blogging of what’s going on. Here’s a copy of the short speech I gave to Rick that night:

    Unlike Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, I stand before you not one of your own, but as an ally. I am here to fill you with hope, courage, determination, and resolve. The law is clear. This cannot go on any further!

    Eleven score and three years ago, our forefathers drafted a document that formed a more perfect union, established justice, ensured domestic tranquility, provided for the common defense, promoted the general welfare, and secured the blessings of liberty. This document, the supreme law of the land, is now threatened by those who wish to disregard the very foundations of this great nation. Time and time again, this document, the Constitution of the United States of America, has defended freedom for the minority against the tyranny of the majority. From the end of slavery to racial discrimination and even gender discrimination, the Constitution has been used to keep freedom alive for all Americans. Today, your freedom is on the line.

    No more must you tolerate being treated as second class citizens. The Constitution is clear! From Articles 4 and 6 to the 1st and 14th Amendments, it is in clear black and white that this discrimination cannot continue. From Chief Justice Marshall, “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” The California Supreme Court was legally bound under Article 6 of the United States Constitution and the ruling of Marbury v. Madison to overturn Proposition 8, and yet completely disregarded the Supreme Law of the Land. The so-called Defense of Marriage Act is in direct violation of Article 4, section 1, which says, “Full Faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,” and yet it is still law. By this alone, Proposition 8 is Constitutionally null and void!

    The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution declares, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Same-sex civil unions are denied equal rights. A gay couple cannot even visit one another in a hospital or make medical decisions for their partner. The rights that the law refuses to grant to homosexuals are the same rights that heterosexuals take for granted. This can go on no more!

    In the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, “The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights — that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system.”

    Brothers and sisters, the time has come! No longer can you remain silent. Speak and be known! Continue to march the streets. Continue to open dialogs, and prove that you are no different from anyone else and you deserve no different treatment. You did not ask nor choose to be this way. You are who you are, and nothing can change that.

    It is time we heterosexuals realize that the people affected by discrimination are our friends and neighbors, even our family members. They co-exist with us, and most of us don’t even know when we meet a gay man or woman. Yet the “law” still treats them as inferior. There are many who think that only gays support gay rights. They are wrong. As I stand here today and speak out against oppression, I prove them wrong. I am here to say, enough is enough! We can no longer continue to use and abuse the right to marry when there are countless Americans denied that same right! I am here to prove that the so-called “Religious Right” is the Religious Wrong! Even President Obama has said America “is not a Christian country, but one of many faiths.” Not every American believes the same way you do! There are many religions in the world, most of which conflict. None can be proven right or wrong, and that’s why it’s called “faith!” Faith should stay in your own heart, and out of the laws of this country.

    Some say that marriage is strictly a religious rite. If that is true, marriage should be removed from law entirely, including heterosexual marriage. But if they would read their bibles entirely, they would realize that it teaches love, acceptance, and brotherhood. It also says that they should follow the word of God and not bother with the governments of Man! These hypocrites only take what they want from the Bible and ignore the rest.

    Some also say that marriage is for procreation. Either these people are blind and deaf, or they refuse to see the countless infants born out of wedlock, and countless wedded couples who are incapable of bearing children. Should these couples be barred the right to marry as well? These paranoid homophobics are looking for any and all excuse to justify their wrong, but it is still wrong. They have the right to disagree, but their right to swing their fists end where another man’s nose begins!

    Go forth and flood your county offices! Demand marriage certificates! They will refuse, but declare your Constitutional rights! You may be arrested, but this is necessary to send a message across the country that your rights have been taken away! Civil disobedience is one of the strongest messages you can send. It has worked in the past, and will work again. If you truly want equality, you must be willing to do whatever it takes. Flood the jails! Send your message loud and clear!

    You are not alone in this fight for freedom. It will be long and hard, but you have allies. In time, you will win this fight. Your freedom cannot be denied forever! Stand up for what’s right, and claim what is rightfully yours! Your courage will be tested, but you must stand your ground. We fight with the truth on our side, and the truth will prevail!

    No more can you stand in the shadows as outcasts. Your day is approaching! No fight for freedom comes either quick or easy, but this battle has been long in the making. Though the course of history, minorities have fought, and died, for their freedom, and through determination and an iron will, they have pulled through. History will hold true, but it cannot happen alone. You must make it happen.

    The time has come!

    (The United States Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, exactly 200 years before my birth.)

  • 53. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:44 am

    Yes the Bible is their Constitution!

  • 54. Eddie Louise  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:44 am

    As a straight person in a 30 year marriage I am flabbergasted at the level of animosity and negativity that the Prop 8 supporters hold toward the concept of marriage itself.

    If they are to be believed – deep abiding love, affection, enjoyment of anothers company and respect are no real part of the marital landscape.

    Instead, marriage is a barren land of responsibility and duty to produce children.

    I hate to tell George and the rest – people get married because they want to formally and publicly express a physical and emotional bond with another person. There may or may not be children involved – but the central couple is pledging their lives to each other. Period.

    How can ANY public declaration of dedication and love be harmful to any other such public declaration.

    The racists used to claim that if interracial marriage was allowed then in time EVERYONE would be in a interracial marriage spelling be the end of the white race. We now view those opinions as the narrow and ridiculous views they are – once though, they were a powerful legal argument.

    Not many couples succeed in staying married 30 years anymore – we have far more divorced friends than we would like. There is one other relationship among our high school friends that has stood the test of time – our gay best friend and his partner of 25 years. They married in the brief window of opportunity allowed before Prop 8's sanctioned hatred. No law, no prejudice, no false religious reason can take away their love and commitment.

    My own adult children cite the long life of my own marriage, my parent's marriage, and our gay friend's marriage as the examples they hope to follow.

  • 55. salspal  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:45 am

    Gays and Lesbians are considered second class citizens because they arent given the rights as everyone else so therefore why do Gays and lesbians still have to pay the same amount of taxes as everyone else who get more freedom and rights, maybe we should pay less taxes and see what everyone else feels about that…

  • 56. ron  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:48 am

    After adding my comments over the past trial days let me introduce myself. I am 61 ,Living in Florida ,long term survivor,always partnered. 1st died from AIDs,14yrs,2nd,17yrs divorced after my taking disibility.Met 9yrs ago and Married 4yrs ago a handsome Canadian. I want to stay at our home here rather than keeping 2nd place in Ontario.Really tough for us. Retiring to central Florida after 32yrs in Miami and Ft Laud. An activist I attended 2 major marches in Wash including 2000 Milenimum. March. Also contributed many friends to the quilt. Act Up, Fight Back! All my friends are gone now. After all those years my phone book is filled with names only memories now.This fight is for us and them. The funny thing is my Birth father is still living,closeish by and Marrying for the 3rd time.I will go to the retirement home on feb 14th(Val Day) By the way he is 86. LUCKY HIM

  • 57. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Hi Dave – (re: comment ~#32)

    Thanks for understanding that I'm not commenting here to be a jerk. I will admit that I do enjoy a good debate, but I'm not modifying my opinions merely for the sake of argument.

    Yes, kids' rights to know and be raised by their genetic parents assumes an obligation on the part of the parents. That's what marriage essentially is; it's the agreement between a mand and a woman and a public proclamation by them to establish those rights.

    I think it's tragic when a child is separated from his parents; but I recognize that sometimes the circumstances are such that there is essentially no choice but to separate them, such as matters of abuse, rape, and other such egregious circumstances. I think that planned pregnancies where children are intended to be separated from one or both of the parents is unfair to the children in the interest of the selfish adopting parents.

    I think that it's in the state's (and children's) interest to encourage better parenting, responsible child bearing decisions, and commitments to marriage by parents. I think laws on no-fault divorces should be repealed or re-assessed to lower the divorce rate.

  • 58. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:50 am

    ::big ol' round of applause::

  • 59. waxr  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:51 am


    Whether a married couple decides to have children or not is none of your, or the government's business. The government should not be involved in the sex lives of married couples.

  • 60. Eugene Barufkin  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:52 am

    Why is the the point that –
    "Equal Rights are Equal Rights for Everyone", not made up front and loud(er)?

    Unmarried opposite sex pairs vs Married, same sex committed vs married, Black vs White and so on.
    Why are the Equal Rights statutes not applied "equally"?

    I have always fought for Equal Rights, period. . . . . .

  • 61. Pete  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Indeed, thanks. This SOOO isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, this is a human issue.

  • 62. Michael Stephenson  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Gay youth pastor here keeping San Ramon Valley United Methodist Church in East Bay SF informed daily by posting links to Trial Tracker..This is awesome!

  • 63. Jaye  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Hardly any major media seem to be covering the trial. It's a shame because I find myself gripped by the live blogging and have been in tears several times. This trial is exposing what I suspect most every gay man and woman goes through living in the United States. Every night after the trial winds down for the day, I ask myself why the anti-gay marriage foes are so adament that we can't be their equals. It just doesn't make sense for any reason other than pure hate.

  • 64. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:05 am

    What about our tax dollars going to support all those programs we are denied equal entry?

  • 65. Brian  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:05 am


    You seem to have the luxury of opinion free of emotional involvement.

    Imagine to yourself for a moment that your own daughter or son comes out as gay… of course if affects you. In point of fact, it wakes you up to the fact that gays and lesbians are no less deserving of every single right and privelege you would accord your own children.

    Your feelings about child-rearing and divorce have little to nothing to do with the specific genders of the parents, as all data thus far has shown.

    Children will be born and put up for adoption. There will be families that will adopt. This is, was, and will be the reality for the forseeable future. This has nothing to do with whether or not the adopting couple is same sex or hetero.

    The fact is you just don't like the idea that marriage (something you value highly) can encompass homosexual relationships (something which revulses you). In essence, for some people like you, if gays can get married then marriage is "tainted." This is called prejudice. End of story. It bugs you to no end, and you will use any rational argument you can to attempt to prevent this.

  • 66. Ozymandias  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:09 am

    George, you keep coming back here and posting the same thing OVER and OVER and OVER. It's apparent that you're not winning anyone to your cause, evidenced by the multiple posts calling you out on your claims and demanding evidence that you NEVER provide… just double-standard after double-standard.

  • 67. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:10 am

    evenevan –

    Nobody disproved the importance of procreation to marriage. What was testified to was that marriage has been chipped away at over the years and that society has done its best to cheapen marriage such that people treat it as a mere contract to get whatever rights the government gives. Others have been led to believe that marriage is only about two people being in love.

    Just because people have misconstrued marriage does not mean should redefine it to accomodate those who have and wish to continue to bastardize it. We need to go in the other direction and restore how society views and treats marriage. Britney Spears' union with the man of the week does not a marriage make, yet this behavior is becoming commonplace.

  • 68. Ozymandias  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:11 am

    "As I see it, plaintiffs are throwing everything they can on the wall to see if it sticks" – seriously, have you even READ the transcripts? It's not the plaintiffs but the DEFENDANTS who are pulling bogus info out of their asses, misrepresenting data, and generally screwing up their own cases… which is good for us. :)

  • 69. Eddie Louise  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:14 am

    OMG! You are the nightmare of the religious right – a GAY Youth Pastor! Ok, so be honest Michael how many kids have you recruited to the cause?

    Because honestly, if you watch the ads and read the propaganda they would expect at least half of your youth group to have 'turned gay' by now!

    Seriously – go United Methodist for being a brave church and defying the restrictive prejudice so prevalent in the religious community. Jesus would be proud!

  • 70. Lisa  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:14 am


    1. I think you are using a non-existent "ideal society" as the reason that gays should not have the right to marry. While it would indeed be nice to live in a society where people make reasonable choices about having children, it is NOT the reality. There are unwanted pregnancies, irresponsible parents and children are born into a family that doesn't want them there. Do you really think it is the best for a child to grow up with his biological parents, who don't want it, instead of living with foster parents who love it? Because this is how I understand your statement. Secondly, as previously mentioned by others, marriage is not necessarily about children.

    2. I don't think Sanders intended to lose his election. Winning over 2-5% of the population meant losing a lot of votes by people opposing gay marriage. In fact, in the beginning of his campaign it had a negative impact. He also
    stated that his daughter being a lesbian did NOT change his opinion on gay marriage at first. It was only later that he realized that domestic partnership was not equal to marriage.

  • 71. Brian  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:15 am

    I think Obama's first year has seen a lot going on… between the "war" on terrorism at this point, the economy going epic fail, the natural disasters… and also he has long pursued health care as a keynote issue.

    I'm not overly surprised that he hasn't had time for LGBT equality. Its a huge issue… but there is only so much that can be tackled at once.

  • 72. Andrea  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Finally, someone else who stayed awake during Civics class!

  • 73. Ozymandias  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:20 am

    Wow. That was… incredible! *applauds while wiping a tear*

  • 74. Jenny  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:25 am

    If marriage is solely about procreation, I guess you think that senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are unable to have kids?

  • 75. Jenny  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Possibly they have to approve comments before they are posted?

  • 76. Katie  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:41 am

    I too am very much looking forward to this. I wonder (hope) that they will bring up the fact that minors have been frequently coerced against their will to attend these torture camps (like the Zach Stark incident, which is not an isolated case as the fundies would have you believe). If you want to show that they're motivated by animus, there's not much worse you can pull out, IMO. Bonus points if they link it back to the irony that the people shrieking about "protecting children" are actively participating in the psychological torture of children. Family values, indeed.

  • 77. Katie  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:45 am

    George, did you not get your butt handed to you enough last time, or something? Back here again with the same bad arguments hoping to persuade a different crop of readers?

    I'll refer you to your previous threads, where others have raised extremely good points, and instead of addressing them you have employed the tried and true fundie tactic of "pretend they never said it and go back to repeating yourself."

    How's the sand today, George? 😉

  • 78. Katie  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:50 am

    //Is it common practice for ‘that side’ to lie to their own supporters? //

    The short answer: Yes.
    The long answer: Hell yes.


  • 79. Katie  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:53 am

    I'm a Libertarian born and raised in South Carolina, and I think that being antigay in any form is fundamentally at odds with conservatism, perhaps even more so than it's fundamentally at odds with liberalism. I think that any conservative who doesn't understand why that's so probably has no idea what being conservative actually *means*. Of course, this describes the vast majority of conservatives in power at this point, sadly enough, so I guess they're not alone.

    It's people like George who make me ashamed to call myself a conservative, and who make me spend my time apologizing on behalf of "conservatives" like him.

  • 80. Jay  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:56 am

    I would like you to know, sir, that you have made me cry.

    Thank you.

  • 81. Michael Adrian  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:58 am

    I'd just like to say I'm glad George's comments are here for everyone to read and discuss. Unlike over at the NOM blog where I have repeatedly commented on posts that were summarily deleted/moderate away.

  • 82. Katie  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:00 am

    I sure hope his recruitees got their free toaster, since all of us who follow The Gay Agenda know that that's this month's free gift for converting to The Gays. I'm holding out for next month's, personally. I could sure use a new vacuum cleaner.

    Also, that is awesome, Michael, and I love it when people challenge the Religious Wrong's view of The Gays. Particularly the child-hating part.

    Sincerely, a South Carolina transplant Gay Rights Activist (TM) proudly serving as the fundies' worst nightmare south of the mason-dixon line. :)

  • 83. Michael Stephenson  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:00 am

    LOL…we teach the youth to be inclusive here. There are gay kids here and I think they feel great that they're accepted in this environment

  • 84. Katie  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:07 am

    George RE your latest "argument":

    I missed the part of our constitution where adoption is ILLEGAL, or where we LEGALLY force birthparents to raise children that they cannot or do not wish to raise.

    You are entitled to your (IMO, crazy, and I bet I've been around more children, adopted or otherwise, than you have) opinion. What you are NOT entitled to do is to make your opinion law and force it on everyone else. You have given no evidence that anything you speak of is mandated by law — or that there is precedent for such — and thus your crazy must, thankfully, remain only your opinion, and not law.

    If you don't believe in adoption, don't adopt. If you don't want a childless marriage, don't have a childless marriage. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't marry someone of the same sex.

    See how easy that was?

  • 85. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:12 am

    Lisa –

    Our government makes decisions on the basis of ideals; we shouldn't change the laws because the ideal cannot be achieved or because people behave badly.

    We outlaw murder, yet people still commit murder, so we should dispense with laws against murder because the REALITY is that people kill other people? Of course not.

  • 86. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:17 am

    George wrote: What was testified to was that marriage has been chipped away at over the years and that society has done its best to cheapen marriage such that people treat it as a mere contract to get whatever rights the government gives.

    Hooray! George has brought up my favorite "argument." Please, George, since you told me yesterday that I was just too dumb to understand your argument, how it is that gay couples marrying "cheapens the institution." I have asked many people to explain this particular bumper sticker to me, and no one has had a response.

    I know I'm just a dumb ol' childfree straight married gal and all (which probably cheapens the institution of marriage to you as well), but I'm sure a man of your incredible intellect can help little ol' me understand. Please don't hit me; I'm on my way to make you a nice martini now.

  • 87. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:18 am

    Katie, do you have a copy of The Gay Agenda(TM)? 'Cause I don't have one. I'm wondering if you can pass it along; I could use a free toaster. :-)

  • 88. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:21 am

    I would encourage the good people of tis board to IGNORE the troll we have come to know as 'George.'

    He is not here to offer ANYTHING constructive to our conversation. He is simply trying to bait you into quibbling with him until you concede to HIS specific definition of what marriage is for.

    One would think that with all of his brilliance and audacity he would have something more challenging and productive to do than to visit this website in an attempt to cause further personal pain to a part of society who has accepted far too much pain from the 'Georges' of this world already.

    Seriously, George. Enough already.



    And to the web-master, why can't you simply block the IP addresses of those who come here to abuse and degrade rather than support and uplift???

    If George is truly intent on debating the merits of this case, I would welcome him. But he is not. He simply wants to push his immoral views onto the people he is abusing.

    So really, George. Enough.


    There are MILLIONS of web sites on this issue that you can visit where your views will make you a SUPERSTAR, brah.

    This web site ain't one of them.

    Good day, sir.

  • 89. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:22 am

    George wrote: Our government makes decisions on the basis of ideals; we shouldn’t change the laws because the ideal cannot be achieved or because people behave badly.

    We outlaw murder, yet people still commit murder, so we should dispense with laws against murder because the REALITY is that people kill other people? Of course not.

    Um, no. We write laws on the basis of protecting rights. Murder is unlawful because it violates the rights of the *victim.*

    And please don't tell me that your right to a "traditional marriage" is harmed by gay couples marrying; that dog won't hunt.

  • 90. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:24 am

    I would add one caveat, though. There may well be people reading here (and not commenting) who are unaware of *why* George's position is incorrect. That's one of the reasons I question him, and why I put up facts that contradict him.

    Those people are the ones we can reach with information.

    You're right. George isn't going to change hearts and minds with his badgering. But there may be someone out there who can be swayed with reason and information … and those are the people who need to know why George is all wet.

  • 91. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:25 am

    waxr –

    When people have sex with the possibility of having children (who might become burdens to the state or who might be harmed and need state protection) or transmitting disease (where the state might have to provide health coverage), it's the government's business and my (as a tax payer) business.

  • 92. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:26 am

    If by 'lie' you mean to deceive people by using fear, false information, disobey campaign laws, involve their churches in politics and try to destroy innocent people's lives…

    Then yes.

  • 93. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:33 am

    michael –

    re: Maggie G's "telling her lies," you mean that she wants to preserve her right to freedom of speech, don't you? Why do you have to twist it that way?

  • 94. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:37 am

    George wrote: e: Maggie G’s “telling her lies,” you mean that she wants to preserve her right to freedom of speech, don’t you? Why do you have to twist it that way?

    Has anyone dragged Maggie G. away for expressing her opinion? No? Then her right to free speech is preserved.

    Freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from criticism, George. Just a thought.

  • 95. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:39 am

    Aren't we required to report you to children's services, Michael?

    Or directly to Anita Bryant or Carrie Prejean?

    Oops. My bad.

    I forgot, Maggie Gallagher is assigned to all of the gay-witch youth pastor trials these days.

  • 96. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:42 am

    George's heart and mind are both planted firmly up his ass.

  • 97. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:43 am

    "Has anyone dragged Maggie G. away for expressing her opinion?"

    John Deere is still building the tractor that would allow that.

  • 98. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:44 am

    Thanks for telling me what laws are for, fiona; I'll have to revisit my law school texts and brush up on what legal rights are….

  • 99. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:47 am

    This is the internet, George. You can make any claims that you so desire. I guess you're trying to tell me you're a lawyer?

    Hooray! I'm an astronaut, a movie star, and the Queen of Sheba.

  • 100. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:03 am

    This is what I am talking about, folks.

    George has nothing to offer here. He has nothing to teach. He has nothing to learn.

    What George IS, however, is a perfect example of the type of human being we are up against.

    He, in the way he alone presents himself, is the type of human being that believes that his genitalia and the genitalia of a mis-matched partner somehow define a family. And that the genitalia of another's beloved is reason enough to deny families legal protections.

    That's pretty sad.

    For George.

    No can we PLEASE stop feeding this troll.

  • 101. Jen  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Hi jm! Glad you are here.

    I'm hoping you can help me out with something. Many conservatives (present company excluded) seem to think that gay marriage is an anathema to conservatism. Can you help explain why this might be the case, b/c other "conservative" commentators here don't seem to want to take up the issue in any detail or with any rigor.

  • 102. george  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Bill, et al:

    Just for the record, I've been civil and respectful to everyone on this blog, except for fiona, because she's a knucklehead.

    And as for genitalia, I think penises are designed to go in vaginas and make babies for the penis and vagina owners to nurture and raise.

    I don't care how other people use their genitalia; however, if you and your partner have a matching pair, you shouldn't be surprised that you can't make a baby, and so don't qualify for the institution that provides for kids to know and be raised by the parents who conceived them. It doesn't mean you should be deprived of the rights that the government gives to such couples; it just means that you get them under the construct that recognizes unions unrelated to procreation: "civil union."

  • 103. Cy Guy  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:43 am

    "B: Does Catholic Church have a view of homosexuality outside of the priesthood?"

    I know that is likely not a verbatim transcription, but I still find it pretty funny.

  • 104. rpx  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:48 am

    See no one wants to engage you lest you try to grab the podium. They don't to dignify our stupid words by a response. i feel scrappy tonight so I'll respond. Sooo with that in mind, senior citizens who will not be "procreating" should not be ,permitted to marry, right? Likewise persons who are handicapped and unable to create children, they should also be denied the right to marry the person of their choice, right? Isn't that right?

    The rights of my grandchildren being raised by two loving mothers are being stifled. My grandchildren deserve the same exact right as their peers to be raised by a couple who are married. Don't'even bother to post you are on the wrong side of righteousness .

  • 105. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:09 am

    @ 101. george | January 20, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Clearly you do care about people's genitalia.

    A lot.

    For if I had a vagina instead of a penis, you would have no issue with my marriage.

    Mostly, you have made me eternally thankful to have had the good fortune of being born gay.

    The alternative would simply be unacceptable.

    Still think you're a freakin' SUPERSTAR though, dude. A freakin' S-U-P-E-R-S-T-A-R.

    Thanks for reminding all of us here of the type of individual we never wish to be.

  • 106. rpx  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Thank you for sharing.

  • 107. Lisa  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:19 am


    that was my point precisely. Instead of dealing with the reality of children being raised by non-biological parents, be they straight or gay, and supporting them, you want to remove their rights and rather put the child with the biological parents, who don't want it/are unfit to raise it.

  • 108. Alice  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:44 am

    It's very heartening to see that people from so many different points on the political spectrum are united over this. I'm sure many others besides me are grateful for your support. :)

  • 109. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:48 am

    George wrote: Just for the record, I’ve been civil and respectful to everyone on this blog, except for fiona, because she’s a knucklehead.

    Apparently, on Planet George, "knucklehead" means anyone who can point out the fallacies in his argument with scary things like facts and logic.

    George, if I've made you that angry, I can only conclude that I have done something right.

    How's the sand today?

  • 110. George  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Bill –

    For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with your marriage, per se. Or any gay couple's marriage on the micro level.

    We don't live in a vaccuum and changes to institutions have big ramifications. No-fault divorces were thought to be a good idea: how could we expect people to live in a bad marriage; and wouldn't the kids be better off in an environment without conflict? And what do we get? A huge divorce rate, countless kids in single-parent households, more families on public assistance, children born to unmarried couples in an unstable environment, and a new perspective on families: it's ok to intentionally deprive kids of their genetic mothers and/or fathers (because look how great all the children of divorce are doing and look how great all the single moms in the inner cities are doing….).

    Gay marriage will erase the link of procreation to marriage, continuing the degradation of a great institution to virtual meaninglessness.

  • 111. Randy C  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:07 am

    It's apparent that George is lonely and needs lots of attention. I'll bet hewas the only child of a straight couple where his parents made him feel that every word out of his mouth was THE WORD. Now he's obviously using those words for his sole entertainment because he's so sad and lonely and needs someone to pay attention to him again.

  • 112. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:25 am


    Thanks for clarifying.

  • 113. Tim  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Jaye, My thoughts exactly. Just what do they get out of treating us as second class citizens? WHAT do they get out of it? Would they really feel good about themselves? SHAMEFULL!

  • 114. Tim  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:00 am

    George WHY! do you keep going on and on about the procreation crap?? The purpose of Marriage is NOT for procreation.I know many married heterosexual couples that have NO desire to procreate! Thay can and dont want to. If that is the only argument you base you opinions on, find another one! If you were to be correct no one would be allowed to marry until they were pregnant. I know that I'm not going to change your mind but MY GOD!!

  • 115. Tim  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    George said "I think that planned pregnancies where children are intended to be separated from one or both of the parents is unfair to the children in the interest of the selfish adopting parents".
    George, I must say I agree with you 100% on this one!
    At the same time I ( a 44 year old gay man) fails to see how my marriage to my 45 year old husband ( who does not want children) effects anyone but US.
    I think It comes down to " AS AN AMERICAN " I deserve the same rights and responsibilities as you! Reguardless of your ideas or NOM's ideas on procreation. As a lawer (as you hinted earlier), you should understand that you are fighting a loosing battle.History has taught us this.
    P.S I love being married to the love of my life, here in Ca. even after the Mormon proposition passed.

  • 116. george  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Tim (if you're still there) –

    If we're looking to history, we see where acceptance of homosexuality has come and gone away. What history teaches us is that we often fail to learn from history. So, we'll go through this liberal era until all the flower children from the 60s die off and a more conservative environment returns. Ronald Reagan is not that long ago.

  • 117. Dorothy  |  July 23, 2011 at 10:43 am

    I love reading these aitcrles because they’re short but informative.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!