Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Prop. 8 Closing Argument: Part 3

Liveblogging

By Rick Jacobs

The judge just entered the room. We were told to remain seated.

J: Mr. Cooper, good afternoon.

Cooper: May it please the court. The NY Court of Appeals ruled that until recently it was an accepted truth that marriage could only be between heteros. When Mass had SS marriage, the court noted it was new. Why has marriage been defined the same for so long? The purpose of marriage is to channel potentially procreative relationships into a union with a man and woman so that children would be raised by two hetero parents.

Olson quoted from Maynard case which in next sentence said that the contracts law does not apply to states becasue marriage alone takes more of an institution for the benefit of the community. Uniquely imbued for the public benefit?

J: Do people get married to benefit the community?

C: Your honor…

J: When people get married, they don’t say, “oh boy, i can benefit society.” (Laughter) They say they are marrying to be with their life partner.

C: Maynard says its for social policy and for the interests of the community. Individuals don’t get married to benefit the community, but it’s the result.

J: Why does the state regulate? Why not leave it to private contract?

C: The marital relationship is fundamental to the survival of the race. Without the marital relationship, society would come to an end.

J: Why couldn’t state say marriage is a private contract. We’re not going to set down the rights. We’ll simply say you entered into a contract and we’ll enforce that contract just like any other private contract. What is the purpose of marriage?

C: It could, but why does virtually every state regulate this relationship? It’s crucial to the public interest. The procreative public relationship is a benefit and represents a threat.

J: Why does the state regulate marriage?

C: The marital relationship is fundamental to the existence and survival of the race. Without the marital relationship society would come to an end. 

J: Why couldn’t the state say that marriage is entirely a contract right? Why is it that marriage has such a large public role? What is the purpose?

C: The state regulates because this relationship is crucial to the public interest because of procreation. To whatever extent, children are born into the world without this stable (hetero) marital union, a host of very negative social implications and consequences arise. “Marriage is a license to cohabitate and produce legitimate children.”

Walker interrupts: But the state does not insist that spouses procreate?

The defense essentially admitted that procreation isn’t a necessary requirement for marriage.

J: Then the state must have some interest separate from procreation?

The defense attorney struggles to respond to this question and attempts to make a distinction between procreative relationships and all potential-procreative relationships. He goes on to argue that the simple fact that all societies and all states haven’t required procreation in no way eliminates the procreative purpose of marriage, nor does it detract from it.

He continues by posing a hypothetical question to Judge Walker: How would a society that wanted to insist on procreation, how would it go about administering such a requirement? He answers his question by saying that first there would have to be premarital fertility testing and perhaps a pledge to procreate down the line. (He was trying to make the point that such testing would be invasive – I think – but didn’t quite get there before Judge Walker continued to question him).

Judge Walker responded essentially, that if procreation was a requirement for marriage then the fertility testing/pledge that he outlined would seem appropriate.

[UPDATE] 1:23

It is Orwellian. If that is the premise for marriage, is that a proper one?

C: Is that irrational unless it insists on procreation? Is it enough that the state and society attempts to insure and increase the likelihood that naturally procreative sexual relationships will take place in stable family environments for the sake of raising children so that society itself does not have to steep in so that society does not run the risk of all of the social consequences of unwed mothers and the like.

J: If the purpose of marriage laws is for sexual relationships, there is a far more narrow way to regulate than the marriage laws.

C: Your honor, that is true, but there is a far more regulative view.

J: Parental responsibilities do not have to do with how child came into world. They extend to adopted children, in-laws, grandparents who are not in any way involved in the creation of the human being.

C: With respect to adoptive parents, it does create rights and responsibilities in their adoptive parents that are the natural results of procreation?

[UPDATE] 1:33

C: The state still has an interest in that child. The state must take responsibility for the upbringing of that child. Whether it’s extraordinary measures and the state has to take full responsibility or when the child has the bulk of the situation where this arises, the mother is still alive, but the mother and father does not have the same ability as a marital unit. (I have no clue what he’s talking about, honestly.)

C: You put your finger on the key. The state still has an interest in that child.

J: What does the evidence in this trial say?

C: What the evidence shows is that eminent sociologists…

J: What was the witness, what was the testimony? (Makes

C: The relationship of parent and child is that by which infant is protected. Justice Stevens says in his Bowers dissent that marriage is a license to …raise children.

J: Blackstone and Davis did not testify. What is the evidence in this case?

C: Your honor, Mr. Blankenhorn brought this evidence before you. You don’t have to have evidence for this. The cases bring it forth in one court after another.

J: You don’t have to have evidence? (Incredulously)

C: It’s in the cases. CA Supreme Court says institution of marriage serves the public interest because it channels biological drives for care of children. That’s the purpose of marriage in this state. Less than two years ago, the CA appeals court, said that civil society has a deep and abiding interest in child rearing. Government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children (refers to DOMA). Most courts have upheld the traditional definition of marriage because upholding the provision of the people of Nebraska (8th Circuit in 2006) because state’s interest is in conferring marriage on opposite sex couples who can have children by accident whereas ss couples cannot.

[UPDATE 1:38]

C: About 2/3 of judges have upheld this. The plaintiffs say THERE IS NO WAY WHY ANYONE would uphold the traditional definition of marriage except by some dark animus or bigotry. That is just not a slur on 7 mm Californians who supported Prop. 8 and a slur on 70 of 80 (?) judges who have ruled to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Denies the will of state legislature after state legislature and judges.

J: If you had 7 mm people, why did you only have one witness and it’s fair to say that his testimony was unequivocal.

C: Not on this one. His testimony was unnecessary.

J: This goes back to your “you don’t need any evidence.”

C: Go to your chambers and look at any book and you will find unequivocal evidence that procration is the reason for marriage unless it was written by one for their experts or in the last 30 yesars. You will not find anywhere in the pages of history any suggestion that the traditional definition of marriage, ubiquitous in history had anything to do with homosexuality. People’s values with respect to homosexual conduct was never in the conversation until the movement for ss marrige?

J: What should I conclude from that?

C: Stammers, that at least a important mission of marriage is to channel the procreation of men and women into stable family units through marriage so that the children—to improve the likelihood that children will be raised that way.

J; What has changed in the last 30 years?

C: The changes haven’t.

J: But you pointed out that there is a body of opinion, point of view, that now views marriage as an option for homos. That has dev in last thirty years. Why has that changed?

[UPDATE 1:43]

C: It has become a desire of homosexuals to marry. (Maggie of NOM is sitting barefoot in the court).

J: Doesn’t that show a change in the minds of many on marriage?

C: Yes.

J: Doesn’t that affect the role of the state in the regulation of the institution of marriage?

C: Yes, it is being reexamined. Given the political process, this issue goes more to the morals and this issues is being debated in the political process. Goes to Maynard case. Leg process must grapple. Real issue for you is has something happened with respect to legit purposes of marriage to make the historic consistent and ubiquitous procreative reasons for marriage no longer constitutional?

[NOTE] This thread was getting a little long, so we switched over to a new one.


Three things you can do right now to help us get the truth out about the Prop 8 trial:

  1. “Like” us on Facebook: facebook.com/EqualityOnTrial and facebook.com/CourageCampaign
  2. Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial and @CourageCampaign
  3. Chip in what you can today at couragecampaign.org/TrialTracker

Tags: ,

178 Comments

  • 1. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:13 am

    "C: The marital relationship is fundamental to the survival of the race. Without the marital relationship, society would come to an end."

    Tell that to all the unwed mothers out there!

  • 2. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:13 am

    me first!!!!…lol

  • 3. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:14 am

    noooooooooo LLB….

  • 4. Amy  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Seriously? Procreation? That's what they're using? Oh Please!

  • 5. Patrick Regan  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:14 am

    I'm really tired of the marriage == pro-creative institution. It's a worn down argument that has no merit

  • 6. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Sorry Ronnie, I really thought you were going to be first.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:18 am

    I wonder how Walker keeps a straight face when some of this stuff is said out loud. :)

  • 8. Kim  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Ah gosh, you want another lollipop?

  • 9. Scottie  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:19 am

    C: The marital relationship is fundamental to the survival of the race

    That is disturbing considering there was a ban on interracial marriages til almost the '70s. That's getting awfully close to a eugenics argument where only the strong, clean races survive.

    And besides, if gay people marry a heterosexual partner how would that help the race survive anyway? And how will it lead to productive societal benefits instead of, say, mental disorders?

  • 10. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Actually, I love it. If that is their trump card, it's over for them. Claiming that society will end if anyone other than married heterosexuals have babies is NOT going to fly.

    They're hinging everything on a slim chance that people will buy this under rational scrutiny and that making sure parents are married is enough to justify discrimination.

  • 11. Amy  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Great argument, Scottie!

  • 12. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:20 am

    It's like they think straight people will flat-out stop having children if gay men and lesbians marry their same-sex partners.

    Hell, the creepy damn Duggars are doing enough breeding for *everyone,* LOL.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 13. Jim  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:21 am

    Tell that procreation nonsense to all the 80 year olds getting married. Do the proponents really believe that if you couldn't get married, people would stop having children?

  • 14. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:21 am

    But … Scottie, don't you know? Who cares if you're suicidal and miserable in a marriage with someone to whom you are not attracted? Just get busy and make them babies!

    "Bubba's condom done busted" is apparently good enough for these idiots …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 15. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:22 am

    One of the first things they teach you in law school is how to stoneface. At least that is what a friend of mine told me when he was attending WVU Law School in Morgantown.

  • 16. JC  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:23 am

    Latest favorite comment. This one from Kate Kendall over at NCLR: "

    "New drinking game: a shot for every time Coop says "procreation" or "procreative"

  • 17. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:23 am

    Right, like they are ALL going to stop having sex!

    HA HA!

  • 18. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:23 am

    Anyone else remember our troll, Mark? I knew him from the SacBee. He told me that my marriage should be judicially annulled as "fraudulent to the state" since I had my tubes tied and am childfree.

    Yep, there really are whackjobs out there who believe that not only is marriage solely for makin' babies, but that it should be *mandatory.*

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 19. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:24 am

    God, we're all gonna be under the table before it's even 1:30 in the afternoon.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 20. Patrick Regan  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:24 am

    I can't get that drunk today.

  • 21. Glenn Jeffries  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Procreation?!?! That's their argument? According to my bible, Mary wasn't married when she got knocked up by God. I'm really shocked they don't just stand up, look at the Judge and be like "We got nothing"

  • 22. cc  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:24 am

    So indeed they are hoping the LGBT society will come to an end.

  • 23. Bill  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:24 am

    But wouldn't HETEROSEXUALS have to follow that themselves in order for it to even pass RATIONAL scrutiny? Does that not hold LGTB citizens to a standard that heterosexuals do not even hold THEMSELVES to???

    If 60% of children born in the U.S. are born to single mothers, which they are, then heterosexuals are basically saying WE can play marriage however we want to, but we will hold our LGTB children to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.

    That can not pass even liberal scrutiny.

    The only requirement for a heterosexual to marry is 18 year old, unrelated, mismatched genitalia. Perhaps they should hold THEMSELVES to a higher standard for holy matrimony besides an 18 year old penis and vagina.

  • 24. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Their point is that non-fertile heterosexual couples inspire fertile ones to marry by setting the norm, guaranteeing they'll rush to the altar and then have babies.

    Because "Grandma just got married" leads automatically to "Wow, that's hot! Let's make a baby, too!"

    Ick.

  • 25. Scotty San Diego  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Sarah Palins family proves you don't have to marry to procreate! Can she please testify?

  • 26. Mouse  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:25 am

    That sounds as deadly as drinking every time Robin Scherbatsky says "But, um."

  • 27. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Can I use pure hot coffee for the shots instead of liquor?

  • 28. Anne  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:27 am

    reading the updates on AFER … these prop 8 people make no sense!

  • 29. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:28 am

    They are playing that came called "Honor and Saving Face." That is why they are unable to do what would truly be honorable and shake the hands of the legal team of Olson, Boies, et al. and say, "You guys are right, and you have the valid argument."

  • 30. Michael  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:28 am

    These marital relationship arguments sound like some right wing politicians campaign speech, not a legal argument. Amateur time. It as if the defendents don't understand they are in a court of law.

  • 31. Trevor  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:29 am

    How can someone legitimately trying to defend their point say something so ridiculous with a straight face. Seriously. Does this guy hope that no one will see the fallacy in the "survival of race" argument. Hmmm gays and lesbians make up, what, 2% of the population? Leaving the other 98% to marry and do as they've always done. His argument would theoretically be applicable if there was a motion to make EVERYONE marry someone of the same sex. Set that aside, what about gays getting married and not having children differs from gays not getting married and not procreating children since this guy clearly isn't counting adoption. It's a moot point. If we're to take his argument seriously, that means that the human race is already in decline because gays and lesbians have never been producing children, married or not and we're all f*ucked. Seriously man, get your stuff together. Actually, I take that back, the sloppier you are, the better it is for us.

  • 32. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:29 am

    But, Glenn … Mary's father managed to find an old man who was willing to marry her and raise someone else's child. It's all good then.

    (Richard, I need your or BZ to give me the exact word, but IIRC the Hebrew for "virgin" and "unmarried woman" is the same. There is a different word for "wife" or "widow." An "unmarried woman" was *assumed* to be a "virgin," whether she was or not, hence no differentiation in terminology.)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 33. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I think they want us in their gene pook to make their better race. Historically, don't homosexuals move up to a higher education level? Wasn't something like that brought up.

  • 34. JC  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:29 am

    Snap!! Great observation.

  • 35. Patrick Regan  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Hahah, read from FDL at: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/06/16/prop

    Cooper says they don't have to have evidence.

    hahahahahahaha

  • 36. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Stick a fork in him.

    The judge just pointed out that if the whole point of marriage was procreation, essentially the government should grant a learner's permit and only grant full marriage rights after the first child is born.

    Cooper either missed it or deliberately dodged it but his primary point just went up in flames. His response? Essentially, "How could you do that? Nobody really thinks that's how marriage works!"

    All he has left is tradition and the unsupportable claim that marriage has never changed.

  • 37. K!r!lleXXI  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Subscribing

  • 38. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:31 am

    But then they ignore what happens at weddings like Lora's. One of her straight friends left Lora's wedding with a renewed commitment to her own marriage. But then, the Prop h8 side has never been too good with that little thing called logic.
    Lora, I hope you are on here today.

  • 39. JC  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Did Cooper just say, in essence, "We don't need no stinkin' evidence?"

  • 40. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:32 am

    To say nothing of providing a splendid argument against "abstinence education."

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 41. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:32 am

    I am texting BZ now.Will post it when I get the answer.

  • 42. BobnFred  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:32 am

    We read their written responses to the questions and they're hanging everything, absolutely everything, on the purpose of marriage being solely for procreation. Their arguments are delightfully lame.

  • 43. James Sweet  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:33 am

    The marital relationship is fundamental to the survival of the race. Without the marital relationship, society would come to an end.

    Wait wait wait wait wait… he's arguing that if marriage is abolished, people will stop fucking????

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

  • 44. Patrick Regan  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:33 am

    indeed. that's what I "heard' too.

  • 45. Kathleen  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Or my favorite game… how many times Cooper's arguments more effectively prove Plaintiff's case than that of his own clients.

  • 46. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Oh noez, we haven't reached SEVEN BILLION people on the planet yet! It'll be like Children of Men!

    Please, Judge Walker, put the hammer down on these clowns.

  • 47. New  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:36 am

    “C: The marital relationship is fundamental to the survival of the race. Without the marital relationship, society would come to an end.”
    I almost heard "there's a STORM coming."

    oh dear

  • 48. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:38 am

    state’s interest is in conferring marriage on opposite sex couples who can have children by accident whereas ss couples cannot.

    "Your honor, I fell on that turkey baster. I have no idea where the sperm in it came from!"

  • 49. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:38 am

    And I am afraid….they are about to lose big time.

  • 50. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Richard, exactly.

    Jeff and I went to a lesbian friend's wedding, and it was beautiful. We were thrilled to be invited, and still have the lovely invitation on our fridge. It says "We will be married in the eyes of God and our friends, if not the eyes of the law."

    Every once in a while, Jeff says something like "Well, it's been X amount of time since Kris and Marjorie's wedding and the sky hasn't fallen, people haven't stopped having kids, and no frogs have fallen from the sky. I guess the Prop 8 folks were wrong."

    Jeff has never gone to a rally or event with me, although he is a huge supporter of the cause. He figures that only one of us at a time can risk arrest for civil disobedience. ;->

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 51. Kathleen  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Anecdotal evidence from some married people seems to support the notion that it's marriage that discourages sex. :)

  • 52. Bill  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Indeed he did.

    No evidence needed, since it's 'just the gays' that they are trying to destroy.

    Seriously folks, these bigots NEVER thought they would see this day. The day the the LGTB community would get a fair shake at having a normal life free from the legal abuse of the heterosexuals who created them to begin with.

    To them, this is Armageddon-like. They TRULY believe that we are bad people. And that god thinks that it is important for them to judge and abuse us. They never thought this day would come. This shakes them to their very core. For what bonds most religious folks to one another is their hatred of their gay kids. Ya know, just like Jesus told them to…

  • 53. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Unless I miss my guess, the subtext of the procreation argument: women should be barefoot and pregnant, and definitely not in a position of political power.

    Freaking fundamentalists. It's 2010. We have secular laws in this country. And by the way, the universe is not 6,000 years old and evolution is real.

    Ahh, that felt better.

  • 54. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:40 am

    ROFLOL … there is more truth to that than most unmarried people know.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 55. Straight Grandmother  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Sounds good to me. I have a shaker of Cosmopolitans chilling in the freezer, it is 10pm by me. Honest to God this is all they have, "procreation" The emporer has no clothes.

  • 56. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Bill, I wish Olsen and Boies were reading this…that blows their theory of procreation right out of the water.

  • 57. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:42 am

    I don't think you were on yesterday when I wrote "Bubba's condom done busted in the back of the Buick" …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 58. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Yeah, tell that to every 15-year-old who has gotten caught with his pants around his ankles. LOL!!!

  • 59. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Right, because the state should favor things that happen accidentally! QED!

    As I say often of creationists, these people would be hilarious if they didn't have political power.

  • 60. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Jesus's mom wasn't married when she got pregnant.

    Just sayin'.

  • 61. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:45 am

    C: Go to your chambers and look at any book and you will find unequivocal evidence that procration is the reason for marriage unless it was written by one for their experts or in the last 30 yesars. You will not find anywhere in the pages of history any suggestion that the traditional definition of marriage, ubiquitous in history had anything to do with homosexuality. People’s values with respect to homosexual conduct was never in the conversation until the movement for ss marrige?

    Wow. Too bad Coop has never been to crackafrigginbook.com himself, or he would know about the Adelphopoiia Rite. It was used during medieval times to marry two *men* to one another.
    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html

    "Any book, unless it's written by one of their experts or in the last 30 years" my Aunt Fanny …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 62. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:45 am

    That's how straight people get pregnant by accident. Pointing out that gay people can, too. Especially using the standards of logic the D-I are using!

  • 63. Steve V  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:46 am

    "You don’t have to have evidence for this."

    …Stick a fork in this guy, he's done.

  • 64. Andrew_WA  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:46 am

    This is a very interesting read… I keep reloading my pages to read the absolute floundering of Cooper to present his religious based views in a non-religious way.

    Truly captivating. I kinda feel bad for the guy. He is like a broken record continually stuck on… "because it is alwyas been that way…. because it has always been that way… I don't need evidence… because it has always been that way…."

  • 65. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Especially when the little one is waking you up every two hours all night long because he or she is hungry. I love children, but it is better once they are sleeping through the night.

  • 66. Andrew_WA  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Oh –

    Love,
    Andrew

  • 67. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Remember, SA3008, homophobia is rooted in misogyny.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 68. James Sweet  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Go to your chambers and look at any book…

    Methinks that Cooper might need a little refresher on this whole "presenting evidence" thing.

    "Why do I say my client is innocent? Your honor, why don't you just go to the crime scene and check it out for yourself! Duh!"

  • 69. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:47 am

    (Maggie of NOM is sitting barefoot in the court).

    Ewe..just ewe…I was eating lunch rick!

  • 70. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:47 am

    The Joy of Gay Sex was written in 1977.

  • 71. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Not even his crown.

  • 72. nightshayde  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Well — if SS marriage is re-legalized, my husband and I certainly will NOT be having any more children.



    Of course, if Prop8 remains the law of the land, we will not be having any more children.

    In other words, we are not having any more children. Why would our decision be impacted one way or the other by what any loving couple out there chooses to do?

  • 73. Straight Grandmother  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:49 am

    OMG Maggie from NOM is barefoot in the courtroom? This is utterly disrespectful. Totally white trash (apologies to all caucasians). Rick should pass a note to the bailiff. I can NOT believe the audacity of this woman.

  • 74. Michael L  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:50 am

    In reference to Maggot of NOM at UPDATE 1:43, do you think she might also be pregnant? As in keeping things traditional barefoot and pregnant?

    I hope we have a great outcome, there is absolutely no reason to discriminate against us gays and lesbians Cooper is a turd, just pulling at straws.

  • 75. rickyl  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Someone should bring Maggie (Broom Jockey)Gallagers unshod status to the bailiff,it is disrespectful to the judge and his court.Would love to see that old windbag humiliated like that in the courtroom where her dreams went to die.

  • 76. Casey  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:51 am

    "Cooper is a turd"

    My next bumper sticker.

  • 77. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Some things just shouldn't procreate!

  • 78. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Like people can adopt a child by accident? "Holy cow! How's that baby get here?"

  • 79. Straight Grandmother  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:52 am

    JULIA_ Tell Rick to pass a note onto any mainstream media so that they can look at maggie and write about her disrespect.

  • 80. Kerri  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:52 am

    " … i've been hit by the homostorm! ahhh " so funny.

  • 81. Sapphocrat  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:53 am

    This is better than The Onion. Cooper is destroying himself. Again.

    How did Coop ever pass the bar? Aren't prospective lawyers required to learn some sort of critical-thinking skills? At the very least, don't they have to actually pass a debate class?

  • 82. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:54 am

    It's like Raising Arizona in reverse!

  • 83. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:54 am

    He is a really good lawyer, their whole case is what is weak. This really IS the best they could do!

  • 84. Sapphocrat  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:55 am

    You should apologize to all trash, too. LOL

  • 85. Dave P.  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:55 am

    That's just silly.

    A) If all concepts of marriage instantly disappear, people are still free to procreate and avoid extinction.

    B) Granting equal legal marriage rights to SS couples will have ZERO effect on who is or is not procreating. All it will do is assure that all couples receive equal legal protections.

  • 86. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:56 am

    "Real issue for you is has something happened with respect to legit purposes of marriage to make the historic consistent and ubiquitous procreative reasons for marriage no longer constitutional?"

    Yes, dipshit. Reliable contraception.

    Not that having babies was ever a requirement for marriage – the government never forcibly annulled a chlidless marriage, and it was never grounds for divorce when you needed grounds, but yes, the ability to have a sex life while reliably taking active steps not to procreate is relatively new.

    As the counsel for the Plaintiffs has pointed out.

  • 87. nightshayde  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Of course, James. We all KNOW that people who are not married do not have sex.

    Sheesh!

  • 88. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:56 am

    And that 37,000 children of homosexuals are NOT still being discriminated against.

  • 89. Sapphocrat  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Maggie sure did — without, as I recall, the benefit of marriage. *smirk*

  • 90. Dave in Maine  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:57 am

    "C: The marital relationship is fundamental to the survival of the race. Without the marital relationship, society would come to an end."

    Oh, my. I had no idea. I guess it's curtains for societies from Massachusetts to South Africa.

  • 91. Sapphocrat  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:58 am

    That this is the best they could is the only thing that gives me hope! :)

  • 92. Lesbians Love Boies  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:59 am

    New Thread Started

  • 93. New  |  June 16, 2010 at 6:59 am

    "J: If you had 7 mm people, why did you only have one witness and it’s fair to say that his testimony was unequivocal."

    THANK YOU!

  • 94. Lymis  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:01 am

    In other words, it was never so much that procreation was a requirement for marriage as it was that marriage was a protection for women not to get knocked up and dumped, especially when they couldn't own property or expect to get married to anyone else if they weren't apparently a virgin.

  • 95. Amy  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:01 am

    C: The marital relationship is fundamental to the survival of the race

    not if they keep having gay kids…if that's the bulk of their argument, it's ridiculous. Most of us lgbt folks were born from straight unions.

  • 96. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:03 am

    This is disgusting. Gay people are so selfish. God forbid they just be happy with their partner, but instead they want to steal away the sanctity of straight marriage? The people voted yet those votes are being repealed. This is simply tyranny of the Minority.

    Gay people don't deserve the right on the basis that they are being selfish and the tax breaks from gay marriage would hurt the economy, government will compensate by raising taxes which in turn businesses have to charge more and fire people to compensate, thus the standard of living lowers as the value of the dollar decreases. I am not willing to drop from my 1080p HDTV to a 720p HDTV so that selfish gays can get married.

  • 97. Christopher Burns  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Maggie! Show some respect for the court and put some shoes on! Where the hell do you think you are, the beach?!

  • 98. Christopher Burns  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:06 am

    @Marcella….Hmmm…sounds like someone else is being selfish! Try looking in a mirror.

  • 99. Straight Grandmother  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:08 am

    MERCI from France. I agree! This was the best line fo thw whole trial so far. i hope the mainstream media print that. Also where he told the judge to go read a book, did anyone else but me find that quip to be not such a wise thing to say to a judge?? It reminds me of Jill from Real Housewives of New York.

  • 100. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:11 am

    @Christopher, yeah I admit I don't want to lower my standard of living or ruin the sanctity of my marriage so gays can be happy. There is no reason the gays can't just be happy together. They should push for civil unions which could include benefits like hospital visitation rights thus everyone wins. But nooooo, the gays just want to be flamboyant and selfish.

  • 101. Jeremy Braud  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:12 am

    Reach every word of the transcript at http://bit.ly/deHJiu

  • 102. A.K Dam  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:14 am

    Pfft..their argument is so weak. I live in Canada and the legalization of same-sex marriage did not effect heterosexual marriages at all. Heteros are still marrying and having babies. Canadians are not going extinct because of same sex marriage.

  • 103. Joe  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:14 am

    There were only 16 states that banned intrerracial in 1967. However, I think as many as 32 banned it in the years leading up to it. And even a year after Loving, it still had a disapproval rate of about 80%.

  • 104. Sapphocrat  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:18 am

    C: "It has become a desire of homosexuals to marry."

    Seriously: I'm sure many (most?) of us have _always_ had the "desire" to marry, but it was not until the right wing conjured up the spectre of SSM as a bogeyman (which they had to — they ran out of bogeymen once the decades-long Red Scare was over) that we as a community were pushed into a corner, and _had_ (and still have) to fight for marriage.

    Until 2004, when the first of dozens of new anti-gay measures hit state ballots (guaranteed to bring the Bush voters to polls), I sincerely doubt many of us believed marriage would ever be a possibility. I believe most of us were focused on fighting just to secure the most nominal rights (housing, employment, and even the poorest excuse for partnership recognition).

    I believe we would have continued to work for slow, steady progress, and would have been overjoyed at even the smallest baby steps (I couldn't stop the tears of joy when Lawrence was overturned, I was so grateful), but the marriage fight was foisted on us — this war was declared on us.

    The anti-gays pretend there was some big conspiracy to make marriage THE issue — as if we all received our marching orders from Gay, Inc., at once.

    The truth is, _they_ brought this fight to us, and they know it. (What were we supposed to do, sit back and say, "That's OK, you can destroy any possibility of our attaining full equality forever, and we'll just sit back and take it"? )

    If our enemies are squirming — and looking like irrational, hysterical, ignorant, and thoroughly bigoted jackasses — they have no one to blame but themselves.

    In the meantime… Well, once you've had a taste of freedom, a glimpse at what can be, you can never go back. I know I can't. I won't.

  • 105. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:18 am

    LLB, it reminds me of when William F. Buckley was trying to argue in favor of intelligent design in a panel discussion – the case was just too weak for him to defend!

  • 106. Christopher Burns  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:19 am

    @Marcella I don't know about you but I was with my partner (my now husband) 11 years before I was able to get married. Our marriage is one of the 18,000 that were allowed to remain in CA. How long did you date your husband (assuming you have one) before getting married? So, excuse me if that comes off as selfish and I hope your T.V. gets fried.

  • 107. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:19 am

    F@#k you Nazi don't tell me how to live my live you frigid B!t<h…..<3…Ronnie

    the word marriage is mine…wah wah wah…get over it cry baby

  • 108. Martin Pal  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:21 am

    @Marcella, really I thought you were being facetious.

    I guess not. Please tell me how gays are "stealing the sanctity of your marriage." I can tell you that I know of no one that would want to marry a person like you in the first place.

  • 109. Straight Ally #3008  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:21 am

    Yeah! Those churches that sanctify same sex marriages are clearly not True Christian™ churches! Also, the scientists of the world are engaged in a massive conspiracy to keep all the evidence for creationism out of the scientific literature. >;-D

  • 110. Joe  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:21 am

    What? Jesus had two daddies?

  • 111. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:25 am

    @ Christopher, how long you are with them prior to marriage is irrelevant, fail harder next time. It is funny watching you fail.

    @Martin, There is no proof of a gay gene thus gay is environmental thus is a choice. Sorry the sanctity of marriage comes from a natural love and since there is no gay gene, there is no natural love thus no sanctity. Take your civil union, get out and leave my marriage alone. I would prefer the gays to not make a mockery of a beautiful thing

  • 112. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:29 am

    there is no proof that there is not a gay gene you dumb b!tch….I was born Gay and only I can know how I feel

    go away Gay Whisperer…we don't want your ugly marriage we want our own marriage you childish little greedy, spoiled brat.

    You're making a mockery of yourself…<3…Ronnie

  • 113. Christopher Burns  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:30 am

    @Marcella How is that irrelevant?! You make is sound as if we're trying marry people that we just met at the bar. Those of us who want to marry have had many years to take it into consideration. It isn't a decision we take lightly. The denial of equality in marriage is the first selfish act and we're just standing up for equality. My act is not selfish…yours is! Pure and simple.

  • 114. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:32 am

    Actually, Marcella, allowing marriage equality would in all honesty raise your standard of living so that you could get a lovely new LCD or plasma HDTV and get it in a larger size, because the more disposable income we have the more we would be able to buy, and then your local Wal Mart would get an even better volume discount, which means your new LCD or plasma HDTV would cost less than a 720p HDTV. Get a grip! And if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage you should be in favor of more people getting married to the person they love, and abolishing divorce unless you can prove criminal activity against your spouse.

  • 115. Bob  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Holy shit, great refrence, are you on top of things or what, I love this thanks Fiona

  • 116. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Hmm. I'm straight, and I am a supporter of marriage equality. Can't see how it'll harm my standard of living, either.

    Of course, I'm guilty of applying things like logic to the situation.

    Poor Marcella. You are making Baby Yeshua cry.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 117. RW in LGB  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:36 am

    @Marcella: You are beneath contempt. Your stupidity knows no bounds. No one wants to even CONSIDER the unspeakable atrocity that your marriage must be, let alone interfere in its inner workings.

    Besides, your husband is probably blowing skater punks behind the 7-11 for quarters right now. He'll be heading home shortly with your Twinkies and Slim Jims, so clean the mustard off your house coat and out of your mustache and make yourself less repulsive.

  • 118. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:37 am

    @Ronnie, lol, there is no proof that the world is controlled by a spaghetti monster. Keep your logical fallacies out of here. Here is an idea, make your own marriage institution of lust and leave my marriage institution of love alone.

    @Christopher, Because how long you were together has no baring on the success of a marriage. Drink Sprite and Play Again. Things are equal now because gays can get married the exact same way a straight person can. Sorry that I'm selfish" by wanting to keep marriage a beautiful thing about love and not lust like the gays bring to the table. Find a gay gene and I'll gladly share, until then, being gay is a choice and is not deemed worthy of marriage. Besides, what is next? If you allow this, you might as well keep expanding on who can get married. But hey, maybe marrying a gay poodle puppy is up your field?

  • 119. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Actually, Marcella, whoever was stupid enough, or desperate enough to marry YOU mad a mockery of a beautiful thing. You need to crawl out from that moss covered rock you live under and actually go read some peer-reviewed scientific evidence. There are plenty of studies which prove that being gay is an inborn trait, just as being left-handed or blue-eyed is. So why don't you go back to whatever hellhole you call home, and leave the adults to their conversation.

  • 120. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:39 am

    @RW, Why would I care about your opinions or insults? You are for gays getting married. You know nothing about love so your view is moot.

  • 121. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Oh, Marcella. There you go with your ignorance of the human genome. It takes more than one gene to make blue eyes, just for starters. My source? Primary. I worked for the company that mapped the human genome.

    You want evidence? Here are just a few links (get someone smart to help you with the big words, okay?). These are from scary, scientific institutions — try not to worry.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531.full
    http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay/art
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10768881

    You're welcome.

    BTW, I'm also straight and married. If your marriage is so shaky that it's harmed by any other couple getting married, I suggest couples counseling.

    Love,
    Fiona (who is amused at religious bigots who think that gay people choose their sexual orientation but straight people don't)

  • 122. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Why not? Straight folks do it all the time. (Ref: Britney Spears)

    Love,
    Fiona (who cannot wait until her comment to Marcella is out of moderation)

  • 123. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:40 am

    PS:

    "Selfishness does not lie in living as you choose; selfishness lies in demanding that *others* live as you choose." — Oscar Fingal Wilde

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 124. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Boy howdy, honey … I can't wait until my multi-link post is out of moderation. You're gonna have your feelings hurt with your insistence that being gay is a choice.

    I'm straight, and I didn't have a choice in it. When did YOU choose to be straight, Marcella? I'm just curious.

    Love,
    fiona

  • 125. Christopher Burns  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:41 am

    @Marcella My marriage is not and never has been about lust!! How dare you think something like that. The same can be said for any hetero marriage out there. And why is it that hetero's always turn to the marrying of animals in this argument. HELLO! Marriage is for 2 consenting adults that meet the appropriate age for their area. WOW! You are probably one of the dumbest person I've ever encountered. I'm done with you Marcella because I pity the ignorant and I hope God has mercy on your blackened soul.

  • 126. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Your marriage institution? You own the word marriage?

    "Logical fallacies"…you got the phallus part right….you illogical uneducated troglodyte.

    Here's an idea I own my life not you…don't tell me what to do who to live and who to marry you Nazi whore.

    Being gay is not a choice….however you chose to be ugly homophobic Nazi whore with no heart, no soul and a complete waste of human life.

  • 127. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:44 am

    I, too, am amazed at the bigots' obsession with bestiality and pedophilia (which I have no doubt "Marcella" will bring up next."

    She was probably the one in the Buick back seat when Bubba's condom broke …

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 128. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:45 am

    @Christopher, well it isn't about natural love either. Like I said, show me the gay gene. Everything about us is based off of genes from how tall you are to the color of your eyes. Without a gay gene, it is not natural love thus is not worthy of marriage. Sorry the truth hurts you. Legally gays can not consent to marriage yet there is an initiative to change who can consent and change the definition of marriage. If you can do it once, you can do it again. Gays are just a snowball rolling down a hill of damnation.

  • 129. Christopher Burns  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:45 am

    @Fiona LOVE YOUR OSCAR WILDE QUOTE. Way to go!!

  • 130. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:48 am

    and like you do?…please… as if…get over yourself you self- righteous troll….your the one who knows nothing about love

  • 131. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:48 am

    @ Ronnie, Yeah my religious institution. Know how people so "my bad" yet you don't actually own the word bad? Try using your brain next time. And yes, you do own your own life, but that doesn't entitle you to equal rights and until you deserve them there is no reason to give them to you. lol, t you dropping down to petty insults… that is the sign of the beaten.

  • 132. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:49 am

    In total, 41 states had an antimiscegenation law at one time or another.

    In 1948 (before Perez v. Sharp), there were about 30 states that still had those laws on the books.

    And the disapproval rate was 72%, to be precise.

  • 133. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:50 am

    there are hundreds of genes that have not been identified so shut the f@#k up you idiot…your not worthy of marriage,,,sorry the truth hurtts you…your just a snowball rolling down a hill to murder you Nazi trash

  • 134. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Fiona, here are the words. I am giving the English spelling of the Hebrew:
    virgin–Betsulah
    unmarried (single) woman–eshah
    wife–eshah or raegah
    widow–chalon ashnab

    "eshah" is actually the word for "woman" regardless of marital status.
    Hope this helps.
    BTW, it appears we have a new troll. Marcella.

  • 135. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:53 am

    There is no proof of a gay gene

    Nope. There's evidence for three gay genes.

    thus gay is environmental

    Only potentially.

    thus is a choice

    That doesn't follow at all. Honestly, do you have no knowledge whatsoever of biology?

    since there is no gay gene, there is no natural love thus no sanctity

    Love comes from genes now? That's monumentally idiotic.

  • 136. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:53 am

    The Bible is not American Law…try again slut…i paid my taxes so i deserve everything you have…all american are protected under the equal protections clause and ALL Americans are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

    you nazis are trying to tell me what I can and cannot do while stealing my hard earned money you are a fascist whore

  • 137. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:55 am

    lol, t you dropping down to petty insults… that is the sign of the beaten.

    This, coming from the person whose only argument consists of saying that gays are lustful monsters who are incapable of feeling love? Are you just admitting that you're beaten?

  • 138. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:56 am

    Fiona, I am so very proud of you!

  • 139. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Everything about us is based off of genes from how tall you are to the color of your eyes.

    Your knowledge of biology is childish and facile. This is not remotely true.

    Without a gay gene, it is not natural love thus is not worthy of marriage.

    That does not follow at all. You are simply tossing out random non sequiturs posing as logic.

  • 140. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Thank you, Richard!

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 141. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:00 am

    @ Ronnie, I didn't mention the Bible once. And under the equal protection rule, you can get married now. What is your point? Things are equal.

    @Skemono, Build more straw men.

  • 142. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Keep your logical fallacies out of here

    Why don't you take your own advice? Your entire "argument" is nothing but logical fallacies.

    Things are equal now because gays can get married the exact same way a straight person can.

    A straight person can marry the person they love. A gay person cannot. How is this equal? Oh, right, it's not.

    Sorry that I’m selfish” by wanting to keep marriage a beautiful thing about love and not lust like the gays bring to the table.

    You're not selfish. You're just a bitter, despicable, miserable excuse for a human being. The idea that same-sex relationships are based on nothing but lust is moronic. You've clearly never even so much as read about gay couples, much less met one.

    If you allow this, you might as well keep expanding on who can get married.

    Yes, next we'll let blacks marry whites!

    But hey, maybe marrying a gay poodle puppy is up your field?

    Because dogs are humans and capable of entering legal contracts, right?

  • 143. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:03 am

    By the way…

    Find a gay gene and I’ll gladly share

    No you won't. You'll just change the goalposts and resort to demonizing gay people some other way.

    At least have the decency to admit it.

  • 144. RW in LGB  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:03 am

    @Marcella: We are talking EQUAL ACCESS of law-abiding couples to a CIVIL CONTRACT. You stupid cow, I am a tax-paying, law-abiding American citizen. I DEMAND MY FULL RIGHTS AS SUCH.

    If it were up to me, the unreachably, irreversibly idiotic fat Christian assholes like you would be rounded up and thrown out of our country for being complete and utter wastes of good air and water. But the Constitution protects morons too.

    Your arguments hold no water because they are IRRATIONAL. And based on the Bible. Which, by the way, the Constitution says is NOT to be imposed upon Americans as law. We have freedom FROM religion before freedom OF religion.

    Why so bitter? You don't want US to be happy because obviously YOU'RE not happy. We can't help your unattractiveness or morbid obesity or train-stopping body odor or repulsive personality.

  • 145. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:04 am

    But nooooo, the gays just want to be flamboyant and selfish.

    Oh no! Gays want to have the same rights as everyone else! How dare they! It's not like they're people!

  • 146. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:07 am

    @RW, you can marry the opposite sex just the same way I can. That is equal by definition. You have full rights now.

    If it were up to me, the unreachably, irreversibly idiotic fat Gay assholes like you would be rounded up and thrown out of our country for being complete and utter wastes of good air and water. But the Constitution protects morons too.

    So the Bible talked about economics and genes? Maybe you should read it so that you can know what you are talking about or at least learn reading comprehension in the first place.

    I do want people to be happy and this has the opposite effect. The majority people voted to keep gay marriage banned. The majority should rule.

  • 147. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:08 am

    There is no law that says I have to my life according to your religious beliefs…I don't really give a flying mile high F@#k if you mentioned the Bible….you religious beliefs are not mine and there is no law that says I have to live my life according to them…Yeah I can get married…as long as I marry who you want me too…again I'll marry who ever the F@#k I want and you don't have a say so in the matter.

    "straw men"…….good corn field reference you ugly crow

  • 148. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Who are you to tell me that I don't know anything about love? Have you held someone's head when he has been sick with pneumonia? Or have you ever been in the emergency room to comfort him while he was sewn up after a car accident? Until you have walked in my shoes, you do not need to tell me one G-ddamned thing about what I know about love. I probably have more instinctual knowledge about love in the nail on my left pinkie finger than you have in your entire body. And if you think that allowing me to legally get married to the man I love with all my heart, and with whom I want to build my life, and with whom I am making a home, will destroy the sanctity of your marriage, then you obviously do not have a real marriage, because a real marriage would not be harmed by someone else having the fundamentally guaranteed right to have his or her marriage legally recognized as a marriage by the legal government of this nation. And a civil union is NOT the same as a marriage./ A marriage can cross state lines. A marriage does not require that you live together for a certain period of time before you obtain one. A marriage does not require that you fill out tens of thousands of dollars in legal paperwork just so you can protect your spouse and your children in the event of your death or disability. A marriage cannot be challenged by an outsider. So get off your asinine high horse and come down to the real world and realize that your comments are hurting real, honest to god people who are just like you. The only difference is that you don't seem to realize that the longer you keep the government in my bedroom, the longer that same government is in your bedroom.

  • 149. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:15 am

    So are you nazis gonna force us to marry the opposite sex because you say so….Nope not equal..its oppression…not full rights…..not freedom….try again

    wrong dumb ass the majority of people 32 million Californians did not vote at all so the majority said WHO THE F@#K CARES…try again you dumb b!tch

    How about you anti-gay nazis shut the F@#k up and mind your own business and get the F@#k out of our lives you selfish control freak losers

  • 150. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:21 am

    She has already brought it up, fiona. In one of her earlier fallacious posts, she told Christopher, I think that marrying a poodle puppy would be in his field. Sick woman. That is, if it is actually a woman. there are a lot of signs pointing to "Marcella" being "Team George," "Team Kay Moore," or "Team Melissa," or possibly even the Pro Prop 8 Troll that was here earlier.

  • 151. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:22 am

    @Ronnie, Sorry, you have the potential to love the opposite sex but choose not too. You have straight gene, but you don't have gay gene which means you have the potential. Marriage is about natural(gene) love if it isn't I want to marry a bowl of gumbo because I love gumbo. And don't say that it can't consent because according to you its all about equal rights and being happy. I mean, I wouldn't be hurting anyone. Geez, the pro gay marriage sides arguments are terrible as it doesn't think with its brain.

    Oh, and learn statistics, you don't need the majority. Of course judging by your lack of grammar, logic and reading comprehension and your insulting attitude, I would guess that you didn't go the school route so I guess something like statistics would be too hard for you to grasp.

  • 152. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Nope wrong again….I don't have to potential to love the opposite sex the same way i love the same sex…nice try though…I never choose to…I was born Gay…and only I can know whether i made a choice or not…you're not a psychic you idiot…get over it Gay Whisperer….Marriage is about Love…there is no love gene you idiot….gees, the anti-American, anti-gay, inhuman arguments are terrible as it doesn't think with its brain…you would need a brain in order to think and you Marcella have none.

    Oh and learn statistics….the majority said who the f@#K cares you just don't want to accept it.

    Of course juging from you lack of human emotion, logic, reading comprehension and your insulting attitude as well as your heartless soulless spoiled brat f@#k you because you don't live your live how I want you to communist bitchiness, I would guess that you didn't go the school route so I guess something like statistics, logic & education would be too hard for you to grasp.

    I've got two degrees you dumb bitch so don't ASSume to know anything about my personal life our you look just like that an @$$…and don't worry about my grammar and use of words I wouldn't waste perfectly good language, rhetoric, and grammar on trash like you…YOU'RE NOT WORTH IT

  • 153. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Well, Skemono, look at who is trolling. A monumentally idiotic thing that is trying to pass itself off as a human female. I doubt that it is either human or female.

  • 154. C  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:39 am

    What the heck am I even reading? This went from silly to stupid to downright surreal.

  • 155. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:41 am

    You're welcome. I will go out back later and email you the Hebrew after I get the stencils.
    BTW, is it me, or is "Marcella" coming off quite a bit like that teenager we had on here who was trying to pass himself off as a middle-aged female?

  • 156. Bryan  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Sometimes you just have to get it out. 😀

  • 157. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:47 am

    @Ronnie, cool story bro. You can but you don't. Science has already proved being gay is caused by environmental stimuli. Thus being gay is a choice. Thus it isn't worthy of marriage. It isn't a hard concept but by seeing how you comprehend concepts, I'm sure explaining why 1 + 1 = 2 would be way over your head.

    The majority said no to gay marriage and you can't change that.

    lol, for someone with two degrees you sure make bad arguments and are just all around ignorant. I have 10 PhDs! See! I can lie on the internet too!

  • 158. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Excuse me, MISTER MARCEL TRYING TO PRETEND HE IS NOT A TEEN AGED BOY Since when in mathematics does 7 million votes out of a population of 37 million citizens equal a majority? You need to go back and take some remedial math courses, SON! And yes, I called you son! You are not a female, you are not old enough to get married. You are the same ignorant snot nose teen aged boy that we exposed when you were calling yourself Kay Moore. So how about you go back to your homework for summer school and leave the adults alone so that we can have a sensible conversation, you neurotic fool!

  • 159. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:56 am

    What "science" you ignorant cow? That so-called NARTH stuff? When even Exodus International can't keep correct numbers on how many of its victims have committed suicide because people like you hate yourselves so much that you want us to lie about ourselves and hate ourselves just so you can feel morally superior. And by the way, you Christians claim that Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth is God and there is a verse that you have all been misquoting where he does in fact speak about us and state that we are born this way. If you revere him as God, then that means he is the original equipment manufacturer for the human race, and when the OEM is talking about his product he should definitely know what he is talking about. So if the OEM says that some of us are born gay, then just accept it, get off your dumb ass high horse, get the government out of our bedroom and out of yours and leave us alone. Let us marry the ones who have captured our hearts. In short, grow up and become a real human being for once in your sorry ass life

  • 160. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 8:58 am

    @Marcella, cool story slut….I can't and I won't. Science has not proven being Gay is cause by environment only because not all Gay people grow up the exact same way…nice try you idiot. Thus being Gay is not a choice. You're not worthy of marriage. It isn't a hard concept but by seeing how you don't comprehend concepts, I'm sure sure 1 + 1 = 2 only occurs in math but not always in life you idiot and is clearly way of your small little brainwashed head.

    The majority said who the F@#k cares and you can't change that.

    lol, for someone with no heart and soul you sure make bad arguments are just all around ignorant you Bigot trash. I didn't lie & there are several people on this page that i've been speaking to and know personally for that last 6 months.

    You are nothing but an uneducated anti-american trash and a complete waste of human life. Shove your religious beliefs down your own throat and stop forcing the government to impose you religious beliefs on me violating my first amendment rights you hitler wannabe

  • 161. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:11 am

    @Richard, lol if this is the gay agenda. Making claims without never having done the research. Another reason people do not support the gays. Gotta love you bringing up the Bible when it was never mentioned. Notice I said Science. Drink Sprite and play again. Are all gay supporters this ignorant?

    @Ronnie, too lazy to google environmental factors relating to homosexuality and do your research before making baseless claims?

    lol, the majority said gay marriage should be banned. Prop 8 is proof. Justify it however you want but you are owned.

    I love how religion is mentioned by the gay supporters and not once did I mention anything Bible related. Goes to show that the gay community is grasping at straws and building straw men with them. Try actually building a good argument instead of building straw men. Makes you look smarter junior

  • 162. Marcella  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:16 am

    Oh well, I am off work. Unlike you people here, I have a life and don't sit behind a computer screen all day. I already won this discussion so argument is done.

  • 163. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:20 am

    One difference, MARCEL! Ronnie is not lying. You on the other hand have been watching too many fanatics under the guise of being "good Christian folks" spew their hatred, which goes totally against the teachings of Yeshua ben Yosef of Nazareth whom you all seem to revere as being divine, when he was born the same way anybody else was. If you insist on revering him as G-d however, it would be to your advantage to actually break down and study what he says with an open mind, instead of letting another human man behind a pulpit whose degree comes from the university of Close Cover When Striking tell you what to think. And before you tell someone else how to do mathematics you may want to take a course in it yourself. There is no way on earth that you can make 7 million out of 37 million into a majority, no matter how many NARTH videos you watch. When they can't even tell the truth about so-called conversion therapy, there is no way you can believe their math. And if you hero MagPie GagonHer is so truly married, and if her marriage is so holy, where is her wedding band? Where is her husband? I think she is a lesbian who is fronting as a straight woman so that she can steal all your money and live the rich life. And I think you are a frustrated teen-aged boy whose mother has grounded you for the summer because you were caught cheating in school. In fact, I think you are the same teen-aged boy who was masquerading as the infamous "Kay Moore" when this site first started.

  • 164. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    @ Marcella are all ant-gay anti-American Nazis this ignorant, heartless, & soulless?…..YES!!!!!

    I'm not googling shite because I've been doing just that on this blog for 6 months ,you however, are a new piece of troll trash

    32million people did not vote the majority said who cares…use your lack of logic you uneducated idiot. Prop Ha8te is proof of you Nazis trying to control our lives. Justify it however you want but I am not owned you childish little twink.

    You mentioned religious beliefs first dumb @ss,…Goes to show that the anti-gay fascist community (who repeatedly ignores that heterosexuals support is too) is grasping at straws and building an ugly jesus statue that got struck by lighting and burned to the ground in Ohio.

    Try actually building a good argument that I haven't heard over and over and over again on this blog for that last 6 months instead of building broken record trash like your face. Makes you look smarter infant.

  • 165. Ronnie  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:29 am

    pot meet kettle you dumb b!tch ….you've been on here all day…You didn't win shite and the argument will never be done….Civil Rights activist didn't stop until they got equal Rights, Interracial couples didn't stop until they got equal rights and women didn't stop until they got equal rights….and if you think we will ever stop you are highly mistaken you uneducated infantile troglodyte….

    You got a life alright to bad its a complete waste of human life….wasting the one life given to you on trying to control our lives forcing us to live our lives how you control freaks want us too…..move along little girl or boy or thing….you're nothing…you are so insignificant that my dogs fluids are more relevant to world then you.

  • 166. Richard A. Walter (s  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Actually you were the first one to bring religion into this, you skanky, ignorant inbred POSL teen-aged boy trying to pass yourself off as a female by adding LA to Marcel. At least now we know who "Kay Moore" really is. We got you blocked from here once before, and we can do it again. Why are you so worried about who we marry? If your "marriage" is so rock-solid, then the fact that I can marry the man I love would have absolutely NO EFFECT whatsoever on your marriage. So why don't you go play with your Nintendo and leave the adults alone? Or did Mommy take that away from you too along with grounding you for cheating on your math finals?

  • 167. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:48 am

    It's that darned historian thing. What can I say. :-)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 168. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Marcella "wrote": @ Ronnie, Yeah my religious institution. Know how people so “my bad” yet you don’t actually own the word bad? Try using your brain next time. And yes, you do own your own life, but that doesn’t entitle you to equal rights and until you deserve them there is no reason to give them to you. lol, t you dropping down to petty insults… that is the sign of the beaten.

    And Fiona responds with a little gem from Sunday school:

    "And they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love. They will know we are Christians by our love."

    :-)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 169. fiona64  |  June 16, 2010 at 9:54 am

    Marcella wrote: Notice I said Science.

    Yep, I did. And I also noticed that you didn't have a thing to say in response when I DISPROVED your assertion with peer reviewed, scientific evidence.

    "Because I said so" is not science, sweetie.

    Perhaps your mommy will read the articles to you after your homework is done.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 170. RW in LGB  |  June 16, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Hey you stupid troll cow Marcella– how about this factoid:

    In 1967, when Lovings v Virginia was decided, some 70% of ALL AMERICANS supported banning interracial marriage.

    Had it been put up to a vote, it would have been made illegal. And, according to your mentally-defective logic, that's just fine.

    Oh, and YOU brought up the word "damnation" in reference to gays. That is an exclusively RELIGIOUS term used by Christians who believe in Hell. The only Hell I can think of would be sharing existence with YOU. Oh well, say "hi" to the firemen cutting your 1,110 lb. ass out of your double-wide when you eat yourself too fat to waddle through the door like usual.

  • 171. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  June 16, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    These people can certainly deny the facts quite well, can’t they? A if you have to be married in order to procreate! Wasn’t that proven to be a fallacy by Murphy brown and by every soap opera on TV before that? And were David and Bathsheba married when he gotr her pregnant the first time?

  • 172. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    @Skemono, Build more straw men.

    So, not going to bother responding to anything? You can't even come up with whatever point of mine is supposedly a straw man.

  • 173. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    That is equal by definition.

    No it isn't. People have known this was unequal for the past 40 years, since the Supreme Court overthrew that exact same line of reasoning in Loving v. Virginia

    If it were up to me, the unreachably, irreversibly idiotic fat Gay assholes like you would be rounded up and thrown out of our country for being complete and utter wastes of good air and water.

    Brilliant argument technique, there. What was it you said earlier about "petty insults"? "That is the sign of the beaten"? So, you're admitting defeat now?

    The majority should rule.

    The majority should not have the power to strip the minority of its rights. That's why we have a constitution.

  • 174. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    You have straight gene

    Citation needed.

    but you don’t have gay gene

    Says who?

    which means you have the potential

    Your complete and utter inability to understand logic is astonishing.

    And don’t say that it can’t consent because according to you its all about equal rights and being happy.

    See, unlike the comments of mine that you dismissed as "straw men", this is an actual straw man argument.

  • 175. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Science has already proved being gay is caused by environmental stimuli. Thus being gay is a choice.

    Wow. You… you really don't understand a damn thing about science. If something is due to prenatal environment, that in no way means it's a choice. It's an innate part of that person.

    You're a thundering imbecile.

  • 176. Skemono  |  June 16, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    I already won this discussion so argument is done.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!! Ahah… that's rich. You spout bullshit "facts", jump from premise to completely unconnectable conclusion without rhyme or reason, and then claim victory? That's just precious.

  • 177. C  |  June 16, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    Marcella, I can't figure out if you're honestly that stupid or a really good troll.

  • 178. The NOM tour: A celebrati&hellip  |  July 21, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    […] official trial record in California, and then told Prop. 8 trial Judge Vaughn Walker they “don’t have any evidence” to support a policy agenda of […]

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