Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: 9th Circuit STAYS Judge Walker’s ruling; Appeal scheduled December 6

Trial analysis

By Eden James

Just in from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Docket Text:
Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal.

This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. [7441574] (JS)

More to come as news develops…

UPDATE BY BRIAN DEVINE (cross-posted at Calitics):

Three things:

First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December.

Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants’ opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it’s a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn’t want it to linger.

Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here’s a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don’t know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.

UPDATE BY EDEN: Here’s the actual document, per Kathleen in the comments. Same as the text above:

CA9Doc 14

UPDATE BY EDEN: The AP says more about possible next steps:

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumps a lower court judge’s order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.
[…]
The plaintiffs could now appeal the 9th Circuit decision to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handles emergency motions for the high court.

UPDATE BY EDEN: The American Foundation for Equal Rights just released their statement in response:

Official Prop. 8 Plaintiffs Statement on Today’s Ninth Circuit Ruling

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set a highly expedited schedule for briefing and argument of proponents’ appeal from the district court’s August 4, 2010 decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it granted proponents’ request to stay the judgment of the district court’s order while the appeal is decided. This means that although Californians who were denied equality by Proposition 8 cannot marry immediately, the Ninth Circuit, like the district court, will move swiftly to address and decide the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims on their merits. Today’s order can be found here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/9th-circuit-ruling-on-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal/

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule. As Chief Judge Walker found, Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens each day it remains on the books. We look forward to moving to the next stage of this case,” said Attorney Theodore B. Olson.

“Today’s order from the Ninth Circuit for an expedited hearing schedule ensures that we will triumph over Prop. 8 as quickly as possible. This case is about fundamental constitutional rights and we at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, our Plaintiffs and our attorneys are ready to take this case all the way through the appeals court and to the United States Supreme Court,” said Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights and plaintiffs Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo challenged Proposition 8 in federal court for violating the U.S. Constitution. After a three-week trial (including the testimony of 17 plaintiffs’ witnesses, among them the foremost experts on the relevant issues, and thousands of pages of documents and a wealth of other evidence) the Court ruled last Wednesday, August 4, that Proposition 8 violated the rights to equal protection under the law and due process that the U.S. Constitution guarantees to every American.

Please see the comprehensive, 136-page decision here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/district-court-decision/

A summary of the trial is available here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/perry-v-schwarzenegger-trial-summary/

Video evidence and other court filings are available here: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/legal-filings/

###

UPDATE BY EDEN: Statement from Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry:

“Today’s 9th Circuit order expediting appeal of Chief Judge Walker’s persuasive decision striking down Prop 8 and maintaining a stay during the appellate review, is a disappointing delay for many Californians who hoped to celebrate the freedom to marry and full inclusion in society as soon as possible. But there are many twists in the road to justice, and we are encouraged by the court’s setting a fast pace for the appeal, revealing that the judges understand how important a quick end to the exclusion from marriage is to gay couples, their loved ones, and all Americans who believe in equality under the law.

While the lawyers make the case for the freedom to marry in the courts of law, we have more months in which to make our case in the court of public opinion. The evidence at trial overwhelmingly confirmed that there is no good reason for withholding the freedom to marry from committed couples, and the Governor, the Attorney General, a majority of Californians, and a majority of Americans agree with Judge Walker that the freedom to marry helps families, while hurting no one. Prop 8 should never have been on the ballot and we look forward to seeing its stain removed from the law books, as we push forward on other fronts across the country.”

UPDATE BY EDEN: Brian Leubitz, another Prop 8 Trial Tracker legal analyst (and Calitics founder), just emailed me this reaction on the standing issue:

“With the question of standing, the critical issue is that the State is not appealing — both Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have opted not to appeal. While the standing issue would kill the case for a national track, it would leave the state of California as one of the largest jurisdictions in the world to have marriage equality. Furthermore, it would also set us up with a great case on the books for the next round.”

UPDATE BY EDEN: A refresher on Article III and the question of standing, from Joe Mirabella:

The Ninth instructed our opponents to demonstrate “why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.”

Article III standing means the following:

The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

There remains significant doubt whether our opponents have the legal right to appeal this decision because the State of California chose not too. The Ninth could rule that proponents of proposition 8 do not have standing, and therefore can not appeal.

The Ninth could decide they do have a right to appeal. If they do, our opponents will have to prove that marriage equality causes harm using the “evidence” they presented in the District Court.

UPDATE BY EDEN: Andrew Pugno, one of the anti-gay architects of the Proposition 8 initiative in California and also a Republican candidate for State Assembly this year, just sent this email from the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund (their bolding, not mine):

Dear Supporter of Prop 8:

Great news! The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just now granted our request to suspend Judge Walker’s ruling against Proposition 8! This legal victory upholds the votes of 7 million Californians while the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is heard on appeal.

If the Ninth Circuit had not granted our motion, then Judge Walker’s decision would have gone into effect on Wednesday, changing the definition of marriage in California despite the vote of the people less than two years ago.

As we pointed out in our motion, Judge Walker’s decision totally ignores virtually all legal precedents, the well-recognized public interest served by fostering traditional marriage, and even common sense itself.

In addition to stopping Judge Walker from imposing same-sex marriage on California, the Court of Appeal also ordered that this case will be expedited. That means our opening legal briefs are due in just 30 days!

So please help support our legal team and all their important work. With the Attorney General and Governor refusing to defend the people’s vote for Prop 8, the entire burden of defending Prop 8 falls up our legal defense team.

We receive no government funding. We rely exclusively on the generous financial support of concerned citizens like you. Please make a special donation right now to help us keep up with the legal costs of defending Prop 8!

Thank you for your prayers and support!

Andy Pugno
General Counsel, Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund

UPDATE BY EDEN:As the comment thread on this post is getting long, a new post will go up shortly, including news from Attorney General Jerry Brown.

597 Comments

  • 1. Angelo  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I am very hopeful!!

  • 2. Angelo  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Scribe

  • 3. Angelo  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Subscribing

  • 4. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:59 am

    scribe cubed?

  • 5. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Same. Disappointing but it appears that both judge Walker and the motions panel are doing their best to keep SCOTUS out of this situation. Chess, not checkers, folks.

    At least we didn't have a situation where people were camping out and CA9 waited until 4:30PM Wednesday.

  • 6. AndrewPDX  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:01 am

    scribing… drat this 'work' thing

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 7. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:01 am

    The documents don't say any more than is quoted above, but for those who like to read them, all the same, here it is: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35980488/CA9Doc-14

  • 8. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Keep SCOTUS out of this?????

  • 9. Anonygrl  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:02 am

    It IS good news. But it is still hard not to burst into tears of frustration about it.

  • 10. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:02 am

    And forgot to subscribe, of course.

  • 11. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:03 am

    Dam right they better move quickly, they could have a riot on their hands, civil disobedience and you name it, a hornets nest just waiting to explode,

    get on it quick like

  • 12. Dave P.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Rationally, I understand this.

    But then I can't help but feeling like "goddammit there was no stay for even one hour when Prop H8 passed, why the hell do law abiding tax paying citizens have to keep waiting for equal rights that have already been granted by the court????? AAARRGGG!!!!

  • 13. Travis O'Brien  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Is it even possible for the plaintiffs to appeal the stay?

  • 14. JefferyK  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:04 am

    I think gay people need to be prepared for losing.

  • 15. Dave in CA  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:04 am

    It also sounds as though they want this addressed before a new (state) administration takes office? All paperwork to be submitted before the elections, and hearings taking place barely a month after the Nov elections.

  • 16. AnonHB  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Frustrating for sure. Question for legal experts out there: Is 12/06 the definite date for a decision by the 9th Circuit?

    If the trial is delayed into Jan 2011 due to technicalities, can the new CA Governor or AG then decide to defend Prop 8?

    Actually, regardless of 9th Circuit, can a new Governor or AG in Jan 2011 decide to defend Prop 8 while the case is likely being appealed at the Supreme Court over the standing decision?

  • 17. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:06 am

    What makes you think that Jeffrey?

  • 18. Sheryl Carver  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:06 am

    So, does this mean the 9th will NOT rule on the appellants' standing until Dec 6th at the earliest?

    Or might they rule prior to Dec 6th that they do NOT have standing & it's all over – except, of course. they'll then appeal to SCOTUS?

  • 19. JefferyK  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:07 am

    I'm having a difficult time seeing how this stay could have been granted on the merits of the case. It seems like politics to me. And if the case is now politics, we don't stand a chance. Sorry. I hope I'm wrong.

  • 20. Travis O'Brien  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Even still, this almost certainly be totally resolved before then. I think our community in CA needs to focus our energy on making sure that we get a pro-equality governor and attorney general.

  • 21. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Yes, keep SCOTUS out of the case on silly procedural questions like stays.

  • 22. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Thanks for the post Eden. I think I understand. This is technically a glitch, but a needed glitch to keep the Appellants from trying to take the Stay to the Supreme Court?

    I also read the portion

    In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

    And thought that was actually pointedly on our side.

    So nothing much we can/should do about it, including be worried.

  • 23. Dave P.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:08 am

    I understand this. There is no legitimate legal reason whatsoever for the courts to have done this. It stinks of politics.

  • 24. PM  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Ditto. My fiancé and I were so eager to get married this week. And time is of the essence for us. :(

  • 25. ChrisQ  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Insulting, cruel, unforgivable. It's a bogus case and everyone knows it. I am sure NOM is popping champagne that they get to cause us more pain and torture us for another few months. I am just sick of it.

  • 26. Travis O'Brien  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Er, I meant 'this is almost certainly *not going* to be totally resolved before then'

  • 27. TaylorS  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:09 am

    Meh. I was expecting the stay.

    But I am still going back and forward on whether or not I want the appeal dismissed based on lack of Article III standing. I feel like it's worth the risk to go to SCOTUS. I've lived in California my whole life, and I have no intention to leave, but I feel bad for all my brothers and sisters stuck other states.

  • 28. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Yes, it would have been cool if the stay were lifted…but I'm used to thinking that legal issues are resolved when the whole trial is over and all appeals exhausted. The 9th Circuit is the most liberal of the U.S. Courts of Appeal….so I believe we're still covered in the long run, there : )

  • 29. SteveM  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:10 am

    And why, Jeffrey, do only gay people need to prepare? Are there no straight supporters in our midst?

  • 30. David Brandt  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Yes, Anonygrl, it IS frustrating, but the other commenters are correct. It is good that they are expediting the process, and a resolution via lack of standing would be much faster than the full-blown documents and oral arguments that would ensue.
    Plus, a lack of standing ruling will make it much harder to appeal to SCOTUS, which is good, since the heavy conservative side of the Court would be bad for us rational people who believe in equality for all! ;)

  • 31. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:11 am

    No, it's the date of the hearing in front of the court. Decision will come afterwards.

    There is no further trials. This is an appellate court hearing on the conclusions of law, and will not retry the whole case, Mr. Cooper's wants to the contrary. Appellate courts do not conduct trials any more, and they haven't for almost 100 years.

    The answer to your last questions is no. Their time to appeal is expiring 60 days from August 18th.

  • 32. TaylorS  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Subbing

  • 33. Trish  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:12 am

    I really do think that it came down to the issue of what would happen if people were married and the USSC came down and said "Oops! Gotta undo those." While I agree that it wasn't DI's harm, and that DI's had a very difficult time stating what harm they would suffer, I definitely see how the 9th Circuit came out where they did.

  • 34. elliom  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Hey y'all. I know this feels like a let down, but I think there's a silver lining.

    I think the courts are being VERY cautious, and that's probably a good thing. First of all, we're getting very well crafted decisions. Second, our arguments only gain strength over time, while their's weaken. Third, this gives us more time to change hearts and minds by highlighting both our behavior, and theirs.

    Just my 2cents.

  • 35. rinsac  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:13 am

    As disappointing as this is I believe the judges are doing everything they can, whether on purpose or not, to insure this is settled as quickly as possible and are really acting in ways that will insure that the marriages will begin in Dec. and 8 will be struck down. This wait will help insure, I think, that if it does go to the Supreme Court, and they even agree to hear it, that Same Sex Marriage is very close to a reality. I also think that when this is won in California it will be like dominos going off all over the U.S. very quickly. Other states will follow suit.

  • 36. JefferyK  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:13 am

    I agree — I don't think it will be resolved before Meg Whitman is sworn in, either. Which is just further proof that the court is playing politics. It's almost like the ruling itself — the arguments, the facts, etc. — is meaningless now. Has nothing to do with justice anymore. Now its all politics, and the court is bending over backwards to accommodate the DIs. Sorry if I'm ranting. I'm more than my usual Mr. Half-Empty self today.

  • 37. Mike M  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:14 am

    So as I read this, if the 9th circuit finds that the hate mongers have no standing to appeal, the issue is dead and Judge Walker's ruling is the law in the 9th at the very least. B Y making the hearing date in early December, if the panel finds the bigots have no standing the issue is considered resolved and SCOTUS is taken out of the equation for now. If the decision by the Panel happens before Ca. changes governor, even if they elect a hard core Righty, it would be to late for them to appeal with standing.

    So even though we got delayed again, in the long run it could mean a huge change in our favor. If the ruling goes against us SCOTUS here we come.

  • 38. Trish  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:14 am

    I know there was a self-imposed timeline after a hearing for the 9th Circuit to issue its opinion, but I just can't remember what it was! It was a matter of months, if I recall correctly.

  • 39. JefferyK  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Where were our straight supports at the ballot box? Voting for Obama and voting against us.

  • 40. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:14 am

    I understand that Eden James is looking on the bright side of things, but I this is a disgusting reality that we live in.

    I hate anti-gay religion, and the NOM!

  • 41. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:15 am

    I don't think it would matter one way or the other.

    The courts still haven't mentioned if it's allowing Imperial to sub in right? I missed quite a bit the last couple of days.

  • 42. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:15 am

    the only way I know to do that would be to begin planning to implement sit ins, die ins, civil disobedience, marches , demonstrations, arrests, unrest in the streets, call all the troops home to restore safety to the people.
    (reply to JefferyK re prepare to lose)

  • 43. TaylorS  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:15 am

    You have to remember, the judges who issued the stay and the judges who will actually hear the appeal are completely different judges.

  • 44. Dave in ME  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:16 am

    WE are right. Taking it slowly-it's okay-we'll prevail very soon.

    Dave in Maine

  • 45. erasure25  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:16 am

    I believe the stay was issued not because of the merits of the case, but because courts hate to reverse things. They would hate to have to address the question of reversing thousands of marriages IF prop 8 were to be upheld. I don't think this means that there is a good chance of that happening, but if there remains a sliver of chance, a thousandths of a percentage chance, then the court is going to favor a stay. It's certainly cruel to force people to wait for their rights, but from the courts standpoint, its the safest thing for them, that way they won't have to entertain the possibility of having to reverse any marriages.

  • 46. fiona64  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:17 am

    Jeffery? In a word, that's BULLSHIT.

    I campaigned against Prop 8. I voted against Prop 8. I was threatened with physical violence because of my work against Prop 8 — in my own front yard. I wound up with a stalker because of my work against Prop 8 — and had to get law enforcement involved.

    I can't speak for any other straight ally on this board — but what you just said was beyond the goddamned pale.

  • 47. bJason  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Keep SCOTUS out until it actually gets to them (if).

  • 48. JefferyK  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Okay. I take it back. I'm really upset right now.

  • 49. BT  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:18 am

    So…it's good that they are speeding up the process…but I feel like this has all been for naught. At least for me. Congratulations for all you Californians out there who may possibly be able to marry once more, but I was really hoping this went to the Supreme Court. There is no way that Arkansas will ever, EVER allow gays to marry unless they are forced to by a higher authority. Which it seems will never happen now.

  • 50. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:19 am

    They won't loose in SCOTUS though. 5-4 vote of Gay marriage is highly likely, with Kennedy as the swing vote.

  • 51. RadioActive  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:20 am

    I'm actually somewhat happy about the stay – this means it's not over. There was a piece on rightwingwatch last week that discussed the fear that SSM could spread across the rest of the US, and how some conservatives are willing to sacrifice CA for the nation.

    Personally, I'm fine with waiting a few months or a year so everyone in the US can get married (and kill DOMA) instead of containing this specifically to CA.

  • 52. Adam G  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    "if the 9th circuit finds that the hate mongers have no standing to appeal, the issue is dead and Judge Walker’s ruling is the law in the 9th at the very least."

    No, if they find that the DIs have no standing to appeal, then no appeal to the Ninth happens, and the decision binds only California (and SCOTUS can't touch it either), because without an appeal, the Ninth can't look at the merits of the case.

    If the Ninth finds that the DIs have standing, and then evaluate the merits of the case on the legal conclusions made by Walker (which is all they can legally do) and find in our favor, THEN it binds the entire Ninth.

    And since they can only find in our favor if the DIs have standing to appeal, then if the Ninth finds in our favor, the DIs will appeal to SCOTUS, and that will be the entire ballgame right there.

  • 53. nightshayde  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    Whoa there, Jeffrey. The majority of my straight friends and family voted both for Obama and against Prop 8. We have poured our hearts and souls into this issue. Please don't disregard us with a wave of your hand.

    We're out here. We're advocating for marriage equality every single freakin' day. We're heartbroken right now about the stay, but still hopeful that the pro-equality side will prevail — and that we'll prevail sooner rather than later.

  • 54. Beth  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    I think we all knew that it would go to the Fedral Applent Court at least it is not going to be sitting on the back burner so to speak for another year.

  • 55. Dalow  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    C'mon people! Be positive! Read Brian Devine's remarks just after the Docket text. It seems to me we have quite a bit to be hopeful about!

    PS: I've served Jury Duty eight time; words matter!

    Thanks for listening

  • 56. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    BT, this still might go to the Supreme Court. Nothing that happened today changes that. Why do you say it has all been for naught?

  • 57. GAYGUY  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    2 things…what is "scribe" and what EXACTLLY does SCOTUS mean???

  • 58. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    The Prop 8 proponents better watch out, if they keep pushing it. Gay marriage equality may just come quicker for the Nation, something they will not like.

  • 59. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:22 am

    SCOTUS= Supreme Court of the United States

  • 60. nightshayde  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Sorry for misspelling your name, Jeffery. It's tough to read the screen through tears…

  • 61. Shannon  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Buck up everyone! Don't join the NOM opinion that our courts are swayed by politics. We have to believe that the courts have the LAW in mind and that they will do their best to rule fairly according to the law.
    As disappointing as the stay is, I don't see how it gives any hints as to what any appeals judge may think about the issue (or the merit of the appeal). This stuff just takes time. We have to be patient to let this work through.

  • 62. MJFargo  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:24 am

    What we KNEW was this was going to take time. The expedited schedule is helpful because–win or lose–we'll get an answer sooner rather than later.

    And remember, if we win on appeal too, it still goes to the Supreme Court and that will…take…time.

  • 63. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:24 am

    'scribe' is short for subscribing. Many of us subscribe to these threads so we can get emails when new comments are made.

    SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The United States.

  • 64. Jim Keller  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:24 am

    I guess the good news is that now we've got a clear judicial error to justify an appeal to the Supreme Court. :)

  • 65. Greg  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:24 am

    Not sure I understand the "good news" part yet. Please explain, someone??

  • 66. Ed  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:24 am

    If the SCOTUS upholds all the gay marriage bans, we (America) will be the laughing stock of North America, what with Canada and Mexico granting their citizens the option to marry their same sex spouse…..

    Land of the free my ass…..

  • 67. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Dismissing JeffreyK's rage against "straight people" as far as anger in voting for someone that isn't for our equality, that is what it is about.

    Casting aspersions to someone's loyalty to the cause when they are not directly effected by it day in and day out is common. We are sold out left and right by the political establishment. Angry that Presidential politicians can only get elected by throwing our full equality under the bus at a moment's notice, by saying "God is in the mix".

    Remember, straight people, you can marry any time you want in any STATE you want, we can't! There are very few heterosexual couples who would actually refuse to get married in solidarity with us.

  • 68. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:26 am

    The good news is that they are expediting the schedule for submitting briefs and holding the hearing.

  • 69. nightshayde  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:27 am

    "scribe" means that the person is clicking the little box saying "notify me of follow-up comments via email."

    SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The United States

  • 70. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:28 am

    We aren't at the SCOTUS level yet.

    And the motion granted for the Stay isn't a loss for us, and it's not a win for them.

  • 71. JefferyK  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:28 am

    I don't know why people are so optimistic about this. I'm sure the Supreme Court justices have made up their minds about this case already. And SCOTUS has already demonstrated that its sympathies lie with the proponents. It's politics, now — not law.

  • 72. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Too bad. If Judge Walker had ruled for NOM, then we'd all be able to get married while the appeals worked their way through.

    Right?

    Heads NOM wins, tails we lose. Sweet.

  • 73. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Total win for NOM. They lose their case, and yet, things go on as if they'd won.

    Imagine how much further along equal rights would be if WE could get that kind of deal, huh?

  • 74. Anna Bryan  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:29 am

    Judge Walker already entered his judgement, which will start the clock on the appeals. The appeal for the State will run out in 30 days – way before a new administration comes in.

  • 75. celdd  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:29 am

    I am extremely disappointed in that discrimination is allowed to be continued. Proponent's arguments make no sense and only express animus against the LGBT community.

    However, upon reflection, maybe this stay will damp down some of the frenzy you know the right wing would whip up against politicians who do support us in the upcoming elections.

  • 76. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:29 am

    TaylorS,

    Unique circumstances of Prop 8, California, and so on is leading me to the conclusion that it will not go to SCOTUS on the merits.

  • 77. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Does anyone have any raw numbers about how many cases had Stays granted and then lost on the Appeal.

    This might ease some people's minds (or scare the heck out of us).

  • 78. Ed  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I;m sorry LLB, i'm just pissed the fuck off. no offense to u or anyone else…..I'm a real person, not a damn playtoy…..

    Its just aggravating :(

  • 79. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Correct on all fronts, Adam. We do have plenty of states with separate but supposedly equal relationship statuses within just the 9th Circuit alone. Oregon, Washington, Nevada.

  • 80. MJFargo  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:31 am

    I've been on the San Francisco Chronicle's site most of today, and when they reported that the Defense was asking that Judge Walker's opinion be overturned because of "responsible procreation," the entire comment section went ballistic. New people to this issue were horrified that such a concept could even be applied to marriage by the courts. So, you're right. The more time we have to convince and persuade (and we do have logic and facts on our side, which ain't hay), the stronger our position will be. Is that now 4cents?

  • 81. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Total LOSS for NOM if the 9th Circuit dismisses the case, which likely they will. The proponents have no legal standing in the case.

  • 82. Greg  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Ann: Couldn't they have expedited the schedule without denying people marriage this week?

  • 83. Anne B.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Friggin' appeals court . COWARDS. Per Walker's findings (and as we know in our hearts) every single day that same sex couples can't marry causes them damage. And yet if every single same sex couple in California married tomorrow, that would cause NO HARM to the rest of us (and in fact be a nice revenue boost!)

    Wish there was a way to say fine – no same sex marraiges, then no opposite sex marriages. No one can get married. We'll see what those opposed to same sex marriage feel when it's THEM who can't marry, who can't get the benefits of marriage, who can't declare their love in a public legal ceremony. (Bristol and Levi – for the purposes of this ban, you're Californians – no way can you two get married.)

    Oh, and for the Jefferys of the world – yes, I'm straight, and I gave a lot of money to defeat prop 8. A hell of a lot of us support equality.

    Anne Brock

  • 84. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Good point. "Don’t join the NOM opinion that our courts are swayed by politics." They're assholes!

  • 85. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Thanks, I have to keep reminding myself of that. Meg can't mess this up for us. Cooley can't mess this up for us. Repeat ad nauseum until I feel better.

  • 86. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:33 am

    I had my wedding plans in California get royally screwed up by Prop 8. I have a lot of hate towards H8.

  • 87. Anne B.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:34 am

    and are the six Catholics on the Supreme Court going to recuse themselves since their church worked so hard to get Prop 8 passed?

    Sorry, all, I'm pretty pissed tonight. Hope things look better tomorrow. But even if the court throws out Prop 8, it's now another few months until our loved ones can get married to each other.

    Sucks.
    Anne

  • 88. Kalistoga  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:35 am

    I like the way you think.

  • 89. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:35 am

    I'm so sorry, PM. Some days I'm so impressed about the shift in public opinion toward marriage equality, but then I reflect upon the lives that are impacted in the meantime.

  • 90. MJFargo  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:36 am

    (It took me forever to figure that out…because I was too insecure to ask. Good for you for asking!)

  • 91. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Not that people, especially gay people, are dogs, but you notice what happens when a dog gets abused over their lifetime, and someone (a human) approaches them with soothing words and offers to help? They snarl and they snap because you look like their abuser, even if you're nothing like that.

  • 92. another gay guy  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I think when people say "scribe", it means that they are subscribing to everyone's comments. SCOTUS stands for the Supreme Court of the United States.

  • 93. Caitlin  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Ugh. I'm depressed as a straight girl in Michigan. So sorry to all of you who were making plans. I do get that it's probably a "necessary evil" of sorts and that, if there's any justice at all, we'll get Prop 8 completely and permanenty overtured in a way that might have been more difficult otherwise. It's just that I'm willing to bet the bigots have already lined up press releases calling this a "legal victory" and a "sign of justice" even though they don't have an ounce of legal logic or justice anywhere in their midst.

  • 94. Keith  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I'm sickened by this. There is no reason for them to stay the decision. The case should have already been thrown out when the gov and AG withdrew. Our rights are being violated and that was proven in court. Why is the appeals court staying the decision? I'm very very bitter at this.

  • 95. Phillip Marsh  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:36 am

    The bloody court will find some reason to over turn the judges ruling.

    Until the supreme court actually grows a backbone and rules that laws to prevent same sex marriage are unconstitutional (just like they did with interracial marriage) then this issue is not going to get resolved.

    I have no faith in the judicial system and even less faith in the reTHUGlicans and the religious REICH in this country.

  • 96. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:37 am

    The proponents lack legal standing since the case was against Schwarzenegger and the State of California. Since both the governor and the AG are for the Gay marriage ruling and did not file the appeal themselves, the proponents lack legal standing to appeal a case that did not involve them.

  • 97. elist  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:37 am

    I certainly won't cheer if Walker's decision becomes law only because nobody has standing to appeal, though I'll be delighted for my friends who weren't yet married when Prop 8 passed.

    IMO, it's time to take this issue all the way through the system if we can.

  • 98. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:37 am

    I can't say how cool this is.

    It avoids bothering Mr. Justice Kennedy for an emergency stay motion which he would almost certainly grant.

    It also says pretty clearly: Read the law, you are out of the ball park.

    Sweet!

  • 99. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Legal scenario, how does it end: It's December, and the appeals have been heard. The 9th rules in our favor. It upholds Walker's ruling, additionally it declares that the defendants don't have the legal standing to appeal, but a republican administration is elected, accompanied by a republican AG. Can the new republican governor, and AG, appeal to the SCOTUS, even though the defendants didn't have the standing to appeal?

  • 100. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:38 am

    I didn't say it was ALL good news.

    They could have, but they're being cautious. It's what federal courts do.

    Look at it this way: a ruling that is under appeal is not "final" in every sense of the word, because the whole thing can be reversed on appeal. If you sue me and claim I owe you ten million dollars, and you win at trial but I appeal, I may not have to pay you until the appeal has been exhausted and you win on appeal and there are no possible further appeals.

    I realize it's not the same, but I never really expected the stay to be lifted during the course of this until all appeals were exhausted.

  • 101. Sean  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Wow, way to give in to the fear and hate-mongers, 9th Circuit. I can't believe this. Just as soon as the couples see a light at the end of the tunnel, these guys have to go and build a brand new tunnel.

  • 102. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:39 am

    You do realize that the 9th Circuit is the most liberal court in the Nation right? And you also know how hard it is for them to overturn Walkers ruling right? They have to take everything Walker ruled as fact.

  • 103. MJFargo  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Is the order citing "Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997)" of particular significance? Since other cases were cited about standing, is the 9th concerned about something in particular?

  • 104. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:39 am

    @Thomas Alex: And if the 9th dismisses the appeal, then there's no precedent binding on other states in the 9th, but NOM's little hate-amendment gets to stay in effect an extra 4 months even after it's found unconstitutional, and was passed unconstitutionally, and had no rational basis at all.

    NOM WIN. 4 more months of deprivation torture, plus lots of button-pushing grandstanding, plus hey, some people might die, who would have gotten married, and then their would-be spouses will be left destitute! Extra NOM WIN there.

  • 105. Sheryl Carver  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:39 am

    "scribe" – short for subscribing (see "Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed" at page bottom)

    SCOTUS – Supreme Court Of The United States

  • 106. Owen  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Agreed! I think people are overwhelmed by emotions right now, which is understandable, but the courts didn't care about public opinion and politics when they overturned sodomy laws. It won't necessarily happen here.

  • 107. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Actually Kennedy is for Gay rights, he would def revoke the stay.

  • 108. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Not according to the federal rules of appellate procedure. The potential for appeals closes 60 days from August 18th;.

  • 109. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:40 am

    what would be the better approach, sit patiently and wait , knowing the courts act separately from poliics,

    or get even more ramped up, shove our unrest in their face, keep acting up make the people aware we won't take anything but equality, send a clear message to the people

    knowing that the courts will make their decision on clear basis of the law and the evidence and facts before them,

    sort of like acting equal, right now, sit in those offfices until our paperwork is filled out, just like everybody elses.

  • 110. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:40 am

    If you're sure that Kennedy would grant a stay, are you sure he would overturn Walker's ruling?

  • 111. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Nope. Its Schwarzenegger's name as the defendant on the legal court docs.

  • 112. Sarah  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I agree here. That the specifically mentioned this issue seems a good sign! :) And then they can't cry that they were not warned about it beforehand.

  • 113. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Agreed, much better than if people were camping out and CA9 waited until 4:30PM Wednesday.

  • 114. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Thanks. I didn't think anyone would've followed that, but you did, and I like your answer.

  • 115. James Tuttle  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

    I really could just cry. I'm so down trodden now and I kinda feel like Jeffery in the regard that…why be optimistic? Why was I ever stupid enough to hope so badly for something as ridiculous as equality? HA! There is still so much fire, and hope in my heart but it is so hard to feel just now. And now, I am crying.

  • 116. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Under existing law, no, they can't appeal.

    Under the law they'll make up on the spot to allow another round of legal smear-the-queer? Oh heck yeah, they'll be allowed to re-appeal. And again if they lose.

    NOM gets as many do-overs as they need. That much has been made clear.

  • 117. TaylorS  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

    What do you see as being the unique circumstances of Prop8?

    From what I understand, the only difference between California's constitutional amendment and others' is that ours was passed while marriage was constitutionally legal, but this has no bearing on an argument under the Federal constitution.

    This is why the state suit of prop 8 failed. Marriage was legal under the old CA constitution, but not now that it was amended.

    In this way, I think prop8's case is just like all other constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Regardless of the circumstances of each individual state, the federal constitution still applies the same way (ie marriage is a fundamental right…equal protection…due process…). Judge Walker did not rule that it was a fundamental right in CA, but that it was a fundamental right.

  • 118. Owen  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

    How hilarious would it be for Meg Whitman to bring it in front of SCOTUS and get her rear end handed to her? XD

  • 119. fiona64  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Yep, GC, you're right.

    And every one of your straight allies could also say "I don't have a dog in this fight" and walk away — except that the dog in the fight is not marriage, but equality for *all* under the law.

    Not all of the people who stood with MLK were African-American, and not all of the people who stand with you are GLBT.

    And you know what? I just got a horrible piece of news while I was typing this — my husband's company is being closed as of the last week of October. I have other shit to worry about now than dealing with people who don't want my help any more.

    Fiona

  • 120. josephRoehl  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:43 am

    We beseech our brave attorneys Boies and Olsen: Please appeal the Stay to the US Supreme Court immediately. Then there's a chance NOW to overturn all homophobia in legal statutes across the States in one ruling that all 80 points of law Judge Walker ruled ARE VALIDATED. This is URGENT, human rights are not something to dilly dally over, not something 10% of American citizenry ought to be burdened with one hour longer than absolutely necessary.

    "Justice delayed is justice denied." MLK

  • 121. Mandy  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:43 am

    just because Kennedy is for gay rights does not mean that he would not support a stay. He may very well support the stay as it is a procedural issue and not a gay rights issue.

    FWIW I am very saddened by this. I get why the court is doing this but it doesn't mean I am not broken up about it.

  • 122. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:44 am

    @Fiona, sorry to hear about you and your husbands news. Although I am not a god fearing person, I will be praying for you both. Keep your heads up.

    Love
    Barb

  • 123. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:45 am

    You do realize that the standard for a stay is a compelling probability of success on appeal, right?

    To say that there's likely no chance of even having standing, much less winning, then to grant a stay anyway, is 100% pure unmitigated gay-bashing.

  • 124. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Picket their synagogues of satan.

  • 125. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:45 am

    More in the neighborhood of 15%.

  • 126. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:46 am

    +1

    Appeal this stay now. It's bogus, and completely outside of usual procedure.

  • 127. Trish  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Fiona, I am also sorry to hear about your husband's job, but I for one would like to have you continue to be an ally and continue to fight for us. I am asking you to please continue with your work because we need you.

  • 128. Travis O'Brien  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:47 am

    I really appreciate that statement.

  • 129. PM  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Ann S. – what I would like to know is why the 9th ruled the way they did on the stay. Proponents failed to meet the standards to prove the stay was necessary – it was clearly obvious. Will the 9th issue an opinion on this so we can understand their thinking?

  • 130. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:47 am

    It's not a "procedural issue" since the proponents have no legal standing under law.

  • 131. Mouse  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Ruling: it's wrong for you to beat your wife.

    APPEAL! I don't like the opinion of you, Activist Judge! I get to keep beating her until the appeal's decided, right?

    Of course! I mean, what if the appeals court agrees that she deserves it – we wouldn't want you to suffer the harm of months of her flaunting her bruise-free face at you.

    Justice delayed is indeed justice denied.

    What's a few more months of turning the other cheek, anyway?

  • 132. Mandy  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:49 am

    I thought I read on yahoo news that plaintiff's attorneys would not appeal the stay to the USSC

  • 133. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:49 am

    And you also realize the stay is because the proponents of the appeal have no legal standing to appeal. Therefore they will dismiss the case.

  • 134. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:49 am

    We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

    -Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

    I wish I could offer more that hasn't already been said, but here's hoping for a delay that is not too long.

  • 135. Bryan  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Nothing will happen until December, and that means they're "expediting" the process?!? I can't wait any longer! I'm so sick of being optimistic. The judicial system may function in a timeless vacuum, but gays and lesbians are aging and dying. How much longer? How many more cases? How many "wins" until we win?

    Ugh. Sorry, I still love you all– just frustrated.

  • 136. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Oh, and this…never forget these stats.

  • 137. Jim Keller  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:51 am

    MJFargo,

    With the caveat that I'm *not* a lawyer, Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona was a 1997 ruling in which Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, included language that stated that people who were not directly harmed by a court ruling would have "questionable" standing to appeal under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Despite being a rather oblique precedent, it's considered the precedent for this sort of situation, where the official Defendants don't want to appeal.

    The court here is asking the appellants to explain why they think they have standing, which could be a Supreme Court fight in and of itself.

  • 138. Thomas Alex  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:54 am

    @ Andrea

    I'm not sure I follow? "then there’s no precedent binding on other states in the 9th?" Huh? After the 9th dismisses the appeal on the basis the proponents have no legal standing for appeal is a loss for NOM.

  • 139. Anna Bryan  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:55 am

    Supreme Court said in Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona:

    "Grave doubts exist as to the standing of petitioners AOE and Park to pursue appellate review under Article III's case or controversy requirement. [T]his Court has never identified initiative proponents as Article III qualified defenders."

  • 140. Sarah  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:56 am

    I don't think that's the case. Although I have no legal background, I think from what I have gathered here that if Judge Walker had ruled against us, Prop 8 would have been legal. Is it right that the issue of the stay is because the law on the books (Pro H8) was ruled unconstitutional and Walker said it should be made null and void. The stay was granted to keep things as they are through appeal (aka, allowing the law to remain in effect.) If our opponents had won a stay would not be necessary, because Walker would have been saying, "things are how they should be."

    Does that make sense?

  • 141. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:57 am

    After 28 yrs practicing in the Federal appellate courts, here's my take on the order:

    (1) Article III lack of standing is the real issue here. Requiring Proponents to address this at the gate suggests this Court has serious doubts on the matter. As a matter of law, it is difficult to see how the Proponents can meet the tests for standing'

    (2) The CCA9 panel's decision to proceed with this case in a expedited manner explains the strategic choice to grant the stay. This action keeps SCOTUS out of the picture until such time as the case is resolved at the intermediate appellate level. Had the stay been granted, Proponents could have appealed to SCOTUS, delaying the process by a much as a month. No one, especially all 9 SCOTUS justices, and with the exception of the Proponents, want this case to darken SCOTUS' doorway.

    (3) Once the case is submitted for consideration on 12/6/10, expect a fast decision. My expectation is the CCA9 will issue its opinion before 1/1/11 and probably sooner;

    (4) It is important to remember that CCA9 cannot "retry" the facts as setforth by the District Court. They can only re-visit the law. And this presumes the Proponents have Article III standing;

    (5) My expectation is that (1) the CCA9 panel will find the Proponents do not have Article III standing and will lift the stay forthwith. The Proponents will forgo an en blanc appeal and file a cert petition and an emergency stay application with SCOTUS. SCOTUS will, with a sigh of relief, deny both the cert petition and stay application. End of story in the 9th circuit;

    (6) Please keep in mind that Boies & Olson are appellate practice veterans. No one better understands appellate strategy better than these guys;

    (7) Lastly, judges do not like being political punching bags in an election cycle; The CCA9's decision in December will deny the Proponents' the opportunity turn this case into a Nov '10 circus.

  • 142. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:57 am

    California already had "Gay Marriage." It was called "Domestic Partnership." This was found unconstitutional; something about equal protection.

    It's just "Marriage." Same kind for everyone.

  • 143. Alan E.  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:58 am

    tell me more tell me more

  • 144. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:58 am

    @Fiona, you just made such a clear statement about what we are fighting for, and it isn't marriage, I think that is such an important message, EQUALITY is the goal, and the benefit of that is the ability to exercise our right to things like marriage.

    Joe public needs to hear that, this whole religious NOM marriage thing has become such a red herring, standing in our way,

    And you have been such a fighter, defending the notion of EQUALIY a leader for me and many, thank you, when you get provoked you really get to the point, I have always admired that about you, everyone hear what this woman has just said.

    and regrets about your husbands job, that sucks, big time

  • 145. MJFargo  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:59 am

    I just found it curious that the only thing they really said (other than a schedule and a stay while the appeal is heard) was "We want this addressed." I'm looking for clues, and that's the only one I saw. Thanks for elaborating.

  • 146. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:59 am

    wrong, wrong, wrong

  • 147. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Thank you pgbach…that was clearly to the point (and easy for us non–legalese speakers to understand.)

  • 148. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:02 am

    if we just take our place at the county clerks office and wait, they can't issue marriage licences to the hetero's behind us either,,,,, no soup for you

  • 149. James Tuttle  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:02 am

    I really needed that pick-me-up! Thank you.

  • 150. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:04 am

    @Thomas Alex: Without an appeal being heard, the ruling is still limited to California.

    All this does is keep H8 on the books for four months after it's already been struck down, "For No Good Reason." It helps no one else.

  • 151. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:04 am

    @Fiona, I am so sorry about your husband's situation, how stressful and upsetting. I will be thinking about you.

    PS – I know better than to think you would ever be anything other than a fighter for equality.

  • 152. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Yeah, if we lose we can't get married.

    If we win, we can't get married.

    Got it.

    This game is rigged.

  • 153. Jim  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Sorry, I'm still confused about the issue of appeals. A question for our legal experts:

    1. Suppose Defendant-Intervenors somehow get standing to do their appeal in Ninth Circuit.

    2. Suppose that Appeals Court then, correctly, rules that Prop 8 indeed was unconstitutional.

    3. Suppose Defendant-Intervenors then appeal to Supreme Court.

    4. Suppose Republicans Whitman and/or Cooley were to win and take office in January 2011.

    Then could Whitman and/or Cooley join Defendant-Intervenors' appeal to Supreme Court in any way, including a) appearing before Sup Ct or b) at least offering amicus curiae briefs that the Sup Ct would take very seriously?

  • 154. Shannon  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Thanks pgbach, I hope you're right on everything!

  • 155. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:07 am

    No standing to appeal == no compelling probability of success on appeal == NO STAY.

    Olson and Boies ought to be filing with SCOTUS right now. The 9th erred in granting this stay.

  • 156. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:08 am

    According to the plaintiffs, why not?

  • 157. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Bryan, take a deep breath and be glad you are young enough to be frustrated by 120 days. I waited for more than 5 decades just to have this case brought to trial a mere 8 months ago. Do you have no idea how monumental the 8/4 findings of fact are for us? Pls, dear friend, hang in there for a little longer.

  • 158. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:08 am

    I agree!

  • 159. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:08 am

    This is the temporary stay, so they can have a hearing on whether there should be a stay throughout the appeal at the 9th Circuit level.

    It isn't as though we have lost the appeal. We failed to get the temporary stay lifted.

  • 160. Anonygrl  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:10 am

    OK… Can I share something silly? I was just looking over videos on YouTube from Sunday… and I came across this…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PznchddAvh4

    It is very short. And I KNOW that the caption in the video is wrong… it should say "cute" not "good" because it was ME that said it.

    :)

  • 161. Dalow  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Thank you, pgbach. Well said!

  • 162. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:14 am

    This is inspiring to read, thanks.

  • 163. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Decisions from 9th Ckt are almost always within 3 months but can be as long as five or six months.

  • 164. Kyle  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I am extremely tired of proponents getting deference here. They have no case, they presented no case. They have questionable standing at best, and WE have to wait? Why? Why do we have to wait for our rights while they just litigate this to death. They lost! It's disgusting that people have to wait one more friggin' day while these jerks keep beating a dead horse.

  • 165. OldCoastie  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:15 am

    I wondering if a little action in the streets might be called for now.

  • 166. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:16 am

    OMG. That was so cool of you to say. Brian Brown likes his ass complimented on.

  • 167. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:17 am

    I'm pleased you found this helpful… and I thank you for suggesting I wrote in a manner that was non-legalese…. remember, I make a living writing legalese! It is good to know I can still talk "normal" talk.

  • 168. Truly  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Wasn't there a legal theory floated here at P8TT that even if the 9th Circuit granted the stay that Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown could order County Clerks to resume issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples?

    I thought it had something to do with the fact that because Walker struck down Prop 8 that it was no longer in place and the Fed Courts have no jurisdiction to tell Gov and AG what to do in their own state.

    I fully expected SS marriages to resume Wednesday on the Governor's order regardless of the 9th's verict on the stay. Am I totally wrong?

  • 169. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Correct, Sheryl, the 9th will NOT rule on the appellants’ standing until Dec 6th at the earliest

    But they would just never ever rule from the bench on Dec 6th, this would indicate that their minds were made up already, which would be a denial of due process.

    The wheels of Justice grind slowly, but the good news is they always move forwards.

  • 170. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:18 am

    I know. I think everyone's torn over that aspect.

  • 171. Anonygrl  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:19 am

    I don't know if your legal theory is correct, but my GUESS would be that even if they CAN, they won't, because they won't want to muddy the waters.

    At this point, antagonizing the court is not in the best interest of anybody.

  • 172. Owen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Andrea, the surviving members of same-sex couples would be screwed anyway thanks to DOMA.

  • 173. Trish  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Okay, I'm being flippant about this, but this is how I can see how the 9th Circuit came out with the determination that judgment should be stayed:

    it's a "balancing" test with 4 factors…

    1) likelihood on the success (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being highest in favor of stay, let's be nice and give this a 4);

    2) whether they will suffer irreparable harm (okay, their harm is…, conceivably, "We won't get what we want!!!" which is stupid, but if plaintiffs marry, the harm is irreparable, so we'll give them a 9, taking off a point for stupidity);

    3) whether any other interested party will suffer substantial harm if the stay is granted (serious continued harm to the parties being denied a fundamental right. We'll go with 1);

    4) whether the public interest will be harmed if the stay is granted (confusion if people who marry during the time period will have their marriages annulled actually weighs in favor of stay so we'll go with a 7)

    So, running my numbers through my handy-dandy balancing calculator, we get 6, which weighs in favor of stay.

    I know that the 9th Circuit weighed these more carefully over the weekend, and I absolutely understand the hurt that people are feeling, but let's try not to lash out at our supporters and friends. Lash out at the NOMbies instead.

  • 174. Sheryl Carver  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:21 am

    If I understand you correctly, pgbach, there will NOT be a ruling on the Proponents' standing before Dec 6th?

  • 175. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:21 am

    I'm inclined to agree that doing things thoroughly takes time. It would have been great to see people marrying right away (again), but….I'm used to results happening after the entire legal procedure is done, which includes the appeals process.

  • 176. Ron  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Me too, Keith!! Well said. It's a huge injustice.

  • 177. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:23 am

    judges do not like being political punching bags in an election cycle

    Neither do gays and lesbians. And we already took our turn.

    Constitutional rights, please. Now.

  • 178. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:23 am

    All that talk about "binding" is suddenly making me recall the movie THE CRAFT.

  • 179. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:24 am

    @PM, it's just a temporary stay until they can hold the hearing about whether to issue the stay pending appeal – the one that might stay in place throughout the appeal at the 9th Circuit level.

  • 180. Bill  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:25 am

    As a Californian, I am concerned that if Meg Whitman and the repulican candidate for Attorney General win the November elections, are they allowed to step in and defend Prop 8?

    Or, since Schwartzenegger and Jerry Brown are the named defendents in the lawsuit, does it ultinitely rest on them?

    Does anyone know???

    I fear that if Meg Whitman and her fellow republicans DO have legal authority to step in and defend Prop 8 if they are elected in November, they will certainly pull out all the stops, and we will see one of the most hateful anti-gay campaigns from all repulican candidates.

  • 181. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:25 am

    The 9th Circuit hasn't ruled on the standing issue. Presumably they will after the December hearing.

  • 182. raiderdebate  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:25 am

    I believe that would be incorrect.

    Right now, technically (i.e. legally), Prop 8 is still part of the California constitution and is still the law of the land. If they were to issue marriage licenses, they would be in violation of the California constitution. They would likely be held in contempt or something by a local court.

  • 183. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:26 am

    James, I am pleased my writing lifted your spirits. The only advantage, I have discovered, to having a head of gray hair is patience, perspective, and remembering Carl Roger's immortal words: "The facts are always friendly." When I was young, hung, & beautiful, marriage was not even a question for me. In those days, not being expelled from law school for the mere fact I was gay was the question. Our ullnes in time has come… though, we might have to wait 4 months more.

  • 184. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:26 am

    (4) was already addressed by Walker. We're adults and can decide for ourselves whether to risk it or wait. The Proponents don't have standing to plead uncertainty. It's irrelevant.

    This stay was completely PFA. Pulled From @ss.

  • 185. raiderdebate  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Should the 9th Circuit NOT rule by the time they are sworn-in, they could advance an appeal. The case would have to change its name anyway to Perry. v. Whitman.

  • 186. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Sheryl, you are correct.

  • 187. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:29 am

    Now that Neil Patrick Harris and his partner David have announced they are expecting twins, how much more responsible can “responsible procreation” get?

  • 188. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:30 am

    @Owen: Well then, that makes it OK.

  • 189. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:31 am

    @pgbach, thank you very much for your perspective. As a non-litigation lawyer, I often wish I knew more about these kinds of aspects of the case, but only the kind of experience you have can give you this kind of perspective.

    Thank you again.

  • 190. Truly  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:31 am

    I disagree that Prop 8 is stil part of the California Constitution. Judge Walker struck down Prop 8, removing it from the CA Constitution and restoring the right of SS couples to marry, restoring the rights they had prior to Prop 8. The 9th Circuit may delay implementation, but they cannot reinsert Prop 8 into the Constitution without going through the appeal process to overtrun Walker's ruling.

  • 191. Rick  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Terrific analysis–thanks for lifting my spirits.

  • 192. Trish  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Here's how that legal theory goes:

    The executive branch of CA is charged with enforcing laws. That is their responsibility under the Constitution of the State. There are, however, laws on the books that the executive branch simply does not enforce. For example, federally, the President has determined he will not enforce laws against marijuana use in California for individuals who are complying with California law. Theoretically, that means that the Governor could simply choose to stop enforcing Proposition 8.

    That's what Mayor Newsom did in 2004. However, this would be different because Newsom was a representative of a subdivision of the State, not a representative of the State itself, which is why the CA SC invalidated those marriages.

    If the Governor did decide to tell the clerks to start issuing marriage licenses, he could be sued and asked to stop doing that. The risk is that (a) Proposition 8 is upheld by the 9th Cir or USSC and (b) those marriages are invalidated.

  • 193. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:33 am

    According to Walker the proponents needed to show the harm that would be caused by denying the stay.

    What harm was so persuasive that tipped the stay motion in their favor, and didn't Walker refute these claims?

  • 194. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Dearest Andrea,
    Indeed, indeed. However, please consider that if the judges are political punching bags how much more we lgbt people are punching bags in tandem. Judge Vaughn has vindicated our lives in his 8/4/10 opinion. I understand you desire for immediate gratification. However, that isn't how the real world operates. More importantly, think of the next few months as really great foreplay… our time has come…

  • 195. Susan  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:35 am

    subscribing

  • 196. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Footnote: If the 9th finds lack of standing, the h8ters can appeal the standing issue to the Supremes. Who will squash them like bugs.

    Follow the yellow brick road and see, e.g., Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

  • 197. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:37 am

    No. See question # 142. A similar scenario has been answered. The post numbers change, so it may be higher if you get to it.

  • 198. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Yes.

  • 199. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:38 am

    time for some discussion with Quieer Rising

  • 200. 1nc0gn1t0  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Imagine that SCOTUS takes the case and rules in our favor, and that same-sex marriage is legal. What's next?

    Congress takes up the Federal Marriage Amendment again, this time with intense political pressure to pass it. It passes. We don't have 14 states that will elect not to ratify it. Not a chance. Marriage inequality will be written into the US Constitution, so it would require another constitutional amendment to reverse it. Not likely in my lifetime. We win, we lose.

    Having the case dismissed based on standing is the best possible outcome. I hate to wait, but we need a little more time for the culture to move forward – in at least 14 states.

  • 201. John  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:40 am

    I would like to know what effect, if any, a Whitman win (God forbid) would have on this case…if Jerry Brown wins it is obvious we will be supported…what if the opposite catrastophy should occur and how can we prepare for it (Besides getting our butts out and VOTING for Brown!?)

  • 202. grod  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:40 am

    In interesting August 2010 reader poll done by one of Canada's national newspapers suggests its worth placing confidence in the courts, slow as the process can be. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/glob

    But SSM in Canada was achieved via the Courts, including appeal court decisions with the politicians well behind.

  • 203. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:41 am

    and acting on equality, we just go to the County Clerk, expecting nothing less than being treated equally, marriage certificate pleasse

  • 204. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Don't despair! None of us know how this will turn out! Be hopeful, and we'll all continue to stick together. As a native Californian, I thank you for all that you, and other people living outside California, have done.

    This could all still go to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe everyone in CA wants it to, too.

  • 205. allen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:41 am

    I wonder this same thing. Prop 8 went into effect IMMEDIATELY, yet when we win we have to wait, and wait, and wait.

  • 206. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:41 am

    @Truly – 8 is still there. See, we won, but gays aren't allowed to win no matter what the law is. So, the other side gets a do-over, and another, and so on until we lose. THAT will go into effect immediately.

    Oh wait, it already IS in effect.

    The stay means they've decided we're going to lose. They're just trying to figure out how.

  • 207. Ray in MA  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Maybe this could affect the CA Governor election?

    More reason to fight against a Whtiman election!!!

    Make Lemon Ade with your lemons!!!

  • 208. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:42 am

    No. Whiman or anyone else cannot appeal. A similar question was answered. #148.

  • 209. Greg  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:44 am

    So if I understand this correctly, if the proponents are found to have no standing, it all ends there? No SCOTUS, no sweeping, national decisions? Big win for California, but the rest of the country will remain unaffected (for now)?

    Is that correct?

  • 210. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Yes. When there isn't solid evidence to the contrary, it's just depressing to assume courts have a leaning about an issue they haven't heard yet, either way.

  • 211. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Ann,
    I am glad I you found my perspective helpful. I've often doubted the wisdom of my legal career starting out with clerkships to CCA & SCOTUS judges. However, in my gray-haired-days, Justice Brennen's admonishments to me seem to make obvious sense to me now: "Law at its best moves slowly; that is what makes the law, the law."

  • 212. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:46 am

    +1. Thursday morning, we walk in and demand marriage licenses. And won't leave without them.

    If nothing else, we jam up those offices so NO ONE can get marriage licenses.

    This is serious BS, this stay.

  • 213. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:47 am

    beautiful!

  • 214. AndrewPDX  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:48 am

    I am bummed that they extended the stay — the emotional roller coaster continues.

    But, I love how they make the proponents put their standing in their opening statement, a "Prove yourself worthy" approach… maybe December 6th will be very quick:
    BAILIFF: All rise for the honorable xx, xx, and xx.
    JUDGE: Mr. Cooper; Good God Man! what were you thinking? No, on second thought, don't speak… just leave.
    JUDGE: Case dismissed; Walker's ruling stands." Time: 4 minutes

    And 'sides, this gives me extra time to plan… maybe my Mr. Right will come by in the next month, sweep me off my feet, and we can be in line with everyone else on December 7th. :)

    A guy can hope, right?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 215. scott  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Don't we want the court to rule that they have legal standing to appeal?? I mean this isnt going to make it to SCOTUS if they dont. It will be another one his wonder case that just brings equity to one state and not the entire country.

  • 216. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:49 am

    I agree with you BT, Arkansas is never ever on their own going to stop violating the constituitional rights of GLBTs. Same with Virginia, my daughters state.

    I guess we have to let Justice run it's course.I hope they do have standing so that the case can go all the way, becasue that is what benefits my family, and also I don't think we could ever get Olson and Boies together again.

  • 217. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Sarah, you are correct, If our opponents had won a stay would not be necessary, because Walker would have been saying, “things are how they should be.”

    Andrea, If we win, we can’t get married yet

    "yet" is so much better than "never".

  • 218. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Did you clerk for Justice Brennan? Wow!

  • 219. Trish  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:50 am

    It's not just confusion for you, Andrea. It's confusion for creditors trying to get you a loan for a house and not knowing if they can treat you as married or if they have to treat you as single and whether the paperwork will have to be re-done if it turns out your marriage isn't recognized. It's confusion for the employers trying to determine benefits. It's not confusion now, it's confusion if those marriages are suddenly found invalid.

  • 220. Sheryl Carver  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Thanks, Ray. That seemed to be the case, but I was hoping they could rule on only that issue sometime after the Proponents filed their paperwork on why they had standing, & not have to wait until Dec. If the 9th ruled they didn't have standing, it would save time for everyone. Oh, well.

  • 221. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Not true, once the case is submitted in December, it is submitted.

  • 222. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:52 am

    Correct & Incorrect. The decision will impact the entire CCA9, not just California.

  • 223. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:53 am

    I like this idea! And make each clerk read the reasons to you about 15 times, and discuss discuss discuss! Soon they'll be saying, "Well, it's closing time, so…" (Everyone else in line wear headphones, so they can't say, "Did you hear what I just explained to that other couple?")

  • 224. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Immediate gratification?

    I've been waiting since SF City Hall, Feb. 2004, thank you very much!

    7 years… that's 1/10th an average lifetime.

    Oh right, someone else will now pipe in and say they've been waiting even longer. As if THAT makes it OK.

    We won. Rights. NOW.

  • 225. Sheryl Carver  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Thank you, pgbach.

    As I mentioned to Ray above, I was hoping that maybe the whole timeline could be shortened if the 9th could rule on the standing issue prior to Dec. Not surprised, though.

    As is easy to tell, I am not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. ;-)

  • 226. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:54 am

    No, this case brings equality to the entire 9th circuit….. think Sheriff Joe's AZ.

  • 227. Trish  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:54 am

    scott,

    This case is about two couples: Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. Those couples LOSE every single day that this case continues. Those couples WIN if the 9th Circuit dismisses for lack of standing. AFER represents those two couples. Not you, not me, and not any other person in a relationship with someone else of the same sex.

    Yes, it would be very nice if this case got all the way to the Supreme Court and Prop 8 were kicked to the curb for good, along with all of the other discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians. However, AFER has a legal and ethical obligation to do what is best for their clients, which might mean that this case won't go to the Supreme Court and only California is affected.

  • 228. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Brian, I see what you are saying, but even at that, I am feeling like the opening chatter for Wide World of Sports–"The thrill of victory, and the agony of defeat."

  • 229. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:57 am

    It happened to my wife and I in 2004. We survived and so did everyone else.

    Next fake concern?

    Why is everyone just going along with this? Stockholm Syndrome? Are you all really THAT beaten down?

    We won in Federal Court, but we still lose for another 4 months while a bunch of out-of-state carpet baggers wait to be told that they are not California's elected government? And y'all quietly accept this? Really?

  • 230. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:57 am

    Just a reminder to anyone here who's never been a party to a lawsuit: THEY ARE A NIGHTMARE! What is happening here is why 90% of cases are settled out of court. No one likes waiting as the wheels of the court system grind ever so slowly. There are usually a million little appeals withing appeals and arguments along the way…this is what lawsuits are LIKE.

    We got a great ruling from Judge Walker and are going before the most liberal court of appeals in the country. No one need fall off the wagon over this!!

  • 231. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:58 am

    PS – the uncertainty of hypothetical creditors does not outweigh Fundamental Constitutional Rights.

  • 232. Bob  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:59 am

    being equal and acting on it, is not a crime, might as well start practicising.

    meantime draw a little attention to our cause EQUALITY now please, just give me the same as everybody else, papers please

  • 233. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Yum! REASON! Thanx

    xoxoxoxoxo

  • 234. Trish  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Andrea,

    There are 4 factors, not 2. And to be honest, this decision by the court was expected, and it does NOT in ANY WAY, indicate that the 9th Circuit thinks that we are any less human. This stay is pretty much par for the course in cases like these (groundbreaking, of high social importance), and it was a stay granted by fairly liberal members of the 9th Circuit.

    You're asking why everyone is just "going along" — well, what would you do? You can sue independently if you want. But this case is ultimately not about you or me. It's about Kris Perry and Sandy Stier and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, and their attorneys have to do what is best for them, as much as we would like AFER to keep what's best for the rest of the country in mind.

  • 235. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:04 am

    I actually think that is a good idea. I think we should hold sit ins and disrupt hetrosexuals ability to get marriage licenses. Kind of, "How do YOU like it, when you wnat to get married and can't get a license"

  • 236. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Andrea,
    Ranting like a right-wing nut does no one any good. Frankly, you are fueling the bigots with your crazy talk. Pls consider basic mathematics… your 1/7th is nothing compared to my 1/7th…. Can you tell me how many YEARS it took to overturn "seperate by equal"?????

  • 237. pgbach  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:07 am

    yes, when I was a really young, stupid person

  • 238. Bill  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:09 am

    I am all for gays getting married. Why should straight couples be the only ones that get to enjoy divorce? It will be great watching some of the divorces go public. The dirt that will be slung will be the best ever.

  • 239. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Jeffery, don't feel bad for being cynical. You're right; every second that marriage equality remains in the hands of voters, courts, and legislators, it's at risk. Until marriage equality is assured at the end of this stupid appeals process, your civil rights are being denied. That is more than enough reason to be very upset.

    And yes, the next administration could try to mess with it all over again. I don't blame you for being Mr. Half-Empty; I'd be Ms. Throw-The-Freakin'-Glass-Against-The-Wall if it was me.

    It's also true what you say: I'm straight, I'm married, I enjoy these benefits but I also desperately want them for you too because I know how important they are and how big a change marriage has made in my life. I also want marriage for my best friend, my sister, my niece and nephew, my neighbor, and myriad other gay people I love who are also being denied the protections of marriage. I give money, I stump politically, and I try to stay informed (which is why I'm here) but it's true, my suffering isn't anything like yours. I am truly sorry that you are suffering, though, and I'm doing what I can to reduce that pain for you and others like you.

    You don't have to like me, but I hope you will someday take comfort in the fact that people you don't even know care about you and are trying to help you get what's yours by rights. If you don't mind a virtual hug from a chubby straight gal, I'll offer you one *hug.*

    Okay I'm done now.

  • 240. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:10 am

    It is not in Plaintiff’s interest to have this stay lifted.

    The Elian Gonzalez affair was over when the airplane took off from Miami with Elian aboard.

    This case will be over when the Plaintiffs get married.

    If that happens before all the appeal deadlines have run out, it may very well render the case moot. Void.

    The stay keeps this question out of the equation. You, gentle reader, are in no worse position than Kristen and Sandra, or Paul and Jeffrey.

    They did not bring this case as a class action, so, if they get satisfied the case is over.

  • 241. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Sorry folks, another big day ahead of me tomorrow, I got hit the hay, it's 3am by me and I'm going to be real tired tomorrow.

    My sincere sympathies to every GLBT couple in California who has to wait to get married. I really feel for you.

  • 242. Keith  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:13 am

    A lot of people are crying James. Everything happens for a reason though so for now we just have to persevere, and push on. I believe granting the stay was justice denied again though. Those asswipes on the bench can enjoy their marriages while we continue to be held at bay over and over, just to be treated equal. I would spit on them if I could.

  • 243. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Excellent point Ray.

  • 244. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:15 am

    But someone on some thread raised the possibility that SCOTUS could order the State of CA to defend the case in a new trial? And wouldn't that kick it to the new administration? Is that possible, or is that just ravings from somebody who watches too much C-SPAN?

  • 245. Ralph  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Christ, I don't have a good feeling about this at all. Despite all the cheery talk about how this really works in our favor, we still don't which justices will actually hear this case.
    I'm frankly sick of citing MLK sentiments about inequality and injustice. It just doesn't resonate with black people and it isn't working for us now! There, I said it.
    We should quote form our own martyr, Harvey MIlk when demanding our rights. That's it. Where is the hardcore militancy we need in this situation? Sit-in, lie-in, scream if you have to this coming Wednesday at all county offices throughout the state and demand your fucking rights! Enough of this shit, man!

  • 246. Ralph  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Excuse me, in my rage, I meant "don't know which justices…,etc."

  • 247. Carpool Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Sorry….count me out for protesting the stay business. The case is in the system, and we'll see how it goes, then regroup.

  • 248. Ramjet  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:26 am

    What will happen if a Republican is elected governor in CA in November, and also possibly as attorney general? Could they then decide to appeal the decision as parties to the original lawsuit, so there would be no "standing" issue?

  • 249. OldCoastie  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:28 am

    Ramjet – this has been asked and answered multiple times in the thread… the decision is coming down on Dec. 6th. No – the election will not matter, as far as anyone can tell.

  • 250. JT  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Sorry to disagree with an otherwise competent analysis by pgbach. But based on my many years of appellate experience (including the USSC) I doubt seriously that both the 9th and the USSC would have gone to the extraordinary (indeed virtually unprecedented) point of o intervening and overturning Judge Walker not once but twice for his pre-trial conduct. That is highly unusual.

    That, together with the USSC's rather stern rebuke of Walker, to me at least, indicates that 5 justices do not hold his handling of this case and his conduct in very high regard. It is a fact that, unfortunately, Walker did engage in some very offensive and eye-popping behavior that to many demonstrated a bias in favor of plaintiffs and a predisposition toward invalidating Prop 8. Don't get excited about the standing issue. Another of Walker's grave mis-steps was his granting San Fran's motion to intervene and denying the motions to intervene of three other municipal movants.

    Of course San Fran was for the plaintiffs and the others were not. Walker's reasons for granting one and not the others (where their alliances were so plainly different and apparent to him) are thin at best. Worse still, Walker sat on the motions to intervene until the trial and then denied the motions as part of his ruling. Judges who do that automatically raise eyebrows because it screams bias. Unfortunately for SSM, those denied intervention have a right to appeal the denial of intevention (which they have done.) And the law is clear; if movants denied intervention are found to have been wrongfully denied intervention, the whole thing gets reversed on that basis alone. This is all the more likely given Walker's emphasis on the alleged failure of Prop 8 proponents to put forward this or that witness.

    I also strongly disagree that Judge Walker's "factual findings" are bullet proof and insulated from review because the appellate courts are bound by them. They most certainly are not, nor will they give them deference if they find that Judge Walker had no business finding those facts to begin with.

    Don't forget, Walker, IMO, did exactly what the appellate court had previously told him he was not to do – delve into the motivations of those who sponsored and voted for Prop 8.

    Sorry but I read and reread Walker's decision. It is not scholarly at all but sophomoric and I predict it will be reversed. So prepare youselves.

  • 251. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Carpool Kathleen, I'm with you. We won the case. The stay is ordinary for this kind of thing. If we protest at this stage, we look like cry-babies.

    Many of the counties really want to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples, let's not give them the headache of protesting there.

  • 252. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:34 am

    pgbach;

    And I thought it was the people who were working FOR Proposition 8 who were fueling right-wing bigots. Now I know I support them by opposing them. Got it.

    Do not call me "Dearest" again. I am not your spritz-head girlfriend.

    In fact, I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk to me again at all.

  • 253. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:37 am

    @LLB, no, the 9th hasn't said anything about the Imperial County appeal. The did assign their appeal a separate case number and set up a briefing schedule — all very routine. I'm not sure how IC's issues are going to play out here in the new schedule the Court has set.

  • 254. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:43 am

    If Gov or Atty Gen were parties to the appeal, then the names would be changed to reflect the current office holders if it came to that.

    But since the Governator and Brown are not on the list of appellants, nothing that happens in November can change the list of appellants.

  • 255. Ray  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:48 am

    With all due respect to pgbatch, methinks that a decision on the standing issue will impact all of CCA9 only on the standing issue.

    The underlaying issue of SSM will be confined to California.

  • 256. Keith  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Thanks straight grandmother and thanks for your support.

    Sweet Dreams

  • 257. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I don't know how many here follow the career of Cory Booker. He's a rising political star, currently the Mayor of Newark, NJ. He made a rather eloquent video on his views of marriage equality.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeT7yJ7SrE4

  • 258. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:56 am

    'It will be great watching some of the divorces go public. The dirt that will be slung will be the best ever.

    Really? Why?

  • 259. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:59 am

    @Andrea: 'And y’all quietly accept this? Really?'

    What did you expect? While I don't like the decision, I was hardly surprised by it? I expected it actually.

    As for 'accepting' it, what choice do we have?

    What would you have us do? Maybe an old fashioned riot, complete with broken windows and burning cars?

    That would sure help the cause.

  • 260. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 11:59 am

    Here's a question or the procedure savvy: If this case goes past the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, would the then-Governor and AG be allowed to defend at that time?

  • 261. josephRoehl  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    IMHO every additional TIME delays from implementing immediate recognition of gays' fundamental human rights and civil rights goes to the very heart of whether or not "justice delayed too long is" indeed as MLK stated :"JUSTICE DENIED", and whether or not we do all in fact have any real unalienable Constitutional protections. Time to stop the religio-heterosexist bashing of our people NOW ..

    “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”

    –Martin Luther King, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

    Coretta Scott King
    “Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others", she would tell black civil rights leaders angered by gays and lesbians comparing their struggle to their own. She would quote her husband and say, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible."
    She also fought off bigots who would co-opt MLK's message and try to make it their own. In 2002, anti-gay advocates sought to repeal Miami-Dade County’s equal rights law by sending out fliers saying that King would be outraged at its gay-inclusive nature. Coretta responded through a statement put out by the King Center for Nonviolent Change saying, "I appeal to everybody who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbians and gay people."
    When George W. Bush came out on the White House lawn and, in a bid for reelection, told the press he supported a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, Coretta again spoke up and reminded America of King's legacy: "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

    As Coretta Scott King said "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." or as the pledge says: "liberty and justice for all".”

  • 262. Don in Texas  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    It is very premature>/i> to contemplate an appeal to the U. Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit panel merely extended Judge Walker's stay to give the appellate court sufficient time to do two things: (1) decide whether proponents have standing to move to appeal Walker's ruling, and (2) to consider whether Walker's ruling should be upheld or overturned.

    I disagree that we should attempt to disrupt the orderly process of applying for a marriage license by anyone. To do so works against everything we are striving for.

    It would be far more effective to continue our advocacy for EQUALITY under law, not just "same sex marriage."

  • 263. Keith  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    So much for being optimistic. I hope you're wrong, but if Judge Walker screwed this up for SSM he is going to have a ton of gays pissed off at him.

  • 264. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Yes, Bill, why do you say that? I don't think there could be any divorces that would be any more spectacular and filled with mud-slinging than the Pulitzer divorce.

  • 265. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    I thought it was 30 days and 60 day only if the feds are a party.

  • 266. Alan E.  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Ann S. I saw your BIL being interviewed at Castro. There were at least 4 cameras in the Castro. Your brother and BIL must know them all by name plus their kids names by now.

  • 267. Andrea  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    @JonT:

    Do not put words into my mouth.
    I do not advocate violence.
    That was you. Nice try, I saw that.

    Please do not speak to me again.

  • 268. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Thank you, joseph. And I guess Alveda King conveniently forgot all of these things her aunt and uncle said when she agreed to be on the NOMbies' podium in Atlanta.

  • 269. Bolt  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    There's no need to hate on straight. It's cynical to believe that marriage is all about divorce.

  • 270. Sarah  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    @Kathleen's video: :-D "Sometimes people have just enough religion to make them hate, but not enough religion to make them love one another." Wow! That says a lot, and speaks to so much about this fight! That might be Facebook-page-worthy… hehe

  • 271. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    @Andrea: 'Please do not speak to me again.

    I am going to respond to any post I see fit to respond to.

    Please feel free to ignore my posts in the future.

    So, *what* exactly are you advocating for?

    Of course, feel free to ignore me. Or, you can just answer the f'ing question and spare me the drama.

  • 272. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    AFER can easily file against a state which their Governor and AG will fight. Washington State, for example. Oregon too.

  • 273. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Walker's decision was a broad ruling that didn't rely on circumstances unique to California. It essentially said that any law denying same sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional. If that broad ruling is upheld by the 9th, then I think SCOTUS will be more likely to take the case.

    There ARE things about California's situation that are unique. For one, the state permitted approx 18,000 ss couples to marry before changing the law. So we now have a class of people in which individuals equally situated (ss couples wishing to marry) are being treated differently under the law in the state – some were allowed to marry, while others aren't. That might be a sufficient equal protection claim to strike down Prop 8. But it won't be a very useful precedent in other states.

    If the 9th strikes down Prop 8, but does so because of facts that are unique to California, or to only a few other states, then I think it less likely that SCOTUS will take it.

  • 274. Keith  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Thanks for the inspiring words but JT at post 265 is on the opposite end of the spectrum which leaves me just as tormented as before. Being optimistic I will hope for the best but hopefully will be prepared for the worst. Personally, I liked the strong decision from Walker but some of his statements were as JT said, sophomoric, and not what I would expect from a federal judge. Why does life have to be so hard :-(

  • 275. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Thanks so much pgbach. We've really needed someone around her who understands the Appellate process.

    Quesiton: The current California Governor and AG have decided not to appeal Walker's decision. I know their opportunity to appeal to the CCA9 expires soon, but will that also mean their opportunity to appeal this case has passed for good, even if it goes on to SCOTUS?

  • 276. William  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I appreciate your continued support. Support that I don't receive from my family!

  • 277. SFBay  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    We have a pretty high powered lawyer for a friend and he made the point that this was an historic decision by Judge Walker. He didn't think there was any wiggle room at all for the prop 8 lawyers. He said he would have an very difficult time finding an convincing argument against both the findings of fact and the judical logic.

  • 278. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Or sooner.

  • 279. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Don, I agree.

    Where would we sit-in or protest? San Francisco? Los Angeles? Those are our allies.

  • 280. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Cool! Yes, they are on pretty good terms with all of the local press.

  • 281. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    @Kathleen, do you really think they might rule sooner than the hearing? (It sounded as though they mean to set a hearing, at least to me — ?)

  • 282. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    This order granted the stay pending appeal. This stay will remain in place until the appeal is complete in the 9th – either by a decision on the merits or dismissal because D-Is lack standing.

  • 283. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    That's hilarious!

  • 284. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    @fiona, please, please, please, don't leave us now. I feel so badly that Captain America's company is closing in October. But I for one am here to add my voice to the others I have seen so far to ask you to stay around. I think right now all of us are experiencing "raw nerve syndrome" and some of us are lashing out before thinking.
    As for the comment on here that straight allies would not stop getting married for us, I would like to state that one of the reasons DC is so backed up on performing weddings right now is precisely because so many heterosexual couples who are allies did exactly that. They refused to get married until marriage equality was passed. Now DC is running 8-10 weeks behind on performing weddings from what I saw on the marriage website recently.
    Those who think our straight allies are just going to leave us behind are very lacking in faith.

  • 285. Ron280ZX  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    I just have it from a source that on the source's street in Los Angeles, 28 families have filed for divorce because a same-sex couple just moved into the neighborhood

  • 286. Roger  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    I suppose that it's SCOTUS because SC might be confused with South Carolina and USSC might sound vaguely Soviet…

    But I must say that as a foreigner not very fluent in American, it took me ages to stop instinctively reading SCOTUS as "scrotum" :-(

    As for "the Supremes", I still have to read it twice to be sure the reference isn't to Diana Ross..

  • 287. AnonHB  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Thanks, Gray Coyote.

    I guess I'm just afraid that while this appeals process is continuing all the way up to SCOTUS, the new Governor or AG will almost certainly be in office by then. And they may say that they want to defend Prop 8 after all and the SCOTUS sends it all the way back down for re-trial or, at least, a revisiting of some sort (yes, I'm not a lawyer, so pardon the lingo).

    I'm not afraid of a retrial – I think there are no valid non-religious arguments for Prop 8. But it would be very very frustrating if gay and lesbian couples have to wait another lengthy period while all this is being hashed out.

    The battle continues, I guess…

  • 288. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    But it has never PROHIBITED initiative proponents under Article III? Would that be correct? So the standing issue is still wishy-washy really?

  • 289. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Well, if you're going to do that, please do it at counties that aren't very supportive. L.A. County was right there ramping up to help people get licenses if the stay was lifted. I appreciate the desire for civil disobedience, but as someone who volunteers at the L.A. Clerk's office I can tell you that the window cashiers take enough sh*t from straight people getting marriage licenses and they don't get paid much either, so at least take them a cupcake or some Hello Kitty stickers as compensation for playing along.

  • 290. Elizabeth Oakes  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Right on, JR.

  • 291. JefferyK  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I appreciate the supportive responses — I'm not sure I deserve them, I've been so crabby — but I want to point out something I'm not sure straight people in particular really get. Marriage itself isn't the only thing at issue here. Denying gay people equal access to marriage sends a message that something is wrong with gay people. So does DADT. And this message has a profoundly negative impact on all gay people. The intent of Prop 8 wasn't to "protect marriage," it was to demonize gay people. We face this demonization every single day. It stunts our lives. And at age 45, it has worn me out. Sorry. I understand that there are straight people who are fighting for gay rights, and I am glad you are there, but because of straight homophobia my life is much less than it could have been, and I'll never have my life to live over again. The damage has been done. The reason I care so much about this case is for the young generation of gay people — maybe they will know what it is like to be equal, something I have never experienced.

  • 292. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    pgbach,

    Are you saying that if the the Court decides Proponents don't have standing to appeal that Walker's decision would be considered as upheld by CA9?

    I defer to your knowledge and expertise, but that doesn't make sense to me. If Proponents don't have standing to appeal, how was the case appealed? Wouldn't it just mean that the Walker's decision stands but was never appealed, and thus not binding beyond California?

  • 293. Straight Ally #3008  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    And don't forget Bayard Rustin's major role in the civil rights movement alongside King. The documentary Brother Outsider is available in full on line and is well worth watching.

  • 294. Tom in SF Bay Area  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    So incredibly disappointing. Apparently ignorance, bigotry, and make-believe thinking are now virtues that deserve a hearing in a US Federal court!

  • 295. Mark M  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    I so feel your anger Ed. My husbear and I now have to again change our plans, and again put off getting married.
    I am so sick of other people having this kind of power and control over such a personal and important part of my/our life.
    I'm angry yes, but more than that I am just heart sick…….

  • 296. JT  |  August 16, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Keith – I agree. I do believe he did screw it up. His pre-trial maneuvers were too blatant, in fact blatantly illegal. If you read the briefs (and the USSC) opinion reversing Walker on the videotaping, (and the CA9 reversal of Walker on the "voter-sponsor-motivation" issue), it's pretty obvious that Walker was breaking the rules rather brazenly, and that itself strongly suggested to many that he was not an impartial judge coming out of the gate, even before the trial started.

    I mean c'mon, the guy was issuing illegal New Year's Eve orders on the videotaping, evading the law and the public comment rules; he had no authority to even propose an amendment in the first place, and then when he got caught, he yanked it off the website and tried another maneuver (but didn't succeed).

    Wherever SCOTUS stands on the issue of SSM, they are reasonably loathe to validate a watershed opinion that radically changes American social policy (and that pisses off a majority of the populace) with that kind of stain of illegitimacy on it . The disclosure that Walker is gay didn't help either, but only piled on. (By itself it's not a problem but coupled with the other stuff, people smell a rat).

    He grants a pro-SSM intervenor party status, then denies Prop 8-side intervenors the same status. Worse, he quickly granted San Fran's motion and then sat on and stalled the others until after the entire trial was over – and then he has the nerve to suggest now that the Prop 8 people (the only ones he let in the case) may not have standing?) Even a first year law student knows that if they didn't have standing, there was NO reason to have a damn trial, because the defendants weren't asking for one or even defending the case. So what was Walker doing having a trial between the plaintiffs and an opposing side that he nows isn't really an opposing side? What were they doing there? Wasting their time if they can't appeal the result of their own trial? That defies every fundamental notion of American legal fairness.

    All this is consistent with the charge that Walker was out to orchestrate a "show trial," get himself in the spotlight and then rule while springing on the parties the standing issue post-ruling and basically saying "hah hah, gotcha." I don't see the appellate courts tolerating that kind of gaming.

    You want worse? After he got slapped hard by the USSC for his illegal attempt to videotape the trial, he orders the trial videotaped anyway, under the guise that he needed it for his own personal use (itself a dubious claim). But after making that assertion, he turned right around and gave the videotape over to the plaintiffs, under the guise that they might need it to prepare their oral argument (another dubious proposition).

    BUT, once oral argument was over with, Walker refused to force plaintiffs to return the tape. Some of the Prop 8 expert witnesses were convinced Walker was going to buck the USSC and pull some s–t like this and for that reason they refused to testify, convinced that Walker could not be trusted. They were apparantly right.

    You tell me how the 5 justices who were already offended by Walker's pre-trial conduct, are gonna view the rest of this stuff. It's as if Walker was flipping the bird at them over the videotape issue. And you do NOT flip the bird at the USSC. If this thing gets lost, it is entirely Walker's fault.

  • 297. Wait  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Yeah, your friend may not know what he's talking about. You know how many "historic" local district court decisions got tossed in D.C.? Lots. The "historic" ruling by a district judge in that New Haven Firefighter affirmative action case is a good example. It was considered path breaking, affirmed by the appeals court, and tossed out the window by the USSC. And nobody thought Kennedy would go that far because of his prior seeming sympathy for some affirmative action. So lots of comrades here who express all fire confidence that Kennedy will affirm Walker's ruling are being a bit short-sighted.

  • 298. Wait  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    LOL!

  • 299. Mark M  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    @pgbach: Thanks for your last few posts pgbach..you've actually helped me feel better by giving me perspective.
    Thank you my friend.

  • 300. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    JT, you said, Another of Walker’s grave mis-steps was his granting San Fran’s motion to intervene and denying the motions to intervene of three other municipal movants.
    … Worse still, Walker sat on the motions to intervene until the trial and then denied the motions as part of his ruling.

    Which municipal entities tried to intervene and had their motions denied as part of his ruling? I only know of one.

  • 301. Keith  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    If our side loses the appeal, what then? It's appealed to the SCOTUS? If so they won't even touch it, so where would that leave us. Can they really leave discrimination in a state constitution? I can't believe this is America, a land that is supposed to be about tolerance and freedoms. This will prove to me that religion has hijacked our justice system. Maybe it will be time to start searching for a better country to live that's more open and welcoming..at this point that would even be China.

  • 302. Gray Coyote  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Cite your sources. The district court's decision and all of it's stuff is RECAPED for everyone to see.

  • 303. Keith  |  August 16, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Somehow I can't reply directly to your post JT. However, with the CA9 stating their issue about standing, I think that is positive for the appeal. Honestly, I think they will affirm Walker's ruling and rule they have no further standing. I will keep my fingers crossed. I think it would be too huge a maneuver for them to overturn it. Just my thoughts, but only time will tell. Anyways, I still have a pretty great life, a nice home, a studly hubby (hopefully legally one day) of 10 years, and a loving family, and no one can take that away, no matter what people say or think.

  • 304. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Which statements of Walker's did you find sophomoric?

  • 305. Kathleen  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Someone corrected me and said not before the hearing.

  • 306. Greg in OZ  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Hey Guys,

    Can I just add my voice to those that are so dissapointed by this further stay of justice.

    Like I said in an earlier post though – it's a long road that you guys have already travelled, it's true, and there is a slightly longer way to go…..but hang in there – you HAVE already achieved a lot and I am still confident that the right outcome is going to be handed down in December.

    I am coming to San Francisco in September/October and I REALLY want to know if there are going to be any activities going on at that time in relation to Prop 8. This little Aussie wants to lend his voice to your struggle (in my own small way) and so if there was some sort of political activity happening during my stay, I'd dearly love to be there to lend my support! Let me know if anything is going on between the 21st Sept and the 6th October and I'll be there (well apart from Folsom & Castro St fairs – that's why I'm coming over at that time!)!

    Lots o' love to all of you

    PS. I mean the Str8 Allies to be included in that 'all of you'. I can understand the somewhat snappish exchanges that some in the posts have expressed, but I think that you all basically understand that those comments are not directed at you as such. They are no more than an expression of frustration at the system. You guys especially rock cause I can see the hurt that this is giving you, even though you are not directly affected by this further delay. We wont win until and unless we have the fantastic support that you are giving us, stays there. Presonally, you guys have resotred my 'faith' in humanity!!

  • 307. Lesbians Love Boies  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    scribe

  • 308. Ann S.  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    scribe squared.

  • 309. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  August 16, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    WHAT???

  • 310. JonT  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    @JT:

    Yeah, I think I'm going to go with Gray Coyote here.

    Could you cite your sources? You seem to have quite a different (and non-objective) view of this trial than I do, and I've tried to follow it as best I can. Of course, I cannot claim to be unbiased myself, but I do not want to delude myself either.

    The public video taping of the trial I think is quite orthogonal to the prop 8 case proper.

    In these instances where you say he 'offended' the SCOTUS Justices, etc… How would you know this? It's been long known that SCOTUS in general has resisted all efforts to televise their own proceedings. I do not find that decision to be an example of the Justices being offended at Walker's impudence, or whatever…

    It's also rather obvious to us (I think) that the defection of defense witnesses was not so much due to the prospect of being video taped, but more toward the realization that they would be required to testify under oath.

    Several times, defense said that witnesses would not appear due to the 'threat' of being video taped, but once SCOTUS denied that possibility, it's not like they all came streaming back in. In addition, all of their depositions (including their videotaped interviews) are a matter of public record. Some are available on youtube should you care to see them. It's not like their identities were protected in any way.

    As for Walker being gay, so what? If you can claim that being gay (which he's never stated BTW) would make him biased, then you cannot deny that if he were straight he could be just as biased, can you?

    I have also heard the argument that Walker 'wanted to be a hero and make history' made many times by the NOM side, but I have not seen statements from him making this obvious… Could you point us toward some?

    So, while I can see clearly that you have a *very* dim view of Walker and this trial, I am certainly willing to be educated if you could provide some citations we can look at and evaluate for ourselves…

    Thanks.

  • 311. pdxdru  |  August 16, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Good idea, all… Civil Disobedience… but, please for Elizabeth's sake, do it at Imperial County… They wanted to intervene, to become part of this whole trial… I think it's only fair to do this 'sit-in' there :)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 312. BREAKING: Attorney Genera&hellip  |  August 16, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    […] Court of Appeals just stayed Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling on Proposition 8. If you want to catch up on the news from the 9th Circuit and many of the reactions to it, on both sides, click here. Meanwhile, use this post for ongoing discussion in the comments, as the previous post is […]

  • 313. TimK  |  August 16, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    All of the postings have been interesting, and are spoken w/ such passion and conviction. I beg all of you to go back to pgbach's initial posting. He's seems the most informed and erudite about this process. Yes, I get annoyed, on the one hand, w/ Nancy's doomsday scenario, but, then again, I can understand it–it's visceral. Nonetheless, Nancy, there's no reason to be uncivil to those of us that all want the same thing: equality. Yes, it's a cliché, but to divide and conquer is a tactic as old as creation itself. Pgbach was attempting to talk rationally to you (as were several others) but you treated them much like the haters treat us. Why? If you would have told me that this would be happening in my lifetime when all I wanted was for my family to accept me for who I was born as (30 years ago) I would have told you that you were living in a fool's paradise. Now almost all of my family supports my right to equality. We're doing it. Sure, it's not fair that we have to go through all this, but as Nietzsche said: "What does not destroy me, will only make me stronger." We are always stronger as a community together–straight and gay alike. The fight will continue regardless of this Prop 8 stay (although I'm confident–not totally, of course–that we will win this battle) because of the continued bastardization of Christ's message in this so-called Christian nation. My blessings to all of you for your passion and resolve. Despair if you need to, but NEVER give up on hope. Best.

  • 314. robert90069  |  August 16, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    No. Domestic Partnerships are not very much like marriage. It's a technical designation to get your partner on your health insurance, or whatever, but nothing close to the Federal protections of marriage. State and local Domestic Partnerships are virtually unrecognized by other states, let alone the Federal branch. The big issues in life, such as old age, immigration, child rearing, financial planning, etc., etc., etc., are left to gay couples without any of the governmental systems that those who are eligible for "traditional" marriage properly expect.

  • 315. Ian  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    Most people do not care about how much I love my boyfriend; however, most adults seem to understand numbers pretty well. Being gay is more costly than being straight. Maybe either my boyfriend or I should simply have a sex change. LOL. Just kidding, of course.
    My boyfriend and I have been living together for over 10 years. For the first five years, he was here on an international student visa; for the last five years, he has been granted a work visa that he will not be allowed to renew any longer. That means he will have to leave the country or otherwise, he will be considered an illegal alien. I will leave the country too if he has to leave. I am a US citizen, but even if I could get married to him in California, because immigration is a federal issue and same-sex marriage is not recognized at the federal level, I would not be able to petition for him to become a permanent resident (obtain a "green card"). My brother who is straight and also a US citizen got married to a foreign woman and in a few months she became a permanent resident. Shortly thereafter she enrolled at a California community college and paid $26 per semester unit–that is what permanent US residents who are also California residents are charged. She enrolled in 12 units. My boyfriend would have had to pay $26 per unit in addition to $190 PER UNIT because he is not a US permanent resident. My boyfriend and I are registered domestic partners in California. I have to pay taxes for the health insurance benefits that he receives through my employer. My brother's wife gets very similar health insurance benefits through my brother's employer, but my brother does not have to pay any taxes on those benefits because he is married. I can go on and on–seriously. I am 43 yrs., and I really don't see a light at the end of tunnel. Needless to say, I will be extremely happy if same-sex marriage becomes legal in California, but what my boyfriend and I need are the kind of benefits that marriage recognized by the federal government will grant.

    The following article "1,138 Reasons Marriage Is Cool" from Time Magazine is a few years old.
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,…

    For those who care to know, the following countries allow same-sex marriage (not to be confused with "civil unions" or "registered partnerships"): Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden.

    Btw, a sincere THANK YOU to ALL the good people out there who are fighting to make this a better world.

  • 316. Sagesse  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Subscribing.

  • 317. Call the Florist and Cate&hellip  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    […] more information, check out the Prop 8 coverage at the Courage Campaign, which includes some statements and articles from a host of LGBT organizations and […]

  • 318. Jim  |  August 16, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    I've just watched the documentary: 8: The Mormon Proposition. I highly recommend it.
    http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Proposition-Dustin-L

  • 319. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:29 pm

    Ralph, I am more with you than against you. I sure as HELL want legal Gender Neutral marriage before my precious twin 3 year old grandchildren reach puberty. Oh did I mention that legally I am not their "Grandma form France?"

    I'll shorten this up for the benifit of the long time posters who already know. My daughter in law used an anonomous sperm donar at a fertility clinic to conceive and produced 2 wonderful bright beautiful children our grandson and our grandaughter. By law in Virginia our daughter, hwo gave her spouce hormone shots every day to increase her egg production and who cut the umbilical cors, she is NOT ALLOWED to be the legal co-parent. Thus I am NOT the legal grandmother to my own grandchildren.

    Actually I am quite militant, I am a grizzly granma bear and I hate and resent the state of Virginia and anyone else who is seperating my daughter from being the legal coparent and me from legally being the legal grandmother to my grandchildren.

    So Ralph I am more with you than against you. My grandchildren are just babies, I don't have the liberty of lots of time while this thing plays out, I want SSM which then provides for legal GLBT co parent adoption, I want it NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My grandchildren deserve TWO PARENTS and FOUR GRANDPARENTS !!!!!!!!!!!! ROAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 320. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Where have you been? Why haven't you posted earlier. If you did, it must not have been much as I surely would have remembered you. Do NOT go away, stay with us this whole way and pahleeze participate more. Thank you.

  • 321. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    LOL!!! Way to speak up and not be intimidated.

  • 322. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    correction my twin grandchildren are 2 years old not 3. Brain moves fater than fingers…

  • 323. Straight Grandmother  |  August 16, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Yeah Bob and Coastie, they (Queer Rising and it seems all the Queer organizations) at least DO something. The "Equality" and Freedom to Marry they are very much, "We are above it all. We will go off site and have our own rally, we are to cultured to get int he trenches" Got news for you it is GET EQUAL and the Queer organizations that actually get in the public's face and raises our visibility and our cries of Discrimination. Go Queer!!!!

  • 324. pgbach  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:13 am

    Ray, I stand corrected. I replied too hastily, i.e., I was typing faster than my brain was thinking.

  • 325. pgbach  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:14 am

    Kathleen, you are correct. Again, my typing faster than my brain was thinking. Jack has of way of doing that to me.

  • 326. JT  |  August 17, 2010 at 12:22 am

    To Keith – yeah, I too could not hit reply to you so home to see this. I'm not saying there will be a reversal; I am saying I think it likely for all the reasons given. But that does not necessarily mean complete reversal; it might be remanded for a retrial with a bunch of instructions as to how the trial court is to handle it, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it is remanded to a new judge, which an appellate court can do, on its own, without being asked to by a party. As a practical matter? I think that by the time this legal mess sorts itself out, the public will shift on the issue and the Prop 8 amendment will go out by popular decision and SSM will be the law in Cal; either way, I think you win. It's the delay that is a pain, but this is a major cultural shift and patience is required.

  • 327. pbrim  |  August 17, 2010 at 1:45 am

    I think a lot of people uncomfortable with going all-in either way and are trying to limit the scope of this. If the stay had not been issued, the pro-Prop 8 people would have taken it to SCOTUS, but that has been prevented. If the Ninth District finds there is no standing to appeal, it ends there and can't go to SCOTUS. So we end up with California having Marriage Equality, and a (somewhat limited) legal precedent, but federal law and DOMA are not touched. To get equality on the national level and overturn DOMA, we will have to start over elsewhere.

  • 328. pbrim  |  August 17, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Somehow in the last few years the -OTUS (Of The United States) has caught on. The term POTUS (President) has been around for a long time, but you never really heard it in comon usage until recently. Now I hear references all the time to POTUS, VPOTUS (Vice President), FLOTUS (First Lady), SCOTUS. Yesterday I even saw "Sasha-OTUS". I think that's carrying it a little far.

  • 329. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 3:25 am

    I think the _OTUS designations caught on from The West Wing. I like "The Supremes" because it amuses me to think of all those justices, in their robes, doing synchronized moves as back up singers…. though I haven't decided who should play Diana Ross.

  • 330. Jim Keller  |  August 17, 2010 at 3:41 am

    @Kathleen … "though I haven’t decided who should play Diana Ross."

    Ginsburg, of course. Since O'Connor retired, she's got the most style. :)

  • 331. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 4:45 am

    My vote would have been for O'Connor, as well. Do you think Sotomayor could pull it off?

  • 332. josephRoehl  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:07 am

    thank you very much for the link to Bayard Rustin's role as a gay black man alongside King. I'll watch it for sure. ))

  • 333. josephRoehl  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:10 am

    Thanks Richard, wishing you all the best for your future marriage ))
    Someone told me she never even knew MLK and only Coretta, and yet she's obviously willing to sell out the King's visioni of equality to pimp herself to the NOM neo-fascists…I bet they PAY HER.

  • 334. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Actually, I have to wonder if JT is actually Brian Brown or Louis J Marinelli posting under an alias. Trying to make us feel even worse because we rained on their NOM Tour of Hate parade by having larger turnouts at all but one stop.

  • 335. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 17, 2010 at 6:29 am

    If not Sonya, then Elena could.

  • 336. Toastygrrl  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I'm with you, Ed, feeling the frustration of having ignorant bigots play with my life like a chew toy. But I'm over here in New York, where we have domestic partnership (in the city, but not when we go to our weekend home upstate) and our state legislature is too dysfunctional to enact marriage equality even though the majority favors it. That's why I really want this case to go to the Supremes (with the right wingers singing "You Can't Hurry Love" as the more liberal justices drown them out with a rousing chorus of "I'm Coming Out")

    And as frustrating as the stay is, I think it's more beneficial in the long run to make sure every legal loophole is closed. I agree that the worst outcome would be to start undoing all 18,000 marriages, including my best friend and his partner, the daddies of my goddess son.

  • 337. Ann S.  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:43 am

    @Toastygirl, LOL — I like your musical selections.

    Just so you know, the marriages of the 18,000 couples are in no jeopardy. That was decided in 2008 by the California Supreme Court in Strauss v. Horton.

  • 338. Toastygrrl  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Keep acting up, by all means. We already have public opinion on our side. The cowardly politicians are just beginning to catch on to that. They need to keep hearing our voices, loud and clear. "The arc of history bends slowly, but it bends toward justice…"

  • 339. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Welllll…. Proponents did argue that if the only reason Prop 8 violates equal protection guarantees is the fact that 18K ss couples were married, while others can't, the remedy should be to invalidate the marriages rather than strike down Prop 8. Of course I think there the proverbial snowball's chance that a court would do that.

  • 340. Tuesday Open Thread : Del&hellip  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:02 am

    […] stay of the Prop 8 decision in California pending an expedited appeal (until at least December 6). Significantly, cited in the court orders was that the appellants must show they have standing to ask… Three […]

  • 341. Lee  |  August 17, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Could someone explain something to me? If the Circuit Court (?) decides the Prop 8 backers' argument has no grounds and they dismiss it, does that mean the trial will NOT go to the Supreme Court of the United States? Meaning the whole country will not get its equal rights, and this decision will affect only Californians?

    Thanks.

  • 342. Kathleen  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Yes. If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decides that the Prop 8 backers lack standing to appeal the case, and there is no other party with standing willing to take on the appeal, this case will stop right here. Judge Walker's decision will likely remain in place, but the case won't be appealed in any higher court (included the US Supreme Court). The effect would be to strike down Prop 8, but would only impact California.

  • 343. Lee  |  August 17, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Ah, I see. Thanks for the info.

    …It might seem selfish of me, but that makes me sad. I have to admit it.

  • 344. Top Posts — WordPre&hellip  |  August 17, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    […] BREAKING: 9th Circuit STAYS Judge Walker’s ruling; Appeal scheduled December 6 By Eden James Just in from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Docket Text: Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY […] […]

  • 345. Jen-Bunny  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:36 am

    This is such a good analogy, Coyote. To the straights: please excuse us for snapping and snarling at you. It isn't you personally. We are all a bit angry right now, and angry people sometimes say things they don't mean. Love to our straight allies!!! <3 <3 <3

  • 346. Jen-Bunny  |  August 18, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Me neither William. My mother keeps preaching about "the will of the people" being violated. Thanks, Mom. Good to know you care about my happiness and well-being. I'm glad we all have each other!!

  • 347. Appeals Court: Same-Sex M&hellip  |  August 19, 2010 at 1:52 am

    […] stay in the Proposition 8 case and has barred same-sex marriages in California until at least Dec. 6 as it considers an appeal of a lower-court decision that found the ban […]

  • 348. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    I'm offended that Judge Walker overturned Prop 8 because what that effectively did is took away MY right as a citizen to participate in ammending the constitution by popular vote.

    I don't mean to tick anybody here off, but stop forcing your ideals on the majority of the people. California citizens voted for what they wanted – deal with it. The very fact that the vote was appealed in court is disgusting and just shows how this agenda is being forced on the majority. You can't get your ideas passed by popular vote, so you try to "back door" your ideas through the court system because you won't give up until you get your way.

    There is not any guarantee of same-gender marriage in the California constitution. Thus, Prop 8 merely clarified the intent of the original drafters of the constitution, who obviously had no reason to think their intent would ever need to be clarified. Prop 8 does not, i repeat Does Not "take away" any rights enumerated in the state constitution. The "right" to same gender marriage was inserted into our law by a source nothing close to a democratic vote (that is, the result of a 4-3 majority vote in the State Supreme Court). Thus, 4 people decided for all of us, whoops make that 5 with judge walker. So 5 people have overruled the decision of the majority of California voters.

    By the Way, the constitution of California specifically provides for amendment by majority vote. Therefore, contrary to the self-serving agenda of Prop 8 Opponents, amendment by popular vote actually IS a constitutional right (one taken away by judge walker), where as same-sex marriage is not a right set forth in the constitution of this state. If you want to write up a bill and put it to a vote, that's one thing. If you want to put pressure on courts to overturn a majority decision by voters – that's another one and it's disgusting thats how this agenda is pushed (because history has proven it can't succeed by popular vote).

    So, tell me again who is trying to impose their beliefs on whom? Whose constitutional rights are being taken away? I voted yes on prop 8, isn't it now my Constitutional right to vote and participate in government that has been taken away? In favor of something another group wants which is not a Constitutional right?

    Sickening.

  • 349. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Colin, you are forgetting one simple fact. Judge Walker is a FEDERAL court. This challenge to Prop H8 was based on the US Constitution, and in our system of government in this country, there is a system of checks and balances in place to prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minority and stripping them of their rights as was done with this proposition. You are the one who needs to deal with the fact that bigotry is not a reason to codify one particular set of religious beliefs into the laws of any state in this nation. You really need to learn the difference between a constitutional, representative democratic republic and a theocracy. You also need to learn that while the people of California may have been misled into voting to pass Proposition H8, they were misled to do so by people who do not even live in California, and who are normally not even on the same page religiously–the LD$ hierarchy, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Evangelical movement. No one who favors marriage equality is seeking to infringe on your religious beliefs or your religious freedom. However, under the Constitution of the United States, your freedom of religious expression ends where that religious expression tramples upon MY freedom of religious expression. I am Jewish, my husband is a Lubavitcher Hasidic rabbi by training, profession, and ordination, and we both fully believe in equality for all people. And yes, my husband will perform a chasunah for same-gender couples who request one, and we will even help them select their ketubot. NOt all religions are isolationist and exclusive. NOt all religions believe that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, but should be available to any couple who seek the LEGAL and CIVIL recognition of their spousal relationship. Before you go spouting off about YOUR rights being infringed upon, it would behoove you to go back and so a little more research into the following areas:
    Culture and History of the lands of the bible
    Hebrew
    Aramaic
    Chaldean
    koine Greek
    Sociology
    World religions
    Human Sexuality
    Love
    Affections
    Commitment
    Psychology
    Civil Law
    Humanity
    Anthropolgy
    World Cultures
    Civil Rights Movements
    Human Rights

  • 350. AndrewPDX  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Please remember that the California State Constitution cannot be in conflict with the United States of America's Constitution. The US Constitution is the ultimate authority of law in this country,

    So, you have three choices:
    1) Abide by the US Constitution and stop trying to make me follow your agenda.
    2) Work to change the US Constitution.
    3) Move to Uganda.

    Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 351. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Colin,

    Your questions about how the laws of this country work are, sadly, all too commonly heard, and you spout rhetoric we have all heard too many times before, but allow me to try and answer some of it.

    stop forcing your ideals on the majority of the people. California citizens voted for what they wanted – deal with it. The very fact that the vote was appealed in court is disgusting and just shows how this agenda is being forced on the majority. You can’t get your ideas passed by popular vote, so you try to “back door” your ideas through the court system because you won’t give up until you get your way.

    You make an incorrect assumption in your first seven words. No one is trying to force anything on you. Your life will not change in the least if marriage equality becomes a reality. This is rhetoric pushed by bigots who want to deny rights to others.

    The proposition voted in by a very bare majority of Californians has the unfortunate distinction of being unconstitutional according to the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the supreme law of our land. That it was passed into law at all merely means that a bare majority of Californians sadly do not understand the "equal protection under the law" and "due process of law" clauses of the 14th amendment. This has nothing to do with sneaking things in, this is the law of the land.

    There is not any guarantee of same-gender marriage in the California constitution.

    There is not any guarantee of ANY marriage in the United States Constitution, but there IS a guarantee of equality in that pesky 14th amendment, once again. That amendment, by the way, is the one that guarantees each and every freedom and right YOU enjoy as well, and means that we cannot take rights away from YOU by vote either.

    By the Way, the constitution of California specifically provides for amendment by majority vote.

    As do the constitutions of many other states. However, if those amendments are unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution, then they must be removed. This is also clearly spelled out in our code of laws.

    So, tell me again who is trying to impose their beliefs on whom? Whose constitutional rights are being taken away? I voted yes on prop 8, isn’t it now my Constitutional right to vote and participate in government that has been taken away? In favor of something another group wants which is not a Constitutional right?

    You are trying to impose your beliefs on us, as shown by your yes vote on Prop 8. OUR constitutional rights to equal protection under the laws are being taken away by you. Your constitutional rights to vote and participate have NOT been taken away, but when you vote to oppress the minority, the courts must step in to correct it. And if it is a right for you, it is a right for us. That is how equality works.

    Sickening.

    I agree. But hopefully we will have it all worked out very shortly, and you can go on living your life exactly as you did before, no worries at all, and we can get married and live our lives in peace and love. What a better world that will be.

  • 352. pbrim  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Well, our founding fathers worried about something called "the tyranny of the majority", the danger that a simple majority could oppress others and change the nature of out country. So certain bedrock rights were enshrined in our federal constitution, which was deliberately made difficult to change. These rights can't be easily voted away. This is why the first 10 amendments, the "Bill of Rights", had to be added to the constitution before the states were willing to to ratify it. Others ave been added over time.

    So it doesn't matter if every person in the state of California voted unanimously to deny women the right to vote, the 19th amendment says that's not a right states are allowed to take away. It doesn't matter if Arizona votes overwhelmingly to deny birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment says that if you are born in this country, you are a citizen and no single state can take that away from you,. It would make no difference if Utah voted to make Mormonism the official state religion, the 1st amendment says that isn't allowed.

    The 14th amendment also says that states are required to offer equal protection under the law to all people in their jurisdiction. That is, states can't grant basic rights to one group of people and deny them to another group. There are exceptions, though. The lowest level or proof required is that the state must show that it has a legitimate interest in some goal, and there is a rational basis to believe that denying some people this basic right will help achieve that goal.

    Now, it has been established many times that marriage is a basic right in this country, Loving v Virginia being an example. Other cases established that even if someone was in prison or on death row, they had a basic right to marry that the government could not take away. In order to take that right away from GLBT people, California had to show that it had a legitimate goal and that Prop 8 would help them achieve this goal. That's what the trial was all about. And the pro-prop 8 people failed to establish those facts, as Judge Walker outlined in his ruling.

    In short, this is something that should never have been voted on. It is not a matter that is within the power of the voters of California to grant or withhold, so who or how many voted for it is irrelevant.

  • 353. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Andrew:

    "Please remember that the California State Constitution cannot be in conflict with the United States of America’s Constitution. The US Constitution is the ultimate authority of law in this country,

    So, you have three choices:
    1) Abide by the US Constitution and stop trying to make me follow your agenda.
    2) Work to change the US Constitution.
    3) Move to Uganda.

    Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity
    Andrew"

    The US Constitution does not include the "right" to be married either Andrew. Guess you've got 3 choices now:

    1) Learn what the constitution actually says
    2) Stay ignorant and keep speaking out of said ignorance
    3) Shove it

  • 354. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    @ pbrim "So it doesn’t matter if every person in the state of California voted unanimously to deny women the right to vote, the 19th amendment says that’s not a right states are allowed to take away."

    Show me anywhere in either the US Constitution or the state constitution of California where the "right" to get married for any couple – gay or straight – is guaranteed by the constitution.

    Search and read to your heart's delight, you will not find it anywhere because unfortunately it is NOT a constitutional right.

  • 355. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Politeness counts…

    You do not make your case any stronger by being rude. Nor do you do yourself any good by calling others ignorant and then immediately displaying your own ignorance.

    The US Constitution does not give YOU the right to be married either, Colin, so perhaps you should look at how YOUR right to be married IS granted… then understand that what the US Constitution DOES is to guarantee that everyone gets the SAME rights.

  • 356. pbrim  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    The US Constitution does not include the “right” to be married either Andrew.

    You're right. And if any part of Judge walker's ruling were based on a supposed constitutional right to marry, that might be relevant. What is in the constitution is Equal Protection Under the Law, in the 14th amendment. And that is the basis of the ruling. So, stick to what was actually decided, instead of what Faux News or Glen Beck told you was decided.

  • 357. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    And yet, 14 times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the right to marriage as a FUNDAMENTAL right, and has done so under the freedom of association clause as well as the due process clause and the equal protection clause. It also has to do with the right to privacy, which Prop H8 took away by putting the police and other government officials into our bedrooms. The next step is to have them in YOUR bedroom. Do you really want people to know that you voted for a proposition that took away their right to privacy, and will lead to the endangerment of YOUR privacy? And if marriage is NOT a right, then why can someone who is in prison get married, even when it is someone who will never get out and never get to consummate the marriage, like Charles Manson, but I cannot? And yes, Colin, Charles Manson is married. And will never get out of prison. Surely you know who Charles Manson is, don't you?
    And as for trying another one, I believe it is you who needs to try another one. You are definitely barking up the wrong tree on this site.

  • 358. Gray Coyote  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    That should answer your question.

  • 359. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Colin…

    The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    What that means is that the States can make laws as long as they do not violate the US Constitution. Thus, each STATE guarantees the right to marry, and the US Constitution guarantees everyone IN the state the SAME rights.

    Really, you ought not to even discuss constitutional law if you haven't READ the thing.

  • 360. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Thanks GC… well done. :)

  • 361. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Boy that's a reach.

    There is no mention of marriage here, and the right to get married is not mentioned here either. What is guaranteed is that privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States should not be abridged.

    Prop 8 did not strip anyone of any privledges or immunities, as I stated originally it merely clarified the intent of the original drafters of the constitution.

    marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

  • 362. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    "Thus, each STATE guarantees the right to marry, and the US Constitution guarantees everyone IN the state the SAME rights."

    Except for each state does NOT guarantee the right to marry. They guarantee benefits to married couples, (and gay couples in civil union/domestic partnership too), but it does NOT guarantee the right to get married.

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

    DUH, that's what prop 8 did – it addressed the issue at the state level by the vote of the people.

  • 363. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    I guess there's just no reasoning with savages.

    You all seem to have missed the real point of what I wrote. If you want to write a bill and put it to a vote to make an amendment that says gay couples should be allowed to married, then perhaps I will vote in your favor.

    If you want to get 4 judges on the supreme court to overrule the vote of 61% of citizens, thus requiring Prop 8, and then get another judge to overturn the prop 8 vote when you lose – that is using government control of the people to get what you want and I will ALWAYS vote against government control of the people.

    God bless all of you. Goodnight.

  • 364. pbrim  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Show me anywhere in either the US Constitution or the state constitution of California where the “right” to get married for any couple – gay or straight – is guaranteed by the constitution.

    Search and read to your heart’s delight, you will not find it anywhere because unfortunately it is NOT a constitutional right.

    If you want to rebut someone's argument, you have to read the whole thing. Show men anywhere in either my comment or Judge Walker's decision where we claim that the constitution grants a specific right to marry.

    Search and read to your heart's delight, you will not find it anywhere because unfortunately, it is NOT a claim we made.

    If California wishes to deny everyone within it's jurisdiction the right to marry, it may well be free to do so. There may be other clauses that pertain, I haven't looked into that as it is not something I am particularly concerned about happening

    But if they wish to pass laws that allow some people to do a certain thing and yet deny others the right to do the exact same thing, they have a problem with the US Constitution. Article XIV, section 1 states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    There, see? The last paragraph explained the whole thing without ever once using the word "marry". Now do you get it?

  • 365. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Apparently, you are right about not being able to reason with savages, since no one here has been able to reason with you. But then that is what happens when the parents go to sleep and don't lock the computer away from the little 10-year-old who wants to troll sites he really should not be going to. Goodnight, Colin, and good riddance to bad rubbish.

  • 366. Greg in Oz  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Oh dear, oh dear. God Bless all of you. Goodnight

    How many times have we seen the tactic of throwing the troll message into a post and then fleeing when the argument is not going your way? Where it's obvious you are not going to convince anyone here of your POV

    I wish these guys would either stop commenting on a blog that they vehemently disagree with would just go away. Or if they are going to comment, then to at least have the balls to stick around so that people can actually debate and counter their POV and they can defend their arguments (mmmm…maybe that's why they DONT hang round – no way to make that 'defence')

    Greg In Oz.

  • 367. AndrewPDX  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees Equal treatment under the law — ANY LAW. Marriage laws are just ONE of the many laws protected by the US Constitution… but I guess that's just too 'savage' for you to understand.

    As you will ALWAYS vote against government control of the people, I will ALWAYS vote against people who want to destroy the US Constitution.

    PS… thanks for the blessing. I am positive God has blessed us who are working towards EQUALITY.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 368. AndrewPDX  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    <cite>Yesterday upon the stair
    I met a man who wasn't there.
    He wasn't there again today;
    How I wish he'd go away.</cite>

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 369. Greg in Oz  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    He he he he

    Love it!

    Greg in Oz

    PS. Please forgive the bad grammar in that previous post – got a little carried away, didn't I?

  • 370. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Richard A. Walter – you just proved to me your own ignorance and arrogance. I very reasonably asked you to show where marriage is in the state or US Constitution, and you couldn't. Why? Because it's not there – it's not a constitutional right. And what did you people on this forum do? Judgementally label me as 10 year old troll rubbish.

    You don't know me.

    Ignorance and arrogance to the core.

    I shouldn't be surprised I guess – that's what drives this whole agenda – arrogance.

    "We're gonna get what we want no matter how many judges have to trample on the actual constitutional rights of US citizens, because we think this is a constitutional right. And even though it's not, we're gonna say it is and if anyone disagrees with us on a legitimate moral or political basis – we'll just label them as bigots and haters and make it seem like they are bad people who have something wrong with them."

    That's what sickens me. Your attitude and approach to your agenda, not your lifestyle.

  • 371. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    well you'd be positively wrong about that. Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes.

    May God bless you by helping you understand that truth.

  • 372. AndrewPDX  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Colin, sigh… you say that "Homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes."

    According to you… not all Christians believe as you do. And then what about the Wiccans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, and whatnot? They don't all believe as you do either.

    And so, we hit upon ANOTHER US Constitutional Amendment: the First. You have every right to believe that, but you have NO right whatsoever to force that belief through law. ABSOLUTELY NONE WHATSOEVER.

    You are once again proving that it is YOU who is pushing an agenda upon unwanted masses.

    I don't give a rat's arse if you agree or not, but you CANNOT LEGALLY PUSH YOUR RELIGION UPON ME

    God HAS blessed me with the truth: Mark, chapter 12, verses 30 and 31:
    Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
    There is no commandment greater than these."

    Have a nice day!

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 373. Ann S.  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Colin, so predictable. It always comes back to religion.

    The US is not a theocracy. I don't care what you believe is a sin.

    Your religious beliefs are not what we base our laws on.

  • 374. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 27, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Also, Colin, which references are you basing that on? ARe you basing that on the laws that were handed down for the Levitical priesthood with regard to ritual cleanliness prior to entering the temple to perform the sacrifices, or are you refering to the Pauline epistles, where for the most part people like you seem to conveniently ignore those places where Saul of Tarsus plainly states that there are certain things that are his opinion only?
    Or are you relying upon a mistranslation that is based upon various redactions of the Torah and the Christian scriptures–redactions that have occurred since the very time that the earliest governments of the common era have gotten hold of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean, and koine Greek writings have been in existence? And yes, many of the translations out today are based upon those very redactions, mistranslations, misinterpretations, and other errors made by men since the first century of the common era.
    Also, you are thoroughly neglecting the cultures and histories of the lands in which these texts were written.
    And you dare to speak to us of arrogance.
    To borrow from William Shakespeare: "Me doth think the lady protests too much!"

  • 375. Mike M  |  August 27, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    Folks, my Great Aunt Laverne taught me one great truth: "Arguing with crazy only give you a headache and heartburn." This lad has no interest in open discussion, he found he could subscribe here and used that openness to start a fight. You can argue the Constitution with him all you like but be aware his mind arrived closed to any point of view other than his own. Unless you fall on your knees and praise him for telling the truth all you are doing is giving him the attention he needs.

    Like a small yappy dog he needs to be ignored as you pass and shake your heads in disgust that his owners didn't take the time to teach him any better. So until email comes with a squirt gun or rolled up newspaper…

  • 376. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 27, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Actually, Colin, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly where in the Constitution marriage is covered, or rather, the laws regarding marriage. But you refuse to listen, just like a 10-year-old. You state that we don't know you. Well you don't know us, nor have you even made any reasonable, adult, rational, civil attempt to get to know any of us. You just jumped right into this site, and proceeded to harass and harangue us, trying to force YOUR agenda on us. And you are even trying to misuse the bible, and the name of HaShem to try and force us to see your POV. That is where you are coming across just like a 10-year-old who needs supervision. That is why the response included good riddance to bad rubbish. Guess the shoe doesn't feel so good when it is on the other foot, now, does it?
    You see, too many people of your ilk treat us like rubbish every day, and that is not a very nice feeling. We are simply tired of the abuse people like you continue to dish out, especially when you try to drag HaShem through the mud simply because you choose to ignore the most basic commandments to love your neighbor as yourself. Since you seem to be so incapable of loving us, it stands to reason that you do not truly love yourself. If you loved yourself, then you would not be so worried about our lives unless there were truly some way you could help to improve them. And bringing your bigotry and hatred does nothing to improve your life, much less ours.

  • 377. Ann S.  |  August 27, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    You are quite right. I fell into it with this one once, but no more.

    "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig."

  • 378. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    LOL. An Ad hominem fallacy is when instead of attacking a person's argument, you just attack the person. Sound familiar?

    I'll add "pig" to the list of names I've been called by you oh so very nice people. Thanks! You guys have done a great job at letting me know your uninformed opinions of me personally by some hateful attacks to my person.

    Now, instead of my person, why not try to address my argument?

    The "right" to get married is NOT a constitutional right guaranteed by the CA state constitution nor by the federal constitution – for any couple gay or straight. What is guaranteed is the benefits extended to a married couple and a civil union couple. The same benefits extended to a husband and wife are also extended to a homosexual couple. None of these benefits were effected by Prop 8.

    Therefore, exactly what constitutional rights were taken away by Prop 8?

  • 379. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    No, they are not, Colin. In fact, for one, we still have to file separate tax returns at the federal level, and in most states, we cannot even file jointly on state returns. And to even attempt to guarantee the rights of visitation and medical proxies, we have to complete thousands of dollars of legal paperwork to receive what straight couples get with a $30 marriage license. If you truly want to see what straight couples get that we don't, go through thi9s site and find the links to the 1,138 rights, benefits and privileges that straight couples get that we do not. Then come back and tell us our rights are not being trampled upon.

  • 380. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    @ Andrew:

    "According to you… not all Christians believe as you do"

    No, according to the Bible, according to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

    ""Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'"(Matthew 19:4)

    All Counterfeit Christians may find some way to justify this sin, because in the modern concept of Christianity – the only "sin" is to call sin sin.

    But real Christians know the truth. Not a truth we came up with based on how we feel, but the truth of what the Bible says.

    I still love with all of my heart some one who is in this lifestyle – love the sinner, hate the sin, remember? But you still have to remember, Jesus said "Go and sin no more".

  • 381. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Oh Colin, where to start…

    'There is not any guarantee of same-gender marriage in the California constitution.'.

    See, that's where you are wrong — on at least two counts.

    One, there is no guarantee of marriage at all. Perhaps you meant right?

    Second, the CA Supreme court determined that in fact, there was a right in the CA Constitution for gay people to get married, hence their overturning of Prop 22.

    'Thus, Prop 8 merely …

    …the rest of this paragraph is irrelevant, since your initial premise is completely wrong.

    'So, tell me again who is trying to impose their beliefs on whom?'

    Uhm.. well, you are. My marrying some guy does not affect you in any way. Your attempt to prevent me from doing that though, well – that seems pretty imposing in my book.

    I don't care about your religion, or your god. We live in America – in theory I cannot push my religion (or lack thereof) on you, nor can you do the same. What is so hard to understand about that?

    'I voted yes on prop 8, isn’t it now my Constitutional right to vote and participate in government that has been taken away?

    Not at all, since you did get to vote didn't you?

    But see, there's this thing called the US Constitution. It has certain limits about what a state can legally do, regardless of what their people vote for. State Constitutions cannot overrule the Constitution of the United States. I assume you took a basic civics course in High School didn't you?

    For example, California could not pass a constitutional amendment requiring all Muslims to report to Christianist re-education and conversion camps.

    That would be illegal according to the US Constitution.

    So, whithout all of the meaningless handwaving, tell us why you really came here to tell us things that are so demonstrably incorrect?

  • 382. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    "Then come back and tell us our rights are not being trampled upon."

    OK, Richard you made a fair argument. Now put it to a vote that those benefits should be the exact same, and I will vote for it.

    Or else look at the past 15 years worth of this nonsense of losing a majority vote and then having it overturned in the courts – Then go public and tell the majority of CA voters that their rights are not being trampled on.

  • 383. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Well, unfortunately the “Right” to get married is not enumerated in the US Constitution either.

    Try another one.

    You first.

    Tell me where in the Constitution it says that I cannot marry a man.

  • 384. Kathleen  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    I think we should get a ballot measure making it illegal for Colin to comment on blog posts. After all, there's no "right to post comments on a blog" in the Constitution. So, if a majority of voters approve this ban, we won't have to deal with Colin forcing his lifestyle on us.

  • 385. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    @ Andrew:
    "God HAS blessed me with the truth: Mark, chapter 12, verses 30 and 31:
    Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
    There is no commandment greater than these.”

    This is the truth. Now may I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself how much you are really loving God by disobeying His plan.

    He created male and female for a reason.

  • 386. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    1) Learn what the constitution actually says

    We have… you clearly have not. And it shows.

    2) Stay ignorant and keep speaking out of said ignorance

    You first.

    3) Shove it

    And… SCENE! Oh Colin… You started out so logical. But your facts are uncoordinated.

    And now it shows. Nice playing with you :)

    (PS: Uganda needs people like you, seriously, you'd be right at home there!).

  • 387. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    "I think we should get a ballot measure making it illegal for Colin to comment on blog posts. After all, there’s no “right to post comments on a blog” in the Constitution.

    Oh but there is, Andrew already mentioned it – Amendment 1.

    Again I ask – exactly what constitutional rights were taken away by Prop 8?

  • 388. Kathleen  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Where in Amendment 1 does it say anything about blogs? Or typing anything anywhere?

  • 389. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    DUH, that’s what prop 8 did – it addressed the issue at the state level by the vote of the people.

    DUH, which a Federal court found to be unconstitutional according the Constitution of the United States.

    Come on man – is this concept really that hard for you to grasp??

  • 390. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    No, dear, you haven't been called a pig. You have, entirely, missed the point of an old saying, but you have not been called a pig. And please, give up the "victim" thing that seems to be the new whining point of the right.

    However… we have been addressing your argument. We have addressed it from several directions. You simply repeating "Its not THERE, so what are you talking about" simply proves you are not paying any attention whatsoever.

    The benefits are NOT the same. They may appear to be, but by creating separate categories, however similar, you are creating separate classes. As was ruled by the Supreme Court, separate is not equal.

    The rights being taken away are (let me repeat, although you are behaving like the proverbial brick wall) the right to EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW AND DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.

  • 391. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    You will? How odd that you voted AGAINST it last time.

    I will give you this, your right to discriminate against us IS being trampled on. However, for that, I have to say, deal with it.

  • 392. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    That is a lovely sentiment. Well, no, not really, but whatever…

    What does it have to do with anything? You cannot legislate based on those beliefs.

  • 393. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    I guess there’s just no reasoning with savages.

    Probably. And yet we here on the P8TT try so very hard every time one of you trolls savages drops in to spread your hate love.

    We will continue to educate you savages – it's the Prime Directive, if you will of the LGBT community here at P8TT: To bring the savages like you into the 21st century.

    We hope you've enjoyed your stay. And maybe, you even learned something. Oh well, I can hope.

    (PS: Read the US Constitution. Really. It's worth it!)

  • 394. Kathleen  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    I'm still waiting for you to identify where in the Constitution there's anything about a right to comment on a blog.

  • 395. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    If you are not going to listen to the answer, why do you keep asking? We've listed in DETAIL where constitutional rights are being taken away, and you keep asking the same question. It's been answered.

    This is getting rather silly Colin. If you haven't got an actual argument to present here, you might as well go away.

  • 396. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    I have listened, and it's obvious that no one wants to admit to the true answer. The truth is there were no constitutional rights "taken away" by prop 8 and you all know it.

    It is getting rather silly I should say.

  • 397. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    You cannot legislate those beliefs, but I was not trying to.

    Andrew wanted to elaborate on the discussion of God and Biblical texts. I was not trying to force my religion on anyone, I was simply obliging his apparent desire for conversation.

  • 398. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Well, dear, that is not the true answer, so no… no one is going to "admit it". We have given you the answer, in rather great detail, but you don't want to listen to it, so why are you hanging about?

    You certainly are not going to change our minds with your repeating of the same question over and over, and you are not really interested in anything we have to say, so what is the point, exactly??

  • 399. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    'But real Christians know the truth.

    Ahh. So, who decides who is the 'True Christian' vs. the 'Fake Christian'.

    Do you not see the hole you dig for yourself there? Can you learn nothing more than your steadfast belief in whatever dogma you were programmed with?

    Why must you hate?

    Is that really what Jesus Would Do?

  • 400. Kathleen  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Who decides that typing in a blog is speech? What if you say it is and I say, "No it's not. Look in the dictionary – speech is the vocalized form of human communication."

    So when that law gets passed, saying you can't type comments on a blog post, who is going to decide whether your typing is a form of speech?

  • 401. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    @anonygrl:

    Obviously you just read what you want, not what I actually say.

    Have a great night, ok guys.

  • 402. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    He created male and female for a reason.

    Who's 'he'?

    And what this 'created' thing you speak of?

    What's that got to do with anything?

  • 403. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Gee… so it is ok to interpret the 1st amendment to mean that you can come in here and type things, but it is not ok to interpret the 14th to mean that we get EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW… and thus have the same rights to marriage that you do under the law?

    How does that work, exactly? How do you get to pick and choose the pieces you like to be true, but ignore other pieces? Hmmm….

  • 404. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    Bye bye! Sleep well, and don't let the bedbugs bite!

  • 405. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    "Well, dear, that is not the true answer, so no… no one is going to “admit it”. "

    Well, dear, actually it is because I have already shown (and you have too) marriage is NOT a constitutional 'right".

    Deny it all you like.

  • 406. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    (bless his heart.)

  • 407. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    'Don’t you wish that once, just ONE of them was actually here to ask a question and get an answer, rather than to say “You have no rights!”, “I am spouting what I read somewhere!

    I must admit, that would be a pleasant surprise :)

  • 408. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    If you were actually paying attention to any of this, and had a concept of how the law worked, it might be worth explaining it to you again. But since you have left (twice now, it seems, but who is counting) and do not seem to comprehend the relationship between the US Constitution and the constitution of your state, there is little point in my repeating it. Try going back and reading this whole page again, then asking a student who is taking junior high school civics class to explain it to you.

  • 409. Kathleen  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Drat, did Colin leave? I was just getting started. We weren't even through with the lesson on "judicial interpretation" and there's so much more ground to cover.

  • 410. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    You know, the funny thing is, I bet he goes away thinking he somehow won this argument? When if he were to discuss it with a lawyer (Oh, wait, he has been discussing this with SEVERAL lawyers, hasn't he?) he would be laughed at for his lack of simple comprehension skills.

  • 411. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    'But since you have left (twice now, it seems, but who is counting)…'

    Haha. IIRC, didn't the last one keep saying she was going too? About 8 times?

    These people are… well, you know how they are :) Goodnight Anonygrl.

  • 412. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Night Jon!

  • 413. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    You don’t know me.

    Ignorance and arrogance to the core.

    No – we do not who you are, what you do, how you live. But we do know how you think – that is quite clear from your postings. You are not the first to drop in here with that crap.

    Why are you here? What is it that you are trying to accomplish?

    '“We’re gonna get what we want no matter how many judges have to trample on the actual constitutional rights of US citizens, because we think this is a constitutional right. And even though it’s not, we’re gonna say it is and if anyone disagrees with us on a legitimate moral or political basis – we’ll just label them as bigots and haters and make it seem like they are bad people who have something wrong with them.”'

    Is that a quote from somewhere? Usually when you paste something like that into a comment surrounded by quotation marks, it means you are quoting someone. Citation is needed.

    'That’s what sickens me. Your attitude and approach to your agenda, not your lifestyle.'

    Ahh, that agenda thing again. Damn. The Gay Lobby (TM) never sent me a copy, could you post a link?

    And WTF is a 'lifestyle'in this regard?

    And why are you sickened by this 'approach'. Why do you care? Really? Answer me that. Why do you care? Why are you here?

  • 414. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    Colin: Homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes.

    May God bless you by helping you understand that truth.

    Ahh, there we go – religious dogma. No logic. No thought, facts, or anything else.

    I do not know if there is a god, but if so, I hope it will someday help you understand some truths.

    I really do.

  • 415. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    I'm sorry Ann S – you are ultimately correct, but the Internet is forever. Leaving such junk unanswered is something I find very difficult to do. ;)

    Colin won't learn anything – he/she's made up it's mind. But others stumbling across this page in 2058 might learn something for their high school term paper :)

  • 416. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    @ Andrew, not @ JonT

  • 417. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    '@ Andrew, not @ JonT

    Huh? The questions remain the same Colin.

    Not sure why you seem to be picking on Andrew, but why not answer the questions posed to you by myself and several others? Too inconvenient?

    Oh, and why are you still here?

  • 418. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    @Colin: I am not attempting to push my religion on you. In fact I don’t even have a religion. What I have is the Risen Lord Jesus Christ.

    Sounds like a religion to me Colin…

    And, WTF does 'the Risen Lord Jesus Christ' actually mean?

    And does your Risen Lord Jesus Christ support your animus? Is that what you are now claiming?

    Do tell.

  • 419. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    One more thing Colin, before bed: 'I remind you that the whole Bible is what we are to live by if we are following Christ who said man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'

    Really? The whole bible? Really? An oft quoted example of the hypocrisy of your type, before I sleep:

    <code>Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

    a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

    g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

    i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

    Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
    </code>

    Follow it all or STFU already Colin.

    Night night.

  • 420. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    Oh, that's what I get for trying something new (a 'code' block)

    You all know what I meant formatting-wise. :)

  • 421. Kathleen  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    Colin, you must have missed the part of your education where you were supposed to learn how our constitutional democracy works – you know, that part about the three different branches of government and our system of checks and balances. I recommend finding a middle school civics text and fill in the gaps in your education.

    Sheesh, what are they teaching kids these days?

  • 422. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    “Colin, you are forgetting one simple fact. Judge Walker is a FEDERAL court. This challenge to Prop H8 was based on the US Constitution, and in our system of government in this country, there is a system of checks and balances in place to prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minority and stripping them of their rights as was done with this proposition.”

    Well, unfortunately the “Right” to get married is not enumerated in the US Constitution either.

    Try another one.

  • 423. JonT  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    Boy that’s a reach.

    Oh man. It’s the Constitution you dumbass! Read it sometime.

    The rest of the post is too full of stupid for me to waste time on it.

    Really – I can’t believe you cut/pasted a portion of the US fraken Constitution and replied with ‘Boy that’s a reach.

    Read a book or something dude!

  • 424. Colin  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    Although it is by electronic means, what is typing in a blog if it is not speaking one’s opinion?

    Does the right to free speech not encompass such a form of expression?

  • 425. anonygrl  |  August 27, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    Don’t you wish that once, just ONE of them was actually here to ask a question and get an answer, rather than to say “You have no rights!”, “I am spouting what I read somewhere! This is the way to win over you sinners!” or “Because the BIBLE SAYS SO! LALALALALAL I CAN’T HEAR YOU. BIBLE! B-I-B-L-E!”

    If only ONE of them came in and actually presented a reasonable point of discussion, and had ANY kind of facts to back it up… that would make my day!

  • 426. JonT  |  August 28, 2010 at 12:12 am

    Deny it all you like.

    You first Colin. Oh wait…

    She’s right Colin. You’ve been answered by multiple people – you just don’t dig on those ‘fact-things’. It’s ok, you’re not the first to come in here and say the exact same things, with your hands over your ears while humming loudly.

    We are pretty used to it by now.

  • 427. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 12:14 am

    Yep. We are.

  • 428. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 12:47 am

    He asked to be excused. His brain was full.

  • 429. AndrewPDX  |  August 28, 2010 at 12:48 am

    God created me gay, and I am thankful for that. I have gone on a very long and twisted search, and I have found that I am actually following His plan for me.

    But, since I'm a 'fake Christian' according to your interpretation, you wouldn't believe me no matter what I say.

    Sigh, you are truly lost to the true wonders of God's Creation… I shall pray that you will be saved in time.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 430. AndrewPDX  |  August 28, 2010 at 12:55 am

    PROP8 VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS GUARANTEED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. Haven't you been listening?

    If your ENTIRE reason for WRITING DISCRIMINATION into the California Constitution is due to your (IMHO flawed) understanding of Scripture, then you are ALSO violating the FIRST AMENDMENT of the US CONSTITUTION.

    SO, I ask you: WHY did you vote to ADD discrimination to the California Constitution?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 431. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:26 am

    @ Andrew: I am not attempting to push my religion on you. In fact I don’t even have a religion. What I have is the Risen Lord Jesus Christ.

    I’m glad that you quoted from the Gospel of Mark to show that you know the 2 most important commandments, that tells me that you do also want what the Lord Jesus has to offer. I remind you that the whole Bible is what we are to live by if we are following Christ who said man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Please, do not forget these words:

    “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.”(1 John 1:8-10) (NIV)

  • 432. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:30 am

    @JonT

    "a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?"

    No, what you should do is recognize that the OT sacrifices were just a shadow of the real sacrifice that was coming – Jesus sacrificing Himself on the cross. Since His perfect sacrifice has been made, the OT sacrifices are no longer required and are actually an offense to God. I guess you don't understand types, huh?

    "b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?"

    Don't you think the price of Jesus' blood was enough to redeem us all from the slavery of sin?

    Still not grasping types I see.

    JonT – do you believe that you are a Hebrew who is coming out of slavery in Egypt and sojourning into the land of Canaan? If not, then you really should apply all your OT passages in their contexts and in the light of the New Testament.

  • 433. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:40 am

    That's a good point, too, Jon.

  • 434. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:43 am

    What did Jesus say about homosexuality, Colin? Nothing!

  • 435. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 10:05 am

    "What did Jesus say about homosexuality, Colin?"

    ""Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?"(Matthew 19:4-5)

  • 436. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 10:54 am

    @Colin, I didn't ask you what Jesus said about opposite-sex couples, I asked you what Jesus said about homosexuality.

    The answer is still: Nothing!

  • 437. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 10:59 am

    You GO Ann. Frankly, there is not enough aspirin in the house to make ME want to have this conversation with him. But you are doing just fine, so carry on!

    I will cheerlead for you, and pass around the popcorn.

  • 438. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Thank you, Anonygirl, I will for a while but I do not intend to spend my entire evening trying to teach a pig to sing.

  • 439. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 11:55 am

    @ Ann S. – Jesus was asked about divorce. If He was ok with same sex marriage, then why did He reference God creating them male and female? Why did He speak about God's plan for marriage as one man and one woman?

    Jesus also said:

    ""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."(Matthew 5:17-18)

    So, it's still a sin for a man to be with another man, nothing in the law was abolished. Jesus fulfilled what was in the law by doing what no human being can do – keeping all 613 commandments of the Old Testament every single day of His life on earth. He could not sin because He was the very perfection of God in the flesh, that's why His shed blood is able to atone for our sins and offer us a way for forgiveness and Salvation.

    The Old Testament is not done away with in Christ, it is fulfilled in a new covenant. One in which Jesus offers forgiveness of sins, but also says "Go and sin no more." And since the Old Testament is fulfilled, not abolished in Christ, there is still a solid bedrock foundation for God's plan on marriage all the way back in Genesis 1 & 2.

    God did not create an animal to be one flesh with Adam, which shows that bestiality is a sin against God. God did not create multiple women for Adam, which shows that polygamy is a sin against God. And God did not create another man for Adam, which shows that homosexuality is a sin against God.

    Jesus of course recognized this, which is one of the reasons He referenced that He created them male and female when asked about marriage and divorce.

  • 440. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    @ Ann S., instead of attacking my person once again and calling me a pig, would you please be kind enough to explain to me the following.

    What did Jesus say about homosexuality? Well from a thorough study of the Bible I would say that Jesus condemned homosexuality, wouldn't you agree? Well, I guess not since you claim He said nothing about it. Then please, I would like for you to explain the following:

    While it is true that there is no NT record of where Jesus explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong, He did in fact condemn the behavior. A careful study of the Bible will bear this out. Please read the following Bible passages and then consider the questions which follow:

    1. And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matthew 19:4.)

    Questions: What did Jesus say about God’s creative work? Did He make Adam and Joseph? Did He create male and male, or did He create male and female? According to this passage, what has been God’s plan for sexual union [one flesh] since the beginning of time? Was His plan for a male partner to be joined to another male partner, or was it for a husband to be united to his wife? According to this passage, is a man to cleave to his male partner, or to his spouse?

    Consider: Since Jesus approved of His Father’s plan [i.e., one man, one woman, one flesh,] could we correctly say that Jesus condemned homosexuality?

    2. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)

    Questions: What law was Jesus born under? What law did He live under? Answer: The Law of Moses (Galatians 4:4.) Did Jesus endorse and follow the Law of Moses? What did the Law of Moses say about homosexuality? (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17.)

    Consider: Since Jesus was born and lived under the Law of Moses, and since He endorsed the Law of Moses, and since the Law of Moses explicitly condemned homosexuality, then could we correctly say that Jesus also condemned it?

    3. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for he will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:12-15.)

    Questions: What did Jesus say the Holy Spirit would do for the apostles? Answer: Guide them into all truth (v. 13.) When/as the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth; would He speak on His own authority? Answer: No, He would speak on the authority of Christ (v. 14.) What did Jesus say the Holy Spirit would do in verse 14? Answer: “He (i.e., the Holy Spirit) will take of what is Mine (i.e., Christ’s) and declare it to you” (i.e., the apostles.)

    Consider: Since 1) the apostles would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, and since 2) the Holy Spirit would not speak on His own authority but instead would speak on the authority of Christ, and since 3) the Holy Spirit would take of what was Christ’s and declare it to the apostles, then by WHOSE AUTHORITY would the apostle’s speak/write/teach when the Holy Spirit guided them into all truth? Answer: Christ’s.

    Question: What did the apostle Paul [by Christ’s authority] say about the practice of homosexuality? (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.)

    Yes, Jesus did condemn homosexuality in His Word. Unless you have a better explanation of all these Biblical passages, and if so please share.

    If not you can read more about this here: http://thebible.net/modules.php?name=Read&ite

  • 441. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

    Apparently Colin has never heard the expression though, because he think that rather than calling him pigheaded (which he demonstrably is) you are calling him a pig (of which we have no proof, and is not the point of the phrase anyway).

    Here, fresh made popcorn, with a bit of garlic salt and shredded parmesan cheese on it. And a glass of fresh squeezed limeade with a sprig of basil (trust me, it is very nice).

  • 442. Kathleen  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    I feel so fortunate that I don't live in a theocracy. The moment this country begins to legislate from the bible, is the day I vote for rounding up the fundies and sticking them all on an island somewhere — far away from reasonable people so we can just get on with our lives. As long as they just keep their religion between them and their god and out of civil law, I'm fine with sharing space with them.

  • 443. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    Hear, hear, Kathleen.

  • 444. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Why, if the Old Testament is fulfilled, must we obey any one of the laws?

    If homosexual sex is such a huge sin, why did Jesus never mention it?

    Most importantly: Why should the OT be the basis for any law in the US? This is not a theocracy.

  • 445. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    You said:

    Since Jesus approved of His Father’s plan [i.e., one man, one woman, one flesh,] could we correctly say that Jesus condemned homosexuality?

    No, we could not correctly say that. That is like saying that if I approve of a blue house, I condemn all others.

  • 446. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    Well said.

  • 447. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Thanks for the popcorn and limeade, Anonygirl.

    And no, I did not call Colin a pig, any more than using the "lipstick on a pig" saying is calling anyone a pig.

    Moses had two wives, by most accounts. Yet I doubt Colin is calling on all men to take two wives.

    It's very interesting that a number of translations of Deuteronomy 23:17 do not say "sodomite" but say "cult prostitute". Prostitution is a rather different thing from a marriage between two consenting adults.

    But I don't know why Colin keeps bringing up the OT, which he says was "fulfilled" by Jesus.

    @Colin, do you eat shellfish? Do you wear clothing of mixed fibers? Do you ask if a woman is menstruating before you touch her?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  • 448. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    And here I said I wasn't going to get involved… but I found some aspirin!

    God did not create an animal to be one flesh with Adam, which shows that bestiality is a sin against God. God did not create multiple women for Adam, which shows that polygamy is a sin against God. And God did not create another man for Adam, which shows that homosexuality is a sin against God.

    God also did not create a 555 foot tall obelisk for Adam to visit on vacation. Does that mean that the Washington Monument is a sin against God? Because that IS the logical conclusion of your argument.

    God didn't do a lot of things. Jesus didn't do a lot of things too.

    One of the things Jesus didn't do was EVER speak on the issue of homosexuality. Ever. Neither for nor against.

    He didn't speak about the Washington Monument either, so we must conclude that we have NO IDEA what he felt about either.

    And as to those things which Jesus fulfilled, but are not abolished, how does it work that WE only have to follow some of the laws, not all of them? And by we, of course, I mean you, since I don't have to follow any of them, but you get my point.

  • 449. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Oops.. please insert a mental carat / i carat after "homosexuality is a sin against God." Apparently I mistyped.

  • 450. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Very true, very true indeed!!

  • 451. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    So Moses and all those other OT guys with multiple wives — you are calling them all sinners against God.

    So Moses sinned against God, yet you want us to follow this one Law of Moses, but you conveniently ignore any of the others you don't like, like the one about eating bacon-wrapped scallops.

    You know what? I don't have to follow any of that, because this is not a theocracy. I can eat bacon-wrapped scallops if I choose, and I will marry whom I choose. (Well, I'm already married, but no OT law is going to dictate who I should marry.)

  • 452. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Here, have a bacon-wrapped scallop. They're quite good.

  • 453. Mike M  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Question? Why do you all persist in engaging someone who's mind has not had a single revelatory thought or grasped forward movement in thinking in the last 2200 years. You can try to use logic and reason here but it is for naught with a closed mind.

    Simply put, the admonitions in Leviticus and else where in the Old Testament were set down when there were as few as 5000 Jews on the entire planet. They could not afford the luxury of the variety of humanity they saw around them without risking dying out as a group. We don't even need to touch on the flat out theft of many of the Bible stories from other cultures which have been called the literal word of a mythical being.

    Whether or not the Jesus character had personal feelings on or about sexuality is a matter of conjecture at best. The man did not write down his own thoughts. The accounts of his personal beliefs, what we know of those are third hand at best. What is clear is in one of the stories, the Jesus figure heals the Paison of a Roman soldier, which ever translation used, all but the out there fundies grasp that the relationship between the two men was more than casual. Jesus went ahead and "healed" the youth sight unseen in the hopes of converting both to his way of thinking. No strings attached no guilt involved. This speaks more to the character of the figure Jesus than any interpretation anyone else can make.

    That being said, please put this thing to rest already. 75 emails on the same circle of thought is ridiculous. No one will change their minds, so this argument is fruitless. I suggest everyone join hands and sing something by kd Lang or the Pansy Division until the sounds of extremism are drowned out.

  • 454. Bob  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    @Colin, I think if you read carefully, there are at least two places where it refers to the laws are abolished, and furthermore, the reason that is so is because no human could keep all the laws, the bible stories are clear that only the superhuman, Jesus, who had two fathers, was able to accomplish this feat.
    The bible stories also say, that if you preach the law, you must first of all yourself keep obey all of them , which is an impossiblity and therefore, the story goes that God made the new covenant, which he wrote in our hearts, it is here we must go for understanding, we must search our hearts, not the scriptures,
    The bible stories also say that to cement this new covenant Jesus died a brutal death shedding his love, to take away the sin of the world, this is the most important thing to remember from these stories, because if you are so focussed on sin, you negate the sacrifice Jesus made for us in that story.

    The bible story says Jesus died for us all to take away the sins of the world, do you not believe that part of the story.

    This part of the bible story changes the whole outcome dramatically, it takes away any focus from sin, and puts it on the good news of the most important part of the story, the gospel of love.

    The story also goes on to say no one will ever be saved by attempting to obey the laws, and any focus on such is unfounded. Whoever says he attemplts to keep the law is a liar.

    But according to the fascinating story, those who attempt to keep the law and preach it fail miserably, however many people including those ignorant of the law, without any attempts at keeping it do so by their very loving nature, which they do without trying

    The clincher in the story is that people are saved or find salvation by the grace of god which is a gift which he alone gives freely , in spite of and not because of anything which humans can do to earn it.

    And to make his point he says in the story, I will have mercy on whom I choose to have mercy, it has nothing to do with how hard someone tries to keep a law. or even how hard someone ltries not to sin.

    The story is very clear that sin is a wash, or at least the very height of equality, the bible story says very clearly that we are all sinners, not one is free of this, and then to have Jesus die to take it away only clarifies the point of the story, that we could be dwelling on loving each other as equal (sinners if you want) but loving equally.

    It is an amazing story that bible, it tells us many things, the most important of which is that things of the spiritual rhelm, should be kept seperate from those things of the secular world. in other words it's very clear on keeping rendering to Ceasar's what is his, and in thsi case it means, do not make a law for the secualr world thereby destroying the spiritual qualties freely given to those who acknowledge them.

    One sinner cannot rule over another, but the story does tell us to strive to love and forgive, each other as equals, without discrimination, saying my sin is less than yours, for in fact they and we are all equal.

    And finally the bilbe story says that God will judge those who preach the law, by the law, so take heed in your preaching, for none of us are bound by your understanding, but we each have our own conscience to guide us, PEACE

  • 455. JonT  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    'No, what you should do is recognize that the OT sacrifices were just a shadow of the real sacrifice that was coming – Jesus sacrificing Himself on the cross. Since His perfect sacrifice has been made, the OT sacrifices are no longer required and are actually an offense to God. I guess you don’t understand types, huh?

    I have no idea what you are talking about WRT 'OT' sacrifices and my apparent inability to 'understand types'.

    And really, in case it wasn't clear, I don't care about your religious beliefs. You are entitled to interpret your holy book any way you want. I respect your right to believe what you wish about the nature of the Universe.

    You just don't get to force your beliefs onto me. And you guys just seem to positively love doing that.

    What that post was attempting to point out is how easy it is for your kind (you know, the bigots who feel the need to impose their ancient belief systems on other people) to pick and choose what you consider 'truth' and what you consider 'just advice', from a book, written by MEN 1500 years ago.

    'Don’t you think the price of Jesus’ blood was enough to redeem us all from the slavery of sin?

    Uhm, I'm not christian so I have no opinion on that. That's your interpretation of the universe, not mine.

    'Still not grasping types I see.

    Guess not. Guess I don't really care…

    'JonT – do you believe that you are a Hebrew who is coming out of slavery in Egypt and sojourning into the land of Canaan? If not, then you really should apply all your OT passages in their contexts and in the light of the New Testament.
    '

    I guess you are still not getting it. I do not consider myself a Hebrew who is coming out of slavery in Egypt and sojourning into the land of Canaan.

    I don't even know what that means. It doesn't matter to me, it's completely irrelevant to my view of the Universe. It's your holy book not mine.

    And if by OT you mean Off Topic, implying that my amusing letter from above wasn't from the 'real' bible, well, then I have to just laugh.

    I thought the bible was 'truth', unerring? So are you saying you need to be a scholar to understand what part of the bible should be interpreted literally and which should not?

    Seems like a very corruptible system, leaving all the power in the hands of a select few who are 'worthy' enough to comprehend the real 'Truth', and provided the authority the enforce it upon their flocks.

    I'll pass thanks.

  • 456. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Mike, I do it because I have no other plans this evening and have to wait up to go pick up our daughter later, and because it's an interesting intellectual exercise, and because I learn new things. Like about the Paison. I will never change the mind of someone like Colin, but maybe there are other readers who are more open-minded.

  • 457. JonT  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Absolutely well said Kathleen.

    I notice he's just quoting from the bible now. It's funny how these people always progress from some (mis)-statements of logic when they first come in here. Then their logic is torn apart (because their argument was illogical and factually incorrect to begin with).

    Then by the end they are just quoting the bible passages, which I'm not going to even bother to read, since I don't care what his bible says about anything. :)

    Same pattern, every time. Well, some jump directly to the bible, but ones like Colin here, they take a longer route. :)

  • 458. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    Oooh! Yum! Would you like a nice, crisp, fresh cucumber and onion salad to go with that?

  • 459. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    (they were grown side by side… I should have made that clear, I suppose, for the joke to work.)

  • 460. JonT  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Ahhh- OT = Old Testament.

    Right. Supposedly to harsh for the more modern times, hence the 'New' and Improved Testament.

    If the OT as you call it is 'obsolete' and superseded by the NT, then why do I hear Leviticus from you guys all the time?

    Again, it's a rhetorical question, since the difference between the two doesn't hold any significance for me anyway.

  • 461. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Yum, wait until I put on my linen-and-wool sweater, OK?

  • 462. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Oh, wait — you're not menstruating, are you???? Apparently I need to know before I can touch you.

  • 463. JonT  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Exactly Ann, logic – how it was meant to be used :)

  • 464. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Thank you. Here, have a bacon-wrapped scallop?

  • 465. AndrewPDX  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Personally, because I've had it up to *here* with their hate that they try to pass off as trying to 'save' us. I'm responding because I can't stay silent any more.

    Silence is implicit agreement.

    I know I'm never going to get him to change his mind; he's lost to the Light of true love. But it's a bit cathartic to YELL AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS every now and then.

    The 'join hands and sing something' is a great alternative too… maybe I'll try that one next time :)

    <cite>HOPE will never be SILENT.</cite> — Harvey Milk

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 466. Bob  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    funny Mike how we both typed our responses at the same time, guess we both wanted to enter the dialog, for whatever reason,
    Mine is that this is the only place left for me to go with this, it's what it comes down to, the only thing standing in the way of equality are people who believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

    Having been raiised in this invironment I never learned to question what I read, dealing with the reality of who I am has taught me to do so.

    I do it to practice, and thank Colin for the opportunity, maybe he may be struggling with issues, I will never forget how things changed for me when I heard other interlpretations of what I had been taught, and re read the stories again with a new awakening.

  • 467. AndrewPDX  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Can I get a bacon cheeseburger instead? I've never been a big fan of seafood — unless it's salt-water taffy.

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 468. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Andrew, I hope you're wearing your linen-and-wool blend clothing?

  • 469. AndrewPDX  |  August 28, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    @Ann S.,
    <cite>Andrew, I hope you’re wearing your linen-and-wool blend clothing?</cite>

    well, it's also got some man-made fibers mixed in… is that okay?

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 470. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Bob, Jesus offers forgiveness for sins, but that does not give us an license to live in sin.

    You can try to justify it any way you want, but in the end what you are doing is claiming that you are not living in sin, right?

    "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."(1 John 1:8-10)

  • 471. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Bob, in the future, could you please put down the reference you are making whenever you claim the Bible says something?

  • 472. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    @ Mike M – the Jesus "character"?? Are you denying that Jesus was a real person?

  • 473. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    @ Ann S. – where does the Bible ever commend polygamy. Yes, Moses was also a sinner, just like every person who ever lived. The law is fulfilled in Jesus, not abolished.

    And yes, you are absolutely free to follow whatever you like. But YOU claimed that Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, and that is not true. Jesus condemns the practice.

  • 474. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Are you saying he was a real person? How do you know? The authors of the Bible weren't alive when Jesus was supposed to have lived.

  • 475. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    @Colin, I still want to know why you eat bacon and shellfish, but try to tell other people they have to obey Leviticus.

    Jesus never says word one about homosexuality. You said, "there is no NT record of where Jesus explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong". No. Record.

    If it is such an important law, why wouldn't he have said something about it?

    So, the bacon and shellfish — why is that OK??

  • 476. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    Colin — it is somewhat intellectually interesting to discuss your bible tales with you, but the bottom line is this:

    This is not a theocracy. We have separation of church and state.

    There is no law against eating bacon and shellfish, and there is no law against homosexual sex. The Old Testament is not where we get our laws.

    Wake up and join the new century. You're several centuries behind the times.

  • 477. Mike M  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    @Colin, Yes exactly so. There is no more evidence that the Bible character existed than did Moses in the OT. A story which was stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. And is BTW much more believable than the Bible version of the flood.

    You have your foolish mythology and I have mine. My mythological paradise is one where people are in fact equal and how they line and who they is not demeaned unless that choice involves the physical harm of another being. As mythologies go, mine is far more rational and achievable then yours.

    The fact that you think your mythology is better than mine or anyone else's tells me your mental maturity lies somewhere between 3 and 6 years of age where you tell yourself a lie and then believe it absolutely in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary. This is by the by my last response to you because you refuse to intellectually engage. The fact that you picked the statement you did to challenge tells me you either did not comprehend my argument or you choose not to. This being a fact means further discussion with you is about as productive as as trying to hold back a wave at the seashore or capturing sunlight in a jar.

  • 478. Mike M  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    ….how they live and who they love… belongs in the above post instead of "how they line and who they" stupid cut and paste!

  • 479. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Here, have a bacon-wrapped scallop. You'll feel better.

  • 480. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    So then, the Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus, as well as many other secular historians who also wrote about Jesus being a REAL person, that's more foolish mythology to you?

    Interesting.

  • 481. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Colin, I didn't ask you what Paul said, did I? I asked you what Jesus said.

  • 482. Mike M  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    You know bacon wrapped scallops are better if you crust the bacon with brown sugar. I also have wicked recipe for bacon and pecan crusted shrimp if you're interested.

  • 483. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Oooh, those sound sinfully delicious.

    Do you know that you can click the "Reply" button right below someone's post and then your post will appear under theirs? This only works until the posts get a couple of layers deep, but it can help to sort things out.

  • 484. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Haha, this has just gotten funny now. You folks were the ones who started asking me questions about the Bible (in fact Andrew was the first to quote the Bible at me), I was merely obliging you.

    Yep, you guys have absolute freedom to believe as you choose and live as you choose and decide as you choose. But guess what? So do I! The entire LGBT activist movement is completely hypocritical – everyone is close minded unless they agree with you. People who believe that a marriage should only be between 1 man and 1 woman are unjustly labeled and scoffed at and attacked and have their intelligence insulted as you folks on this blog have proven time and again.

    If a ballot measure comes up that defines marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman, I also have full freedom to vote in favor of it which I did.

    And I don't have to go through a lengthy court battle to get my belief pushed on millions of Californians if I lose that vote because the majority of Californians, in fact the majority of the country, agrees with me – that's why the measure passed.

    Even though I disagree with what you want, good luck in your fight. I respect your right to fight for what you believe in, I just wish your whole movement would respect mine too.

    Goodbye.

  • 485. Mike M  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    At one AM I miss the little buttons, not to mention the boyfriend poking my ribs is distracting. HE does however prefer to be called, "The guy who will someday drag me off to Iowa to marry me." He knows I fear going more than 30 miles from a city of one million unless it involves a plane and pool boys.

  • 486. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    The people in the marriage equality people cannot respect what you want because you want to take away people's rights.

    Proposition 8 took away people's rights, rights under the California constitution.

    No one here wants to take away your rights. You want to take away rights of people here. That's the difference.

    Wake up and smell the new century.

  • 487. Ann S.  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    Mike, it's OK. I think I've had more than enough of this for one night. Maybe tomorrow you can educated me about bacon and pecan-crusted shrimp. I know that day will come when you can marry anywhere in the US, and it won't be too far off.

  • 488. Adam G  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Colin, there is no god. You need to get that through your extremely thick skull.

    You won't, of course, but I can sympathize. It's hard to find out that the thing you've based your whole life on is just a fictional storybook. There is no historical evidence for a Jesus or a Moses. None. Zip. Zero. No matter what lies your church leaders told you, they were still lying. There is no god. None.

    You asked above if people were denying they were sinning. I'm not doing that. I'm just denying that sin is real, because it isn't. It's just a construct created by frightened and angry people to keep other frightened and angry people under control. That's not a good enough reason for the concept, and so I'm chucking it out.

    In case you couldn't tell, I'm one of those godless, atheist, LEGALLY MARRIED TO HIS HUSBAND gay men. Just so you know.

    I will never respect your religion, and I will always work for it to be debunked for the pack of lies and myths that it is. Someday – hopefully someday soon – people will hear about your "god" with the same detachment that they hear about Zeus or Apollo, and care about as much.

    (And I'm not going to work for the demise of your religion because I'm gay, or because I'm atheist. Don't kid yourself. I'm going to work for it because I'm a human being who's tired of people lying to themselves and basing entire social systems on lies and fairy tales – which your bible definitely is. Wake up and smell the coffee, honey – you get one life, and it ends when you die. Better make the most of it; none of us get more than about 100 years here at the outside, and then we are food for worms.)

  • 489. Adam G  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Colin, dahling, does it occur to you that your bible is MEANINGLESS to most everyone here? Does it even occur to you that it has zero authority and cuts no ice with anyone who thinks?

    Your arguments, and I use that term very loosely because I'm being generous, are worthless if they are not backed up by facts. Your bible is the furthest thing from factual that exists. Every time you grab it to flip to your latest cherry-picked verse, I laugh at you, because it's just ridiculous. You'd get better answers from a book of Shakespeare's plays.

  • 490. Adam G  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Yep. The entire book is mythology. Have you got that yet?

  • 491. anonygrl  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Colin, we respect your right to believe WHATEVER you want to. Absolutely.

    In your own home, and in your church and on the street and at the supermarket… just NOT in our laws.

    Our legal system is set up so that you may not legislate to discriminate against others on the basis of your religion. You can BELIEVE whatever you like. You cannot discriminate based on it. Its a really simple formula.

    Freedom of religion means that Muslims, too, have the right to believe what they want in this country. But they do not have the right to force YOU to follow their religious laws, either. If you want that protection for yourself, then you have to grant it to us, that is how it works.

    Let me just address one more thing. You say "And I don’t have to go through a lengthy court battle to get my belief pushed on millions of Californians…" as though what we are asking for somehow infringes on you. It does not. Marriage equality does not affect you in the least, unless you decide to marry someone of the same sex. It does not change ANYTHING in your life, it does not hurt your relationships, it does not damage your children, it does NOTHING to you. It does not change how your churches do business, it does nothing.

    So, we are asking you to stop denying our rights, and in return, we are not going to do anything at all to change your life in the slightest. I can't see where you suffer any harm in this, so please stop acting like you are being victimized.

  • 492. Bob  |  August 28, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Colin, the story goes, he died once to atone for all sins, erasied them. that is the significance of the death and resurrections story, not that he rose again as the story goes, but in doing this he atoned for all sins of the world, forever.

    the bible stories also make reference to the fact that no human is able to keep all the laws, and being of human nature we then live as sinners. sin is part of human nature, we are all equal in sin, there is no way I could be without sin until I leave my body, as long as I am in the flesh I sin, there is no way out of this, nor is there any point of trying to focus on sin, cause there is no escape from it. if we focus on sin, we are stuck there, there is no difference between my sin and yours, they are equal, the sin of murder is equal to the sin of gossip, or thinking you are better than me., the sin of homosexuality is equal to the sin of gossip and false preaching, the equality of sin wipes them out on the human level. The goal and messge of the Jesus story in the bilble, is that we should approach everyone as he did, and go out of our way to do so, espcially the most vile, he never once mentioned their sin or guilt, but always loved them and healed them.

    As the story goes Jesus tells us sin is a condition of being human and in the flesh, being alive is the only license required. what you are so desperate for is to get me to repent of any wrongdoing on my part to you, so that you my feel some comfort from that, and it is that which I refuse to do, The story is very clear about those details being between me and God, I have no need to discuss my intimacies with you.

    And I would encoourage you to do the same, rather than make a spectical of yourself on this site, the way you do, posing as someone who is better than me, because you have some special connection or understanding, which I lack. God will be your judge on that.

    The reason I don't put references is because it isan opportunity for you to think and reread and research, the different messages for yourself. for example tryng to find the references to the mention of the law being abolished, may lead you to other insights along the way. I don't think the bible is the inerrant word of god, or he would have done a much clearer job, and perhaps written it himself.

    Open yourself to reading the bible as a story, it iswritten in such a way that if you are determined to find proof for what you are saying , you will find that, but equally so, if you try to disprove something you will find that also. It's a personal journey, and encounter, not one you can dictate to someone else, that is the amazing thing about this story.

    Oh and by the way, I believe it was king Constantine, who ruled that the christians of his time had to get together and vote, yes vote, on which books would be included in the bible, to shut up the bickering between the theologins of the day, so it wasn't so much inspired by God, as a political manuver to complete the book that everyone would agree on,

  • 493. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:11 pm

    @ Adam G.

    There is no god, no Creator to the Universe? Well, then that means that the universe is a closed system and that means the Laws of Thermodynamics are in play.

    Since my skull is so extremely thick, then could you please explain to me how you exist? How was there a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics with the CREATION of energy and matter in the CLOSED SYSTEM of the universe, if there is no creator capable of creating energy and matter?

  • 494. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:19 pm

    @ Adam, I have no religion. I'm a Christian, what I have is much better – the Lord Jesus Christ. You see, hateful people such as yourself have already worked for His demise and put Him to death on a cross. But He rose again from the grave and that is a historically verifiable fact.

    He is still alive today, your work for His demise is in vain.

    Now, let's forget the topic of religion and the only way for forgiveness of sins. I remind you that it was Andrew who first quoted the Bible to me, not the other way around.

    Let's consider some factual issues about genderless marriage that you advocate.

    The man-woman marriage institution is:
    Society’s best and perhaps only effective means to secure the right of a child to know and be raised by her biological parents (with exceptions justified only when they are in the best interests of the child).

    Society’s primary and most effective means of bridging
    the male-female divide.

    Society’s only means of transforming a male into hus-
    band-father, and a female into wife-mother, statuses
    and identities particularly beneficial to society.

    Social and official endorsement of the form of adult in-
    timacy—married heterosexual intercourse—that society
    may rationally value above all other such forms.

    These are not the only social goods produced by the marriage institution, but they are the relevant ones for purposes of adjudicating the marriage issue. They are relevant because they are the social goods produced uniquely by the man-woman meaning, and that must, therefore, disappear when that meaning is deinstitutionalized.

    I ask: How could genderless marriage ever produce these social goods?

  • 495. Colin  |  August 28, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    @ Anongirl: Respect? Is that a joke?

    "pig"
    "troll"
    "10 year old fool"
    "thick skulled bigot"

    If this is what you call respect? I sure would hate to see you disrespect anyone.

    Now, I want to correct you about something you claim:

    " It does not change ANYTHING in your life, it does not hurt your relationships, it does not damage your children, it does NOTHING to you. It does not change how your churches do business, it does nothing."

    You've really got to be kidding me once again.

    Supporters of the judge's decision rationalize excuses that churches will be not forced to perform same-sex marriages and that they will still be able maintain their tax-exempt status.

    Unfortunately, the opposite is true.

    If the act of homosexuality is legally to be determined to be on a par with the sanctity of the civil rights of race, color and religion (with religion losing more rights again), then all churches, that teach the 5,000 year-old fundamental morals of Judeo/Christianity – that homosexuality is an act of perversion (not inherited) and an offense to God, will all be in trouble.

    At stake will not only be their tax-exempt status, but they could possibly be in trouble, for allegedly teaching hate crimes from the pulpit. The Bible could even be determined to contain hate material and banned by the government.

    If a racial minority can now sue a church on grounds of discrimination, how would it be possible to stop homosexuals from suing a church to be married at the altar?

    OK, so what about schools?

    Are you really serious when you conclude homosexual marriage as well as the legitimacy of homosexual behavior would not become mandatory in our schools? You have got to be kidding me.

    Look at this state's history – When Gov. Gray Davis was fashioning the base for the exorbitant costs of energy we now face, the California Legislature was more concerned with passing laws about the rights of cross dressers than energy costs.

    Sacramento is like a giant vortex of stupidity that just keeps on sucking down tax dollars to drive to socialism and whatever strange twisted social behavior that is currently fashionable.

    But, staying focused on schools – Across the state there are a lot of committed Christians who will not allow their children to be indoctrinated by the secular progressive agenda, so their only option will be to pull their children out of public schools and either home school or send them to private schools. This mass exodus from the public school system could cause a total collapse in the already broken public educational system.

    So the public schools can say goodbye to that money they get on a daily basis when my children show up for school.

    And to the public school teachers, you had better start standing up for how your union dollars are being spent or you may find yourself on the Barack Obama government socialism program, the one that starts at the unemployment line.

    Where am I going with this? Right here:

    I really don't care about what homosexuals do in private. I don't want to know. Heck, I don't really care if they all want to get married or why. I really don't want to know.

    I do know that I voted yes on Prop. 8, and it had nothing to do with the fact that I'm Christian or how I feel about the definition of the term "marriage."

    It had everything to do with 4 activist judges in this state nullifying the votes of millions of California voters who pay their salaries.

    The people of California voiced their opinions 2 years ago, 10 years ago, and 13 years ago and I myself am tired of the liberals' strategy of continuing their attack on the people through the court system until they get their way.

    Put it to a vote and perhaps I'll vote in your favor. But I will always vote AGAINST government control over the people.

    But they can't win through elections so they try to "back door" their ideas through the judicial branch. They have the judges to cover for them and shove their views down our throats after we've already voted on how we desire to proceed.
    Let the people speak.

    Majority rules and the people decide for themselves, or 4 people decide for millions – which is really more unconstitutional???

  • 496. Adam G.  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:32 am

    *yawn* You write a bunch of words and I hear "quack quack quack", Colin. Your Jesus is a fiction. He never existed. Believe in your fairy tale all you like, but you don't seem to understand that calling on that particular authority cuts no ice with me or most of the people here. And your continued expectation that people here should take your fantasies seriously just makes you all the more absurd.

    People reproduce just fine without marriage. It's not about reproduction any more. It's about people wanting to make a legal commitment to spend their lives together and share their resources. The meaning of marriage changes over time, and always has, and your refusal to see and accept that means that you're going to be left behind as history rolls right over you.

    By the way, in about two-thirds of the world, polygamy is the standard form of marriage. What we have here in most places in the US, heterosexual monogamy, is actually rather rare on a world scale – only about 25% of the world thinks that's what marriage is. So if you're going to argue for a democratic majority definition of marriage, you lose – and by a lot.

    Please, do keep talking. I needed to laugh today, and you've provided an enormous amount of humor with your ridiculous claims about the magical powers of nonexistent people.

  • 497. Adam G.  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:38 am

    Nope, no "god," and no creator. But your assertion that the universe is a closed system is ridiculous. Anyone who's studied basic physics knows its not. Your conflation of the two ideas (universe is an open system, therefore a creator) is laughably wrong and frankly unsupportable.

    There is no need for a "creator" in order for energy and matter to exist. You are grasping at straws. Look up the Big Bang and be educated. (And please stop pretending that you are educated, until you learn the basic scientific facts. You probably went to Liberty "University," which means your degree is worth about the same as my Scott toilet paper.)

    Human beings, like all other living things, exist due to evolutionary processes that make each generation a little bit better adapted to the environment around them. We evolved from earlier forms of life. It's a scientific fact. Cope with it or don't. I really don't care.

  • 498. AndrewPDX  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:57 am

    Colin,

    I have a suggestion on how to remove even more 'government control over people': abolish marriage altogether. For opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
    Imagine, no more marriage offices, no more marriage licenses. No more marriage laws, no inheritance laws, taxes always as individuals. Immigration laws would be simpler.

    I can then go to my church — you know the 'fake Christian' one that you insulted called the United Church of Christ — and have a blessed wedding that is just as (in)valid as the one you have at your church — or whatever you would have, since you don't have a religion.

    I don't like this compromise, but that's what it sounds like you're advocating.

  • 499. Sarah  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Once again, I have been trying to stay out of this, and enjoying the wonderful input from everybody else! But, Colin, I know quite a few men and women who have been "transform[ed] into husband-father and wife-mother" by marrying somebody of the same gender. You probably have a few living in your neighborhood.

  • 500. Craig  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Colin said: "If a racial minority can now sue a church on grounds of discrimination, how would it be possible to stop homosexuals from suing a church to be married at the altar?"

    Actually, Colin makes a HUGE assumption and a gigantic error in asking his question. The fact is, a racial minority CANNOT now (or ever) sue a church on grounds of discrimination. How do I know this? Because actual history proves it.

    Even AFTER the civil rights act was passed in this country, the Mormon church continued to prohibit Blacks from being ordained to the Mormon priesthood. Blacks were prevented from entering the Mormon temples and participating in rituals believed to be essential to entering God's kingdom in the next life. Mormons believed and preached at the time that Blacks were not "worthy" to participate fully in the Mormon religion.

    The civil rights act had no effect on these bigoted, racist policies. Blacks were not able to sue the church, because religious belief, however misguided, is protected in this country under the Constitution. So while the law of the land declared that racial discrimination was illegal, it nevertheless did NOT change the fact that the Mormon church, as a private organization, was NOT required to obey it. The Mormon church had theological and doctrinal reasons of their own why they actually believed Blacks were not "worthy" of all the 'blessings' of full Mormon participation. These beliefs were immune to the force of law. Mormons continued to be free to teach and believe whatever they wanted regarding the pretend racial inferiority of Blacks before God. (I know, it sounds totally offensive, but that's really what they taught and believed and practiced.)

    We can look at that now and see clearly it was based on prejudice and racism, but at the time very sincere believing Mormons thought it was God's Will that those policies remain in place.

    The Mormon church would not have been eligible to receive government funding for its programs while choosing not to conform with the civil rights act, true, but that was their choice. In other words, while the government cannot FUND discrimination in private organizations, neither can it prevent such discrimination from taking place.

    This is very basic. Tax money is received from the general public. It is not lawful for the government to use tax money to fund discrimination. (You cannot collect tax money from Blacks and then use that money to discriminate against them.) Therefore, a church which chooses to discriminate is not eligible to receive government funding. However, the church is still permitted to discriminate based on their beliefs. But I digress.

    Eventually, in 1978, the Mormon church decided — ON THEIR OWN AND WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENTAL PRESSURE OR FORCE OF LAW — to change its policy and allow Blacks equal access to the privileges of Mormonism, including the priesthood and attending the temple ceremonies. It can be said that they were influenced by their plummeting public image as people were angry at them for discriminating, but they and they alone decided to change their own policies on the race issue. No one ever forced them under any law, including the civil rights act, which, of course, had already been in the US Constitution for several years by then. And no one was able to sue them over it either. There is no legal basis for such a lawsuit.

    This is an actual case from the actual history of this country, and it proves that no matter what happens with civil rights in the LGBT community, private religious organizations will remain free to preach and teach and practice whatever they wish, even such abhorrent things as racism or homophobia — and the laws of this country, based on the Constitution, will PROTECT them in doing so exactly as the Mormon church was protected in declaring Blacks unworthy of full participation in that church based solely on their race.

    Just as they were/are free to continue their racist policies, so will they (and all other churches) continue to be free to practice their homophobic policies, including preventing gays from getting married in Mormon temples, EXACTLY the way they barred Blacks from getting married in Mormon temples. Exactly the way they prevent gays in Massachusetts or Washington, D.C. from getting married in Mormon temples RIGHT NOW, without any fear of any lawsuit. And this of course applies to ANY religion.

    Churches can refuse right now to marry ANYONE THEY WISH. If you want to get married in a Mormon temple today, you have to BE a mormon, obey all their laws, and be declared "worthy" by the leaders. At any time they can revoke your privilege of going there to get married. Non-Mormons are barred from entering the temples based solely on their being non-mormon. Is that religious-based discrimination? Of course it is! But that is protected in this country. And if you do not believe me, go try to get into a Mormon temple. Then file a lawsuit when they refuse to let you in. And now go try to find any lawyer in this country, or any court in this country, to take your case. Good luck with that!

    Wouldn't it be nice if Christians decided to stop bearing false witness about the pretend implications and consequences of expanding civil equality in this country? Maybe instead of bashing everyone else with their precious bibles, they should shut up and actually READ them instead. Isn't lying addressed in the Ten Commandments? Repent, Colin, I fear you are tottering about on the verge of being condemned to hellfire and damnation. And that's not according to me, but to your own bible, which you so fiercely (pretend to) cling to.

    :-)

    — Craig.

  • 501. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:27 am

    how is that possible Sarah? If the union can not make either of them father or mother biologically?

  • 502. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Colin, are you saying that adoptive parents can't be "real" parents? I know some adoptive parents and children who might have a bone to pick with you.

  • 503. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:30 am

    He never existed?

    Then may I ask why the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote that He was a real person?

    May I ask why it is a historical fact that Peter and Paul were both crucified by Emperor Nero for preaching about Jesus?

    May I ask why all the apostles allowed themselves to be brutally martyred for teaching about Jesus?

    If He was just some guy they made up, why didn't they come clean and confess to that instead of allowing themselves to be tortured and killed?

    You are ignoring documented history, and I'm the one you imply is living in a fantasy?

  • 504. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:33 am

    @ Ann S.

    Do not put words in my mouth. I said they cannot biologically be a mother or father, which is a fact. If you disagree with that, then I know a plethera of biologists and scientists and 5th graders who learned about human reproduction in grade school who would have a bone to pick with you.

  • 505. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:33 am

    He may have lived. He may have been just a man.

    We don't make our laws based on your religion.

  • 506. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Oh, that's right, even though you keep preaching about Jesus, you "don't have a religion".

    We don't make laws on your "not a religion", either.

  • 507. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:35 am

    Why are infertile people and people who plan to have no children allowed to marry?

  • 508. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Craig, where have I lied?

    I'm going to have to challenge you as the one spreading lies. For you claim "The fact is, a racial minority CANNOT now (or ever) sue a church on grounds of discrimination."

    That's a lie.

    I'll give you just one example from the multiple available cases. Why was the Church without Walls sued over racial discrimination in October of 2009?

    Would you please explain that please?

  • 509. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:41 am

    @ Ann S.: Infertile women typically come about due to a natural condition or disease. They don’t have a choice, whereas homosexuals have a choice, and the choice they make is going towards the boundary. Choice is our most precious gift. Some people don’t have a choice. If we go against what nature intended, then where would we end up? Is artificial everything the way to go?

  • 510. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:41 am

    If you're talking about this, it appears to be an employment suit.

    Churches can get sued for their roles as employers, yes.

    In fact, just about anybody can get sued for anything. Winning the suit is a different matter.

    Churches can refuse to marry anyone they wish. They always have. It's that First Amendment you were talking about.

  • 511. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:42 am

    "Choice is our most precious gift".

    Well, we agree about something.

  • 512. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:43 am

    When did I say artificial everything is the way to go? This is surely one of your more incomprehensible posts.

  • 513. Kathleen  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Even more bizarre, Colin seems to think that gay and lesbian people are infertile!?! Seems Colin's education is lacking in areas besides civics.

  • 514. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:51 am

    Is it not "artificial" fatherhood and motherhood produced by a same-sex union? It certainly is not biological.

  • 515. Bob  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus

  • 516. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 5:56 am

    @ Ann S. – And what if an openly gay pastor were to apply to work at a church and be denied because of his non biblical stance on homosexuality?

    Could not the church be sued for discrimination and potentially lose their tax exempt status even if they win the case?

    Ann S., why do you continually avoid my actual question?

    The man-woman marriage institution is:
    Society’s best and perhaps only effective means to secure the right of a child to know and be raised by her biological parents (with exceptions justified only when they are in the best interests of the child).

    Society’s primary and most effective means of bridging
    the male-female divide.

    Society’s only means of transforming a male into hus-
    band-father, and a female into wife-mother, statuses
    and identities particularly beneficial to society.

    Social and official endorsement of the form of adult in-
    timacy—married heterosexual intercourse—that society
    may rationally value above all other such forms.

    These are not the only social goods produced by the marriage institution, but they are the relevant ones for purposes of adjudicating the marriage issue. They are relevant because they are the social goods produced uniquely by the man-woman meaning, and that must, therefore, disappear when that meaning is deinstitutionalized.

    I ask: How could genderless marriage ever produce these social goods?

  • 517. Bob  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:02 am

    and as for Churches being sued, I say good, if they flaunt their power in politics, then politics and the secualr law should be able to intervene in the church, it goes both ways

    and interesting case you may wish to make is the more recent one of the Presbytrian minister being sued for performing a same sex marriage in the church, she did this according to her conscience in the matter, and prior to the church giving consent, The church I believe has since come out in favour of SS marriages.

  • 518. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:03 am

    true, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. but Mary was His biological mother, Bob.

    And when Jesus spoke of "my Father", He was not speaking about Joseph. But Joseph had to be His legal father, so He could have a legal claim to the throne of David.

    The virgin birth fulfilled a 2 fold purpose:

    In Jeremiah 36:1-32, there is an unusual curse which absolutely excludes the possibility of Joseph as the biological father.

    Jehoiakim was a king of Israel. He angered God by burning a scroll that Jeremiah the prophet had written. So God cursed Jehoiakim by indicating that none of his children would sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 36:29-31). And although Jehoiakim had children, Scripture shows that none of them ever reigned as king over Israel or Judah.

    The problem? Joseph, the legal Father of Jesus, was one of Jehoiakim’s descendants (through Jeconiah). Joseph’s offspring could not claim David’s throne because of the curse (all property rights among the Jews were directly related to family heritage, which is a main reason why they carefully maintained accurate genealogies). If Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, he would have the legal lineage to claim David’s throne, but would be forbidden to do so because of God’s curse on Jehoiakim. Jesus laid claim to the throne of David (Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30, Hebrews 12:2). So that means if Jesus was born from Joseph’s seed, then God’s curse was contradicted. Also, God had promised David that one of his physical descendants would reign on the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:12-13).

    Although Joseph was descended from David, he was excluded from being the genetic father of the future king of Israel. It was impossible to fulfill the requirements of both the promise and the curse by natural means. One man had to be born as both heir to and offspring of David, without being the genetic descendant of Jehoiakim. The problem required a divine solution.
    God’s solution was created in the miracle of the virgin birth. Although Joseph was Jehoiakim’s offspring through Solomon, Mary was not. She was descended from Nathan, one of David’s other sons (Luke 3:31). God’s promise to David was fulfilled because Mary was the biological parent of Jesus, but Joseph was not. Although by his mother’s line Jesus was not able to take the throne, since Joseph was also David’s descendant Jesus could have the legal title to the throne, while not Jehoiakim’s offspring. The virgin birth addresses the curse that God had placed on Jehoiakim. Kingship was an inherited right. By Joseph, Jesus inherited a legal claim to the throne of David, however He was exempt from the curse of Jehoiakim only because Joseph was not His genetic father. So the miracle of the virgin birth accomplished God’s will in 2 ways. 1st, it granted Jesus a legal claim to the throne of David, and 2nd it maintained the integrity of the curse God had pronounced on Jehoiakim.

    Indeed, Jesus was not Jehoiakim’s offspring nor the offspring of Joseph.

    I fail to see your point, Bob – Jesus' birth through Mary and adopted father Joseph served a purpose in God's redeeming plan. It's a reach to apply the same principle to anyone and everyone.

  • 519. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Colin,

    Pig, no… you keep asking for us to call you that, no one did. Read it again.

    Troll, 10 year old fool, thick skulled bigot? Well, I am sorry to say that you have earned those honestly. You may disagree on this point, but there it is.

    Disrespect? That would be more likely to take the form of what we see when we go to NOM's website, for instance, where by and large we find our comments are not even passed through moderation, they are just killed. You are allowed to speak your piece here, and anywhere you like, as far as we are concerned. Do not confuse our disdain of your points with disrespect for your freedom to speak. You are absolutely free to say what you will (until you advocate violence, obviously) and to believe what you will. Your POSITION gets no respect, because it is not deserving of any. Do not make the mistake that Brian Brown and company do of assuming that respect for your right to speak means we in ANY way support the position you take. Nor does freedom of speech guarantee you an audience, or restrict us from speaking at the same time, louder, and with more facts on our side.

    Now, to address your points.

    Your church is not now required to marry ANYONE it does not want to. No church is. Catholic churches refuse to marry people who are divorced ALL THE TIME. Mormon churches won't marry non-Mormons. Other churches do not perform marriage ceremonies as they choose. No one is forcing them to, no one will, because no one can. No one is going to come after churches for what they preach, if they were, do you think Westboro Baptist Church would still be in business? Freedom of religion guarantees that. Get over it.

    The legitimacy of homosexuality mandatory in schools? In what way? Kids who have same sex parents would be treated exactly as everyone else? Teachers might mention that same sex couples exist? What? You act as if there is some secret hidden "Oooh preach homosexuality at them as KIDS and they will all become homosexuals!" lesson plan in the works, which you know as well as I do is completely false and ridiculous. What happened in schools when interracial marriage was legalized? Did every child rush out and try interracial sex? No. Did hundreds of thousands of parents withdraw their children from school fearing that the kids might find out that racial prejudice was a bad thing? No. Nothing happened. Once again, get over it.

    Your point about cross dressers and exorbitant energy costs escapes me.

    Good to know that you don't care what happens in the lives of people you don't know. So let them get married, and stop making such a fuss about it.

    You ask whether "majority rules" or "4 [judges] decide" is more unconstitutional. The judges are doing their job in upholding the US Constitution, the "majority rules" are trying to supress the rights of the minority. It is a very easy equation to work out, really. The answer is clearly that "majority rules" is not only more unconstitutional, it is in fact the only unconstitutional item in your list.

  • 520. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:08 am

    And that is a sign of the times, Bob. The prophetic times that is:

    "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."(Revelation 3:15-20)

  • 521. Bob  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:12 am

    Mary was the mother only by a artificial insemenation, the HOLY SPIRIT did not put his thing between his legs into Mary's vagina.

    God himself inspired divine intervention, then, and know, there is the possiblity of bearing children without intercourse.

    Miraculous, and Rainbow people practice this method of child rearing today, so we may have heirs, detached from false religious doctrine, and so they become true children of the light.

  • 522. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Errr… homosexuality is not a ban against having a child naturally, Colin.

    A lesbian woman or a gay man CAN have sex with a partner of the opposite sex, (in much the same way that a straight person could have sex with a partner of the same sex) and thereby have a child, which the other partner could adopt in much the same way as step mothers and step fathers have been doing for a VERY long time.

    So your biology argument is shot all to heck. Nice try though.

  • 523. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Why do you keep avoiding my question as to why we should make laws based on your "not-a-religion"??

    You said:

    Society’s best and perhaps only effective means to secure the right of a child to know and be raised by her biological parents (with exceptions justified only when they are in the best interests of the child)

    There is nothing to show that this is necessarily a social good. Studies show that children raised by same-sex couples do very well. References are in the trial transcript. I suggest you read Judge Walker's ruling, which references them, also.

    Society’s primary and most effective means of bridging the male-female divide.

    What the heck does that even mean? Marriage is between two people.

    Society’s only means of transforming a male into husband-father, and a female into wife-mother, statuses
    and identities particularly beneficial to society.

    A man may become a husband and father through marriage to a partner of the same sex. A female may become a wife and mother through marriage to a partner of the same sex.

    Social and official endorsement of the form of adult intimacy—married heterosexual intercourse—that society may rationally value above all other such forms.

    I disagree that married heterosexual intercourse may be rationally valued above all other such forms, and refer you to the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

    Now, please tell me why you think we should make laws based on your "not-a-religion".

  • 524. Bob  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:18 am

    come my door is open, first you have to take me in, then you can decide wether to spit me out, sounds hot to me

  • 525. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Ann S:

    You said:
    "Society’s best and perhaps only effective means to secure the right of a child to know and be raised by her biological parents (with exceptions justified only when they are in the best interests of the child)

    There is nothing to show that this is necessarily a social good. Studies show that children raised by same-sex couples do very well. References are in the trial transcript. I suggest you read Judge Walker’s ruling, which references them, also."

    I have read the trial transcript. And it's obvious that Judge Walker glossed over a wealth of information to show that this is indeed a social good. Including:

    "See, e.g., COMM’N ON PARENTHOOD’S FUTURE, THE REVOLUTION IN PARENTHOOD: THE EMERGING GLOBAL CLASH BETWEEN ADULT RIGHTS AND CHILDREN’S NEEDS 32 (2006), available at http://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/parenthood.pdf (“The legalization of same-sex marriage, while sometimes seen as a small change affecting just a few people, raises the startling prospect of fundamentally breaking the legal institution of marriage from any ties to biological parenthood.”); Margaret Somerville, What About the Children?, in DIVORCING MARRIAGE: UNVEILING THE DANGERS IN CANADA’S NEW SOCIAL EXPERIMENT 63, 67 (Daniel Cere & Douglas
    Farrow eds., 2004) (“[A]ccepting same-sex marriage necessarily means accepting that the societal institution of marriage is intended primarily for the benefit of the partners to the marriage, and only secondarily for the children born into it.”).

    Next, you say:
    "Society’s primary and most effective means of bridging the male-female divide. What the heck does that even mean? Marriage is between two people."

    First of all – that's only your opinion. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and clearly at least 52% of CA voters agree.

    Secondly, this was another point of evidence glossed over by Judge Walker:

    "See Stewart, Judicial Elision, supra note 5, at 17–18; Stewart, Redefinition, supra note 5, at 44–48."

    Then you say:

    "Society’s only means of transforming a male into husband-father, and a female into wife-mother, statuses and identities particularly beneficial to society.

    A man may become a husband and father through marriage to a partner of the same sex. A female may become a wife and mother through marriage to a partner of the same sex."

    Your claim has no factual basis in biological reality. And sadly, this was also another point that Judge Walker failed to consider:

    "See DeCoste, Transformation, supra note 5, at 625–27. See, e.g., DAVID POPENOE, LIFE WITHOUT FATHER 139–88 (1996); THE WITHERSPOON INST., supra note 27, at 21–27. "

    And finally, you say:
    "Social and official endorsement of the form of adult intimacy—married heterosexual intercourse—that society may rationally value above all other such forms.

    I disagree that married heterosexual intercourse may be rationally valued above all other such forms, and refer you to the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas."

    Well, respectfully I disagree with you, and I refer you to Stewart, Redefinition, supra note 5, at 52–57; Gallagher, Does Sex Make Babies?, supra note 5, at 451.

    Now, your question to me is also rather presumptuous. Obviously my faith in Jesus Christ and His Word is not the basis for my opinion on what the law should reflect. I ask you to tell me when if at all in this argument I made any references to "religion" or my own faith?

  • 526. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Only I was not the one speaking there my friend.

  • 527. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Colin

    Churches that do not accept homosexuality do not ORDAIN gay pastors. And no one sues over it. Again, get over it.

    How can genderless (? not genderless, we have genders…) marriage produce social good? Lets examine…

    1) The right of a child to know and be raised by her biological parents.

    I have never heard of that right. Where, in law, does that one show up? In fact, in many cases, adopted children are not given that right, their records are sealed by the state. This has nothing to DO with who their adoptive parents are… and banning same sex marriage will not change that at all. However, it is becoming more common for open adoption to be the case, and I happen to know of people who encourage their adopted child to know his birth parents, and to understand why it was so much more in his interest for the adoption to have occurred. The same is happening in cases where a surrogate mother or sperm donor father is involved. Society evolves to cover the needs of its participants. And in any case, it is better for children to have a parent or parents who can care for them, and love them, even if their biological parents are not available to do so, for whatever the reasons may be. And same sex couples, adopting children who might otherwise remain in foster care or orphanages provide a very strong benefit to society, raising those children in loving, supportive homes.

    2) Most effective means of bridging the male-female divide.

    What on EARTH are you on about? The male-female divide has been bridged by everything from friendship to equal rights. And aside from the fact that homosexuals being married to someone of the opposite sex is likely to cause more division than bridging, your point seems to be that there is some innate difference between men and women that ONLY legalized relations can overcome? Don't be ridiculous.

    3) Only means of transforming male into husband-father, and female into wife-mother.

    No, not true. There are hundreds of thousands of couples who never legally marry, yet spend their lives together in those roles. That is their choice. Just as it is the choice of others to marry.

    But even if I were to concede your point that marriage is the only way to make a husband and a wife, why do you assume that this relationship of marriage should be limited to man and woman only? Two men who form a stable, loving relationship by marrying and adopting children are doing just as much good for society. They become a secure unit, just as an opposite sex family, they are more committed to each other, and to their children. So, in fact, it is harmful to society to deny them this status.

    4a) Official endorsement of adult intimacy…

    See answer 3

    4b)…that society may rationally value above all other such forms.

    Why? What is the rational basis for valuing opposite sex marriage over same sex marriage? Reproduction? Dealt with above, and not the primary focus of the state sanctioning marriage. Stability? Equally true for both same and opposite sex marriages. Understanding between genders? A non-issue. Tradition? Not the state's concern, and societally, traditions change all the time.

    These issues were dealt with in the Prop 8 trial. Judge Walker ruled on many of them, I suggest you read the transcript. There is no "deinstitutionalizing" of marriage. There will be no lessening of the values of heterosexual marriage simply because of the legalization of homosexual ones.

  • 528. Adam G.  |  August 29, 2010 at 6:51 am

    Colin, you are aware that the person who wrote Revelation was probably high on something, right? It's called drug-induced hallucinations, not visions.

    You see, everything Colin thinks that "god did" or "god said" can be explained by science, social science, or medicine. Visions? Someone had some bad peyote buttons or 'shrooms that day. Religious law? Most often constructed to exclude a particular group or groups of people, while at the same time reinforcing the authority and hierarchy of the people running the show (i.e. the priests) – basic sociology 101. Matter and energy? Look to physics and the Big Bang, and you'll find the answer there. Development of mankind? Biology and the evolutionary theory have that covered. Colin's "god" is not necessary.

    Read Bruce Bawer's book "Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity." You'll find that Colin is following the fundamentalist, premillennialist doctrine to the letter, and unfortunately believes it. There's no convincing him or changing his mind, folks. He's brainwashed. To him, the bible is literal, inerrant, infallible truth (despite its numerous errors and internal contradictions) and there's no convincing him otherwise.

    Premillennialist doctrine has a severe grudge against education (which interferes with indoctrination), pluralism, tolerance, and open-mindedness. It has a really severe grudge against science, especially the theories of evolution and the Big Bang. It's hostile to equal rights, civil behavior, and equality generally. Oh, and here's a real kick: Satan tries to convince us that doing good is enough, making him a force for treating people right and behaving well generally – bluntly, a force for good. Jesus (in Colin's mind) requires only that you "believe" in him, and if you do, then you're off the hook, making him a force for self-centered and frankly evil behavior. Yeah, that works for me – does it work for you? I'm sure it works for Colin.

    There's no reasoning with the brainwashed, and I'm done trying. I'm just interested in seeing how much longer everyone here's going to try to teach this particular piggie to sing. Pass the popcorn (and the bacon-wrapped scallops).

  • 529. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:00 am

    Wow…. so much wrong with that….

    "Your deeds are neither hot nor cold…"

    Great! I am a moderate, who carefully considers things, and chooses a path that is of least harm to all. Good for me!!

    "you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked…"

    I am not any of those things. Your judgement of me is obviously flawed and damaged by the cataracts in your soul. I might suggest some careful surgery to take care of that.

    "buy from me gold… and… clothes… and salve…"

    Buy them? If there was any caring in you, you would be giving, not selling. But you are pushing cures for diseases I don't have, that exist only in your perception of me. There is that bit about taking the log out of your own eye, you might want to look it up.

    "your shameful nakedness…"

    Value judgement. Keep it to yourself.

    "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline."

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, your child. You can rebuke all you like, though it is a rather poor way to demonstrate love and always has been, but discipline you had better keep to yourself, as you have absolutely no right to discipline me.

    "So be earnest, and repent… I will come in and eat with him…"

    So what you are saying here is that in return for turning my back on myself and my values and repudiating my entire life, I get the pleasure of having to feed you, and probably listen to more of your "here is what is wrong with YOU" speech?

    Keep knocking, buddy. I am not letting you in till you reform YOUR ways. Humility, for a start, would be useful.

  • 530. Kathleen  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:04 am

    I tried to read some of the studies you cited, Colin. But it quickly became obvious that they are just the same drivel is trotted out time and time again, by so-called and self-proclaimed "experts" in marriage and child rearing – people like David Blankenhorn and Maggie Gallagher. These people have absolutely no credibility in the courts because they don't have the educational or research background in any discipline relevant to the discussion here.

    In many cases, the studies they cite as "evidence" for their views are misrepresented. For example, a study which shows that children raised in a two parent family (either biological or adoptive parents) do better, on average, than children raised by step-parents or single parents is used to as "evidence" that children need fathers to do well.

    The judge looked at all the evidence presented by Proponents of Prop 8 and sorted out the reliable from the unreliable or irrelevant and made his findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the most relevant and reliable evidence presented.

    And I have to ask again what any of this has to do with marriage. It sounds to me like you're saying that same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children. Is that the position you're taking? If so, are you suggesting that glbt people shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Should the state remove the biological children of glbt people from their homes? I'm curious to know how far you think the state should take this to protect an alleged exclusive right of heterosexual people to be parents.

  • 531. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:05 am

    AdamG,

    I am totally in agreement with you… but sometimes the exercise of stretching MY mind in these discussions is enough.

    Eventually it becomes repetitive and tiresome, and I too will give up and join you at the table. Boy, these poly cotton tablecloths sure clean up easily, don't they? Want a glass of milk to go with your steak?

  • 532. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:08 am

    @ Anongyrl:

    I was not the one who said any of those things. I didn't make them up.

    If you disagree with any of those statements, and don't feel you need to repent, then Christ Jesus is the one you will need to bring your argument to. And on that day you will.

  • 533. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Actually, Colin, your arguments on this post in particular are nothing more than another illumination of how the so-called Christians have taken and perverted the word of HaShem. What you are stating here is that this crucifixion eliminated the law. That is not so. there is a difference between fulfilling the law, and eliminating it. And I also notice how those who claim to be Christians follow very little of what Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef taught, and when they do "follow" it, what they are really doing is sugar coating their hatred and bigotry by falling back on the old cop out of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Why don't you take a look at how many people in this country alone have been brutally murdered behind the usse of that term?

  • 534. Kathleen  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Colin, if you weren't trying to impose your non-religion into the civil law, I'd find it kind of cute and quaint that you think I'm going to have to answer to your savior — you know, kind of like when a child reminds another that s/he better be good or Santa won't bring any presents.

  • 535. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:20 am

    @ Adam G:

    Do you mean to say that for 3 years, hundreds of people were on some type of hallucinagen and following around some mushroom trip they were all seeing?

    Do you mean to say that Jesus' apostles were taking some drug and only thought they were walking with, speaking with, eating with, and touching Him for 3 years?

    Do you mean to say that for 70 years after this allegedly "drug induced vision" that they walked around writing and speaking about said vision?

    Do you mean to say they allowed themselves to be tortured, stoned, whipped, crucified, beheaded, and beaten to death over a drug trip they were on?

    Do you know who wrote Revelation? John the Apostle was the author while in exile on the isle of Patmos.

    It is an historically documented fact that John was arrested by Emperor Domitian and Domitian attempted to execute him by boiling him in oil because of his testimony about Jesus who is called Christ. Do you mean to say that John let that happen and didn't just confess that it was not a real man, just some vision they "thought" they had seen and known and touched with their hands?

    When John survived the failed execution attempt, John was exiled to the isle of Patmos and kept in prison until Domitian died. John was later released from prison and was the only of Jesus' disciples not to die by execution. But, where would he have gotten hallucinagens in a Roman prison? What type do you propose it was?

    I don't know any nicer way to say this, but you are ignorant of historical facts and you have no respect for logic or reasoning.

  • 536. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Actually, Ann, Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef DID speak about us. In the verse that has for so long been misinterpreted to be about three kinds of eunuchs, there were three different words used in the koine Greek. The first word, in reference to those who were born that way led to the root of the modern term "homosexual." The word used for the second group–those who were made so by the will of man gave us the root for the words "castration," "castrated," and "castrati." The third gave us the root for the word "celibate" and all forms used in connection with that. Since the Christians say the Yoshua ben Yosef is the Son of HaShem, and that he and HaShem are one and the same, then that means that he is the original equipment manufacturer for the human race and should definitely know whether he created some who were born gay. And if that is the case, then all of them need to listen to him and stop crying when they cannot accept the fact that their religion does not give them the right to impose one set of religious beliefs on the rest of this great nation. They can spout all they want to in the streets, but they cannot legislate their own private moral codes into the laws of this land. This is the purpose of the separation of church and state.

  • 537. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:22 am

    @ Kathleen:

    A very solemn fact is that because Jesus rose from the dead and is alive today, we all are going to have to give an account to Him some day.

    I'm not imposing anything on you, I'm just stating a fact.

  • 538. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:25 am

    Kathleen:

    Thank you for looking at those links. I didn't have the stomach for that nonsense today.

    @Colin:

    Proposition 8 was about marriage, it was not about becoming parents. LGBT people have the right to become parents in California. If you're against that, you've already lost that battle.

    Proposition 8 was about taking marriage rights away from people who had those rights.

    What will you say on the day that a majority of Californians believe in marriage equality? Are you still going to be arguing about Biblical marriage and what Jesus said about homosexuality (reminder: Nothing!) on that day?

    What will you say on the day one of your own children tells you that he or she is gay or lesbian?

  • 539. Kathleen  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:25 am

    A very solemn fact is that because Jesus rose from the dead and is alive today

    Prove it.

  • 540. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:27 am

    Touche, Kathleen.

  • 541. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:34 am

    I was responding to John, who was sitting on the island of Patmos, stoned out of his tree at the time, writing them.

    Patmos, by the way, is a lovely little Greek island. I was there some years ago and enjoyed it tremendously. I don't know why John had to get loopy to write there, it is so calm and pretty that I did quite a bit of writing, sitting in the warm sun overlooking the blue, blue sea.

    But if John himself came to my door spouting that nonsense, that is how I would respond. And if someday I meet your Jesus, and he is mad at me for having my own opinion, well, then he is not the fellow that your book seems to make him out to be. And I can certainly say, without a doubt, that your GOD is of absolutely no interest to me, you can have him.

    So, we can dispense with religion, because it is of no importance to me other than as an occasional intellectual exercise.

  • 542. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Richard, thank you for that reminder.

  • 543. Adam G.  |  August 29, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Actually, Colin, you're the one who's ignorant of historical – and biological, and scientific – fact.

    Prove to me, without using a bible, that your various emperors actually executed real disciples of a real person named Jesus. Without your bible, mind – it doesn't qualify as evidence on any level, and I give it no more credence or credit than the book of stories that it is. It is not proof.

    Hallucinogens, and hallucinogenic effects, are easy to get from numerous sources, including moldy food. What, did you think that they were only developed in modern laboratories? Please.

    You are the ignorant one, created so by your brainwashing and your belief in a person whose existence cannot be proved – which means that the logical thing to do is to assume it's a story, as I do. There is no proof that anyone named Jesus of Nazareth ever existed except your bible, which isn't proof. It's just stories. When you can show me documented, double-blind, verified, tested, scientific proof that he was real, then we'll talk. But you won't be able to, because there isn't any proof, and you damned well know it.

    Plenty of people have read A.A. Milne's charming stories about Tigger, Pooh, and Piglet. They've even learned good, moral lessons from those stories. So does that mean that Tigger, Pooh, and Piglet are real people that really existed? How about Harry Potter – is he a real person? Why does your book of stories get some special exception from the obvious conclusion (that it's a book of mythology and stories made up by people who needed something to believe in, so they created a deity for themselves)?

    Have a nice day, now, Colin. I won't be responding to you further, but that doesn't mean you won this argument. It just means I have other, more productive things to do with my day than respond to a congenital, thick-headed idiot like yourself. (Things like laundry and grocery shopping – part of today's gay agenda. Oooh, the horror – now you know what gay men do on a Sunday afternoon.)

  • 544. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 8:03 am

    You need to work on your reading comprehension. He said JOHN wrote REVELATIONS while high, not that everyone in the Middle East was high.

    John, who was not boiled in oil, and who was working from stories that were at MINIMUM third hand as he was writing at least 70 years too late to have met Jesus, was believed to have been high.

    Certainly, this stems from the writing of G.B. Shaw, but many, many others considered his writings to be the insane rantings of a lunatic (no offense meant to the mentally ill) including the theologian John Calvin, who dismissed Revelations as useless for that very reason.

    But, whether he was high, or insane (from all of the boiling oil and imprisonment) matters not, Revelations is a large pile of weirdness that any modern publisher of fiction would have sent back for some serious editing. That ancient editors of fiction published it does not change that fact.

    And by the way, if he was high, consider this. He was in prison. My understanding is that prisons are the easiest place to find drugs. What type? Fly agaric is one possibility. Cannabis is another, as is a variation on ayahuasca, as found in the bark of the acacia tree. I am sure there are others.

  • 545. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 8:05 am

    "A very solemn fact is that because Jesus rose from the dead and is alive today
    Prove it."

    Indeed I shall, but first let's consider what it means to actually "prove" something.

    Point of actual fact – none of us were actually there when Jesus came out of the grave and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven. So technically, I can't "prove" that He did rise from the grave, but nor can you technically "prove" that He did not.

    So, what we need to do is look at the historical evidence of that time period and determine if we can rely on the historicity of the Resurrection.

    The first and most obvious is that no body of Jesus was ever recovered.

    Next, you must consider how historians determine the historical accuracy of an event occurred, that is to say how they determine if an historical document is fact or fiction.

    What they do is consider the number of corroborating documents from the same time period (or from a reasonable time in which any eye witnesses could still be living) which also report the event , as opposed to the number of refuting reports which say it did not happen from the same time period.

    The New Testament was written as 27 letters written between 44 – 96 A.D. from Jesus' Apostles to individuals and churches within early Christianity, and Jesus' brothers (other sons of Mary and Joseph), which all report as fact that Jesus did rise from the grave, and that they all saw, touched and ate with Him for 3 years before He was killed and again after He had risen.

    There are over 5,700 original manuscripts of the New Testament, as a result of believers copying the letters down for their own personal use, and since we know the early church did believe in them as fact, these are corroborating documents.

    But also the Roman and Jewish historians of that day produce corroborating documents, Flavius Josephus for example, who record that Jesus was a real person who was put to death by the Roman army at the behest of the Judean High Priests who had convicted Him of violating their religious law. And Josephus also records that 3 days after Jesus' execution, His followers began telling everyone that He was alive and they had seen Him.

    There are also implications to corroborating eyewitnesses who did not write their testimonies. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul records that Jesus was seen by over 500 people for a period of 40 days after He had risen. About these 500 witnesses, Paul writes "most of whom are still living, but others have fallen asleep", in essence saying "if you don't believe me, go ask the other people who saw Him who are still alive."

    OK, so an overwhelming amount of corroborating evidence, what about refuting documents from within the same time period?

    There are 0. Not even from the Roman or Jewish historians who would have had something to gain by recording that it didn't happen, not 1 document refuting the Resurrection before about 180-200 AD (long after anyone who was actually there when it happened).

    To a historian, it's as solid as anything you can find.

    Then you have to consider what we do know from already accepted history. We do know that those who followed Jesus and went around speaking about His Resurrection were all brutally killed as martyrs.

    We do know that they did not claim to just "believe" or "think" they had seen Him after His Resurrection, but they said they know it because they had spoken to Him, touched Him and ate with Him after He rose. And they were willing to allow themselves to be beaten, tortured, beheaded by sword, crucified, burned alive, stoned, and whipped to death for declaring it was true.

    So, if it was just something they made up – they all got together and said "hey, let's steal the body and burn it or something so no one finds it, and then let's go around telling everyone that He rose from the grave," then why didn't any of them confess to that to avoid execution?

    Really, logically – if they KNEW it was not true, why did they allow themselves to be murdered so brutally for it?

    I have a better Idea now, Kathleen – why don't you prove that George Washington was really the president of the United States?

    It's the same thing as far as recorded history, my friend.

  • 546. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 8:23 am

    Yes. Three fibers are perfectly ok. Two is bad. :)

  • 547. Kathleen  |  August 29, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Of all the irrelevant "evidence" listed above, suggesting the following is a logical argument takes the cake, " Really, logically – if they KNEW it was not true, why did they allow themselves to be murdered so brutally for it?"

    Who said that these people knew it was not true? I've never claimed that you don't really believe all the stuff you're proclaiming here. But just because you believe it doesn't make it so. Apparently, you're willing to accept as fact things that can't be verified by any of the usual rational means.

    And as for being willing to die for their believes, no matter how deluded, history is replete with examples. Remember the "Heaven's Gate" group who believed they would be taken to the "Level Beyond Human" on a spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp Comet? They determined that suicide was the only way to immediately evacuate the Earth so their souls could board the supposed craft.

    Does that sound a bit wacky to you? If so, then you know what your beliefs sound like to me.

    Do you really want me to go through the exercise of pointing out all the evidence we have that George Washington existed and was the first elected president of our nation? Really? Now you're not only being deluded but just downright cruel. :) I've already devoted way more time arguing with someone incapable of rational thought, than I usually do.

  • 548. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 8:41 am

    "The first and most obvious is that no body of Jesus was ever recovered."

    Occam's Razor would have it that the much simpler explanation is that there was no body TO recover because Jesus didn't exist.

    As to all the documents you site. Aesop's Fables were more widely copied. No one takes them for anything other than fiction.

    As to martyrs, people do odd things when they believe things to be true, whether those things are true or not. Islam has the market on martyrs CORNERED. Does that make their beliefs more true than yours?

    The corroborating evidence for George Washington is both much wider spread, and much, much more recent than a collection of bronze age stories, many of which have roots in considerably older myth (consider virgin birth… anybody who was anybody had a virgin birth in that time, including Pharaoh Amenkept, Apis, the sacred bull of Memphis, the egyptian god Horus, Attis, the Phrygian god, Plato, and Alexander the Great, to name but a few.) On the other hand, George was known to be a human, live person, and is documented in more than just one book.

    Not even close to similar, sorry.

  • 549. Trish  |  August 29, 2010 at 8:43 am

    I'm not sure how you have proven that Jesus is alive today. Moreover, you have provided obscure citations. Produce the actual document, post it on Scribd for all of us to take a look at.

    Nonetheless, religion is irrelevant to this argument. There are a number of Christian faiths that do not believe that Jesus Christ disapproved of gay people settling down and forming long lasting relationships because the evidence is contradictory at best.

    You apparently have your own faith, but your particular brand of Christianity ™ should not govern the way the rest of us live our lives, which is why we have the First Amendment.

    If, as you claim, religion has nothing to do with your view of whether to prevent marriage equality, then it is irrelevant to this argument in any case.

  • 550. Trish  |  August 29, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Kathleen, that is why it's called "faith" — not "rational conclusions." Faith demands that an individual abandon all rational thought in order to take the leap toward believing something that cannot be proven. If the thing can be proven, then you do not need faith, you need a rational brain (which, ironically, humans were created to have).

    The point that our dear friend Colin does not understand is that no matter how much faith he has, there are many people who have the same amount of faith but believe completely different things. And our nation was founded on principles that no one person's faith should be subjugated to the faith of another for that very reason — it cannot be proven so people can differ in their beliefs.

  • 551. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 29, 2010 at 10:33 am

    You're welcome, Ann.

  • 552. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 29, 2010 at 10:38 am

    @ Adam G. You mean, things like the family luncheon where I get to spend time with the world's greatest mother-in-law?

  • 553. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Well, you really seem to have missed the point of that sound logical argument.

    The Apostles and disciples of Jesus were not killed for saying they believed something, they were killed for declaring they knew it as a fact.

    Can you logically explain why they were so certain of this fact that they allowed themselves to be killed for that if it was only something they believed not something they knew for a fact?

  • 554. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Oh, and Kathleen, why do you have nothing to say as the historical documentation of the Resurrection. As is shown, over 5,700 corroborating documents (both Biblical and secular) and 0 refuting documents from within that time period make the event of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as historically sound as anything you could find, and yet you have nothing to say about that, you just want to talk about faith and beliefs, not about historical documentation.

    Is there any scientific evidence that Abraham Lincoln was in fact the president of the United States? Is there any scientific proof that George Washington was the 1st president?

    A resounding NO! So what do we have other than belief and faith that George Washington was the president?

    ANSWER: HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION.

    Well, the Resurrection is just as historically sound as George Washington being the president of the United States. So why do you have faith that George Washington was really the president? How do you know he was?

    Your argument against the historically documented fact of the Resurrection is just as absurd as arguing against George Washington's presidency.

    And now I see that you also are ignorant of historical facts and have no respect for logic or reason.

  • 555. Trish  |  August 29, 2010 at 10:55 am

    An individual may believe something is a fact that is indeed not a fact. For example, you believe you are being logical. You probably "know for a fact" that you are being logical. However, we all "know for a fact" that you are being illogical. Do you see how that works?

  • 556. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 10:55 am

    What are these 5,700 documents? Is there a list?

  • 557. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Trish, the Resurrection is a historically documented fact.

    You can read the Biblical account, or if you prefer, you can read the works of Flavius Josephus and Justin Martyr as they are some of the best.

    I would post it for you to read, but I feel you can do the research yourself if you really want to know the truth.

    And since folks like Anongyrl post here with things like "studies say" without citing them, then why should I be held to a different standard than you hold yourself?

    @ Anongyrl: You are running up a very slippery slope trying to get rid of the historical Jesus. You might also enjoy the works of Josephus.

    You also say that John wrote Revelation (there's no book in the Bible called Revelations, btw – it's Revelation singular – the Revelation of Jesus Christ). And yes while John wrote Revelation around 70 years after Jesus was crucified – John was around 100 years old at the time, meaning he was around 30 when He met and knew Jesus.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again – there is no sense in reasoning with savages.

  • 558. Trish  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:01 am

    Of course there's no list. He's deliberately misinterpreting facts. There are approximately 5,700 copies of the Greek New Testament. However, 5,700 copies of the same book is not sufficient evidence.

  • 559. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Anongyrl: You seem to be citing claims without researching them.

    the Egyptian gods such as Horus were not said to be virgin born, but typically as the result of a supposed male deity engaging sexually with a female human or deity. That is not a virgin birth, because if a male deity or human has sex with a female, then it is no longer a virgin birth.

    Instead of regurgitation the false claims of Zeidgeist and Bill Maher's religulous, you might want to research them yourself.

  • 560. Kathleen  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Colin, now you're just being silly. Do you really not understand that someone can believe something that isn't true? I'm sure I can find millions of children who believe Santa delivers presents to them by traveling around the world in a sleigh with flying reindeer. Yet, the only 'proof' there is of his existence is that people (usually adults who they trust) have told them it's true, they've been shown pictures of the alleged jolly elf and presents DO appear under the tree in the morning. There are even lots and LOTS of books and stories about him, handed down through the ages. Are you going to argue that simply because all those children believe that Santa's existence is a fact, that it must be true?

    I really don't have a problem with you believing that a man named Jesus existed, was the result of a virgin birth, the son of a supernatural being, who rose from the dead. But surely you have enough critical thinking skills to understand that just because you believe that doesn't make it true.

  • 561. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:16 am

    @ Trish:

    Don't focus on only the Biblical sources, read the works of Flavius Josephus, there you will find historical documentation of the Resurrection from a non Biblical source.

    OK, I've made my case based on logic and historical evidence. Now it's your turn.

    Prove that He did not rise from the grave. It's time to put up or shut up. Can you make reference to any historical writings from between the periods of around 30 AD when Jesus began His ministry up until around 100 AD when the last eyewitnesses are known to have died? There are none, but I'd like to hear your case attempting to disprove the Resurrection. Where's your counter evidence? Where are the documents from the time frame saying it did not happen?

    And please don't forget to account for a logical explanation as to why hundreds of eyewitnesses to the Resurrection allowed themselves to be brutally killed for something they knew was not true. They did not say they believed He was alive, they said they knew He is alive because they had seen Him, touched Him and ate with Him. If that was not true they obviously would have known it, so why did they stick with a lie to the point of martyrdom?

  • 562. Trish  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:26 am

    You continue to talk about the historian Josephus without actually saying what he wrote. Josephus was not actually present during the life of the man known as Jesus. Numerous translations do say that there were people in that time who claimed that Jesus appeared to them on the third day after his death. It does not say that Jesus appeared in the flesh, or that he was reborn, or risen from the dead. Saul also claimed that Jesus appeared to him, but did not claim that he had re-risen from the dead yet again just to give Saul a message.

    Moreover, Justin Martyr that you also cite does not mention the writing of Josephus about Jesus. Justin Martyr was also not present at the alleged resurrection. There are numerous issues with the apologies of Justin Martyr.

    So it comes down to faith. Do you believe the accounts or not? You are free to believe, but in this country, we are all free NOT to believe.

  • 563. JonT  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Oh Colin, *please* stop using the word logic, you clearly have no idea what it actually means.

    Logic needs to be based on facts. If your facts are suspect (and boy, they certainly are!), then your so-called 'logic' is meaningless.

    Case in point: 'Can you logically explain why they were so certain of this fact that they allowed themselves to be killed for that if it was only something they believed not something they knew for a fact?

    Ignoring the irrelevance of your book of mythology in this forum, what exactly do you think 'believe' means?

    Do people go around believing things to be true that they *know* to be false?

    Of course not, that makes absolutely no sense – and yet your sentence says that they in fact do!

    This is but one of *many* examples of your sloppy thinking, if I may make a stretch and use that word to describe the mess you keep spooging all over this pretty website.

    Usually (hint: always), when someone believes something to be true, it's because they 'believe' it to be true!

    I've been watching you spin and spin all day. When I saw one of your posts start with: 'Indeed I shall, but first let’s consider what it means to actually “prove” something.', I just about laughed my ass off.

    Lets not redefine 'prove' in order to help you spin out more of your useless crap. We already know what 'prove' means. There's this thing called a Scientific Method', look it up sometime. Many of us here are quite familiar with science and engineering.

    Until then, I am not interested in hearing more about how you rationalize the inherent inconsistencies of your religious beliefs, or the illogic of your own fraking sentences for that matter.

    Those are your problems, not ours, and are completely irrelevant to Marriage Equality in any case.

    You're just wasting our time now. We've already shown you the errors in your facts and logic, and all you can do is move the goalposts or try to steer the debate into the details of your religious beliefs.

    You've lost, and thumping your bible harder isn't going to change that.

  • 564. Trish  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Oh dear, Colin, I'm not trying to prove that Jesus does not exist, neither is Kathleen. Anonygirl has her own faith — faith that your Jesus Christ is a fantasy, as do others here.

    You are the one trying so hard to prove something exists, something that isn't even relevant to this discussion.

    I'm glad that you have found something that you believe in, but please remember that you lied to us when you first started posting here by saying it was not about religion. You cannot convince anyone that you are sharing the Truth with a capital "T" if you start out by lying.

  • 565. Trish  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:33 am

    To reiterate, Colin, you are the one who continues to lie — for example by pointing out that there are over 5700 different sources when indeed that number relates solely to the number of copies of the Greek New Testament.

    Shame.

  • 566. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Why did I not see this before? This is not someone named Colin–This is Louis J. Marinelli coming here under an assumed name! And he still cannot so anything but spin, trying to confuse people simply because he is confused about how our system of government works and how the checks and balances are designed to play out. He still thinks we are in a theocracy, like Iran or Iraq.

  • 567. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:40 am

    @ JonT:

    I don't know if you know how to read, but you're actually making my case for me. Absolutely people do not go around believing something they know is not true.

    So, why did the Apostles and disciples of Christ allow themselves to be killed if it was just a belief? If they knew that Jesus did not come out of the grave alive, then why did they let themselves be killed?

    A belief does need to be based on facts, and that is why I showed you the historical documentation that support the fact of the Resurrection.

    Wait a minute let's back up tho JonT, didn't you claim there is no god?

    Well, since you are so certain of that, I'm still waiting for you to explain how you exist.

    If there is no Creator of the Universe, then how was there a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics with the creation of energy and matter in the closed system of the universe since as you claim there is no creator of the universe?

    There's only 3 possible explanations – 1, all the energy and matter in the universe came into existence anyways without the help of God, even though the 1st Law of Thermodynamics proves that to be impossible.

    2, All the energy and matter in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, even though the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that to be impossible.

    or 3, there is a God, a creator of the universe who created the energy and matter that make up our universe, but also created the known physical laws that appear to us to govern our universe, and He has the ability to violate them.

    Since you want to boast of your logic being so much greater than mine, then you can't skip over that. Please logically explain how you exist if there is no god since that requires a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

  • 568. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:52 am

    @ Trish:

    Have you read Flavius Josephus? Have you read Justin Martyr?

    To reiterate – there is historical documentation for the Resurrection outside of Biblical sources which corroborate the Biblical account, therefore non biblical as well as biblical sources account for over 5,700 corroborating documents.

    And yet you continue to ignore what I say, while still no producing any refuting historical sources.

    Shame.

    I'm really sorry, but I don't have time to keep repeating myself to you all. You can believe what you want to, but clearly I can give reasons and historical documentation for my belief in Jesus and none of you have been able to.

    You're right "just because you believe it, does not make it true." Where are your refuting historical documents?

    Where is your documentation? None?

    Then continue in a blind belief.

    And since you all prefer to gang up on me to attack my faith in Christ with nothing more than opinions, and even degrade and insult the Messiah Himself, instead of staying focused on my arguments for the protection of male-female matrimony then I shall now take my permanent leave of you all.

    I'm sure you will all cheer at my departure, so I give you a reason to celebrate now. I will keep you in my prayers. Sayanora.

  • 569. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Yes, fine.. I did include some that were gods and their women, the differences being slight… but yes.

    Alexander the Great and Plato, however, were two humans who had virgin birth stories. My point is still valid.

  • 570. Ann S.  |  August 29, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Colin, you never answered me about whether you eat pork and shellfish, wear mixed fibers, and avoid contact with women who are menstruating.

    You never answered me when I asked you what you would do on the day that a majority of Californians vote to repeal Prop 8.

    You never answered me when I asked you what you would do on the day one of your children came to you and said that they were gay or lesbian.

  • 571. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    I quote Marshall Gauvin (1881 – 1978) was a notable author and speaker in the Freethought movement.

    Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world.

    In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

    Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

    Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew–a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ–that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery.

    Sorry. Try again?

  • 572. JonT  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    I don’t know if you know how to read, but you’re actually making my case for me.

    Lame attempt at an insult there, but whatever.

    Absolutely people do not go around believing something they know is not true.

    And yet your sentence stated the complete opposite. Perhaps it is you who does not know how to write?

    If there is no Creator of the Universe, then how was there a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics with the creation of energy and matter in the closed system of the universe since as you claim there is no creator of the universe?

    Yeah, you made that claim earlier, and it's complete bullshit, as others pointed out.

    In short your question is completely meaningless. It's like asking "What happened before the Big Bang".
    Hint: time itself did not exist until *after* the Big Bang.

    Start with the basics of General and Special Relativity, followed by a touch of Quantum Mechanics. You don't need to be a math genius to understand the basic concepts.

    There are *many* books on the subject. Maybe start with Stephen Hawking's "The First Three Minutes" to get a taste.

    If you read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, it has two introductory chapters on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and ends on the current state of String Theory/M-Theory.

    It also delves into "Symmetry Breaking" and "Super Symmetry" which might help point you toward understanding the absurdity of your claims regarding the laws of Thermodynamics.

    A great read, I highly recommend it.

    There’s only 3 possible explanations…

    Based on your false assumptions, the rest of your post is garbage. Sorry, those are the facts dude.

  • 573. Mike M  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Could we please stop the circular, ad nauseum game of tit for tat with this poster? Colin has drunk the kool-aid he's never going to change his mind. You will never change yours. All you are doing is creating post after post that are getting deleted by everyone else.

    For those who actually care about the Tracker and the good work it does, please consider the rest of us. WE appreciate your efforts. But you have fallen into his trap of trying to ruin the site. If we delete everything that comes from the tracker because of this series of pointless posts, he will have done his job in driving people away from what is important here. I.E. the right of all citizens to marry without equivocation.

    If there is a point you all feel you need to keep arguing, exchange emails and have at it. I didn't sign up for bible study. Mythologies are cute but when they are turned into a dogma they become boring at best.

    PLEASE STOP feeding the stray and maybe he'll go back to his own pack. You can bet some fundie website or chat room is getting the full set of posts to ridicule and parse in their own warped way. Is that really what you want? 300 back and forth posts are enough don't you think?

  • 574. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    THAT tired old argument again.

    I am not a physicist, but there are plenty of people who are, I suggest you talk to them and let them straighten you out on this issue.

    There are lots and lots of interesting theories on the subject, none of which require a god, who would require too many explanations herself to make her worthwhile as a theory.

    You seem smart enough to be able to do the research yourself to find them. Try looking up "universe creation theory" on Google.

  • 575. JonT  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Hey Mike? At the bottom of your emails regarding this thread is a link you can use to unsubscribe from this particular thread.

    Why not just do that instead of making yet another post telling us to stop posting in this thread?

    I'm going to post in whatever thread I choose to.

  • 576. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Flavius Josephus (c. 37–c. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice.

    The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

    In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
    "About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."(Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3)

    Regurgitating the false claims of someone from 1800 years after the fact (someone who clearly had not done his research either) does not constitute refuting evidence.

    Sorry, try again.

    In addition to Josephus, you can also verify the historicity of Jesus in the non Biblical sources such as: Tacitus, Suetonius, Mara bar Sarapion, Thallus, Lucian, and Celsus among others.

    Can you produce any documents from within the same time period, or were you just planning to regurgitate someone's opinion from centuries and centuries and centuries after the fact.

  • 577. anonygrl  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Yup. I am done.

    :)

  • 578. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    *@ Anongyrl

    Let me save you the time – no you can't produce documents because there are no documents from within a reliable time frame which refute the historical fact of the Resurrection.

  • 579. Trish  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    He does have a point about not feeding the trolls.

  • 580. JonT  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    You have a point anonygrl. I think I'll follow my own advice and unsubscribe from this thread now :)

    It's been fun though!

    :)

  • 581. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    @ Anongyrl:

    In the second, brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic, although a minority has raised doubts.

    The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James.

    Arguably the main reason to accept that Josephus also wrote a version of the Testimonium Flavianum is the fact that Jerome and Michael the Syrian quote literal translations of the text in a form reading, more skeptically than the textus receptus, that "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." The identical wording of Jerome and Michael the Syrian proves the existence of an originally Greek Testimonium reading this, since Latin Christian scholars and Syriac scholars did not read each others' works, but both commonly translated Greek Christian works.

    So yea, sorry. Try again?

  • 582. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Oh back to calling me a "troll" now I see. Very mature. OK I am seriously done this time, there clearly is no point in trying to reason with people who are so closed minded, even when presented with factual evidence.

    ""How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
    How long will mockers delight in mockery
    and fools hate knowledge?
    If you had responded to my rebuke,
    I would have poured out my heart to you
    and made my thoughts known to you.
    But since you rejected me when I called
    and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,
    since you ignored all my advice
    and would not accept my rebuke,
    I in turn will laugh at your disaster;
    I will mock when calamity overtakes you-
    when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
    when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
    when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
    "Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
    they will look for me but will not find me.
    Since they hated knowledge
    and did not choose to fear the LORD,
    since they would not accept my advice
    and spurned my rebuke,
    they will eat the fruit of their ways
    and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.

  • 583. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    @ Ann S:

    As my last comment (I promise those who already hate me), I will answer your question about my faith – that is, why I would eat shellfish (lobster is delicious btw), and would love to eat some bacon wrapped scallops with you any day.

    The reason is because the dietary restrictions were part of the Law of Moses, but since the Law is fulfilled in Christ (not abolished – fulfilled [Jesus never ate shellfish]), that means we are now under grace, not under the Law of Moses.

    But the mistake you are making is that God's OT commandments against homosexuality were part of the law of Moses.

    No no no, it was not a part of the Law of Moses, even though it was reiterated there. But just like God's mandate for a blood sacrifice of killing an animal being necessary for forgiveness of sins (Genesis 3 & 4, Job 1) – God's preferred method of human sexuality was set forth long before the Law of Moses was given.

    From the beginning He created them male and female. God created Adam, and then He created a woman. God's plan is for 1 man and 1 woman to be joined together and become 1 flesh. He did not create another man for Adam, nor an animal, nor many women for Adam. It is the natural union (one has a plug, the other has a socket ;) ) which God intended, and biologically it is the only union naturally capable of reproduction.

    It was from the beginning, the Law of Moses where all the dietary restrictions come from was given later.

  • 584. Bob  |  August 29, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    seems you've come to your senses, admitting we are now under grace, and not the law. act accordingly.

  • 585. Bob  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Ephesians 2 14-15 for he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances.

    Hebrews 10 9 then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolshes the first in order to establish the second.

    Hebrews 10 16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them, ''''' I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them in their minds," then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their misdeed no more"

    I thought I'd make an exception regarding not quoting from scriptures, cause they're just stories,

    My forgiveness is a certainty , but the reall struggle with forgiveness is always forgiving oneself, forgive yourself,

    and don't waist time cause the real message in the Bible story is about getting on with forgiving and loving others.

    We will know you by your actions, the results of your actions will be returned to you, Peace

  • 586. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."(James 1:22-25)

    ""Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [Greek: 'paramours'], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [Greek: 'catamites'], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [Greek: 'sodomites'] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-10).

    paramours: (King James, 'fornicators')-Strong's #4205 pornos "to sell, a male prostitute (as venal), a debauchee (libertine): fornicator, whoremonger."

    catamites (King James, 'effeminate')-Strong's #3120 malakos "soft, fine clothing, a catamite, effeminate."

    catamite: "a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man" (American Heritage College Dictionary).

    sodomites: (King James, 'abusers of themselves with mankind'-Strong's #733 arsenokoites "a sodomite, defile self with mankind."

    The elements of the Greek word arsenokoites are "male-lier"-A male who lies with a male. "Male bed partners"–Wycliffe Bible Dictionary.

    "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"(Romans 6:1-2)

  • 587. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    "We will know you by your actions,"

    Excellent point Bob, but none of you knows my heart, only Yeshua the Messiah can see that and He knows why I choose to make a stand for Male-Female marriage.

    But neither do I know any of your hearts so that's why I now do stop myself to go to Christ in humility.

    Thank you.

    Peace.

  • 588. Colin  |  August 29, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    You are right Bob, forgive me please for my anger.

    God loves you Bob, pray for me to be a better doer of James 1:19. stay in the Word and in prayer!

  • 589. Alan E.  |  August 30, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Anyone who argues that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is being violated doesn't truly understand how physics works. They are just repeating the same arguments that have been refuted time and time again.

  • 590. Alan E.  |  August 30, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed for more than 300 years. There are many troublesome sections with vocabulary and phrasing that does not match up for the time it was supposedly written. To throw this out there shows that you accepted this blindly without thinking to do a little more research. All you are doing is finding just the stuff that supports your case without looking to see if it is genuine.

  • 591. Bob  |  August 30, 2010 at 5:57 am

    well said Colin, I accept you as a person whose conscience leads you to choose one man one woman, for whatever reason, that is your truth,

    and mine is different, thank goodness you have come to realize you do not know any of our hearts,
    thanks for admitting your anger, I too have anger, about this situation,

    let us go now , stop searching for truth in words and books, and actually feel it in our heart. that is the way we will prove that Jesus lived, and still does, as the story goes, he lives on in us, LOVE and PEACE may they transform our anger. to passion for justice.

  • 592. 9th Circuit STAYS Judge W&hellip  |  June 28, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    […] there. However, there is some good news as far as this process is concerned as is covered here BREAKING: 9th Circuit STAYS Judge Walker’s ruling; Appeal scheduled December 6 on Prop 8 Trial […]

  • 593. fashion jewelry&hellip  |  April 10, 2012 at 1:36 am

    fashion jewelry…

    […]Prop 8 Trial Tracker » BREAKING: 9th Circuit STAYS Judge Walker’s ruling; Appeal scheduled December 6[…]…

  • 594. high pr link building services  |  June 28, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Good day! My wife and I often publish guest articles for other blog site owners to help
    increase publicity to our work, as well as provide good
    articles to blog owners. It truly is a win win situation!
    If you happen to be interested feel free to email me at: sashawinstead@aol.
    com so we can talk further. Appreciate it!

  • 595. buy high quality backlinks  |  July 3, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    I am curious to find out what blog system you’re working with? I’m having
    some small security issues with my latest website and
    I would like to find something more risk-free.
    Do you have any solutions?

    Feel free to visit my web-site; buy high quality backlinks

  • 596. Sexy Shemale Shows Off On Webcam  |  November 28, 2013 at 1:06 am

    What a stuff of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious
    know-how regarding unpredicted emotions.

    Have a look at my web site; Sexy Shemale Shows Off On Webcam

  • 597. no hands seo  |  December 5, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    We are no longer constructive in the places you are receiving the information and facts, however good subject matter. We ought to invest a while learning much more as well as being familiar with extra. Appreciation for superb data I became looking for this info in my mission.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!