Why Jerry Sanders’ Testimony Mattered …
January 19, 2010
By Paul Hogarth
I’ll have to admit I was a bit skeptical about having San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders come to the stand in this trial. Sure, the guy is better known than the other witnesses and it gives the trial a “celebrity” twist — but how does it prove the plaintiff’s case?
After reading Brian’s live-blog, I understand. The defense is trying to prove that Prop 8 was not motivated solely by animus — that there were “rational” reasons from good “pro-gay” people to take away the right to marry from same-sex couples. Middle-of-the-road politicians who support “civil unions” (like Barack Obama) is a theme we will hear from the defense over and over again.
Remember that Justice Kennedy’s decision in Romer v. Evans overruled Colorado’s anti-gay law because its purposes could not be extricated from anti-gay bias. If our side can’t link the “rational” reasons for passing Prop 8 to prejudice, we could lose.
Sanders is an example of someone who is “pro-gay,” but who always felt that civil unions were an acceptable alternative — until he finally had a change of heart. Now he knows this opinion was “rooted in prejudice,” even if that doesn’t make him a bigot overall.
Not all supporters of Prop 8 were bigots like Dr. Tam. But that doesn’t mean non-bigoted people can still have opinions rooted in prejudice. What the plaintiffs are proving is — even the most “tolerant” reasons for passing Prop 8 were rooted in prejudice.
On cross-examination, Sanders was asked if he had supported civil unions: “I thought it was a reasonable alternative, I didn’t think I felt hatred. In retrospect, it was clouded in prejudice.” Hatred vs. prejudice — both of them are an “irrational basis.”
120 Comments
1.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 4:16 am
Thank you, that really helped me understand why he was so important. I thought he was just an emotional witness, but now I see he had a really important role.
2.
Jon Evans | January 19, 2010 at 4:19 am
What about the Yes on 8 tweets about impeachment? Did you read those Tweets- NCLR commented on them as well. Care to elaborate?
3.
A | January 19, 2010 at 4:25 am
From reading the liveblog, it seems like his repeated insistence that the motives brought up by the defense were rooted in prejudice was a pretty good move.
4.
michael | January 19, 2010 at 4:29 am
Let's not kid ourselves.
If we prevail, there is not going to be a big surge in pro-gay support.
There will still be disgust towards gays.
There will still be beatings and murders toward gays.
There will still be anti-gay slurs slung toward gays (and behind our backs).
There will still be property crimes committed against gays.
But turning over Prop 8 IS a start in changing the perception and the motivation to commit the above.
5.
Marlene Bomer | January 19, 2010 at 4:38 am
Just like there are still those who'll hate people of different skin colour or religion.
At least when James Byrd was brutally and horribly murdered, there was outrage across the country, instead of the "just another dead ni**er" attitude not too long ago.
6.
George | January 19, 2010 at 4:42 am
michael –
That was going to be my point: that all of this testimony about animus towards gays is irrelevant to marriage.
Allowing gay marriage is going to do nothing to stem the negative perception towards gays. In fact, as I've argued here before, gays forcing a change in the definition of marriage will just piss more people off: those who perceive that gay marriage is just another step in destroying marriage by erasing its link to procreation.
7.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 5:01 am
George wrote: gays forcing a change in the definition of marriage will just piss more people off: those who perceive that gay marriage is just another step in destroying marriage by erasing its link to procreation.
Hmm. Again, the idea that procreation just doesn't happen outside of marriage … or that it is somehow a requirement in marriage.
The legal definition of marriage is very simple: http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/marriage-term.html. Peculiarly enough, I find no references to either gender or procreation here.
I wonder why that is …
8.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 5:06 am
also @fiona64:
fiona64 is right. This issue is about the LEGAL reasons why LGBT's need to be able to marry. Procreation is not a requirement for legal status in the country (thanks be to the forefathers for that). Marriage as defined by the law is "The legal union of two people," not "The legal union whose obligation is to procreate."
9.
Happy | January 19, 2010 at 5:31 am
Hi George –
Your point that forcing a change in the definition of marriage will just piss more people off is really inconsequential. I'm sure granting civil rights and protections for African Americans pissed people off too.
Hate can not be eradicated entirely, but it can be combatted, lessened, and shown for what it is. And if even one less person wants to harm another because they've come to understand and accept the new reality, then it's worth the fight.
10.
Lymis | January 19, 2010 at 5:34 am
George,
The focus on the animus behind Prop 8 is not in any way about some Pollyanna-ish assumption that letting us get married will somehow erase all that. I think it will help, others think it will hurt, but that isn't the point.
The point is that the Supreme Court has declared that laws that are passed that are based purely on disapproval of a class of citizens (based on the animus against them) are in violation of the protections of the US Constitution.
In other words, even in a democracy, you can't just all gang up on the queer kid because you outnumber him.
The defense is going to go all poetic about tradition and love, and childrearing and the need to defend civilization and other nice-sounding things. They are hardly going to make the case that gay people are disgusting – but that's really what's behind all their high-minded rhetoric, and it's illegal.
THAT's the point. This isn't about having our poor widdle feelings hurt. This is about illegal discrimination and the unconstitutional stripping away of citizens fundamental rights. Once I have my rights, people are welcome to disapprove. God knows there's individual couples I don't think should be married. I just don't try to throw legal power behind that opinion.
11.
Elizabeth | January 19, 2010 at 5:47 am
If there's going to be animosty anyway George, as you seem to be sure of, I'd rather at least have a married partner while being beaten up.
Simply because people are going to percieve my marriage as destroying an institution doesn't make it reality, nor does it mean I should change my life or have my rights restricted.
12.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 6:36 am
"That was going to be my point: that all of this testimony about animus towards gays is irrelevant to marriage."
________________________________________
What could be MORE relevant than the INTENTION of Proposition 8? If the Government and the electorate is in the business of taking rights AWAY from innocent people, their intentions in doing so MUST be based in something rational. Not people's desire to keep their LGTB children relegated to non-citizenship.
It must serve a purpose. Besides society telling their LGTB children that they are 'yucky.'
And that is all this is truly about. Society rubber-stamping us as defective and not worthy of what THEY have simply by virtue of birth.
WE have the moral high ground here. It seems many of us are forgetting that.
13.
Adam Sanford | January 19, 2010 at 7:44 am
What a shame for them! They can bite me.
Marriage is a changing, living thing, not a static entity. That's been proven over and over again in this trial.
14.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 6:27 am
The DIFFERENCE here, Michael, is that these deeds will no longer have the support, and indeed ENCOURAGEMENT of our Government behind them.
When the Government participates in discrimination, and further, abuse, it certainly gives its citizens carte blanche to participate in abuse and discrimination as well.
For is Prop 8 is not rooted in animus, what else could it possibly be rooted in?
15.
Catherine | January 20, 2010 at 12:28 am
I don't think any of us believe that granting gay marriage is going to make all of the disgust, beatings, slurs, etc. go away. However, this is how changes in attitudes start. It wasn't that long ago that homosexual acts were illegal. The majority of people felt that gays should be excluded from jobs. Frankly, most people felt revulsion and had no problem with police raids on gay establishment and the like. Can't you see how much the debate has changed? Through the sweat, blood, tears and tireless devotion to our cause, the LGBT community has made itself heard. There is a shift. Sure there will always be bigots, but, the younger people feel differently about gays. Marriage is another step towards gays having the same rights as straights which is one more step towards people not seeing us that differently. Thirty years ago no church would have supported us – today there are scores of "Welcoming and Affirming" churches. Will their always be prejudice? Sure, ask any African American. However, won't it just keep getting better? The answer is "yes" if we don't give up hope.
16.
George | January 19, 2010 at 4:29 am
Why would procreation be considered prejudicial and irrational? Isn't it rational for people to have voted for Prop 8 on the basis that marriage is about procreation and that children should have the right to know and be raised by their biological parents? Is the suggestion that children should be born to married parents now considered irrational?
17.
fiona6 | January 19, 2010 at 4:33 am
Hey, George. I've got a question back for you.
Could you please show me the requirement for procreation in any law relating to marriage? Could you please show me the law that prevents the infertile, post-fertile or child-free from entering into marriage?
And while we're at it, could you please show me the law that says procreation *without* marriage is illegal?
You can't do any of those things? Gee, I wonder why that is. Perhaps it is because procreation does not require marriage, and marriage does not require procreation?
Or are you suggesting that procreation be a mandate for marriage? At what point should a marriage be judicially annulled if no children are forthcoming, George? I'm just curious …
Obvious troll is obvious … again.
18.
Richard | January 19, 2010 at 4:35 am
No. It's the suggestion that children SHOULDN'T be raised by non-biological parents (or, for our purposes, same-sex partners) that is irrational. And it's that suggestion that the Yes on 8 people kept trying to push forward.
19.
A | January 19, 2010 at 4:38 am
Bingo
20.
Adam Sanford | January 19, 2010 at 7:48 am
This.
21.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 4:36 am
yes, that is irrational, because to say that would infringe on straight couple's rights too. It would mean that if a straight couple decided not to marry but have children, they would be violating what you were stating above.
Also, that discriminates against infertile people as well.
Finally, checkout Princeton's definitions of marriage: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=marr…. Children are not mentioned in any of them.
What about the thousands of marriages (by heteros) that are childless. Are all adoptive parents abominations as well? Your argument doesn't make sense. Please think it over.
22.
George | January 19, 2010 at 5:02 am
Sorry, folks –
The argument that there are heterosexual couples who do not procreate does not hold water. (I cover this in more detail in a comment on the "Introduce Yourself" thread here). The short answer is that society wants to promote families in which children are given the right to know and be raised by the biological parents. Any heterosexual couple that is married is implicitly able to procreate or have procreated, regardless of whether they actually can or have procreated. All married heterosexual couples, therefore, serve the societal purpose of promoting marriage between men and women, the only union that creates the ideal family in which children are given the right to know and be raised by their biological parents.
23.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 5:08 am
@george
You just skipped a whole part of my argument.
Should it be illegal for two knowingly sterile heteros to marry?
What about adoptive hetero couples. Those kids might not ever have bio parents. Are those marriages abominations too?
24.
James Sweet | January 19, 2010 at 5:12 am
George,
You are aware — I presume — that in the context of sociological studies, "biological" parents means the parents who raised the child from birth, i.e. adoptive parents are still considered "biological" parents for the purposes of sociological data if the child was adopted as an infant.
I just wanted to make sure you are aware of that.
25.
Lymis | January 19, 2010 at 5:37 am
Cool, if you don't actually have to have kids or raise them to be able to automatically "implicitly" have them, it saves on all that poopy diaper and waiting up on prom night stuff.
Can gay people have implicit kids too?
Or, here's an idea, you utter tool. Maybe you could admit that my husband's daughters are actual people.
Implicit my rosy fanny.
26.
George | January 19, 2010 at 6:32 am
James –
No, I wasn't aware that "biological" parent includes non-biological parents who adopted the child at infancy. That sounds like a poor choice; probably a gay researcher deciding that a child's real parents shouldn't have any special right to the child. Just another added element of confusion to the issue. What's the word of choice, then, for the people who conceived the child: "sperm dad" and "ovum mom?"
27.
Warren | January 19, 2010 at 4:36 am
No, but there is no rational basis to argue that married parents in heterosexual relationships are not going to continue to have children. To deny anyone else who wishes to marry, specifically gays and lesbians for that reason is irrational. The point is that suggesting that equal marriage harms anyone is not based on any credible evidence and there is a lot of evidence that Prop 8 harms a group of people. The reasons behind Prop 8 were all linked to prejudice against gays (having an opinion that their orientation is wrong/bad/harmful to children if they were to hear about it) whether Prop 8's supporters realized it or not.
28.
Audrey Smith | January 19, 2010 at 4:36 am
Because, George, we allow ADOPTION and we don't forbid the elderly and otherwise-barren people to marry (nor those who are fertile but just don't want kids!!).
29.
Jane | January 19, 2010 at 5:01 am
I was raised by my loving biological parents (married 45 years July 2010), and I was not shielded from some considerable confusion about many things; Christianity, hypocrisy, inflation etc etc etc. My mother was raised by two married biological parents that abused and neglicted her. She has told me that she would have loved two loving same sex parents. The procreation argument is BS. Life is complicated. Duh!
30.
George | January 19, 2010 at 5:17 am
Jane –
I'm assuming you gay? Methinks your mom is telling you that she would have loved to have same sex parents because you are or hope to be one.
Adopted kids often seek out their biological parents. Why? Because they recognize that there is something special in that relationship that they are missing out on by being brought up by strangers.
Sure, they can become productive citizens and do well by all of our psychological assessments that our experts have conjured up, but they are deprived of having the relationship with the people who created them. If parents are abusive, we should be remedying that problem, not dispensing with the notion that kids should have a right to be brought up by their biological parents.
31.
Bry | January 19, 2010 at 5:45 am
-replying here because I can't reply beneath George-
What they REALIZE Georgie-boy, is that there is a natural curiosity to figure out where they came from. Not so much that the "relationship is special" although that 'can' come into it. The usual reason is they want to see what these people look like, what they act like, why they gave them up, even if it's to a better home. It's not necessarily always about establishing a relationship but understanding one's roots.
32.
Roberta K | January 19, 2010 at 6:25 am
Replying here because I can't reply to George or Bry:
There's also the case of looking for one's biological parents just to make sure there are no genetic timebombs that need to be watched out for.
As for me, I lost the "right" to be raised by both biological parents when my dad died at an early age. I was 11 at the time, so I guess I'm deprived of the opportunity of having a relationship with him. Thanks for deigning to admit that I can be a productive member of society, as well as all those who've lost one or both parents to illness, accident or disaster.
33.
LND | January 19, 2010 at 5:32 am
Here is my non lawyer opinion.
When people say that marriage is for procreation, they usually have no problems with elderly couples, infertile couples, couples who have no intention of having children, getting married.
But they still have a problem with gay marriage.
When people say that children should be raised by two biological parents (in this instance I am assuming George means genetically related) they usually have no problem with families who adopt or single parent families.
But they still have a problem with gay marriage.
There are all different kinds of families and to be okay (or at the very least legally speaking, giving all those different kinds of couples/families protection through marriage) but to not be okay with gay marriage is rooted in prejudice.
If you paid attention to the transcripts on the history of marriage, and testimony that being raised by ss couples does not harm children, then I don't understand how your entire argument hinges on procreation. Besides, ss couples can and do have children…we still procreate.
The real issue is that you are uncomfortable with homosexuality. Being uncomfortable fuels your procreation argument, it is your underlying prejudice. It is an underlying prejudice because in the face of expert testimony, and numerous studies you hold on to it.
That underlying prejudice is why your argument is irrational.
34.
Ozymandias | January 19, 2010 at 6:17 am
"Why would procreation be considered prejudicial and irrational?" It isn't – EXCEPT when it is used to denigrate Gay and Lesbian couples and not similarly used as a litmus test for hetero couples, which it isn't.
"Isn’t it rational for people to have voted for Prop 8 on the basis that marriage is about procreation and that children should have the right to know and be raised by their biological parents?" If people did base their decision on this idea, then it's a clear double-standard because I don't see any referenda being assembled to deny sterile hetero couples from marrying, do you?
"Is the suggestion that children should be born to married parents now considered irrational?" Nope – except that laws in this country already make no distinction between fertile and non-fertile hetero couples. Again, a ridiculous double-standard.
In other words, George, your argument is nothing but a string of double-standards.
35.
pbrim | January 19, 2010 at 6:28 am
Marriage, legally, isn't about children. I have know couples that have had children via donor egg, donor sperm, and a gestational surrogate. This in no way affected their right to marry or the fact that it was their child. Why would it be any different for a ss couple?
Moreover, in the process of protecting hypothetical, "implicit" children, you are doing damage to real, actual children. Gay/Lesbian people are, above all, people. And like people everywhere, since the beginning of time, they fall in love, form families, and some of them have children. This is what people do, and have always done, regardless of whether the law recognizes it or not.
Our society finds value in having strong families, and provides a lot of legal and social protections and supports for families and the children they produce, to benefit both the family and society. However, what you are saying is that some of those families and some of those children should not receive that protection and benefit because they don't fit your dream model of what the perfect family is.
The reality is that the farther a family falls from the dream ideal, the more protection it needs. "Perfect" families don't need to worry about what happens if the parents split up, or one parent dies, or one parent becomes abusive, or one set of grandparents trys to take away the kids because the parents are unfit to raise them, etc, etc, etc. (All senarios that may happen to same sex parents or opposite sex parents.) But you are saying that believe some children should be deprived of protection simply because you harbor an irrational distaste of their parents.
36.
Catherine | January 20, 2010 at 12:40 am
*standing and clapping* Could not have said it any better. This is it in a nutshell.
37.
VT Casey | April 28, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Well done, pbrim!
You've hit on the most important problem here: the people against gay marriage don't know and love any gay couples. Their arguments against us are all hypothetical, about 'gays,' not about people.
As Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer said of same-sex relationships, "It is not love. It cannot be love." Sadly, the benighted fools really believe that.
And why are they ignorant? Because the gay people in their lives stay hidden. The Closet is The Enemy.
38.
Katie | January 19, 2010 at 6:28 am
@George
You said:
"Marriage is somewhat like a license to have kids."
Please show me the legislation that states this, in so many words. I am not aware of this being enshrined in the United States of America, well — anywhere, ever.
Or are you talking about the United States of George? Right, that must be it. I hear that's a fine place to live, if you can't handle those silly things called "equality" and "freedom" that we have over here in the USA. =)
By the way, I'll be sure to tell all the adopted children I know that you think their "special" relationship with their birthparents, even the abusive/alcoholic ones, is more important than their relationship with the only parents they have ever known or cared to know. It's nice how compassionate and sensitive you are about the welfare of adopted children. I'm sure they appreciate people like you who are building strong families and "protecting" children by insinuating that their families are not as valuable as the nuclear family. You're a real defender of family values, George. Thanks for that.
39.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 6:40 am
"Why would procreation be considered prejudicial and irrational?"
Because LGTB citizens HAVE CHILDREN, TOO, George.
And because heterosexuals are not required to procreate to enter into marriage.
See, the problem is that people have been abusing LGTB citizens for SO LONG, they they do not even see it as abuse. They see it as their birthright. While screaming their heads off about morality.
Indeed.
40.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 6:45 am
George also seems blithely unaware that 40% of children in the United States are born to unwed, non-cohabiting, heterosexual parents.
And yet I do not see ANY heterosexuals placing a 'Prop 9' on any ballot anywhere to deal with THAT. Don't heterosexuals realize they are depriving their children of their biological parents???
Try again, George.
41.
pbrim | January 19, 2010 at 6:46 am
Yes. This. Heterosexuals are not required to procreate to enter into marriage. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry, even if they progreate. Therefore, the marriage ban isn't about procreation!!!!!!
42.
Miller | January 19, 2010 at 11:47 am
George asked, "Is the suggestion that children should be born to married parents now considered irrational?"
The answer is, "Of course not." The passing of proposition 8 did not prevent children from being born to un-married people nor does it reqire or encourage married people to naturally procreate.
I wish all parents were ready, willing, and able to raise their kids responsibly, with respect for others and with a spirit of charity. That does not, however, require that the parent(s) be married, biologically related, or of the opposite gender.
43.
Callie | January 19, 2010 at 4:36 am
Related to what Michael said above…I actually had someone on my FB say this to me. A law won't change hearts and minds.
That's true, it won't, not right away. It'll take time. After Brown, there was a huge surge in violence against blacks. We need to be prepared no matter the outcome for this because history unfortunately tends to repeat itself.
This trial isn't about changing minds, but deep down, it is about changing the place of the GLBT community in relation to the rest of the country. That doesn't matter to others, but it should matter to us.
44.
Katie | January 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
It might not change minds, but it'll get the government on your side to tell them that, mind changed or not, they'd darn well better respect your rights because now said respect is the *law*. When the government stops sanctioning discrimination, it may not *stop* the discriminating, but suddenly said discriminating is a lot, lot harder to do.
Honestly, I'd much rather have the government on my side than random citizens. The fundies know this, and that is why they are afraid. When the government crashes their discrimination party, the "fun" is essentially over.
45.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 7:08 am
This ISN'T about changing hearts and minds. It is about civil equality. Nothing else. I should not be required to pass a popularity contest amongst my fellow Americans – they very people who seek to keep me oppressed and from the benefits of full citizenship. I could care less than less what perfect strangers think about my legal affairs. It is, quite simply, none of their business.
I could care less about complete stranger's hearts and minds. What crust.
American citizens are NOT required to defend their civil rights at the ballot box.
Unless they are LGTB Citizens.
There simply IS no other side to this issue. None at all.
Hearts and minds. Indeed. What a load of crap.
46.
Tommy | January 19, 2010 at 4:38 am
The reason why Jerry sanders is so pro-gay right now is because during the initial voting of prop 8, citizens of san diego learned that his daughter is a lesbian and he came out to support her right to marry.
47.
BMc | January 19, 2010 at 5:02 am
Everyone has friends and/or family that is Gay or Lesbian. This testimony is a valuable reminder of this fact. Many people are ignorant of G&L issues until they realize how it affects a loved one, that is perfectly human. It comes down to ignorance and prejudice is based in ignorance.
48.
waxr | January 19, 2010 at 5:05 am
One of the strongest motivations in the world is FEAR.
If a speaker talks about love, his listeners will applaud the beautiful speech, then go home and sleep. But if the speaker shows the people that they are in danger, then the people will unite in self defense against the danger.
This method has been used by political and religious leaders for thousands of years. It works. In light of the apparent dangers, the individuals may feel that they are acting rationally without realizing that fear itself was false, and was purposefully created to scare people into action.
The backers of prop 8 claimed that same sex marriage will weaken marriage. The claim itself was created out of animus. But, if a voter believes that, and votes for prop 8 in order to protect his or her marriage, is that voter acting rationally?
49.
A | January 19, 2010 at 5:22 am
So: a rational reaction to an irrational fear.
Seems to me that people can be act in a way that may be rational to them but, upon discovering flaws or facts, may be deemed irrational later on.
50.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 5:07 am
Sorry, George … it's *your* argument that doesn't hold water. My husband and I got married almost 10 years after I had a tubal ligation. There is no ability to procreate here — and I chose to make it so. I am neither implicitly nor explicitly able to procreate. So, I'm just curious … will you be going after *my* marriage next?
51.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 5:10 am
Hear hear!
I'm a hetero and I find his arguments discriminate against me as well. They don't make sense. He is arguing for taking away the right to *choose.* If I marry, then I have to be able to procreate.
Purely and argument for government control of personal lives.
52.
Bry | January 19, 2010 at 5:14 am
George is just using the newest slam I've been hearing from the anti-gays. That it doesn't matter if they're barren or infertile or had full vaginal/penile lobotomy-whateverthetermforthatwouldbes. They're "man" and "woman" and therefore they can have kids which "man + man" and "woman + woman" never can.
….I know, it doesn't make sense to me either, I can't even explain it very well because it's a complete non-sequitur.
53.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 5:26 am
It's an argumentative form that I refer to as the "yabbut."
Me: I'm childfree. No procreation in this marriage.
Other party: Yabbut, you could have your tubal ligation reversed.
Me: Not going to happen. I'm childfree. No procreation this marriage.
OP: Yabbut, you could *still* have a child if you wanted to.
What's missing from the discussion is an acknowledgment that procreation is not desired by all married couples, is not a requirement for marriage, marriage is not a requirement for procreation and the issue is therefore completely irrelevant to the matter.
So, I guess George will be going after birth control in all of its forms next … along with trying to outlaw infertile/postfertile/childfree folks from marrying, since it's all about having biological baybees.
(I wonder how many of the thousands of kids awaiting adoptive homes George has taken in …)
54.
George | January 19, 2010 at 5:32 am
Marriage is somewhat like a license to have kids. Whether you choose to use the license or can't use the license is irrelevant; you get the license because you meet the requirements: you're a man and a woman.
Frankly, I'm not so sure that I care whether heterosexual people who can't procreate, or choose not to, can get married. I can see why the law allows it (it would be difficult to administer a restrictive law, and hetero marriages are assumed procreative, and thus promote procreating families, so no harm is done to marriage by allowing it). And we're really not concerned about denying marriages as much as we are about promoting marriages and biological families.
55.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 5:41 am
@ george:
What you just said was discrimination against hetero couples too. I will quote so I don't seem to be out of line:
From george: "I can see why the law allows it (it would be difficult to administer a restrictive law…"
You then say that this is because people *assume* (emphasis mine) that heteros can procreate that this is allowed. What you may not have realized is that if people could find out by looking at them that they couldn't procreate, that it would be ok for the law to deny them a marriage. There would be no legal reason to keep them married if it was known publicly. Just because other heteros can procreate isn't enough of a legal reason to allow non-procreating couples to stay together.
By your own words you have condemned many hetero marriages that are childless, and will be childless. The only reason you cited for keeping them together is because you can't practically know which marriages are procreating and which ones aren't. But if you could know, then your argument fails. Your apologetic attitude toward hetero non-procreating couples just reveals that you don't want gays to marry because they are gay, not because of procreation.
56.
Lymis | January 19, 2010 at 5:46 am
Except that nowhere – absolutely nowhere – in any of the paperwork, the applications, the vows, or the legal definitions are kids mentioned as a requirement.
Things like being single (or providing documents of a divorce), being citizens, not being siblings are required to get the license. And the vows, when they are used, are always about taking care of each other, not about procreating.
This is like claiming that a driver's license is essentially a license to go to work, because a lot of people use their cars for that. But plenty of people go to work without driving, and plenty of people drive other places.
The marriage license is a license to be married. Period. Just because many people procreate within their marriage it doesn't make the marriage license about kids. It just doesn't.
You do know that mutually fertile people have kids without being married, right? And that the government doesn't automatically take them away?
You also know that a marriage license doesn't cause fertility, right?
57.
Lymis | January 19, 2010 at 5:51 am
"hetero marriages are assumed procreative"
Not when you let 70 year-olds marry, buddy. One's age is on the license application.
Meanwhile gay people are perfectly capable of procreating. We do it all the time. Just not with each other. What? You want to ask who the other biological parent is? Who's being intrusive into people's relationships now?
Why is it more intrusive to ask a couple whether they are fertile (if that is the entire purpose of marriage) than it is to demand that people prove the parentage of the kids they do have?
If a straight couple have a child with the participation of a third party (whether contractual, or through consensual "infidelity") the child is still legally theirs.
And then there's adoption. Straight people do that, too.
58.
Roberta K | January 19, 2010 at 6:38 am
There's also procreation with the help of anonymous sperm donation, for example if the male half of the heterosexual cover is unable to produce sperm due to accident or illness (cancer treatments often lead to sterility). That kid is going to have no idea who their "biological" father is — are they then less a person?
And how much of the search for biological parents is motivated by society's implication that being adopted is being "less than perfect"?
To me, parenthood is far less about who provides the biological components than it is about who provides the physical and emotional support for that child: who's there to tuck the kid in when nightmares wake her up, or who teaches him how to ride a bike or swim laps, or who helps her with her math homework. I've known kids in "traditional" families who would have been better off in adoptive families, yes, even same-sex families, because of abuse or neglect or alcoholism/drug abuse. Having a mother and father doesn't automatically make one's life hunky-dory.
59.
Lance Lanier | January 19, 2010 at 5:12 am
Thank you for all you do in explaining the situation. I will have to say, you affirmed exactly what I was thinking, but I was only thinking it because you guys have done such a superb job from the beginning.
I have learned so much from you guys, that I find myself seeing the bigger picture and understanding before you put it in perspective.
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!
60.
Lance Lanier | January 19, 2010 at 5:21 am
I think what George is saying, has played on my mind as well. George is just using procreation and the idea behind prop 8 to make a point.
I have worried. Will I finally feel like a U.S. Citizen instead of an alien with special rights, as I do now?
Will I still be subjected to even more predjudice. SURE, I will have the LAW on my side, BUT, what more will I face?
I'm out to family and friends to include co-workers when I can. Notice I said, when I can. But we're talking full disclosure beyond marriage.
It's A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.
61.
George | January 19, 2010 at 5:46 am
Lance –
I think it's just a matter of time before gay people are accepted by all of society; so much progress has been made, but it's not because gay people have demanded it. It's because people have more exposure to it and realize that it's a reality and that it's not going to hurt them.
Marriage for gays is not going to make them more accepted; heterosexuals aren't going to think, "Oh, you're married? Then I guess I've been wrong about gays all these years!" I think gay people hope that it's going to make them more accepted, but it's really only going to further destroy marriage as a desireable institution for bringing kids into the world.
Gay people will be accepted in American society, whether they change the definition of marriage or not. It's just a matter of time.
62.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 5:55 am
George wrote: Marriage for gays is not going to make them more accepted; heterosexuals aren’t going to think, “Oh, you’re married? Then I guess I’ve been wrong about gays all these years!” I think gay people hope that it’s going to make them more accepted, but it’s really only going to further destroy marriage as a desireable institution for bringing kids into the world.
And guess what, George? Many heterosexuals, myself included, will just say "Congratulations!" Your assumption that straight people are some big ol' monolith that happens to think Just Like You(TM) is pretty offensive to me. There are a whole lot of straight folks who believe that marriage equality is vital to society as a whole — and I'm one of 'em.
How many people voted on your marriage, George? 'Cause no one voted on mine … we were just able to go out and do it because an accident of biology made us straight. No one asked how many kids we were having, or how soon. We just had to provide the appropriate documentation, as already referenced (ID, divorce decrees, etc.).
Guess what else? I went to the wedding of a lesbian couple I know — and my marriage wasn't destroyed! No magical divorce papers fell from the sky, my husband and I didn't hate each other … nope, not at all. In fact, we had a tremendously good time and were glad for them. Just like we are at any other wedding to which our friends invite us.
How are you affected in the slightest by the marriage of people you've never even met, George?
63.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 5:57 am
no, this law won't change minds all of the sudden, but fighting state sponsored discrimination is the first step toward fighting discrimination over all.
African Americans are not able to marry, but I doubt that everyone thought that it was ok for them to marry even after the law said it was.
It isn't about everyone accepting it all at once, it's about being equal under the law. Again, you seem to miss the point.
64.
Jason Zenobia | January 19, 2010 at 6:09 am
On the contrary George,
All of our progress has been because we have demanded it.
It has been stated before, and I'll say it again. This is not about acceptance. This is about being treated equally in the eyes of the law.
That is what we are arguing in this court case.
65.
Katie | January 19, 2010 at 7:05 am
No, George, what will "make them accepted" is bigoted, archaic people like you growing old and senile, and young people like me becoming politicians who understand that your arguments are baloney.
Look at the numbers/percentages of bigots by age, George. They don't do your side any favors, trust me. Your largest base will all be dead in two decades.
66.
Lymis | January 19, 2010 at 5:53 am
Lance, if you think that getting married will subject you to intolerable amounts of additional discrimination, then you have every right to choose not to get married.
That is NOT a reason to even question the equal rights of millions of your fellow citizens.
Getting married IS a lot to think about. Whether we should have the right to isn't.
67.
Katie | January 19, 2010 at 7:04 am
It's coming, Lance. I don't know how old you are, but a story comes to mind that makes it really clear to me just how much the fundies will never stop this. Some anti-gay politician (I can't for the life of me remember who or when or where, sorry! But the moral of the story sticks with me and gives me chills) was told by his daughter that she doesn't know why he's bothering wasting his time on this. In her words, "My generation doesn't care."
The fundies are a dying breed, literally. In twenty years, this will be a non-issue, as new voters come of age and the 20-somethings who overwhelmingly support gay rights come into political power. I am 23, and instead of saying "my generation doesn't care," I'd actually argue that they care quite a lot — about making sure this never, ever happens again.
I look forward to the day where I will tell my children about people like George, and they will be as shocked that people like him existed as I was to learn about slaveowners. =)
68.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 7:38 am
It was an Iowa politician's daughter who said that to him during the Iowa same-sex marriage debate. I can not remember which politician, but he was filmed telling the story. It was quite moving. She said something like, Dad, this is already over and has already been decided by the generation that follows you…
69.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 5:45 am
George wrote: And we’re really not concerned about denying marriages as much as we are about promoting marriages and biological families.
Hmm. So, by denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, you're promoting marriage? How does that work, George?
You also wrote this: Frankly, I’m not so sure that I care whether heterosexual people who can’t procreate, or choose not to, can get married. I can see why the law allows it (it would be difficult to administer a restrictive law, and hetero marriages are assumed procreative, and thus promote procreating families, so no harm is done to marriage by allowing it).
So, let me make sure I understand your position. Straight couples who can't or won't have kids don't harm marriage … but gay couples who may or may not have kids (guess what, George? Lots of my gay friends have kids, some of them conceived the old-fashioned way while they were closeted) *will* harm marriage?
I'm sure you can explain that dichotomy to me, because I just can't seem to wrap my head around it. How is it that straight couples who don't procreate aren't harming marriage, but gay couples who either do or don't procreate *are*? Please explain it to me, preferably without bumper-sticker slogans.
I find it fascinating to watch you backpedal, I must confess.
70.
George | January 19, 2010 at 6:14 am
fiona:
I'm not backpedaling. I think what you're failing to grasp is that for me "marriage" is only between a man and a woman.
So when the definition is modified to include gay people, it harms the institution because a gay couple cannot conceive a child and provide the child both biological parents. You remove the procreative element and you no longer have marriage; you have a mere agreement between any two people who want one, regardless of love or anything else. It becomes nothing but a means for securing those fabulous governmental rights that everyone seems so crazy about.
So, yes, gay people changing the definition of marriage, harm marriage; whereas married heterosexual couples without kids don't harm marriage, because they promote the union of men and women.
71.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 6:28 am
But, George, now I am confused. You say this: So when the definition is modified to include gay people, it harms the institution because a gay couple cannot conceive a child and provide the child both biological parents. You remove the procreative element and you no longer have marriage;
Yet, you also said this: Frankly, I’m not so sure that I care whether heterosexual people who can’t procreate, or choose not to, can get married. I can see why the law allows it (it would be difficult to administer a restrictive law, and hetero marriages are assumed procreative, and thus promote procreating families, so no harm is done to marriage by allowing it).
Now you're saying that my marriage is not a marriage because there is no procreative element … but before that was no problem.
How is it possible that my non-procreative marriage (I have a marriage license and certificate from the state, so I know I have a marriage) is both harmful and not harmful? Is it only okay for me not to procreate because I'm straight?
As for this: So, yes, gay people changing the definition of marriage, harm marriage; whereas married heterosexual couples without kids don’t harm marriage, because they promote the union of men and women.
I really had hoped you could explain yourself without resorting to bumpersticker slogans, but you didn't. It really turned out to be "I think gay people are icky, so they shouldn't be allowed to get married."
I feel sorry for you, George. You don't even recognize the depths of your own ignorant double-speak.
72.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 6:30 am
So two people, who have nothing to do with you, love each other and get married.
That harms your marriage? If you never knew about it, it wouldn't do anything to your marriage.
The procreation argument also doesn't hold water. There is NO rational reason to discriminate based on the ability to procreate. As that will discriminate against heteros too as has been beaten over and over again. Your standards are one way for gays and another way for heteros. That doesn't work with the law.
You and your religion don't have to accept gay marriage. That's ok. But the law should.
73.
Katie | January 19, 2010 at 6:43 am
Wait wait wait WAIT.
Either:
A.) Procreation is required for marriage
B.) Male + Female is required for marriage
You have switched back in forth between both arguments. Which is it, Georgie? Either your complaint is with the gender with which the parties involved identify or the fact that the parties cannot produce biological children. You can't have it both ways when it's convenient for you.
We've pretty well slaughtered "A," so I'd suggest going with "B" for now. Although I daresay you won't fare much better with "B," because then you're going to have to explain to me how the GENDER of the parties involved INHERENTLY harms children — and you're going to have to do it WITHOUT invoking sexism because that little snag has already been thoroughly dealt with by our grand Constitution.
Yikes, George. I wouldn't want to be you right now. =)
74.
Roberta K | January 19, 2010 at 6:51 am
Once again, you're conflating issues.
If you want to keep the "procreative element" in marriage, it should be required that no straight person should be allowed to marry if they can't procreate. Sterile from cancer treatments? Sorry, no marriage for you! Had a hysterectomy because of extreme endometriosis? You're outta here! Past menopause? Fuggedaboutit! Oh, and let's ban birth control while we're at it like the Catholics do.
Gay couples can acquire children the same way those infertile couples can: adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization for lesbian couples.
So for you, "marriage" is between man and woman? Fine, then stick to marrying women. But we're not talking about YOUR feelings; we're talking about the LAW, and whether one group of people can be subjected to unequal treatment under that law because of an intrinsic quality…unequal treatment that costs them thousands of dollars to set into place benefits that came to me just from the cost of a marriage license back in 1991.
75.
George | January 19, 2010 at 6:54 am
fiona64 –
I can't respond to you anymore: you're dense, looking for some inconsistency to latch on to that doesn't exist.
Just stick with your, "Huh, the lesbians next door got married and I'm still married, so gay marriage is ok," nonsense and be happy. You're in over your head, here.
76.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 6:57 am
wow… fiona64 did you hear that? George has given up talking to us, but not his beliefs. Guess that makes him pious. He's turning the other cheek and all.
George, meet some gay people and spend some time with them. really get to know them. Then come back. You are not the victim. You're life isn't affected by this law. Get over yourself.
77.
waxr | January 19, 2010 at 7:25 am
George,
You say, "or me “marriage” is only between a man and a woman. or me “marriage” is only between a man and a woman.."
That is fine for you. Nobody is saying that you have to marry a man. But that is not what marriage is for millions of others. Yet, you want to force your concept of marriage upon others, saying who other people can and cannot marry.
Ironically, it is you who is advocating a change in marriage by restricting its purpose to procreation of children. The procreation of children has never been a requirement for marriage, but you are trying to make it so.
78.
Adam Sanford | January 19, 2010 at 8:23 am
What a shame that you do not have the right to define what marriage is for anyone but you. YOUR marriage can be between you and a woman. MY marriage is between me and another man. And it's recognized in state law that he and I are husbands to each other, and legally married.
What a shame for you that you can't grasp this simple fact.
79.
Bry | January 19, 2010 at 5:51 am
"Marriage is somewhat like a license to have kids. Whether you choose to use the license or can’t use the license is irrelevant; you get the license because you meet the requirements: you’re a man and a woman."
No, it's not. It's not a license to have kids. Whoever told you that is wrong. You just insulted children out of wedlock, of whom I am a member. My father played my mother and another woman against each other, before finally leaving her for the other woman while I was on the way. 21+ years later here I am, taking you on here in this forum, wondering how you could spout such willful ignorance and not question your comments. Your argument seems to be new amongst your side, one you resort to now because you have nothing left. It's imbicilic, juvenile, and is the literal definition of a non-sequitur (aka: DOES NOT FOLLOW). Get it? It's a logical fallacy, nothing more.
Do feel free to try again
80.
Lymis | January 19, 2010 at 6:00 am
Bry, the argument isn't new. It's just one of the last ones they have, and they are holding on to it for dear life.
Once you go through all the various possibilities of straight marriages, there are literally NO arguments for denying it to gay people that don't match up with at least some straight marriages that are perfectly legal now. The most obvious single example is a straight couple where the woman had a hysterectomy before they met. In love. Adults, Single. Can't breed kids.
Sound familiar?
Pat and Sandy can't have kids together.
If Pat is a man and Sandy is a woman with no uterus, cool.
If Pat is a man and Sandy is a man with no uterus, not cool.
If Pat is a man who had a vasectomy or testicular cancer and can't produce sperm and Sandy is a woman, cool.
If Pat is a man who has no penis and can't produce sperm and Sandy is a woman, not cool.
There is NO difference, other than this "all opposite sex couples are implicitly able to procreate even when they really can't" BS. But it's all they have left, and they ain't letting go.
81.
Lymis | January 19, 2010 at 6:02 am
Damn. Obviously tnat fourth version should have Pat being a woman with no penis.
Because if Pat was a male war vet with a below the waist accident and no functioning equipment, he can rush right to the altar.
82.
Katie | January 19, 2010 at 6:36 am
Bry, I'm waiting for the day when Evil Activist Scientists (TM) figure out a way for two women to have a biological child, sans sperm, who shares their DNA. According to my cell biologist friend, it's not as impossible as we might think.
Why yes, that wooshing sound you heard WAS indeed the fundies' last shred of credibility flying out the window. =)
83.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 6:53 am
I don't even know you, and I feel like we've been friends forever. Are you sure you're not reading my mind?
84.
Roberta K | January 19, 2010 at 6:57 am
Should actually be fairly easy — you could produce a female child by taking an X chromosome from one partner and an X chromosome from the other, then plant the resulting embryo in one of the women's uteri. You would need outside help to produce a male child though, and you'd have to ensure no dangerous genetic reinforcements are introduced. The idea's been floating around in science fiction novels for some time, but now we've actually got the capacity or are close to it.
85.
Katie | January 19, 2010 at 7:11 am
Patrick, I can't reply to your comment, but clearly we need to sign our ~Domestic Partnership~ (TM) to make our love official. You know, as official as it can be for promiscuous, anti-family, child-hating Gay Activists (TM) like us!
I'll pencil in our ceremony just before we Destroy Traditional Family Values and after we Undermine the Institution of Marriage (I've got that one down for 2:00 PM on Wednesday, but I'll have to check with the Gay Agenda to see if that's right).
86.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 7:44 am
That day has already arrived.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1769356…
87.
Dave | January 19, 2010 at 5:54 am
George keeps talking about the right of children to be raised by their biological parents.
Two things come to mind when I read that:
1. If the child has that right, then do the biological parents then also have an obligation to to raise that child? That leads to an extreme anti-choice position in which the parents do not even have the right to put the child up for adoption – you gave birth to the child? You must raise it.
2. Why do you assert that the child has that right? I'm interested in hearing your justification for it. After all, studies show and we've heard testimony here that children raised by non-biological parents do as well as those raised by their biological parents, so there must be something else. You have suggested that there's something special about having a relationship "with the people who created [you]" – please explain what that special thing is.
88.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 7:45 am
George is over 50.
89.
pbrim | January 20, 2010 at 6:10 am
That's no excuse. I'm 54 myself, white, straight, female, and raised Christian in the deep South. None of which keeps me from having a brain, a heart and a strong moral sense — all of them telling me that denying people equal rights just because some of their private, consensual sexual practices makes you feel all icky is just plain WRONG!!!
Besides, I imagine he would find some of the things that my husband and I enjoy doing just as icky, but that doesn't give him the right to vote on our marriage either.
90.
Jane | January 19, 2010 at 6:01 am
George, overturning Prop8 is win/win for all of us, even (if not espicially) children.
91.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 6:02 am
Patrick wrote: African Americans are not able to marry, but I doubt that everyone thought that it was ok for them to marry even after the law said it was.
Yep. I was 8 years old when my dad gave away the bride at at wedding her father refused to attend. She was a Caucasian lady, marrying an African-American man who was one of my dad's students. That was 5 years after Loving V. Virginia.
Anti-miscegenation laws have nearly identical wording to the "arguments" presented by opponents of marriage equality. It's pretty fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_l…
Here's something that was read into the Congressional record, cited at the above link:
"No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution … that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. … Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania. … Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy"
Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503.
—–
Gosh, isn't it amazing what happens if you substitute the word "gay" in appropriate places in that text? It looks ever-so familiar.
92.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 6:12 am
Thanks for the quote and for making me notice that I meant that to say "African Americans *were* not able to marry…"
93.
Theresa | January 19, 2010 at 6:11 am
Though what I'm about to say is (really) common sense, I just have to get it out of my system:
While following the case very closely from the start, I'm appalled by the fact that we have to prove fiscal value of (gay) marriage. It is really farking absurd. The fact that we have to prove we're equal human beings is an absolute horrendous idea to me.
"The public voted…" has been the reoccurring argument I've been hearing. They've obviously missed the fact. "Their marriages" were never up for a vote. Our basic human and civil right shouldn't be either.
With that being said, the "public voted" argument is a moot point (at best).
94.
Patrick Regan | January 19, 2010 at 6:14 am
I hear you. As a straight guy, I'm really sad that people feel so much fear about two people loving each other.
My future marriage would be strengthened knowing that my friends can have that too. It's too bad the law took that away from me.
95.
Theresa | January 19, 2010 at 6:26 am
I cannot thank you enough for being a straight ally. Personally, I don't think the proponents of Prop 8 believe any heterosexuals share your same sentiments.
So, thank you so much again.
96.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 6:34 am
Patrick, I have friends who flat-out refuse to get married until everyone is allowed to do so. I'm with you — my marriage is strengthened by every additional marriage, regardless of who we're talking about.
The idea that my marriage is hurt by anyone else's is just so ridiculous that it makes me alternately laugh aloud and shake my head in astonishment that anyone holds that belief. If your marriage is on such shaky ground that it's hurt by the wedding of two total strangers, I suggest counseling. Seriously.
97.
Roberta K | January 19, 2010 at 7:00 am
The only way marriage equality might harm my marriage is when I try to explain to my husband why our wedding present budget has to be increased. 😉
98.
Amy | January 19, 2010 at 7:17 am
When I went to get my marriage license in San Francisco during the period everyone could get married, two of the three other couples in line with us were lesbian couples. I was so proud to be there with them, all of us able to publicly declare our love for one another and commitment to one another.
When Prop 8 passed, it lessened my desire to be married. Why do I want to be part of a discriminatory institution? I believe Prop 8 weakens all marriages.
99.
Bry | January 19, 2010 at 6:15 am
That being said, they forget that the role of the courts is to interpret the laws to keep the people and the legislature from going insane. "Activist Judge" = Judge doing their job.
Of course we all know this.
100.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 6:32 am
PS to George:
You wrote: I think what you’re failing to grasp is that for me “marriage” is only between a man and a woman.
Oh, I don't fail to grasp your position at all.
I do, however, fail to grasp why you can't answer simple questions I asked about your position.
Such as:
How many people voted on your marriage, George?
How are you affected by the wedding of people you've never even met, George?
How is your marriage harmed by my lesbian friends' marriage, George?
Please, I beg of you, avoid the bumper sticker slogans and actually answer.
101.
Ero | January 19, 2010 at 7:05 am
Please, George, and any other relatively reasonable anti-same-sex-marriage folks out there, take a moment to entertain the following thoughts. Just try them on, and see how they feel:
1. what if your personal feelings about what marriage is or isn't, are your personal feelings, not the absolute law that everyone else must live by?
2. what if all these homosexual folks that you're so sure you understand, and who you seem to think are somehow DIFFERENT, what if they're really, just people like yourself? what if they love and grieve and care for their kids the same way you do?
personally, as a straight and happily married guy, i'm deeply sad and intermittently furious that my good friends in committed long-term relationships can't have weddings, because folks they've never met think they're somehow not entitled.
I know gay couples who've been together for decades. what the hell do you or anyone else have to say to them? what exactly do you think you know about their lives that invalidates these relationships?
if you can't see why this is an issue, trust me, the problem is yours. It's not the problem of society, it's not the problem of 'the gays'. If you think homosexuals aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else, then you need to go fix that problem for yourself, and stand out of the way of the rest of us, who want to enhance the dignity of marriage, by making it about love and commitment, not bigotry.
And, really, this procreation business is ridiculous. It just doesn't hold any water. There are a lot of straight folks who'll stay childless, and their are millions of gay parents & grandparents out there. They don't want to take your family away from you. They just want you to let them have their family too. Why is that so difficult?
102.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 7:47 am
We CAN and DO have weddings. We need no heterosexual permission for that.
You simply withhold the legal benefits that come with it for straight folks.
103.
Bry | January 19, 2010 at 7:07 am
He's already moved to the "no b*tch I never said that b*tch you're dumb b*tch" arguments, it's not worth it to argue with the simple lemming anymore
104.
Bill | January 19, 2010 at 7:58 am
Clearly 'George' has nothing to offer but the date rape and AIDS jokes mentality to this conversation.
Let's not indulge him.
Let him keep his 'heart and mind' where it, no doubt, is firmly planted.
105.
truthspew | January 19, 2010 at 8:49 am
I think Sanders answering that it was prejudice to several of Robb's snippy questions was wholly appropriate and warranted.
It's prejudice (Bigotry). Always is, always has been.
106.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 10:07 am
George wrote: I can’t respond to you anymore: you’re dense, looking for some inconsistency to latch on to that doesn’t exist.
Were you looking in the mirror when you accused me of being dense, George? There are inconsistencies all over your argument; you are just too obtuse to see it, even when it is pointed out to you.
If you are indeed leaving (which I doubt … in my experience people who announce that they are taking their bucket and shovel and leaving the beach *never* do), I hope that you do not let the door hit you.
You haven't answered my questions because you know that you CAN'T. Your marriage is not harmed by someone else's, there is no law requiring procreation for marriage, and the only reason that you want to deny it to gay men and lesbians is because it squicks you out. Well, guess what? That's not a good enough reason to deny someone equal protection under the law.
I hope, George, that you receive everything you deserve from life. In spades.
107.
Katie | January 19, 2010 at 10:20 am
Now, now, Fiona, don't you get your pretty little head in a tizzy with your silly little "logic" and "facts"! Everyone knows that you should be in the kitchen making George a sammich instead of arguing with him! What are you trying to do, undermine our traditional patriarch values???
Otherwise known as: A+++ Fiona. I love seeing bigots running scared. Unfortunately, I doubt it'll make him think.
108.
fiona64 | January 19, 2010 at 10:45 am
I know, huh?
I guess I should just count myself lucky that my husband allows me to wear shoes and all, let alone working outside the home and not do my duty to the patriarchy by birthin' a mess o' babies. @@
Of course, on Planet George this last item means I'm not really married …
What a tool.
109.
Lance Lanier | January 19, 2010 at 11:18 am
I think George also forgets. A LOT and I mean A LOT of gays, that I happen to know personally, were once married. They already have children. I also come from a broken home that has nothing to do with either parent being gay. LIFE IS JUST LIFE. So now, there is no way that George or anyone else can make me believe that biological children of homosexuals are different from biological children of heterosexual couples. If the parents are separated, they are separated and children do survive. There are many of us. So, there is no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to adopt or foster children. The question of having two parents… well two dads or two moms is just as fine. It's like living with a parent and same sex grandparent. It just so happens it's NOT a grandparent. It doesn't matter that they share a bed or what takes place in that bed. There are sooo many different variations of families in the U.S. whether it be grandparents, divorced parent that moves home to mom or dad or both parents and take their children with them. Let's not forget the single grandparent or foster care. The point is, sexual orientation is not an issue in any of these cases and never should be. Like I said, single homosexuals that may or may not have been married, have biological children as well. So how can it be an issue…………. it is an issue, because those like Geroge, want it to be an issue. You're right about only one thing George and I will give it to you. It will take time for people to accept homosexuals. The only way to do that, is to have it all out on the table. That's what marriage will do for the gay community. So you will have to face us and evenutally in time, as you have said, will accept us.
110.
Miller | January 19, 2010 at 11:42 am
George asked, "Is the suggestion that children should be born to married parents now considered irrational?"
The answer is, "Of course not." The passing of proposition 8 did not prevent children from being born to un-married people nor does it reqire or encourage married people to naturally procreate.
I wish all parents were ready, willing, and able to raise their kids responsibly, with respect for others and with a spirit of charity. That does not, however, require that the parent(s) be married, biologically related, or of the opposite gender. My wish applies to married couples, single people, adoptive parents, same gender couples and all others raising children.
111.
Miller | January 19, 2010 at 11:45 am
George asked, "Is the suggestion that children should be born to married parents now considered irrational?"
The answer is, "Of course not." The passing of proposition 8 did not prevent children from being born to un-married people nor does it reqire or encourage married people to naturally procreate.
I wish all parents were ready, willing, and able to raise their kids responsibly, with respect for others and with a spirit of charity. That does not, however, require that the parent(s) be married, biologically related, or of the opposite gender. My wish applies to married couples, single people, adoptive parents, same gender couples and all others raising kids.
112.
Dudlyne | January 20, 2010 at 5:53 am
its so very true that George basically gives to main requirements for marriage
A. ability to procreate
B. man and woman
he then follows by saying that as long as B i present A is not necessary, thus showing once and for all that his real issue is with homosexuality in general.
he is implying that gays will negatively affect children and will not be good parents. Clearly this reason hs been reasearched numerous times and found to be incorrect.
this only leaves us with one conclusion: George is without a doubt wrong. He offers procreation as a smoke screen explanation to cover up his blatant homophobia. Homophobia is not a reason to take away our rights to marry. it is only a reason to not marry a homosexual yourself.
I give more respect to someone willing to admit their true reasons over someone who lies to make their reason appear logical, because the reality is that no court will accept blatant homophobia and discrimination as reasoning for a law.
your personal moral dictates will not dictate my life. be a true christian and preach love and understanding and take this hate out your heart. you are supposed to worship God not the Bible. get it right!
"why two black D.C. pastors support gay marriage" http://www.thewashingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a…
113. Paul Hogarth: Glee Breaks&hellip | May 28, 2010 at 7:44 am
[…] the best witness in the recent Prop 8 trial was San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders – a liberal politician who […]
114. Judge Walker’s Ques&hellip | June 9, 2010 at 6:02 am
[…] – were merely acting irrationally. It goes back to San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testimony, when he said that it took a long time for him to realize his “rational” views against gay marriage […]
115. Judge Wants Closing State&hellip | June 13, 2010 at 11:36 am
[…] thing – were merely acting irrationally. It goes back to San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testimony, when he said that it took a long time for him to realize his “rational” views against gay marriage and for […]
116. Judge Wants Closing State&hellip | June 13, 2010 at 6:30 pm
[…] thing – were merely acting irrationally. It goes back to San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testimony, when he said that it took a long time for him to realize his “rational” views against gay marriage and for […]
117. Judge Wants Closing State&hellip | June 13, 2010 at 11:20 pm
[…] thing – were merely acting irrationally. It goes back to San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testimony, when he said that it took a long time for him to realize his “rational” views against gay marriage and for […]
118. Judge Wants Closing State&hellip | September 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm
[…] thing – were merely acting irrationally. It goes back to San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders testimony, when he said that it took a long time for him to realize his “rational” views against gay marriage and for […]
119.
payday loans | February 14, 2014 at 5:18 pm
Great article. I am experiencing a few of these issues as well..
120.
Zapatos Louboutin Online | March 22, 2014 at 9:47 am
You made some good points there. I checked on the net for more
info about the issue and found most people will go along with your views on this web site.