Equality On TrialWhy the Courts?

Why the Courts?

January 31, 2010

By Brian Leubitz

by Brian Leubitz

Friday was supposed to be a big day for the LGBT community in the Rainbow state of Hawaii. Yet things didn’t go according to plan:

Lawmakers in the Hawaii House declined to vote Friday on a bill that would have recognized gay and lesbian couples with civil unions, the AP reported. The bill would have granted gay and lesbian couples all the rights and obligations of marriage.

The action effectively shelves the proposal indefinitely. Supporters sitting in the gallery shouted, “Shame on you!” Opponents cheered the decision.(OTM)

The article goes on to note that the legislators didn’t even stand up for a vote, too scared of their own shadows to even get their votes down on record.

Equality shouldn’t be left to a vote of the people, or of the legislature. After all, if that’s the case, deserving couples will have to tolerate second rate status, or no status at all while the people make their merry way of getting to recognize real relationships that exist in the world all around them.

This is the purpose of the courts, to acknowledge what is just despite the majority. It is this countermajoritian power of the courts that the Supreme Court recognized in one of its early cases, Marbury v. Madison. The court laid down what has become one of the backbones of the system of checks and balances between the branches of government, the courts have ultimate authority on what is and what isn’t constitutional, and they have the power to do something about that which isn’t.

In this instance, the courts must do what the people and their elected representatives can or will not do. It is their duty to stop what the framers called in the Federalist Papers, the “the violence of majority faction”. That is, they must uphold the Constitutional rights of the minority when even a large majority opposes those rights. This is the basis for a nation of a system of just laws. More specifically, this is the basis for America, the idea and America the nation.

Tags: Hawaii

Greatest hits from the trial You Can’t Turn the Lights Off

1650331 CommentsWhy+the+Courts%3F2010-01-31+16%3A00%3A12Brian+Leubitz

1. Marlene Bomer | January 31, 2010 at 1:19 am

I was listening to the story on NPR when it came down, and the main reason given by the cowards was they were afraid of their seats because this is an election year!!

Once again, the political power of Mormon, Inc. gets their way.
2. Richard W. Fitch | January 31, 2010 at 1:23 am

These articles are wonderful! After 50 yrs, I'm getting a very relevant refresher course in American civics. thnx
3. Ronnie | January 31, 2010 at 1:34 am

I say we stop paying taxes…If the churches and their employees are aloud to do it then so should we.
4. nicknjh | January 31, 2010 at 1:38 am

Unfortunately, the latest poll shows that most American believe, and an even greater majority hope, that the Supreme Court will rule in favour of the Prop8 supporters:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34965/americ…
5. Devon | January 31, 2010 at 1:43 am

Well of course the majority believe's the court will rule in favor, it's what they WANT to happen.

We all followed the trial, if the supreme court rule's it constitutional we know that it was either because they didn't want to go against the majority or because of their own prejudice's.

The defense spoke for itself, the only good reason they can think of is the bible.
6. Kay Moore | January 31, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Ah, of course… "the only reason you disagree is that there's something wrong with you." Another reason the Supreme Court may ultimately rule in favor of Proposition 8 is that the opponents failed to demonstrate that the majority's right to make law was abused. More or less, in any case of alleged rights violations, this is the overriding justification for turning the plaintiffs away and has been used, for example, to rule that being naked isn't a form of speech as covered by the First Amendment and that incidental violation of a right as a consequence of a law that has nothing to do with that right is not unconstitutional (Smith v. Oregon: listing peyote as an illegal drug isn't unconstitutional although it violates the religious rights of a Native American tribe that used peyote in a religious ceremony).
7. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 1:32 am

Kay wrote: Another reason the Supreme Court may ultimately rule in favor of Proposition 8 is that the opponents failed to demonstrate that the majority’s right to make law was abused.

Oh, dear me. Another person who missed a day in Civics class. You see, Federalist Paper #10 makes very clear that the tyrannical majority is *not* to be allowed to take rights away from an unpopular minority.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
8. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 5:40 am

Obviously, if the Supreme Court was to find that the majority had not abused its power in this instance, they would be finding that the majority had not deprived the minority of a civil right.
9. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 5:50 am

Well, that would be a startling reversal of stare decisis, Kay, seeing as how Loving v. Virginia is the case in which marriage was deemed to be a basic civil right.

Love,
Fiona
10. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 5:53 am

That may well be true but the Supreme Court is the only judicial body that is not legally constrained by stare decis. Thus, they have the power to make decisions totally at odds with past ones.
11. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 5:59 am

All right, Kay … let's hear your compelling state reason for denying gay men and lesbians their civil right to marry. You appear to want to impress us with your legal background, so surely you understand that the compelling state interest is the only reason allowed to deny someone equal protection under the law.

BTW, "the people have spoken" and anything that amounts to "I think gay people are icky" is not a compelling state interest.

Love,
Fiona
12. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:37 am

Oh, that's easy… moral concerns are considered a state interest under present legal precedent. It's not "gay people are icky" or "the people have spoken" but the present legal standard for these types of cases is "reasonable justification" which morals qualify under.
13. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:40 am

Kay cites as a "compelling state interest": Oh, that’s easy… moral concerns are considered a state interest under present legal precedent. It’s not “gay people are icky” or “the people have spoken” but the present legal standard for these types of cases is “reasonable justification” which morals qualify under.

Really? Whose "morality" shall we enshrine into law, Kay? Who decides what is moral or immoral? Please show me the legal precedent that cites "morality."

I'll wait.

Love,
Fiona
14. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:59 am

Kay wrote: …you’re not serious, are you? C’mon… any organization, whether religious or not, may at some times mobilize its members to take a particular stance on something but to equate this with being a PAC goes a good step beyond inane.

Already answered that.
—
Dear Kay:

Using church office stationery, church office phones, paid church staff and church funds goes a little bit beyond merely mobilizing its members. That's functioning as a PAC.

And no, you didn't answer my question. Which of your civil rights shall we put on the ballot for consideration by the majority? Just because you don't consider something a right based on your perverted ideas of "morality" doesn't change the legal facts, so just tell me — which of your rights am I allowed to gather signatures to eliminated?

Love,
Fiona
15. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:11 am

Already answered the question, Fiona, and I'm not going to help you locate it just because you can't keep track of your line of argument.

Whose morality? The morality of whatever constitutes the majority at the time that the law in enacted. For the purpose of lawmaking, morality is a function of majority.
16. ThatsMyCat | January 31, 2010 at 3:56 am

So, this article is about the need for the courts to step in when the majority's wishes are against the constitution, and you leave a comment that talks about the wishes of the majority. Ummm, are the lights on and stuff? Anybody home there? Duhhhhh.
17. Sheryl Carver | January 31, 2010 at 4:31 am

I think the point of the comment was that recent polling data shows the majority still is against equal rights so we need the courts to step in. I don't think the comment in any way implied that the majority opinion should rule.
18. Devon | January 31, 2010 at 12:54 pm

Did you even read my comment?
19. Richard | January 31, 2010 at 2:22 pm

And, Kay, what about the two voter fraud cases that are being prepared right now in reference to Prop 8, one ta involves tampering with the machines, and one that involves the bsallot papers? What will you say when those two cases result in Prop H8 being overturned due to illegalities? And wht about the fact that a PAC had so many church leaders on its board that you could not tell where one ended and the other began, which is clearly in violation of church and state? Or are you also forgetting that the courts are here to ensure that the majority does not tyrannize a minority the way we as a colony were tyrannized by the British, thus resulting in the American Revolution?
20. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 5:51 am

If there was voter fraud, Richard, obviously Proposition 8 would be overturned on that basis.
There is no church-state conflict in a bunch of churches getting together in a legally-formed political action committee and spending money to advocate their views. They are spending their own money, buying a product that is wholly legal for them to purchase (advertisements, airtime, printing materials, stamps, etc) and Congress is in no way involved.
Check your history book again. The courts were designed to interpret the law and specifically deprived of the purse and the sword: no power to make law, no power to enforce law, just power to interpret the meaning of a law. Until Marbury (where the Supreme Court ruled that its powers included the right to call something unconstitutional), the Constitution was not regarded as a law.
21. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 5:54 am

Kay wrote: There is no church-state conflict in a bunch of churches getting together in a legally-formed political action committee and spending money to advocate their views.

Um, Kay, dear? The Church of LDS did not form a PAC — they FUNCTIONED as a PAC. That would be the big difference … and yes, that is a church-state conflict.

I see you haven't answered my question yet: which of your civil rights is it okay for us to vote to take away? Because that's what Prop 8 did: it REMOVED the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry their loved one. And don't give me the "they can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want" canard, because that is beyond stupid — and you know it.

So, which of your civil rights shall we put on the ballot for majority vote, Kay? You let us know, because that's the precedent you support.

Love,
Fiona
22. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:34 am

No, they did not. A PAC is a legal organization separated from whoever formed it; the NRA, for example, has a PAC but that PAC is not the NRA no matter who's on the PAC's board. Further, many religious leaders on a board does not a religion make. No church-state conflict.

Already answered the question, Fiona.
23. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:37 am

A church mobilizing its members to support a specific political issue is a church functioning as a PAC.

Which of your civil rights shall we put on the ballot, Kay?

Love,
Fiona
24. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:57 am

…you're not serious, are you? C'mon… any organization, whether religious or not, may at some times mobilize its members to take a particular stance on something but to equate this with being a PAC goes a good step beyond inane.

Already answered that.
25. Marlene Bomer | February 1, 2010 at 9:04 am

Kay — You're right in that there's no violation of the Establishment Clause if a bunch of churches want to work either for OR against a particular ballot measure.

HOWEVER — what churches *cannot* do, is to use religious imagery, or religious tones in any form whatsoever! That *is* a violation of the Establishment clause!

If you read Loving v Virginia, you'd find that it was as much of an Establishment Clause case as it was under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

This also the reason why both the Federal DOMA and its bastard children in the states are equally un-Constitutional — every excuse and justification for these perverted laws is couched in religion, and specifically Christianity.
26. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 11:15 am

When did THAT get added, Marlene? Remember that the prohibition in the Establishment Clause forbids the establishment of a religion by the state but imposes no constraint at all on religious speech except as those established by the relevant freedom of speech precedent (of which there are very very few, freedom of speech being such a big deal).

While that may well be true, Marlene, it does not involve the state giving support to Christianity. Giving it to certain principles of Christianity, after all, isn't establishment of a religion because most principles are not exclusive to Christianity or even, for that matter, religion.
27. Richard Walter (soon | February 1, 2010 at 2:25 pm

Oh, but you are so wrong, there Kay. I have seen numerous times when churches tried to use their tax-exempt status to organize a PAC and got it shot down because of the separation of church and state. And when the hierarchy of a church group is also the hierarchy of an organization that is voting on something which that particular church's hierarchy is not even in the same state as the proposition they want, and they proceed to tell lies in order to get it passed, then that is not only ethically wrong, it is not only illegal, it is against the teachings of the very man they claim to follow, therefore it is immoral. Of course, you are all following a very distorted version of he bible that was rewritten to suit the purposes of a closet queen who was killed by having his intestines cauterized together before the public could find ut that King Jmes was gay. And why did he rewrite the bible? Because he did not want to admit to himself what he was. And that ws his greatest sin. The sin of lying to himself. I refuse to let small-minded people like you shove me back into a closet. My clothes belong in a closet, but as a man, and a human being, one who is every bit as good as any straight man, and better than some, I do not belong ina closet. But how about we vote on your right to go to your gynecologist and get your monthly supply of birth control pills? Or how about we vote on your right to marry the person you want to mary? How about we vote and tell you that you cannot get married in your home state? How would you feel then? Or how about we vote and tell you that if your husband gets transferred on his job that once you cross the state line, you are no longer married to him? How about putting yourself in our shoes for a change, Kay, and actually doing some honest to God scientific research.
28. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 3:24 pm

OK… just for you, Richard, we'll move the discussion through the looking glass so that at least SOME of your personal version of history has a level of validity.

Because, Richard, being in your shoes wouldn't change my opinion. It is thus a pointless exercise.
29. Ronnie | January 31, 2010 at 2:01 am

Good morning my fellow Americans and to our global www family members I say good night, good evening and good afternoon.

I Just wrote a cover of "You Can't Stop The Beat" from the hit Broadway Musical and award winning movie, "Hair Spray" I hope you enjoy it:

You cant stop an avalanche as it races down the hill
You can try to stop the seasons, girl, But ya know you never will. And you can try to stop my dancin' feet. But i just cannot stand still cause the world keeps spinnin' Round and round and my heart's keeping time to the speed of sound

I was lost til i heard the drums Then i found my way

Cause you can't stop the beat

Ever since this old world began, A human found out if she shook it, he could shake up a man. And so i'm gonna shake and shimmy it the best that i can today. 'Cause you cant stop the motion of the ocean or the sun in the sky. You can wonder if you wanna, but i never ask why, And if you try to hold me down I'm gonna spit in your eye and say That you cant stop the beat!

You can't stop a river as it rushes to the sea. You can try and stop the hands of time, but ya know it just can't be. And if they try to stop us, Seaweed, I'll call my friends at the H.R.C. Cause the world keeps spinning Round and 'round And my heart's keeping time To the speed of sound I was lost til i heard the drums Then i found my way.

Cause you can't stop the beat

Ever since we first saw the light
A man and woman liked to shake it
On a saturday night
And so i'm gonna shake and shimmy it
With all my might today

'Cause you cant stop The motion of the ocean
Or the rain from above. You can try to stop the paradise
We're dreamin' of. But you cannot stop the rhythm
Of two hearts in love to stay. Cause you cant stop the beat!

You cant stop my happiness Cause i like the way i am, And you just can't stop my knife and fork when i see a christmas ham. So if you don't like the way i look, Well, i |ust don't give a damn! Cause the world keeps spinning Round and 'round And my heart's keeping time To the speed of sound. I was lost til i heard the drums then i found my way.

'Cause you cant stop the beat

Ever since this old world began
A woman found out if she shook it
She could shake up a man
And so i'm gonna shake and shimmy it
The best that i can today

Cause you cant stop the motion of the ocean Or the sun in the sky. You can wonder if you wanna but i never ask why and if you try to hold me down I'm gonna spit in your eye and say That you cant stop the beat!

Oh oh oh
You can't stop today as it comes speeding down the track Child, yesterday is hist'ry and it's never coming back 'Cause tomorrow is a brand new day

And it don't know Gay from Straight.

Yeah!……..'Cause the world keeps spinning 'Round and 'round. And my heart's keeping time to the speed of sound. I was lost til i heard the drums then i found my way 'Cause you cant stop the beat

Ever since we first saw the light A human and human liked to shake it On a saturday night . And so i'm gonna shake and shimmy it with all my might today 'Cause you can't stop the motion of the ocean Or the rain from above. They can try to stop ths paradise We're dreaming of. But you cannot stop the rhythm of two hearts in love to stay. You can't stop the beat!

And you can't stop the motion of the ocean or the rain from above. You can try to stop the paradise We're dreaming of. But you cannot stop the rhythm of two hearts in love to stay 'Cause you can't stop the beat.

You can't stop the beat!!
30. rpx | January 31, 2010 at 8:31 pm

Here you went through allt his work on your song and not one "atta boy" in reply. So I'll give your yoru deserved "atta boy" I confess I do not knwo the original song so I can't superimpose your words on the melody but when I get a chance will do so.
31. Ronnie | January 31, 2010 at 10:54 pm

LOL…..thank you….. ; )
32. Urbain | January 31, 2010 at 2:41 am

Good article.

Sadly, most Americans no longer understand that we are a republic and scream about "activist judges."

They believe that we are a "Judeo-Christian nation" when Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the founding documents. They think that the founding fathers were a pious group of churchgoers but if you read their works, they held organized religion and the clergy that leads it in the highest contempt.

We're at a point where 45% or more of America believes in young earth creation.

It scares the hell out of me about what is happening in this country. I firmly believe that the Prop 8 issue is more than just a "gay issue." It's just the start of something bigger and uglier.

For those who haven't read it, I highly recommend Christopher Hedge's American Fascists.

When I was very young, I was out "old bottle hunting" with my grandfather who had emigrated here from Germany in the 1930s. I didn't have a clue what he was talking about when he said, "When they go after the queers, you know it's starting again. Fight or run, your choice."

Hedge's book echoes the same warning as my grandfather gave me. The terminology is a bit more politically correct but the message is the same.
33. waxr | January 31, 2010 at 3:00 am

The Bible has been used by tyrents, kings and dictators to justify their right to rule.

In the Old Testament there is no separation of powers, or of church and state. The king was the final judicial authority, and he appointed the chief priests.

In the New Testament, Christians are told to obey the governing authorities (Romans 13:1)

The Bible fails to teach democracy or the advantages of a representative republic.
34. Urbain | January 31, 2010 at 3:36 am

Right on. The people who use the bible to justify their beliefs usually have not read the whole thing.
35. Alan E. | January 31, 2010 at 6:40 am

The bible tells people to obey the governing authorities, but many of these authorities are trying to use the bible in the governing.
36. Sarah | January 31, 2010 at 3:28 am

What a powerful quote! Thank you for sharing.

There is a group of people in America who want to take away the rights of our citizens and ssm is just one issue they're working on. They want to limit the rights of women (and I know we saw a lot of sexist ideals on parade throughout the trial). They want to take away the responsibility of science teachers to teach science in the classrooms. They have proven that they can get a majority through mobilizing congregations (of much more reasonable people I believe) and that scares me.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.
37. Urbain | January 31, 2010 at 3:41 am

So true, Sarah. The movement that you're talking about is the "dominionist" movement. Look up "American Vision" online and you'll get a good idea of what there agenda is — basically to install "Levitical law" into our legal system.

The Alliance Defense Fund has participated in their "super conferences."
http://www.goddiscussion.com/18132/dominionism-10…

These people have a great deal of influence.
38. Kay Moore | January 31, 2010 at 2:31 pm

"If they take away our right to a title, their next target is the rights of an entire gender"? How does that even pass the laugh test?
39. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 1:35 am

Kay wrote: “If they take away our right to a title, their next target is the rights of an entire gender”? How does that even pass the laugh test?

It doesn't. Surely you are aware, madame, that the rights of women are also in the sights of the Religious ~~reich~~ Right? They are chipping away at reproductive rights all the time, and I have no doubt that they would cheerfully return us to the days of coverture law.

If you can't see that the *real* slippery slope is not the nonsense that you and your fellow anti-equality activists spew about pedophilia, animals and lamps but is instead that *anyone's* rights could now be put of for a ballot, then I can't help you.

Which of YOUR rights should we all be allowed to vote on Kay? This straight woman wants to know.

Love,
Fiona
40. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:02 am

By "doesn't pass the laugh test", I meant that it was so absurd that it made me laugh. I'm sure you didn't mean to agree with me on that point.
If the religious right is targeting "reproductive rights" as the phrase is currently defined, I'm foursquare behind them.
"Slippery slope" is just the common name of the logical fallacy of "if A happens, then B is inevitable." Since there is no argument that any other distortions of marriage are inevitable (merely more likely), that's not a logical fallacy but "if it can't be called marriage, women will lose their rights" is a classic slippery slope.

Now, that all depends upon how you define "rights". You can feel free to vote on any and all "rights" I posses so long as you don't touch my rights. Does that help?
41. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:05 am

Dear Kay:

You are being deliberately obtuse. Thanks for admitting that your an anti-choice nutbag on top of everything else. Now, why don't you go make a sammich for your man or something?

You haven't answered my question: Which of your civil rights shall we put on the ballot for majority vote?

Love,
Fiona (who is sick and tired of trolls)
42. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:06 am

PS to Kay in re: the "laugh test." Taking away peoples' rights (as Prop 8 did) is NOT funny. You may think so, but it's only because it's not your rights (yet).

Which of your rights shall we put on the ballot, Kay? What right is it okay to take away from you, as the right to civil marriage was taken away from gay and lesbian couples by Prop 8, and as you and yours are seeking to do in other states where equality has won the day?

Love,
Fiona
43. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:40 am

Technically, I don't have "a man" although I'm relieved that I'm not the only person in the world who uses the term "sammich."

"PS to Kay in re: the “laugh test.” Taking away peoples’ rights (as Prop 8 did) is NOT funny. You may think so, but it’s only because it’s not your rights (yet)."

Stay focused, Fiona. What again did I say "failed to pass the laugh test"?
44. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:42 am

Dear Kay:

Mange merde et mort.

Love,
Fiona.
45. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:13 am

*laughs* French… I'm impressed. Atmen Sie tief, suchen Sie Frieden. 🙂
46. Sarah | February 1, 2010 at 1:32 pm

You have actually proved my point quite well. I was in no way trying to say the outcome of prop8 will "take away the rights of an entire gender". What I was trying to say that the same group of people who would limit rights of one group is also happy to erode the rights of another, which you seem happy to agree with.The trial exposed a lot of sexism in the perception of male and female roles within a marriage and raising children.

I am not just talking about abortion here, I am talking about women denied their right to have vaginal births if they have had a c-section, and a host of other cases which make it quite clear that that right to lifers are interested in much more than preventing abortion. They want a much greater control over women's bodies and yes "reproductive rights". The fact is that if the rights of individuals aren't all that important/kind of scary to you that is going to be expressed in a lot of ways.
47. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 2:59 pm

There is a minor cognitive dissonance in all of this because you allege rights that I regard as artificial. Should a doctor do precisely what his patient instructs except where it violates medical ethics or would cause severe medical consequences? Yes. But is this a "right"? No. I support correcting the pernicious machinations of the past, whether at the hands of virulent racists in the South or distinguished judges in a marble building.

The rights of individuals are very important to me. Things that are simply good fair practice pigeonholed into "rights" and thereafter treated as somehow sacred are utterly unimportant to me.
48. ThatsMyCat | January 31, 2010 at 4:07 am

I would respectfully disagree with those fears. History is cyclical, but the nuances in my opinion are different between early Nazi Germany and present US.

I do think we have reason to fear, but it is not the same. If your few is to be strong in the face of this aggression, then I would totally agree.

I think with the internet and communication the way it is, we truly are in a new age. We really can mobilize, if we each desire to do that. Even from the outset, Nazi Germany was a very difficult place to talk about anything that was not party line.

Again, we do have reason to fear. And we must act accordingly.
49. Sarah | January 31, 2010 at 5:21 am

I definitely do not want to be one of those people who runs around crying "Nazi" and undermines the seriousness of what happened in Germany with comparisons to far less serious issues. I'm sorry if that is how I came across. With that said I do think the quotes themselves apply. I think this is a time to stand together and to realize that in this situation we have the power to do so. We have the opportunity to be unified in the face of oppression and we need to be aware of the different ways that manifestation is trying to manifest itself.
50. Sarah | January 31, 2010 at 5:23 am

Sorry, that should read:
"that oppresson is trying to manifest itself"
51. Marlene Bomer | February 1, 2010 at 9:15 am

Cat — If you want to see *the* best example of the comparasons between the Third Reich and the Religious Reicht, find the propaganda films "The Eternal Jew", and "Gay Rights, Special Rights".

Both films are excellent examples of demonizing propaganda at its finest. The TVC used this propaganda film to render a split between the black churches in Cincinnati and the TLBG community, causing Issue 3 to be passed, banning all protections on sexual orientation in the city, which took over *10 years* to overturn!

The latter film was also sent to the small town of Byron Center, MI in the witch hunt against the local school's choral director, who took a tiny program and turned it into winning state awards for their performances.

What was truly evil about this use of the film was that someone within the school district office sent the names and addresses of every parent whose child was enrolled in the choral program!
52. Straight Ally #3008 | January 31, 2010 at 7:46 am

Urbain,

An important thing to keep in mind is that the Religious Right – both the standard-issue and the hardcore Dominionists – must be terrified of losing the "gay plank" in their platform. The moral zeitgeist is four-square against them – look at this study, where public opinion in every state except Utah has shifted in favor of marriage equality over the past 15 years, especially in states that initially legalized civil unions. At the risk of sounding flippant, I would be overjoyed to see a trend like this in acceptance of evolution. They are going to lose this one, and the less delusional ones in their leadership know it; they will milk it for every fundraising dollar it's worth, suffering of LGBT people be damned – actually, I imagine most would see their suffering as a nice bonus.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Religious Right has lost its power – if a Supreme Court case arising from Perry v. Schwarzenegger becomes the Dred Scott Decision for our times, it will be due to their influence. When they do lose this fight, however, they will shift their focus elsewhere: targeting history with Christian Nation revisionism and science with creationism. I think your grandfather and Chris Hedges would agree: if you want to take over society, it is important to target the intellectuals. And on that note, my LGBT friends, as you slowly but surely win your battle, please don't forget the scientists, historians, and other intellectuals when the Religious Right redoubles its attack upon us.
53. Urbain | January 31, 2010 at 8:25 am

I completely agree with you, Straight Ally. Thanks! We're definitely on the same page on this one.

Yes, the intellectuals are definitely in the cross hairs their bible-versed rifle scopes. Perhaps the best evidence of that was their arguments when rewriting the bible (the far right thinks it's too liberal and they have a conservative wiki project). There was a big fight going on there about whether they should relabel the Pharisees to "intellectuals" or "liberals." In the end, I think they left it as Pharisees because they couldn't decide.

I think they are also targeting the young people in order to keep their views alive through revisionist history like you suggested. David Barton's rewrites and other "conservative" views are seriously being considered by the Texas State School Board and will probably be implemented in March. It won't just affect Texas. Since it is the biggest buyer of school textbooks, textbooks throughout the nation will reflect their insane views.

Thanks for the link — Great info!

Prop 8, to me, is definitely a gay, humanist, intellectual, and science issue that will have serious repercussions.
54. Straight Ally #3008 | January 31, 2010 at 10:21 am

No problem, Urbain. And yes, the situation in Texas is appalling. There is hope for change on the SBOE, however. For example, Rick Agosto (D), who sometimes randomly sided with the Religious Right, is not seeking re-election, and the only person running in the primary in the Democrat-leaning district is Michael Soto, an honest-to-goodness scholar and professor. On March 2, former chair Don McLeroy, who presided over the asylum, could be knocked out in the Republican primary elections (no Democrats are running in his district) by Thomas Ratliff, son of the former lieutenant governor, who has a pro-science platform and has raised about tenfold more campaign contributions than his opponent. Even if you've never supported the GOP in your life, do check Ratliff out.
55. Bry | January 31, 2010 at 3:45 pm

I'm studying to be a Psychologist, they're coming for us too, for now because of the gay rights thing, we pushed them back in the 1970s luckily, but my generation has to take up the arms now and make sure the junk scientists and junk medicine.

I agree we have to fight against the anti-intellectualism, but that's only half the fight… the "Refusal to Perform Duties based on Strong Religious Principles" they're trying to pass for hospitals and doctors offices need to be stopped now. I'm a Christian but I know that my oath as an eventual doctor of psychology tells me to "do no harm" and that means I check my religious beliefs at the door when I'm in the office. I do my job and if I find something "objectionable" I hold my nose and do my job anyway and when it's over it's over – granted I find very little "morally objectionable"
56. Kay Moore | January 31, 2010 at 4:51 pm

Make sure the junk scientists and junk medicine… what, Bry? Are discredited? Are promoted? Are published in 50-foot letters on the side of a mountain? You forgot to finish the sentence. ^_~

Now, I'm not entirely up on the state of medical ethics but you seem to be criticizing an effort to protect a doctor who refuses to violate their personal ethics/morals from legal action. It would seem that preventing the establishment of this protection would be an even more gross and blatant violation of a doctor's civil rights than the SSM advocates claim is being visited on them. No one should have the power, especially in the form of a law, to compel another person to violate their personal sense of morality. Just to name the first example that springs to mind, the nation gives official legal protection to anyone who regards service in war as immoral and does not compel them to violate their morality to serve; in fact, the Amish and Mennonites are legally exempt from compelled service for religious reasons. If the state gives a religious person protection from having to violate their personal morals concerning war, why ought the state to deny a religious person protection from having to violate their personal morals concerning what medical treatments they dispense?
57. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 1:38 am

Kay writes a whole bunch of stuff about how doctors, pharmacists et al. should not be compelled by law to do their jobs in the face of their personal religious beliefs.

Kay, if a pharmacist does not want to fill a legal, valid prescription because of his or her religion, then he or she should not be a pharmacist.

I worked in the hospital environment for many years. Each and every hospital had a policy that said, in effect, your religious objections end when there is no other practitioner who can fill the script/do the transfusion/what-have-you. Period. Denying care to someone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is absurd and unethical.

Love,
Fiona
58. Ozymandias ('ca | February 1, 2010 at 5:55 am

Kay Moore: "No one should have the power, especially in the form of a law, to compel another person to violate their personal sense of morality."

Keith Bardwell:
"I found out I can't be a justice of the peace and have a conscience."

"I'm not a racist, I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house. My main concern is for the children."

""It's kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven't done wrong,"

For those who don't know, Keith Bardwell was a former JP in Louisiana who was sued LAST YEAR by an inter-racial couple when he refused to officiate their wedding ceremony (who then stepped down), citing his concern 'for the children' and that interracial marriages 'don't tend to last.'

By Kay's logic, Mr. Bardwell was CORRECT in his actions because to do otherwise would 'violate their personal sense of morality.'

Straight Ally – You are exactly right… as we have seen at the trial, science, when given the opportunity to study the phenomenon of homosexuality, has progressively strengthened our stand – which naturally places scientists, doctors, psychiatrists, etc. squarely in the 'faith-based cross-hairs'.
59. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:10 am

How do you figure? Would you argue that "just because a soldier doesn't want to turn a machinegun on women and children, he shouldn't be a soldier?" Or, even better, "just because a doctor doesn't want to sterilize someone as demanded by a law, he shouldn't be a doctor." In all three cases, you'd be saying that someone shouldn't be in a profession if they're going to refuse to do something they regard as morally wrong.

Oh, c'mon Fiona… you know perfectly well that no one's asking for a law to protect a doctor who refuses to dispense critical care as the physician of last resort due to moral beliefs. That's a complete red herring.
60. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:12 am

Kay, soldiers are not required to follow illegal orders. That's a red herring.

If a physician doesn't want to perform abortions, s/he can choose a specialty other than OB/GYN. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense birth control, they need to find another job.

Save me your "moral high ground" crap; you're just one more person trying to practice medicine without a license.
61. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:14 am

There's a sort of thick black line between "it's wrong for a law to force someone to violate their moral beliefs" and "someone refusing to do something for moral reasons is always correct to do so." Besides, the judiciary is a completely different matter because of the difference in what they are required to do.
62. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:14 am

PS to Kay:

Let me tell you a little story about tubal ligation. I had to *doctor shop* to get one, even with health insurance, because I was 29 years old and had no children. I had doctor after doctor tell me I was "too young" to make that decision and that I "might change my mind." (I have not regretted that decision for one moment.) If you go to any childfree discussion page, you will see countless women having the same experience of being denied sterilization surgery by some doctor who figured that all women really wanted to be mothers, whether they knew it or not.

You're a fraud, Kay. You don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Love,
Fiona
63. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:17 am

PPS to Kay:

Which of your civil rights shall we put on the ballot for consideration, Kay? I noticed that you have not yet answered this question. You support a ballot measure that took away rights from law-abiding citizens — rights to which imprisoned felons still have access, BTW — so I think it's only fair that you tell us which civil right of yours we are allowed to vote on.

Love,
Fiona
64. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:18 am

Not at all a red herring. If you want to argue that someone should stay out of any profession because they're unwilling to violate their sense of right and wrong on the off-chance that such a thing may be required of them, the argument applies very broadly to every profession where moral complications could arise.

It's not hard to operate from a moral high ground, Fiona, when the other person is essentially saying "stay out of any profession where you may be required to violate your personal morals."
65. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:22 am

I didn't answer the question because you and I don't agree on its basis. In the category of "rights", you put a slew of things that I do not regard as "rights" such as "reproductive rights" and the "right" to call an intimate union "marriage"; these I am happy to have put on a ballot and voted on. I am unwilling, however, to see things like the right to keep and bear arms or the right to speech put on a ballot and voted on.
66. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:25 am

Kay, you must be so proud of yourself.

When you get the piece of paper that says you are a pharmacist, part of your job is to fill legal prescriptions — not to dispense morality based on your religion at the window. Not everyone shares your religious belief — I know, that must come as a shock to you. Denying someone a prescription that their physician has given to them is a clear violation of the professional ethics of a pharmacist.

There are numerous medical specialties besides OB/GYN that someone may enter if they do not want to perform abortions or tubal ligations because of their religions beliefs.

You see, dear lady, your religious beliefs do not trump another party's right to medical care … no matter how much you might like to make it so.

As for your constant "soldiers" canard, I was a DoD civilian for 16 years. I am very much familiar with the UCMJ, because I supervised soldiers. Conscientious objector status is a very particular thing, and cannot be implemented just because someone has been mobilized. Conscientious objectors must appeal to the JAG and will be mustered out as a result. If one has become a Buddhist, for example, this would be taken as a valid reason to be mustered out as a CO. Otherwise, the whole "I don't want to shoot innocent people" thing is a canard because soldiers can (and do) disobey illegal orders. It is illegal to order a soldier to kill women and children, as you gave in your "example," because they are considered non-combatants.

You still haven't answered my question about which of your rights it's okay to vote on, and I'm not going to stop asking.

My other question, though, is this: Does it make you feel good somehow to take away peoples' access to equality under the law? If so, I have to wonder what horrific thing happened to you in your youth, that you can only feel good if you take part in actions that cause harm to others — people you've never even met.

Love,
Fiona (who is fully aware that her straight marriage remains completely unaffected by gay marriage, but very much fears the precedent that other rights can be stripped from those who may be next on the "who do you love to hate" hit parade …)
67. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:27 am

All right, Kay. You want to take away my right to reproductive privacy and decisions, I get that. And you want to take away the rights of my gay and lesbian friends to marry. I get that too.

Do you also want to take away my right to worship as I choose, since I'm not a fundamentalist Christian? How about my right to live in a secular nation instead of a theocracy?

Tell me, Kay, which of my rights are you willing to take away to satisfy your sense of bigotry? I'm straight, FYI, so think carefully.

Love,
Fiona
68. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:42 am

Um… wouldn't "fraud" imply that I'm representing myself as someone or something that I am not? If so, what do you believe I'm representing myself as, pray tell?
69. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:43 am

Kay, you're a fraud because you are going around pretending that physicians do not deny reproductive care to women — legal, reproductive care. They do. Those physicians are in violation of any number of ethical standards. No one forced them to be OB/GYN physicians; they chose it.

Get bent.

Love,
Fiona
70. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:43 am

Not really sure what you being straight has to do with anything but "right to worship" is sorta an extremely explicit First Amendment thing (for which I and all non-Christians are grateful) and as I covered, I regard that as something that ought not to be put to a vote.
71. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:49 am

Well, Kay, the reason I brought up my orientation is that most anti-equality people tend to assume that anyone in favor of equality must automatically be LGBT. It never seems to occur to them that this is not the case.

So, besides my right to control my own uterus, and the right of my gay and lesbian friends to marry, which other rights do you think should be taken away based on your concept of "morality"? I'm curious.

Love,
Fiona
72. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:54 am

Oh, I am very proud of myself, Fiona. I am personally successful, enjoy a generous measure of self-confidence, and can enjoy funhouse-mirror arguments without losing my good humor. 🙂

How interesting that I haven't mentioned religious beliefs beyond the initial rebuttal… that must be because I don't see religion as the only source of morality. Why do YOU assume that "morals" must mean "religious", Fiona?

Of course it doesn't make me feel good. But because I do not regard myself as doing that, I have no reason to feel bad. 🙂 As to horrible events in my youth… hmm… uh, there WAS that time that a tree fell across the road in front of my house… no, wait, that wasn't a horrible event for me (although the road suffered for a while). Lessee… uh… there was that time I devised a way to use high temperatures to ignite the powder primer in a shotgun shell but that was more of a surprise than a horrible event (no injuries, you see). I guess the only traumatic event I've ever experienced was my cat getting hit by a car but that's more of a minor tragedy that's part of life. So really, nothing horrible has happened in my youth. Sorry.

Love,
Kay (who is happy that Fiona is married and hopes it endures until she and her husband are 120 or however the longest-lived person in history lived).
73. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:16 am

Not pretending that at all. You have a really vivid imagination, however. 🙂

Getting bent would be bad for my back, probably. I'm told that heavy lifting could throw it out of whack although I somehow doubt that. Anyway, can't get bent.
74. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:21 am

Actually, I'm sort of weird like that… I tend to assume that everyone I meet is in the statistical majority. Greater chance of me guessing right.

I'd be extremely amused if someone attempted to control your uterus, Fiona, because I'm sure that it's impossible short of transmogrifying into a higher power all of a sudden. As to other "rights"… hmm… I'm not really up on the list of new inventions. I think someone's imagined a "right" to be on welfare and someone else came up with a "right" to never hear an unkind word but other than that, I can't think of any.
75. Richard | January 31, 2010 at 10:52 am

Yes, and this time, the Nazis are cloaked under a coalition–LDS, RCC, and Fundametalist Christian. Not the membership. The leadership of these three. I know many who are rank and file members. It is not the membership we have to worry about. It is those who are at the top of their leadership hierarchy that will be the source of the trouble.
76. Straight Ally #3008 | January 31, 2010 at 11:27 am

What strikes me, Richard, is that the leaders of these groups are not natural allies. Fundamentalist Christians, for the most part, don't even consider Mormons and Catholics to be Christians! They only seem to unite on pro-life or LGBT issues, and, as I described above, the anti-marriage equality platform is a house built on shifting sands, doomed to fail.
77. Richard | January 31, 2010 at 12:12 pm

Straight Ally, This is exactly why I love having you as part of this post. You have a way of cutting right to the heart of the matter. Yes, these three groups are only allies when it serves them. It is just like one of the stories I read about a couple where one has been sick and they are not allowed to file joint tax returns, the other spouse cannot list her on her health plan at work, and yet when they tried to get assistance to help cover the medical bills so that they would not end up on the street, they could not becaause they were considered married. We are only legal when it suits them. And that is just plain wrong! And yet, this is part of how the Prop H8 supporters continue to oppress us. And it really did NOT surprise me when it came out that the hierarchy of Protect Marriage and the Hierarchyof the LDS church were so intertwined as to be the same. And if you were in my area, I would love to see you at our Equality Team meetings. Whichever team you are a part of has a very great asset.
78. Callie | February 1, 2010 at 4:55 am

Very true about these groups not being natural allies. I distinctly remember my mother (Southern Baptist) refused to let me be friends with a girl on my softball team because she was a Catholic, and as all good Baptists knew/know that Catholics are really just devil worshippers. Srsly, that's what she called them. Ironically, my partner is Catholic too. Bet that just drives my mother even crazier.
79. Ed-M | February 1, 2010 at 6:27 am

Urbain, in the last saecular winter fascists grabbed ahold of a large and powerful nation, there was a place of safety for people to take flight to. This time around, if the h8ters were to take control there will be NO place of safety to go to, because they'll start World War 3. Why? Because they love Isreal as the key to their rapture and the destruction of all non-believers in the Apocalypse, and because they hate Muslims only slightly less than they hate us.
80. waxr | January 31, 2010 at 2:46 am

Does anybody have comments about Episode 1 of the prop 8 trial re-enactment?
You can watch it on marriagetrial.com http://marriagetrial.com/

I'm somewhat disappointed in the acting, it is obvious that the judge and some of the others are reading their lines, but given the time and money limitations, it is an excellent job. Discussion on the video ban is boring, but the opening argument by the plaintiff was excellent.
81. Urbain | January 31, 2010 at 2:55 am

I thought they were doing a pretty good job. My take was that they were using the exact transcripts of the proceeding, which is good.
82. ThatsMyCat | January 31, 2010 at 4:16 am

I really think it is a great idea. But I am not please with outcome. To cut to the chase, I wish that some actors would simply do a reading. Watching these actors, – who are trying hard but are wayyyyy out of their league – struggling to read the lines, and act lawyerly is bad, and the words really lose meaning and emphasis, thus causing a different interpretation.

This is far too important an issue for everybody to have the case introduced in such a manner. It feels like the dad of balloon boy was in charge – lets get this out there first and we can all get jobs, acting, promotion what ever.

It is just way too important. I would way rather just hear a reading. And have a director that understands the nuance of each character. You can't tell me that there are not a freak'n billion actors who would not die to work on this project. Please, find some folks who don't say things like, "let me reiterate, again…" Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!
83. Vaati | February 1, 2010 at 7:49 am

So far it's very good, I hope they can do the entire trial and have the whole thing up. It helps ground the trial in reality for some, seeing and hearing the trial *is* better than just reading through the many many transcripts and a lot of people who are only passively interested will not likely bother to do that. Can't wait for the next episode!
84. waxr | January 31, 2010 at 3:15 am

They are using the transcripts, and even making the transcripts available to the viewer. My worry is that too many people will be turned off by unimportant routine courtroom business and turn off the important testamony.

On the other hand, the exchanges between the judge and Cooper in the opening argument were at times dramatic. When the judge asked why not just leave this to the political processes and leave the courts out of it, Cooper shot back, "That is what the courts are for."

There is drama in this. The whole trial needs to be condensed to three or four hours, then presented as a TV movie in two parts.
85. RAL | January 31, 2010 at 3:33 am

I believe Cooper is an attorney for the defense. I think you mean Ted Olson.
86. waxr | January 31, 2010 at 5:37 am

You are correct. I meant Olson who did an excellent job responding to the judge in the opening argument.
87. ThatsMyCat | January 31, 2010 at 4:23 am

Drama? Who needs drama in this? We need truth. The director should be out looking for an aluminum christmas tree for all the good he does. I just know that the casting went like this, "well, we have johnny to be walker, oh he will be great with that beard and loud voice, and and and, jimmy will be Cooper – he loves the chance to wave his hands around and stuff. Gosh he'll be good, I guess.

This is way too important for such bafoonery. Please find some real people. Trust me, there are many actors who would die for the chance to work for free on this.
88. waxr | January 31, 2010 at 5:22 am

Considering the low budget, and shortage of time, they are doing a good job. I just fear that it will be too long to be really effective.
89. Ozymandias | January 31, 2010 at 5:22 am

And where do you think the directors will get the money to PAY for these actors?

The renditions aren't 'perfect' – but as we've seen in the transcripts, even Boise stumbled on a rare occasion. Gosh, these folks sound… realistic?
90. Alan E. | January 31, 2010 at 6:44 am

It is up to us to find the more "relevant" parts and spread those clips around, but it is also important to have the entire context available.
91. ThatsMyCat | January 31, 2010 at 6:57 am

It would be lower budget if they simply had an audio version. The focus would be much better, and easier to replicate. Its ok if we disagree. The priority for this project, in my opinion, should be clarity. These actors have a different mission. As I watch, it seems like that mission is survival. And that ain't a good thing.

Just make it an audio, as if it were a radio program. We can imagine what they look like. The tone of the actor judge is bombastic sometimes, and it seems that he is acting this way in order to build more drama. Well, this is not that kind of thing. He is injecting a view, simply because he has not had any lines for a little bit, and he has seen it on perry mason, so it must be "the way to do it."

To many of us, there is plenty of drama without the need for flailing arms, and whining.

It is amateur and improper regardless of the well meaning aim.

Hey, I am sure that most people will simply be glad to "see" the case re-enacted. I feel that the way in which you say something can matter a great deal.

This seems rushed.

I also strongly believe that we in the GLBT community are possibly best suited to create a very good re-enactment.
92. ASW | January 31, 2010 at 3:16 am

This is probably a repeat, but it's apropos:

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

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_moment_a_mere…
93. Wade MacMorrighan | January 31, 2010 at 3:44 am

What a fabulous quote, thanks for sharing!
94. Richard | January 31, 2010 at 10:55 am

Thank you ASW. This is one more example of why FDR is listed as one of our greatest presidents.
95. Kay Moore | January 31, 2010 at 2:41 pm

Were I able to ask it of the man, I would be very curious: if a numerical superiority by either states or voters depriving the minority of its rights marks a failure of our constitutional system… what would you say about a numerical superiority (largely appointed by FDR himself) in the court system pulling the Korematsu v. United States stunt?
96. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 1:42 am

Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned. I think that FDR would be embarrassed if he were here to ask nowadays.

Love,
Fiona (who is constantly amazed at the excuses Prop 8 supporters will come up with to justify their bigotry — "Look! The guy you quoted did something bigoted, so I'm okay and you're a poopoo-head." Whatever.)
97. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:27 am

Of course it was overturned but the critical fact is that the man who set this standard appointed most of the justices that made the Korematsu ruling, issued the executive order that brought the ruling about, and instructed his government to argue that dragging citizens into concentration camps because of their racial background was constitutional. I'm just curious how his moral statement and his actions square.

You entirely missed my point, Fiona. I thought the statement was sort of ironic in light of later events. Hypocrisy does not justify anything other than ridicule.
98. Sarah | February 1, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Posted to my facebook with positive responses all ready. This is a terrific quote that really sums up this case for me. Thank you for sharing.
99. Wade MacMorrighan | January 31, 2010 at 3:34 am

Ummmm…would the Hawaii legislature's CUs bill *really* have afforded their GLBT citizens with *all* of the same rights of civil marriage, just under another name? After all, it seems like the thing that gets repeated by the media most often is that CUs are identical to mariage, just without the name! However, so far as I am aware, no CU is equal to marriage in practice, because none have ever covered every single right automatically guaranteed by civil marriage, meaning that there are *always* some 1,000 legal rights that people with a CU or DP do NOT have! So, why do they keep spreading this blatantly false information? CUs have been studied, and they have been found to be un-equal!

So, another question is, it the legislators know this, than why do they keep incisting that heterosexuals deserve special marriage rights?

Also, what is sooooo hard to understand (I'm speaking about Joe and Jane Q Public, here, and even LUV Iowa members) that the right to vote comes with limitations and cannot be use punitively to demonstrably harm a given minority; and that it's the duty of the Judicial branch of gov't to protect the rights of minorities as unpopular as they may be? Do they really care st the rights of anyone but the majority? Are they 8that* Fascist?!
100. Urbain | January 31, 2010 at 3:43 am

Do they really care st the rights of anyone but the majority?

They don't.

As Sarah mentioned above, they will not care until it's their rights that are infringed.
101. waxr | January 31, 2010 at 5:27 am

CU can never be equal to marriage. It is separating people into two groups: those on the inside, and those on the outside.
102. Ozymandias ('ca | February 1, 2010 at 6:56 am

Wade, the differences between CUs and marriage are vast and pretty fundamental – and you're right that MSM hardly ever points out the differences. Besides the federal-level benefits that are denied to CU/DP arrangements, there's another difference that a lot of people never think about yet we hear more and more often –

A CU/DP (even if it has all the state-level benefits that marriage has) is immediately invalid if the couple moves to a state that doesn't recognize them. That can't be overstated – the idea that my relationship with my spouse is suddenly considered 'null and void' if I move to another state is ludicrous yet it is entirely true… and that is something that hasn't happened to hetero couples in a long time.

A CU/DP also has the effect of forcibly 'outing' a GLBT couple to employers – while this might not matter if I am working for a supporting company, it becomes much more of an issue if the corporation (or the specific workplace) is less so – I would consider that a gross invasion of privacy.

The whole 'religious freedom at risk' argument fails because in every state that has enacted Marriage Equality, there have been strong protections for religious organizations to make up their own minds about whether to recognize SSM or not. Naturally that doesn't make it to the anti-SSM advertisements because 'Your religious freedom is NOT at risk' rakes in less money from supporters than saying it is somehow.
103. Ozymandias ('ca | February 1, 2010 at 6:56 am

Whoops!

Love,

Ozy
104. Cat | January 31, 2010 at 3:59 am

People tend to forget that the constitution is subject to the democratic process through amendments, so in a way the court always follows the will of the people, as it is laid down in laws. The courts do not dream up new rules to follow (although interpreting the law as society changes surely is a gray area). I'm pretty sure that a large majority realizes that 'equality under the law' is a crucial concept that must be protected. However, picking and choosing based on your own situation and prejudices is very human, and that's where the courts must 'protect us from ourselves', as condescending as that may sound.
105. Lymis | January 31, 2010 at 4:27 am

When you are a sufficient majority, it never occurs to you that the same rules you're using could apply to you. The Christian right-wing assumes (in this case, I'm sure accurately) that having decided that the majority can take away fundamental rights, nobody is ever going to vote to take away THEIR right to marry. Or vote. Or worship.
106. Sarah | January 31, 2010 at 5:41 am

But the thing is, at some point in time, a different religion could dominate, or no religion. That's hard for a lot of people to believe and for sure it isn't happening any time soon but if that were to ever come about they are setting a precedent to have their own rights trampled over. This really is not just a gay rights issue – it is a minority rights issue and just a plain RIGHTS issue. They just don't see that.
107. Kay Moore | January 31, 2010 at 2:47 pm

They're sure about this because short of a constitutional amendment, it's effectively impossible. The precedent is far too deep such that it's probably that not even the Supreme Court would have the courage to take an ax to it.
108. Marlene Bomer | February 1, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Something the religious reicht can never fathom is the fact that where there are no laws protecting on the basis of GI&E/SO means *they* can be discriminated against too!

When I do My guest lectures, I *always* try to get this scenario in:

Say I win the $200mil Mega Millions jackpot.

I decide I want to invest my winnings, so I proceed to buy as many of the home rental agencies in town (I live in a college town, so there are a good number of apartments and homes to rent).

Since I have a few million left, I decide to buy up some of the stores, coffeehouses and restaurants.

I have the apartment manager bring you and your spouse into my office, where I politely sit you down.

I see by your lease that you're a straight couple… no trouble, stellar inspections… all nice and tidy — but you're evicted. You have until the end of the month to find another place, but good luck trying to find one, because I own just about every place in town now.

And Sally, I see you're a waitress in one of my restaurants, and Jim, you're a mechanic at the Chevy dealership. Guess what, you're both fired… you'll get a week's pay as severance, and good luck trying to find a job in this economy.

As the couple goes home in shock, they decide they can't eat in, so they decide to head to their favourite restaurant. When they arrive, there's a new sign in the window: "We only serve TLBGs and our allies!".

Curious, they try to enter, but are stopped by the greeter, who says "I'm sorry, but your kind aren't welcome here. Please leave or I'll be forced to call the manager."

Now this scenario is absolutely, 100% perfectly legal! Why, because I'm not discriminating against the couple because of their age, gender, marital status, religion, race, or any other protected status.

Sally and Jim are being discriminated against because they're *heterosexual*! And because there's no currently no local, state, and federal law which tells me I can't do it!

Here in my hometown of Bowling Green, OH there was an effort to get additions to our housing and non-discrimination ordinances, both of which sailed through.

At the third reading of the ordinance, there was a *huge* meeting, where dozens of people spoke both for and against the ordinances.

Both ordinances passed overwhelmingly, but bare weeks after they passed, a coalition of the religious reicht churches in town passed around petitions, and now it's up on the ballot in November.
109. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 3:10 pm

Technically, it's spelled "reich", without the "t".

And yes, amazingly I am very aware of the type of scenario you're talking about Marlene. This is why I strongly disapprove of highly detailed nondiscrimination statutes: to cover deserving groups, you have to constantly change them to include those groups because the detailed language excludes everyone not specifically named. Congress has to amend federal statutes to protect sexual orientation because the detailed law excludes it by not mentioning it. A nonspecific law, however, broadly protects everyone without prejudice or regard.
110. Larry Kenneth Little | January 31, 2010 at 4:32 am

Religion's hatred is a powerful tool. At lease 99.9% percent of them learned to hate from the pulpit.
111. Dieter M. | January 31, 2010 at 5:17 am

ironically, the anti-gay side has been spouting "activist judges" from day one, so they have an excuse to use if they lose. They planted that seed early.
so if they WIN, we can simply use their own words, and point out that they only won because of these "activist judges."

they look bad either way.
112. David | January 31, 2010 at 5:33 am

For those of you interested in more information about how the Prop8 campaign was felt by at least a few in the Mormon Church – here is a link to a story that contains some interesting ideas. http://californiamormon8.blogspot.com/
Love, David
113. David | January 31, 2010 at 5:37 am

Well, it looks like the item has been removed from the website! Sorry
Love,
David
114. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 11:54 pm

David, thank you. Now I don't feel so bad when I have visual lapses. Nice to know I am not alone there.
115. David | January 31, 2010 at 5:45 am

here's the correct http address, sorry, my vision fails me… http://californiamormonon8.blogspot.com/
116. ThatsMyCat | January 31, 2010 at 7:19 am

Well, each individual has to choose. I really think that the writer is great. But, he is a member of a very big organization that has dedicated itself to hurting us. I feel for him, and I will try not to make too rash a judgement when I see the boys and their bikes, with white shirts and clip on ties in our town.

I wonder how long they will fight? If we are allowed to marry, will they ramp it up even more? And will the blogger stay with his church? Even though he knows it is wrong on so many counts.

It is sad. And, after reading his words, I do feel differently.

Thanks for the link.
117. Kay Moore | January 31, 2010 at 2:54 pm

They'll fight as long as you will, TMC, although you're unlikely to see much more than statements of principle and legal political donations to causes that they favor. So no, no ramp-up.
118. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 1:43 am

Really, Kay? How can you say "there'll be more this-and-that" and then say "no ramp-up"?

Please explain that logic. I'm dying of curiosity.

Love,
Fiona
119. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 6:30 am

Because the actions that I specified don't constitute a "ramp up" because the phrase implies that they'll do something more than what they're currently doing. Presently, they're making statements of principle and making legal donations to causes that they favor. Thus, no "ramp-up".
120. Vaati | February 1, 2010 at 9:41 am

Kay, what reason do they have to fight if we start winning more? I understand that religious convictions run deep, but usually when the church has an idea for something and it's popularity runs out you hear much less about it and more about the issues they remain to fight.

(Such as abortion, one of the few popular ideas left, abstinence until marriage hasn't gone down as well, nor has their stance on birth control, or the shellfish mentioned as an abomination, or my personal bible favorite of stoning your non-virgin wife to death.)

When gay marriage becomes commonplace I think they will have to focus on their other so called moral issues, a person or entity must pick it's fights wisely and the Catholic Church has survived by doing just that.

The thing is, we will *never* stop fighting, so in the long run I do believe the Catholics will lighten up a little on this, lest they lose my generation in favor of things like equality and understanding… though they might anyway. Most people are Catholic or fundamentalist Christian or Mormon until they reach the age of reason, as Mr. George Carlin would say.
121. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 11:31 am

Because so long as the fight is in an institution where all that matters is your lawyers and who you have in a particular court, no victory is permenant. Yet another virtue of fighting through competing majorities: it's really hard to convince the majority of people to go backwards after they've gotten used to going forwards and so victories of progress are stronger and fighting against them is all the more futile. The chances of what are currently called "gay rights" catching on long-term are very low although the pressure to eliminate the social distinction between a homosexual and heterosexual person is due to go through the trend that racial relations went through: a continual evolution towards erasing the social distinction between whites and non-whites.

If it becomes commonplace, yes, they will likely give up the fight and move on. But not if it becomes commonplace through fiat alone.

And most people are liberal until they grow up and get a job. Observation of similar absurdity.
122. Sarah | February 1, 2010 at 1:46 pm

"it’s really hard to convince the majority of people to go backwards after they’ve gotten used to going forwards and so victories of progress are stronger and fighting against them is all the more futile."

I've met a lot of people who have changed from being against equal marriage rights to being for them, but not-a-one who has changed from for to against 🙂
123. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 3:04 pm

Precisely my point, Sarah.
124. fiona64 | February 3, 2010 at 6:18 am

Kay opined: And most people are liberal until they grow up and get a job.

Fascinating. You see, just about everyone I know had the opposite experience. I was a bible-thumping, anti-choice twit when I was in high school. I knew it all. (Sort of like certain conservatives I could name here, in fact.)

Then, I got out into the reality-based community. I am sure, Kay, that you have read that reality has a distinct, liberal slant. It was amazing what happened once I discovered that life was not at all as black-and-white as I had believed.

Ignorance is bliss because you just don't know any better.

Love,
Fiona
125. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 2:00 pm

I see you omitted the sentence right after where I said that my observation was absurd, at least as absurd as the "most people are Catholic or fundamentalist Christian or Mormon until they reach the age of reason" observation quoted by Vaati. It seems mildly pointless to debunk what was already called absurd by the person who said it.

When I got out of school into the real world, I discovered it to be a place of cold cruel facts and as illiberal as it could possibly be. Interesting that you discovered a world where what you feel is what is true.
126. Ronnie | January 31, 2010 at 5:40 am

Hear are a few really good songs that were the anthems for the Natinal Equality March On D.C. in october of '09:

"Stand For Love" by Toby Madigan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8wQ2WjJIz0

"Courage of Our Convictions" by Julie Clark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjT_aRRiHqw&fe…

"Equality" by Todd (Tif) Fernandez: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhWeC-Wdk5Q&fe…

"Our Time Has Come" by Sean Chapin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3ROvinHa7Y&fe…
127. Richard | January 31, 2010 at 10:58 am

Then there is "Free" by Scott Fre & Friends. YOu can find that one at http://www.scottfree.net as well as links to the videos at the Stonewall site.
128. truthspew | January 31, 2010 at 5:41 am

I tend to agree with the crux of this argument. Only the courts have been the bulwark against the tyranny of the majority.

Here in RI we're trying to move the legislature and we're doing a pretty good job, but it's the battle of Sisyphus and we're battling the impression that the 2010 elections here will be a bloodbath.

My guess is that it won't be anything of the sort. But the legislators are loathe to move on anything. It's amusing. I've often advocated that governments in the U.S. should be more like those in some parts of Europe (France, Germany), the government should be petrified of the people as opposed to we being scared of the government.

But it seems the former cripples government. It's very odd.
129. Richard | January 31, 2010 at 5:47 am

Thank you, Brian! Too bad Team George won't read this and realize the truth that is stated here. But then, this is about the court doing something Team George doe not want it to do, so therefore, in this case Team George will see the court as wrong, evenn when the court is doing its job the way it is supposed to.
130. Larry Kenneth Little | January 31, 2010 at 7:13 am

I have been following the Proposition Hate trial since it began, thanks to Courage Campaign for keeping me in touch. I am not gay. I have been married 40 years to a woman whom I love very much. I’m eighty years old and when I was just a ten year old kid, I remember being terrified by religion. There was that “lake of fire” I will boil in if I masturbate and a long list of other things that will burn me in Hell. It is no different today: fear and hate is all they sell and that includes the Islamic countries.
The Republicans are virtually unanimous: “we want to get the gay hater votes so keep the pot stirred”…….”we want compulsory pregnancy:”…………”.and we want a white man in the White House paid for by the pharmaceutical corporations, thanks to the rightwing Supreme Court ruling. All these are hot button issues. The Republicans are united as pure obstructionists. Their only goal is to destroy the Obama presidency. Save him.
That is what the next election is all about. We already see what 41 Senators, are doing……Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’ Reilly and FOX NEWS are telling millions of viewers what a bad man Obama is: these lying voices are the only ones they are hearing.…Elect enough Democrats to override filibusters and enact laws to give women the right to privacy and freedom to choose, and give the gay population the same privilege. Stop religion’s abuse of power. Make it a felony to use a tax free status for political purposes.
Separate the church and state. Proposition Hate is church; California is state.
131. Richard | January 31, 2010 at 11:02 am

Thank you, Larry. It is great to know that not only the younger generation of heterosexuals are in our allies group, but also the generation who fought in WWII and Korea. I too had the lake of fire nightmares. And I also had an atheist male parental figure in the house who could quote and twist the Bible better than any fundamentalist preacher. Still have some nightmares on occasion, but I have a man beside me who let's me know that they are only nightmares and helps me come out of the fear.
132. Urbain | January 31, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Good points, Larry. It took me five years after leaving home to get over the “lake of fire” nightmares from fundamentalist indoctrination.

I’ve seen the same political issues you’ve raised and pretty much agree with your take.
133. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 9:18 am

Thank you, Larry. I am grateful for your perspective (and a little embarrassed that it has taken me this long to say so).

Love,
Fiona
134. Monsignor Scott West | January 31, 2010 at 8:08 am

The religious right is willing to lie, cheat and steal (yes steal) our rights, our money, our very lives, in order to get their agenda.

I encourage everyone to stand up and fight, and yes, if you are Atheist or arelgious, you need to speak even louder.

I do think that they are stealing my rights (and rites) but they are stealing yours even more.
I will stand up with you… just make a lot of noise no matter who you are and what you believe.
Make more noise than them and someone will HAVE to pay attention
Scott+
135. Larry Kenneth Little | January 31, 2010 at 1:56 pm

I remember 1941. It was before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. An article in the Commercial news told about two policeman who were peeking into a bedroom of two men who live together and observed them having sex. They were arrested and given a prison sentence of 2 to 14 years. It happened in Indianpolis, Indiana
136. Richard | January 31, 2010 at 2:16 pm

And Larry, that is a god example of what this trial is all about–getting the government out of our homes and out of our bedrooms. Thank you for being one of the voices of reason. You and your wife deserve at least 40 more years of happiness and love.
137. rpx | January 31, 2010 at 8:38 pm

Thank you Larry for sharing and giving us very valuable first person accounts from history.
138. David | February 1, 2010 at 1:16 am

Yes, thank you Larry for your views from a historical perspective.
Love,
David
139. Chris | February 1, 2010 at 12:40 am

Thank you so much for the Marbury v. Madison tag! I am currently taking a Law and Politics of Civil Rights class and while briefing this case I was cursing at the current day contradictions- If these Justices are reading the same cases I am(and apparently you guys are!) then this thing should be a no brainer-
140. waxr | February 1, 2010 at 5:19 am

Marbury v. Madison is an important decision only in the sense that it stated what nearly everybody already accepted.

The doctrine of Judicial Review has its roots in English Common Law, but it was overturned when Parliament overthrew James II, and declared itself supreme. The doctrine made its way America and was a part of some state constitutions. Although not overtly stated in the Constitution, it can be found in the Federalist papers. Plus the Common Law doctrine that no man can be his own judge ruled out the possibility of congress or the executive branch ruling on the constitutionality of their own acts.

So the doctrine of Judicial Review was generally accepted by everybody, except President Jefferson.

Why did Jefferson object? Easy: Jefferson came into the White House with a congress that was overwhelmingly members of his own party. It was nearly a total victory over the Federalist party. Except that the Supreme Court was made up entirely of Federalists.

In 1802, the Supreme Court was understaffed, underpaid, and lacked the power to enforce its own decisions. Marbury v. Madison was a test case. Marbury was clearly in the right. But how could the Supreme Court coerce Secretary of State James Madison to carry out the instructions of the previous congress?

Justice Marshall was brilliantly devious in his decision. He first affirmed that Madison was breaking the law, but then said that the congressional act which gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over this type of case was unconstitutional because congress could not expand the courts powers, therefore the Court could not take action. This gave the Court an out.

Jefferson and Madison were stuck. If Madison did not deliver the letter, he was in violation of the law. If Madison delivered it, the Federalists won.

Ironically, legal scholars say that the Supreme Court did have original jurisdiction in Marbury v. Madison, therefore the issue of judicial review was academic.
141. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 3:36 am

Ok a little off topic but a friend of mine on nj.com is arguing with these people on an article about Haitian refugees coming to NJ and he is doing it in partial french (he's not Haitian or French)….I am not commenting on that site anymore because 1.my 2 handles(business and personal) got blocked and 2. those people are harsh.

But I am having a lot of fun watching him humiliate them…LMAO!
142. s saxon | February 1, 2010 at 4:21 am

FINALLY, finally we are getting it!!!

The Constitution is meant to protect the minority from the prejudicial will of the majority, not give the many (by means of the vote) a way to take away the rights of a disenfranchised few!

Using the popular vote as a means to deny the equal rights of a minority is not Democracy! It is voter approved bigotry.

Equal Treatment is the Constitutional RIGHT of every American– Gay or straight, black or white, man or woman–and this right should NEVER be determined by the popular vote.

Love,
Sylvia
143. waxr | February 1, 2010 at 5:40 am

It is not the minority the Constitution and Court are protecting. It is the individual. Prop 8 would be equally wrong if it deprived merely a single individual from his or her rights. The marriage trial is not a class action representing gays and lesbians. It is merely four individuals sueing the state for their rights.
144. Michael Herman | February 1, 2010 at 4:44 am

THANK YOU.

Every single one of those "the people have spoken" idiots needs to read this. I propose that this information should be used as a part of a campaign to educate the public on civil rights.
145. Ben | February 1, 2010 at 5:18 am

Please remember that if there were a vote in the US today about recognition for Christmas as a national holiday, mandating the use of the phrase "Merry Christmas" in commercial advertising rather than "Happy Holidays" (or nothing), despite separation of church and state, it would also pass. Just because it's the majority, doesn't mean that it's correct. Our constitution is supposed to set up ways for the courts to protect the rights of minorities because minorities are the canaries in the coal mine.
146. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 5:36 am

There is a case before the 9th Circuit Court in which the judge is being asked to rule that the 1st Amendment applies solely to Christianity:
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/g…

Quote:

During the course of the case, the CDCR, [California Department of Corrections] other related defendants, and the Assistant Attorneys General who represents them have argued before the court that Pagans are not deserving of equal civil rights as are provided adherents of the preferred faiths. In one of their first arguments to the court, the defendants said that certain “traditional” faiths are first tier faiths and that those faiths were meant to have equal rights and protections under the United States Constitution, but that all of the other faiths, for example, Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, Sikhs, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jains, are second tier faiths deserving of lesser rights, and therefore are not meant to have the same equal rights and protections under the United States Constitution as the first tier faiths.

Now, in an amicus brief filed in the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals in support of the CDCR and the other defendants, an organization called Wall Builders,Inc, which is represented by the National Legal Foundation, has argued that Christianity is the only religion that should be protected under the Constitution or at the very most other monotheistic religions might also be included. They also argue that the term religion only applies to Christianity or monotheistic faiths, and that anyone else, including the Pagans, are not really a religion for the purpose of Constitutional protections.
—-
There are indeed people who want to turn this secular nation into a theocracy — a notion they are only too happy to support when it's their faith in the catbird seat, but decry when it's another faith.

Love,
Fiona
147. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 5:51 am

You know what, that makes me so mad, that I want to punch a baby right now(note the sarcasm)…..not that I would do that…..unless it was Stewie.

Hey CDCR and Wall Blockers, Inc…. The what is separation btw. church and state and freedom of religion?

Oh wait let me rephrase that: Freedom of religion as long as you practice it the way I want you too.

I'm going to be frank, now I'm not saying that we should do this because it is beyond acceptable but do people have to get violent in order to tell them to mind their own business and STFU! …I mean we all know that they will go that far…it's a fact.
148. Straight Ally #3008 | February 1, 2010 at 5:56 am

The Wallbuilders are an example of the historical revisionists I mentioned above. The horrifying thing is that their founder and president, David Barton, is on the expert panel reviewing the social studies standards in Texas right now. It's like I've woken up in a Jack Chick tract.
149. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:02 am

Apparently the Wallbuilders are unfamiliar with the fact that the US Supreme Court decided in favor of a case that established Wicca as a religion (to the extreme disgust of Dubya, who famously opined that "That's not a religion" when the Wiccans at Ft. Hood requested official time for their practice was permitted to those who practiced the religions of The Book).

I have no doubt that they believe US law is based on the bible, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Sad for them.

Love,
Fiona
150. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:03 am

Dear Ronnie:

Remember, we are bigger and better than the people who want to return to the days when witches and gay people were burned alive at the stake.

Love,
Fiona
151. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 6:35 am

So did Kay ever say which "right" she was willing to give up?
152. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:39 am

Oh, no. Because, you see, there are "rights" and then there are rights. According to Kay, a woman doesn't have the right to make her own reproductive decisions, so that is just a "right" and can go on the ballot. Gay and lesbian couples don't have the right to marry, so that is just a "right" and can go on the ballot. Her rights, OTOH, are things that cannot be voted on, such as the right to keep and bear arms.

I suspect that I am Kay's worst nightmare: a pro-choice, progressive/liberal, Democrat, feminist, childfree straight woman with a dead-eye aim.

Love,
Fiona
153. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:00 am

Yes, she did. Fiona knows this too because she picked up two examples from my statements and went on to ask something about the right to worship. I think she also asked something about my childhood…
154. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:01 am

Oh no, Fiona… that sounds awesome. 🙂 See, I am pro-choice, progressive/conservative, Republican, feminist, childfree, straight, and have a dead-eye aim as well.
155. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 7:07 am

Fascinating. Kay claims to be pro-choice, but maintains that women don't have the right to privacy over their reproductive decisions and thus would put that on the ballot.

She claims to be progressive and conservative at the same time (I must admit, I wonder how that works …).

She claims that laws are based on morality but can't cite any.

And she wonders why I call her a fraud.

Love,
Fiona
156. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:45 am

It's all in the definition of terms, Fiona. You regard liberalism to constitute progress whereas I regard conservatism as creating progress on issues. You see pro-choice as being relevant only to "reproductive rights" whereas I look at it literally and generally believe that people should be presented with as many choices as possible on any given issue.

I didn't generally feel the need to cite any, Fiona. "Action A is wrong and warrants punishment B" is the form of all criminal laws and I sort of assumed you were aware of that.

I still wonder that, actually, because I'm not representing myself as anything other than a person on the internet.
157. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 9:19 am

Kay Moore wrote:

Blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah.

And the earth replied: ::snore::

(With credit as due to Bill.)

Love,
Fiona
158. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 9:26 am

LMAO!!!!!! I'm not sure and don't quote me on this but, and Richard will really get a kick out of this, I think I figured something out……Kay Moore just may be Curious George's Drag name or one of several personalities….

I mean Kay Moore is a pretty obvious Drag name if not a porn star pseudonym……….BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
159. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 9:28 am

Dear Ronnie:

Believe me, that thought crossed my mind …

Love,
Fiona
160. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 11:18 am

Glad to hear it. 🙂
161. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 11:19 am

Admittedly, I DO play multiple personalities at times. It's an interesting existence.
162. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 6:41 am

Kay Moore(great porn name by the way)

What my 2nd mother is trying to ask is that since prop ha8tes biggest argument is the bible what right should we vote on based on the bible?

Gluttony is a sin….so we should not allow plus size people to get married…they can only marry skinny people….yeah?
163. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:45 am

Not exactly, Ronnie. Madame Kay is trying to pretend (apparently) that her bible is the basis for law, since she says "morality" is the compelling state interest. I am asking her about civil law. I couldn't care less what she thinks her Bible says. I want to know which of her rights under civil law she is willing to have the public vote on for removal, since she supports voting to remove rights from groups that she personally finds "immoral" (like, apparent, LGBT people and pro-choice women).

Love,
Fiona
164. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 6:49 am

I know I was channeling Dieter because I think she's on the verge of channeling Anita Bryant……LMAO!
165. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 6:50 am

If the bible is "kay" law, when do we get to put on the ballot "when any group, person, or organization" judges another they will immediatly be stoned to death for their sins in the town center?
166. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 6:52 am

@SLSmith66 (I think you're also on the SacBee, am I right?), I want to know why I can't own Canadians, as Leviticus 25:44 states that I may own slaves as long as they are from neighboring nations.
167. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 6:57 am

Oooo I want to do that…can it be like a carnival game?…..Like knock down the sinners? and I win a giant Curious George?

Ok I should tell you guys that I have a little obsession with monkey's…I have like hundreds of them….candles, statues, puppets, stuffed animals….I have yet to find the perfect giant stuffed monkey…..I WANT ONE!!!!!(with greedy spoiled sneer)
168. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 7:04 am

You know what, Ronnie? There is a really scary Shirley Jackson story called "The Lottery" that you should look up. It's all about these self-righteous people who can't wait to get together in the town square to stone the sinners … until they discover that it's their turn to be stoned to death.

In fact, here's the link to it: http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lotry.html

See if some of this doesn't sound awfully familiar.

Love,
Fiona
169. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:05 am

I don't have a Bible, Fiona. Do you?

You know the answer to your incessant question, Fiona, because you specifically asked about it.
170. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:07 am

Yeah, I've read that story too Fiona. Pretty creepy, actually… I always interpreted it as being an Orwell-like analogy of a wholly totalitarian society in which you can be sacrificed for the good of "the people" and the selection is entirely random.
171. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 7:08 am

Kay, you did not answer. You gave me some crap that there are "rights" and then there are rights — your rights are civil rights, and other peoples' aren't.

Marriage has been established as a basic civil right. Just because you don't like that does not change the facts at hand. You support a measure that STRIPPED LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS OF THEIR LEGAL, CIVIL RIGHTS.

So, answer the question — WHICH OF YOUR LEGAL, CIVIL RIGHTS IS IT OKAY TO VOTE ON?

Love,
Fiona
172. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 7:30 am

In reference to Ronnie's monkey collection and the item he's missing: http://www.amazon.com/STUFFED-MONKEY-GORILLA-CHIM…

(It looks more like some kind of bonobos/orangutan hybrid to me, but it is awfully cute …)
173. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 7:42 am

sweet thanks fiona64….LOL
174. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:46 am

Once again, I have no intention of bothering myself to track down one or two posts among 150 to prove that I answered a question, Fiona. Do your own work.
175. Richard Walter (soon | February 2, 2010 at 2:38 pm

madame Kay? so now Team George's Drag ID has graduated from merely being a prostitute to owning a brothel? Oh, this just keeps getting better all the time! And Kay, one of the reasons that we often refer to you as Kay/George, or Kay/Team George, is that both handles seem to be the work of a rotating team of people who signed up to be at the central computer for a specified period of time. Not only are there so often disrepancies, but there are often repititions where it is so painfully obvious that you have not read any of the posts other than the one you are currently composing. So it really is as though you have now graduated to using two handles on this site for the same team of people to hide behind.
176. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:49 pm

I can sort of see why you would look at the totality of posts and see it that way, Richard, but the strange dissonance is more of a result of a single person responding to repetitive posts that take no notice of other posts that are scattered all over the thread because of the blog's system of recording post order. There is no way to sort comments by time and date of posting so they don't seem to happen in the order they're posted if you're reading directly from top to bottom. But there is only one me… at least, only one me that's allowed outside my skull.
177. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:16 pm

Trash bags don't have skulls!
178. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:03 am

Actually, "Kay" is a word that imitates a sound. Specifically, the letter "K"

I wouldn't know, Ronnie. It's been a really long time since I read the Bible. Do you have any suggestions, by chance?
179. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 7:14 am

It's still a great porn name…LOL I think that anybody that is sloth she just be put out of there misery….they don't benefit society.
180. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 6:54 am

I think kay is the person on sacbee.com who I'm fighting with now. Same no logic arguments!
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/…
181. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:08 am

Actually, no. I was once on the chat board of some Colorado paper, however… I can't remember which one offhand but I seem to recall that it was published in Denver.
182. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 6:56 am

Yes fiona I'm on sacbee… Having fun with the idgets over there. You should come back and help with the last post as like I said I have a real winner commenting on there that SSM should not be allowed because HIV is spread only by gay homosexual males.. He has really chapped my fanny!
183. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 7:03 am

It would not surprise me at all to learn that Kay Moore and YesLion are the same person; neither one of them could argue their way out of a wet paper sack if you handed them a guidebook and a machete.

BTW, if you look for my posts (I use the same handle over there), you can check out what I've stated in the past. I've been working on behalf of marriage equality since 2004, and I do get weary going over the same ground against the same completely ignorant opponents. At the same time, I consider that there may be some LGBT young person out there, struggling with the hate speech and such that so many religious organizations and individuals dish out to them, who just might read what I wrote and decide that they *won't* commit suicide today, thanks, because not everyone thinks they are disgusting.

Love,
Fiona
184. Ozymandias ('ca | February 1, 2010 at 7:52 am

Hi Fiona,

Just wanted to chine in on something you said above – 'I do get weary going over the same ground against the same completely ignorant opponents.'

I know exactly what you mean – the number of times I've posted the same information as rebuttal to yet ANOTHER comparison attempt between SSM and bestiality, pedophilia, etc.(for example) has been numerous… and there are times that I get pretty tired of it myself.

Yet I hold to the same idea you do – taking a stand (and providing actual INFORMATION instead of rhetoric) against bigotry and prejudice can be a big help for LGBT teens and young adults who struggle with the condemnation that those around them pile on.

I have also come to the conclusion that the information we post *isn't* for people who think that Gays are 'icky' – I have yet to see a single example of someone in that far-fringe camp change their minds (though I don't discount the possibility) based on our testimony.

Where our posts and discussions ARE beneficial are for all those folks reading but not commenting who might be 'on the fence' on the issue. Providing insightful information in response to 'La-la-la! I'm not listening! I'm not listening!' rants can give reasonable folks the opportunity to see and read for themselves information that they might not be aware of – and people who see us post information and actual evidence, and see the responses (or total lack of responses) can and does shift perception in our favor.

Just my thoughts and always,

Love,

Ozy
185. Richard Walter (soon | February 2, 2010 at 2:40 pm

Oh, really! HIV is only spread by homosexual men? Then how about the babies that have been born to HIV infected mothers who contracted HIV through the use of infected needles while injecting illegal drugs? Those babies did not get HIV from gay men. These people make me want to puke with their total ignorance!
186. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Of course it's not only spread by homosexual men. However, CDC statistics indicate that HIV infection is most common among gay men, injection drug users, and the female sexual partners of those injection drug users. Before stringent screening procedures were instituted, HIV also infected hemophiliacs in large numbers (made famous by the tragic case of Ryan White) because of an unusually high need for blood transfusions among that group; the transfusion infections also affected anyone who required blood during surgery or an accident. Happily, that danger has been curtailed but there remains a few groups with unusually high infection rates.
187. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 3:30 pm

I dare, Ronnie, because this isn't like the SSM debate generally where there are multiple interpretations but a simple matter of the disease-control agency of the federal government gathering infection numbers and quantifying which groups are most vulnerable. That you have a beloved family member who died of HIV complications is tragic but screaming and swearing at me for citing the government's numbers on HIV is pathetic.
188. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Yanno, I hope the SSM advocates use you as their spokesman, Ronnie. Your rabid foul-mouthed rantings would practically deliver a propaganda coup for the anti-SSM side gift-wrapped on a golden platter.
189. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:58 pm

And I hope that Bigots choose you to be their spokes model so I will know exactly who will be the first bigot burned at the stake…like you people want to do to us.
190. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 4:24 am

I will repeat some of it because it got deleted I was angry because of the way a certain person disrespectfully talked about a certain topic.

My uncle died in 1992 Jan 31st due to HIV complications(I was 8) and I will not tolerate somebody talking so nonchalantly about this.

Highlighted words: "How Dare you!"
191. fiona64 | February 3, 2010 at 4:29 am

Um, Kay dear? You're incorrect (as usual).

I notice that you don't have any sources for your assertions. I, OTOH, *do.*

The largest growing group of people living with HIV/AIDS is heterosexual women of color. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/index.htm

So, do you advocate that heterosexual women of color not be permitted to marry, since your (bogus) argument is that it's all about disease control?

Love,
Fiona
192. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 12:48 pm

You're really good at proving me right, Fiona. You didn't bother to read your own source in detail, especially the part where it says that "more men than women have HIV." Oh dear… and that qualifier "if new HIV infections continue at their current rate worldwide, women with HIV may soon outnumber men with HIV." In other words, there's a new growing trend but the CDC isn't sure if it'll continue and in the meantime, I'm STILL right about the most commonly infected groups being gay men, injection drug users, and the sexual partners of injection drug users. The literate and careful reader might profitably note that one of the most common ways for women to get HIV is "sharing injection drug works (needles, syringes, etc.) used by someone with HIV." (BTW, another thing stated in your source.) Say, doesn't that fit into the third category I mentioned?

Turns out that Google is very enlightening: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14mon2….
"AIDS appears to be making an alarming comeback. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the incidence of H.I.V. infection among gay men is shooting up, following an encouraging period of decline. The rise of infections among younger gay men, especially black and Hispanic men, is troubling, and the study carries the clear implication that people at high risk of contracting the disease are becoming less cautious." http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm
"Are young gay men particularly affected by HIV and AIDS?
Yes. In the USA, the UK, and a number of other European countries, HIV and AIDS have affected young gay men more than any other group of people." http://www.cdc.gov/NCHHSTP/newsroom/docs/FastFact…
"Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. Additionally, this is the only risk group in the U.S. in which the annual number of new HIV infections is increasing."
Do you have any other objections, Fiona?

Love,
Kay.
193. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 4:13 pm

PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
194. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 7:11 am

I LOVE THAT BOOK!!!!… I mean the story sad but really good book….You know it was a movie too staring Kerry Fisher
195. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 7:16 am

I just want to know why the "protectmarriage.com" site dosn't open up a comment section so that we may go over there and argue our side? Since we are open and let anyone post, why don't they?
196. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 7:18 am

Because they can't handle the truth.
197. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 7:22 am

So we can't debunk them like Ghost Busters (notice the Triple K reference mixed in with classic pop culture)

BWAAAAAA!!!

do do do do do do do…..do do do do do do do….Who ya gonna call!!!!!!
198. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 7:17 am

Kay wrote: Whose morality? The morality of whatever constitutes the majority at the time that the law in enacted. For the purpose of lawmaking, morality is a function of majority.

Disregarding that you tap-danced and did not answer my question about your rights (as usual) …

Um, no. Majorities are, by their very definition, temporary. And, my dear lady, the majority does NOT have the right to take away rights from the minority. This is referred to as *tyranny.* I am beginning to think you were home-schooled, because it is quite apparent that you are unfamiliar with the tenets of Federalist Paper No. 10. Allow me to help.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Quote: Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.

You see, Kay, this document explains a little something called "checks and balances." That means that, if some majority group votes to strip rights from an unpopular minority group, that action is subject to judicial review.

I am sure this will come as a shock to you, but we do not live in a direct democracy. Nor do we live in a society where the majority dictates personal morality.

if you don't approve of same-sex marriage, no one is going to force you to enter into one. OTOH, you are more than happy to force your personal morality onto people who do not share it. This is proto-fascism at its finest.

Love,
Fiona
199. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 7:20 am

PS — If the majority dictated morality, we would have no Loving v. Virginia (cited as immoral), Brown v. Board of Education (cited as immoral) and a whole host of other things of which the majority at the time disapproved but we now look back at in astonishment that there was ever even a question.

I confidently predict that the supporters of Prop 8 will be viewed by history with the same horror that we presently reserve for supporters of Jim Crow and the Third Reich.

Love,
Fiona
200. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 7:34 am

^^^^^^^
What fiona said!
201. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:01 am

The majority of the justices of the Supreme Court agreed, did they not?

I'm glad you're so confident, Fiona. Time will tell, especially with so much power laying in majority hands.
202. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 8:08 am

Oh Kay Moore(still waiting for that sex tape)

Do a little history reading…The Minority always wins in the end…you just haven't pushed us hard enough yet.
203. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 7:55 am

So is public morality, Fiona. It was once immoral (and thus forbidden under the law) for one party in a marriage to easily divorce the other and that has changed as the public morality has changed. For the purposes of lawmaking, morality is a function of majority.

Indeed. At that time, the states could check the national government; that has changed. The legislature could check the judiciary; while still true, it is no longer politically feasible. The state-orientated Senate could check the population-orientated House and vice versa; that has changed. Many of the checks and balances that were being defended in Federalist #10 have been demolished by progress as evidenced by where we presently find ourselves.

The majority dictates public morality for the purposes of lawmaking.

Yes, and people who believe that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 40-year-old are more than happy to force their personal conception of right and wrong onto a minority of people who do not share it. Where is your outrage?
204. Ozymandias ('ca | February 1, 2010 at 8:07 am

Kay wrote, "Yes, and people who believe that a 14-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 40-year-old are more than happy to force their personal conception of right and wrong onto a minority of people who do not share it. Where is your outrage?"

Ahh, I was wondering when the "pedophilia" argument was gonna come in. Should have taken bets!

So let's break that one down – IF a group was seeking to overturn the 'Age of Consent' laws, then a court of law would then need to determine whether pedophile relationships are damaging to the child, whether statistical analysis showed a prevalence of such relationships benefited society, and so on…

…and considering that pedophilia has NOTHING to do with the validity and constitutionality of Prop 8, to bring that argument to this group of people (who heard it over and over and over) is both a Red Herring, and a 'slippery slope' argument. Yawn – read that, debunked that, time to find a new argument… if you can.

Love,

Ozy
205. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:12 am

It's so challenging to pay attention to what is being argued, isn't it? Fiona makes some comment about how the anti-SSM people are a majority forcing their morality on a minority and I respond that age of consent laws are an example of a majority forcing their morality on a minority as well. Oddly, you seem to think that I was arguing that if gay marriage is approved, it'll lead to pedophilia. How, precisely, did you invent THAT connection?
206. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 8:13 am

Kay, you were the one who introduced pedophilia into the conversation …

Love,
Fiona
207. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 8:20 am

Because Kay Moore(1-800-555-BABE) you people always get there eventually, we are just trying to speed this up…….BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
208. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:24 am

If you were trying to call me, Ronnie, why would you be dialing a pig?
209. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 8:26 am

You know what's really funny, Ozy? She thinks we don't see through her nonsense.

Love,
Fiona
210. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:29 am

What's even funnier is that you are not gazing upon my works, mortal, and despairing. 🙂
211. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 8:30 am

Oh, I'm despairing, all right …

I really feel sorry for you, Kay. I am not being facetious. I pity someone who is so blinded by bigotry that she would vote to take away rights from someone she's never even met just because she disapproves of them for some imagined "immorality." If marriage is such a moral institution, why wouldn't you want those allegedly immoral people to have access to it? Is your Ferrari blighted if the fellow down the street gets one as well?
212. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 8:34 am

Because you are the pig at Luau…and I'm hungry!

Oink!!! Snort Snort!
213. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 11:06 am

Oh, I didn't mean it, Fiona… you don't need to despair if you don't want to. 🙂

I appreciate the vote of pity, by the by… don't care about the "bigot" line because I'm know what I am or am not. As to whether marriage is a moral institution, I don't think that's possible: people create the morality in institutions, not the other way around. I also do not see why you'd think I regard homosexuals as inherantly immoral or otherwise; their sexual preferences make them no less human and humans are exceptional for their ability to be both virtuous and vice-ridden. As to the Ferrari… if I had one, I'd sell it and use the proceeds to buy an Elantra. Man, that was a sweet ride…
214. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 7:39 am

You know what else…Lust is a sin too….No offense Bristol I have a stone with your name on it.

and while we are at it….. Anybody that pays over 2 mill for a pair of shoes needs to be hung…..Greed is very abundant in this country

…. anyone who gets angry because, what? they're fav. team lost should be lined up and shot…..Wrath sucks

Envy…well my mother is a diabetic and she hates that I can eat whatever amount of sugar I want….I should smother her?… If you say yes…I will DESTROY you!

Pride is the most serious of all the 7 deadly sins….So every time hear somebody say I am proud of my country, I should drown them in whatever fountain or body of water I could find?
215. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 7:43 am

Don't forget that "children who cuss at their parents" are up for stoning! I've met a few sassy teenagers in my time! They better watch out!
216. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 2:03 pm

Yes, and we have two teams of sassy teenagers here, or maybe it is just one team with two handles, and they alternate between which handle they use. Team George and Kay Moore.
217. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 8:01 am

Kay continues to insist: For the purposes of lawmaking, morality is a function of majority.

Blahblahblah. That's all I am seeing from you anymore, Kay. You are blatantly incorrect, of course … and your little pedophilia canard is irrelevant. 14-year-old children cannot consent under the law. Of course, you know that … but you had to throw in your little pedophilia equivalency argument to the legality of same-sex marriage. Could you at least *try* to be original? Just once?

Love,
Fiona
218. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:07 am

Precisely: 14-year-old children cannot consent under the law. And how was it determined? Not by careful psychological testing of small children but because it was determined by the majority that sexual intercourse between a 40-year-old and a 14-year-old was wrong. This was a moral decision, distinguishing between right and wrong as determined by those who enacted the age of consent laws. Nice try with the "pedophilia equivalent" accusation but once again, you seem to have lost track of the argument.
219. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 8:12 am

No, you're wrong (again). Not that I'm surprised. Not all states, let alone nations, have the same consent laws. I know you don't like to let facts get in the way of a good argument, but let me help. http://www.answers.com/topic/age-of-consent

Children lack legal standing to consent because they lack life experience to make informed decisions and are thus more likely to agree to something an adult tells them to do. This was indeed determined by numerous psychiatric studies of children and their behavior.

Love,
Fiona
220. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 8:15 am

@Kay, how is this related to prop 8? So what if a majority determined that pedophilia was against the law. What about the laws of "a majority can never decide the rights of a minority" Pedophila is a crime. Rights and crimes are two different things….
221. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:15 am

…you're delusional, you know that? You just prove my point for me (that the majority decides what is moral and enacts laws accordingly) and declare that by proving me right, I've been proven wrong. Obviously, the majority in State A disagreed with State B and amazingly, different age-of-consent laws resulted.
222. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 8:21 am

@SLSmith: What it has to do with Prop 8 is that Kay is trying to pretend that because I am not okay with Prop 8, I must be okay with pedophilia because there are laws against it and that infringes on the rights of pedophiles (apparently).

Of course, what it really is is the old "gay marriage will lead to pedophilia argument, because if one is legal shy shouldn't the other be? After all, that's a law based on morality."

Except that it isn't a law based on morality; it's a law based on the rights of the victim, just like any other so-called "moral law" (every time someone points out that murder is prohibited in the Bible as their "proof" that the US law is based thereon, I point out that it violates the rights of the victim). Laws are based on *rights,* not morality. Sure, some people would argue that theft is immoral, but it's against the law because it violates the rights of the property owner.

I could go on, but I don't really think it's necessary.
223. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:21 am

It doesn't directly have anything to do with Proposition 8; it was an answer to Fiona's complaint that the majority was imposing its morality on the minority. Pedophilia is a crime, certainly, but it became a crime because a majority decided that it was immoral for someone above Age A to have sex with someone below Age B and enacted laws that would punish the act. Majorities in various states (and indeed in various countries) disagreed what Age B would be and this resulted in different ages of consent. I somewhat facetiously then asked Fiona why that instance of the majority forcing the minority to conform to its morality doesn't evoke her outrage. I didn't expect a serious answer but the "you're trying to equate gay marriage with pedophilia" blather was a bit of a surprise.
224. Ozymandias ('ca | February 1, 2010 at 8:07 am

LOL! Great minds think alike Fiona!

Love,

Ozy
225. Alex D | February 1, 2010 at 9:42 am

Kay – I would say that there is general medical consensus that children below a certain age are not capable of making informed decisions(at least, that is my impression – I could be wrong), and thus we have age of consent laws to protect them from the consequences of their inability to do so.
Similar to the fact that we also protect people who are not mentally competent ("being of sound mind and body") from signing away their possessions.

Now, the fact that the age of consent laws vary from state to state does suggest that it's not all grounded in science. It is possible some states set an age that is too low, or possible that some states set an overly-protective age.

However, when determining whether states are being overly protective, I'd look first at voting age. As far as I know, that's set at 18 across the U.S. If studies of young adults showed that 17 year-olds were as competent at making decisions as 18 year-olds and we still prevented them from voting, then I think I'd be inclined to agree that that was the case of a majority stripping a minority of its rights, and I'd support them lowering the age.

In the case of same-sex marriage, the research is in – there's no rational reason for depriving us of this right.

Also – to be distinct from pedophilia, you aren't protecting us(or anyone else) by blocking same-sex marriage.
226. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 11:41 am

Of course there is… and there has been for a goodly amount of time but not nearly as long as there has been a moral protest against a sexual relationship between a kid of a certain age and an adult.

That standard is all well and good, Alex, but it doesn't fundamentally oppose my point that much of criminal law is based on public morality as determined by a majority.

It's all in what you regard as "rational", Alex. "Moral" isn't the precise same thing as "irrational."

This is true. I'll add a minor point of distinction at this time, however: the specific example I raised was actually an instance of hebephillia (sexual attraction to abdolesents), not pedophilia (sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children). Either way, my point was about the process of how laws are made by the majority, not an attempt to call SSM laws equivalent to age-of-consent laws.
227. Alex D | February 1, 2010 at 11:58 am

Kay – I'd say there are two general classes of criminal law that concern "morality"

1. Law that opposes crimes w/ victims. E.g. Murder. While this may infringe on someone's right to wantonly stab people – my right to not being wantonly stabbed is much greater ("The right to swing your arms ends at my nose").

2. Laws that oppose victimless crimes. E.g. consensual homosexual sex. These tend to infringe on minorities for no good reason – tend to get, correctly, struck down by the courts.

Some laws conflate the two. An argument for prohibition of alcohol could be made on the basis that drunk people cause driving accidents – but the crime there is driving while intoxicated – not drinking itself.

While I have no interest in smoking pot – I'd argue that the majority should not be imposing its morality here on the minority – smoking legal pot is as victimless as drinking legal alcohol.

So while I'd agree that there are times when the majority imposes its purely moral views on a minority for something victimless, I can't think of any that are right. And just because the a majority has traditionally imposed moral views on a minority doesn't mean it's something we should continue.

The founding fathers seemed to care about the distinction, which suggests they had seen it in action – and also said "just because it's been done before doesn't mean it should be done again"

And in the case of same sex marriage – I can't find any victims of allowing it, but I can find plenty of victims from its prevention – like me.
228. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 9:41 pm

Frankly, Alex, my entire argument on this line is orientated around stating that the practice exists; whether it is legitimate and moral is a related but different argument. I regard the practice as correct and legitimate; you obviously disagree in the most vehement terms.
229. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:09 pm

Oooooo…"vehement" …look who went to the school of fancy bigot whores….Mary Magdalene was a skanky whore like you!
230. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 8:21 am

On another note; Did anyone see the remarks from Obama from his town hall meeting in FL? http://lawdork.net/2010/01/28/obama-talks-about-g…
231. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 8:22 am

Great article; thanks for sharing. So much for the "Obama doesn't believe in GLBT rights" canard that so many people try to throw up …
232. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 8:26 am

Well Kay Moore(Oh baby, Oh baby) You are the minority in this community so we should vote you off the island!

That's 1 vote to go……0 votes to stay.
233. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:27 am

I'm all good with that, Ronnie. When's the tribal campfire so we can have a celebratory marshmallow-roast?
234. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 8:32 am

No in this tribe we roast sinners…it's only fair…mmmm!
235. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 2:06 pm

All 38 of my insie chldren have voted that both Kay and Team George need to go! And I agree with them.
236. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 8:35 am

I don't know… maybe Kay should stay.. I usually come here to see other like minded opinions, and have always wondered when "the others" would come trolling in.
I will hold my vote for last! LOL
237. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 8:39 am

That's fair slsmith66,

1 vote to go…0 to stay…1 temp. abstain
238. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 11:08 am

Of course I'm staying! I haven't gotten my s'more quota yet!
239. slsmith66 | February 1, 2010 at 8:49 am

Ok Kay believes she is a commander named Shepperd ( I was prefering her more when I thought she was a porn star). I vote GO now
240. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 8:52 am

LMAO!!!!!…….2 votes to go…0 votes to stay
241. Mike | February 1, 2010 at 1:23 pm

I'm interested in the whole discussion of the majority impinging on the minority by obstructing or revoking their (the minority) rights.

Can someone please explain how African Americans (or women) gained rights in this country despite the majority opinion that they shouldn't? I don't see how the fight for SSM (or equality in general) is any different.
242. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 1:33 pm

Because we haven't gotten as violent as those movements did…yet…..They don't take us serious enough…they don't realize that when you don't take people serious thats when the least expected happens…you know what I mean?
243. Richard Walter (soon | February 1, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Actually, Ronnie, if you google Stonewall Inn, you will see that our civil rights struggle was born in violence. One of the reasons Gay Pride Festivals are held in June is to commemorate the riots at the Stonewall Inn back in June of 1969, when the drag queens and other patrons told the police who were raiding them every night without provocation "We are madder than hell and we aren't going to take this BS anymore!" The poice have never seen handbags and high heels used so well in all their lives. what we really need is a series of Freedom Rides, and another March on Washington, all of us in our normal, everyday working attire, walking side by side, arms linked, just like they did in MLK's day. Once the American public sees that we are every bit as diverse as the straight community, and that we, too, have families, then they willl see the fallacies they have been fed by those to whom they have previousy given power. And for those who think gays and lesbians are not fit parents, I would advise them to stay away from my adult stepdaughter. She won debating championships informing others of just how fit gay and lesbian parents are. She would be very quick to let them know how wrong they are when they try to tell her that gay men and lesbian women cannot raise children.
244. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Well no I know all that but we have done things very civilly (if thats a word) and not really gotten in their face despite their I'm little old lady and that vandalized my house crap…all the violence has been from them since stonewall

Eventually, like all civil rights movements it will most likely to elevate to where they push us to far that we start to push back….Right now we are trying to shoe that we are the bigger humans..so to speak..
245. Richard Walter (soon | February 1, 2010 at 2:12 pm

YOu are right there, also, Ronnie. We are trying to show that we are the more rational, more mature adults in the conversation, but you also know taht every person has his or her breaking point. And as a community, we are very close to ours. And as a direct shot to Team George and all the others who want us to go back into our closets. Hell no, I won't go! I struggled to hard to get to the point where Isee myself as a human being, and dammit, my clothes belong in the closet, but I don't. And neither does any other human being. You talk about us shoving our relationships in your face, how about the fact that you have been shoving your relatioships in our faces for so long? It is so sickening to see you in the mall making out, doing everything you can sexually without taking your clothes off? How about before you Prop h8ers throw stones at us, you build your houses out of something other than plate glass windows?
246. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 3:19 pm

Well, if you break, at least the argument ends quickly. Very quickly. Great advocates in the past have been acutely aware of how much power they'd give to their opponents by breaking as you describe which is why history sees them as so great: they won.
247. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 1:26 am

Mike, in the case of AA rights, it was by judicial fiat. In the case of womens' rights, suffrage was a Constitutional amendment. However, the same enemy that we battled in Prop 8 (the Church of LDS) is the primary reason that we don't have an Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution … which is why women still earn 70 cents on the dollar in the same job as a man, just to name one example.

And you're right, of course; whenever minority rights are left to the whim of a tyrannical majority, rights lose out.

Love,
Fiona
248. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:39 pm

More specifically, in the case of AA rights, it was by a majority vote of Congress in the 1960s and before that, by a majority vote of Congress and state legislatures (majority-elected representatives of said majority) in the trio called the "Civil War Amendments": 13, 14, and 15. In the case of women's rights, sufferage was a Constitutional amendment enacted by a majority vote of the majority's elected representatives.

Oh yes, Fiona… the Mormons are responsible for 3 states refusing to ratify it and then 5 states withdrawing their ratification even with the deadline extended by 39 months. You must think Mormons have magical powers or something.
249. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:45 pm

What you forget Kay is how many white people had to die before that movement ended…It looks like history is about to repeat itself…TRASH BAG
250. fiona64 | February 3, 2010 at 4:32 am

Kay, dear … you do understand that the Constitution cannot be amended by a vote of congress alone … don't you?

(I really am becoming more and more convinced that Kay was homeschooled, because there were some serious lapses in her education.)

Let me help. http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Love,
Fiona
251. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Of course I know that. Are you under the impression that state legislatures do not ratify an amendment by a majority vote or the impression that they're not composed of representatives elected by the majority? If you know all of that, I fail to see why you think I'm wrong when I say that a majority of the majority's representatives amended the Constitution.

I was actually publically-schooled; the only thing that saved me from a life of believing only what a government-run school told me was my education at home.
252. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 3:17 pm

Kay wrote: you’re delusional, you know that?

Is this the part where we get into “I know you are, but what am I”? Lady, you’re the one who brought pedophilia in to the conversation.

Argh.

It’s like talking to a particularly stupid two-year-old.
253. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:22 am

I know! Like someone who can't read and thinks that every comment must be what they think it should be instead of what it is! Isn't it so frustrating?
254. fiona64 | February 1, 2010 at 8:24 am

I have no doubt, Kay, that you believe yourself to be a wit.

You're half right.

Love,
Fiona
255. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 8:27 am

Technically, I believe myself to be a sci-fi commander named Shepard posted to the ship SR-2 Normandy but I can be a wit too. 🙂
256. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 2:05 pm

Oh, no! Not another one of Kay/Team George's warped, perverted personalities slipping out! Beam us up, Scottie!
257. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Hey Richard do you notice that when ever a Bigot gets repetitive and tired of being debunked they resort to saying something like "we'll move the discussion though the looking glass so that at least SOME of your personal version of history has a level of validity."?

which way did he go george which way did he go..hehehe
258. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 4:24 pm

Actually, I've got a much better line than that but there's nothing quite like a Lewis Carroll reference to illustrate a point. There was no debunking to be had… heck, there wasn't even any bunking. No hot bunking or rebunking either. So the looking glass was perfect because nothing's supposed to make sense there.
259. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 4:29 pm

FUCK OFF TRASH BAG
260. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 4:54 pm

What doesn't make sense is what a piece of shit like you is doing on a LGBT advocacy rights blog while there is not one for us to go to other side of the argument… what also doesn't make sense is your ugly heart that is less wanted then that of a pig…..up your ziggy with a wa wa brush….you ugly, heartless, scanky, BITCH!!!!!!

You are harassing people and you better hope that the owners of this site don't track your ugly ass down and slap you with a law suit so hard that baboons ass wile look better then you…but you know what that is an insult to the baboon because at least the baboon has heart.

Don't try to throw shade at me because you will loose….i was an NYC club kid just 3 years ago and nobody has ever been able swash like me.

Be gone TROLL!
261. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 5:14 pm

And further more I didn't ask you….I asked Richard….If I wanted your type of input on that question I would've asked a female dog because that kind of BITCH would answer with respect.

Shut ya mouth, ya jaws too south, ya words are lame, i've got the fame, ya mind is gone and I'm number one, yo nothing but a zero blog hijacker with no credibility to out swash my swagger, Go away troll….Ya really bore me and all me equality peeps shout dangggg!!!! They adore me!
262. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Don't make me laugh at you, Ronnie… that would totally ruin the harmless silliness of our inane little exchange about "Kay" being a good prostitute name and me being voted off the island.
263. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:23 pm

go suck on a bible bigot
264. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:26 pm

I'm afraid that would be a physically impossible act of oral suction, Ronnie.
265. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:40 pm

FUCK OFF TRASH BAG…your sheet is showing
266. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 11:46 pm

Kay, that as a question for me, so why in the hell did you stick your nose in where it did not belong? Good way to lose said nose. Be careful where you stick it, you may not like what you smell at the end.
267. Kay Moore | February 4, 2010 at 2:49 am

Duly noted. Still hasn't happened, however, because most of the "trouble" I run into with the approach thinks of itself as bigger, stronger, and smarter than it actually is. The delusion is always sweet star jasmine in the morning.
268. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 9:39 pm

Yes, Ronnie, I have noticed that. Sorry not to have responded earlier. I started falling asleep at the keyboard and went to sleep. Had an early start yesterday with work, and then things got hectic afterward. Of course, we both know that bigots cannot stand to be debunked. But at least Archie Bunker was willig to admit when he was wrong, and he did grow up a little over the years. Hell, he was even friends with a drag queen (Beverly LaSalle)! Guess Archie was smarter than certain indiviuals tolling here because they can't post on protectmarriage.com. But then, they cannot see that the real way to protect marriage is to remove the restrictions for same sex marriage and make no-fault divorce harder to get. Make divorces more than ust a case of "we grew apart." I can see divorce in cases where there is spousal abuse, whether verbal, emotional, or physical, or in cases of adultery, or in cases where there are children involved and you are trying to protect the children from an abuser. But to allow a divorce simply because you have "fallen out of love" or "grown apart" is going too far, and weakens the institution of marriage. On the other hand, when two consenting adults want the LEGAL recognition and protections that getting a marriage license brings, do NOT deny them this right just because they are of the same gender. To do so does the opposite of what you think. Doing so weakens marriage, because it promotes oppression. But Kay/Team George refuse to do their homework. Kay even admitted that she does not take the time to read all the posts, because it is too confusing to try and sort out which post is a reply to which other post. Lazy! If nothing else, they could do what I do. Sign up for the subscriptions. I always know whic post is being replied to because I go all the way to the bottom of my incoming emails and read from the bottom up. But I guess that takes too much logic.
269. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 11:28 pm

It all good Richard, you notice how defensive she got after I stated the debunking, not that I blame her. Could be true about the reading all the posts thing. I mean I don't have a problem with the way the site is set up….It's better then other blogs and MB's where they only have like 10-20 comments on several different pages. So not only do you need to scan the screen, but you have to wait for each page to load…Ooo…that really twists my jock strap…LOL

And I agree with the divorce thing so I guess this is the best place to add this video into evidence: Wanda Sykes on Gay Marriage…Ironically enough she came shortly after this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4oGKm8Upp8

I love it!…I love Hype!…..I <3 Sykes!
270. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 11:29 pm

LMAO!!!!!…..came out…woah!
271. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 11:43 pm

That does it, Ronnie! Consider yourself adopted! I should have known I wasn't the only Wanda Sykes fan on here! But she is so right–"If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then just don't marry someone of the same sex." Can Wanda call them on their BS or what! But then, there is a history of using comedy to educate people–Norman Lear with "All in the Family," "Maude," "Good Times," and a host of other shows, Larry Gelbart et al. with "M*A*S*H," and so many others. Get people laughing and they get your point without rancor and fighting. Very useful tool for education on the issues, and Wanda uses it well. And so does Whoopi Goldberg.
272. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 11:54 pm

hahaha….Maude!… my extended family is growing…see gay marriage is promoting family….hehehe
273. Kay Moore | February 4, 2010 at 2:45 am

Now, Richard… how precisely do you think I know to pop in to reply to blog posts? That would be because… I subscribe, sort of how you do. Incredible, eh? But the astute and careful reader may profitably note that what I actually said was that I don't have the time and inclination to track down posts and repeat them because someone isn't bothering themselves to pay attention when I say something the first time. I can see how the distinction is hard for you, sort of.
Now, your logic is intriguing because it combines something I agree with (that the evolution of "no fault" divorce was a big step backwards) with a silly assertion (marriage gets stronger if it means any and every union between two people). It's all the more intriguing because both things you want to be reformed are results of "progress" being called for by a small minority crying oppression. We have no-fault divorce because women were being "oppressed" by marriage and the opportunistic cads cheering from the sidelines thought it'd be peachy keen if they could get all the benefits of marriage without the long-term obligations; at the time, this innovation was "progress." Now, it would appear, it's regressive so a different sort of "progress" is needed by a different small number of people who also say they're being oppressed. I wonder who'll be oppressed in 40 years so that the old "progress" can be reformed to make way for the new "progress."
274. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 9:27 pm

I don’t know I’ve got some pretty things in my closet…no screw that Nice things are meant to be seen….Cover Girl!…stroll down the runway, another payday, cover of magazines….You better work!

Foget Sacha Fierce…this BITCH is gonna throw shade and dominate like a pussy cat doll….SHIT!…SNAP! SNAP!
275. Sarah | February 1, 2010 at 9:49 pm

*Sigh* I really wondered where all the prop8 side was during the trial. I do appreciate that this site has comments turned ON and welcomes discussion but it is a shame to have to wade through all of this commentary on EVERY comment now. There is no safe place to discuss anymore which is sad, but these are the people we’re fighting and these are the arguments we’re facing and we face them without hiding behind blog posts closed for comment.
276. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Sorry to burst your bubble, Sarah, but I'm only "the Prop 8 side" in that I fully supported Measure 36 a few years ago. I am, unfortunately, also not representative of the people you're fighting and the arguments you're facing because I don't start from the premise that gays should burn in hell. I have no direct stake in the Proposition 8 argument because Oregon already enacted their firewall; I start having a more direct stake when this argument moves into the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
277. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 3:55 pm

A Swatzy says what?
278. Kay Moore | February 1, 2010 at 4:24 pm

A Swatzy says "For Pony!"
279. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 1:24 am

"Kay"/George wrote: I fully supported Measure 36 a few years ago.

Ah, yes. The "Oregon Citizens' Alliance" measure. For those unaware, the OCA managed to get a measure on the ballot in Oregon that would deny "special rights" to LGBT people. Those special rights were enumerated, and included employment, education and housing.

Thanks, "Kay"/George, for demonstrating your bigotry so beautifully.
280. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:21 pm

I get the impression that you're trying to refer to me, Fiona, but you seem to be confusing me with someone named "George." You also seem to be very confused about what Measure 36 was in Oregon; you seem to be thinking of those two late 80's/early 90's stunts the OCA (or at least I think it was the OCA) pulled trying to get homosexuality officially classified as a deviancy or something like that. Measure 36 was in 2004, not 10-20 years ago.
281. fiona64 | February 3, 2010 at 4:43 am

Mea culpa, "Kay." Measure 36 is just Oregon's version of Prop 8. The OCA matter was Measure 50.

Both of them are rooted in bigotry, of course … but I do agree that I had my measures mixed up.
282. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 1:55 pm

Actually, the ones I was referring to were both Measure 9 (1992; mandated that sex ed classes condemn homosexuality and avoid promoting it), Measure 8 (1988; reversed Governor Neil Goldschidt's executive order banning sexual orientation discrimination in the state government), Measure 9 (2000; same general purpose as the first one), Measure 13 (1994; ditto), Measure 19 (1994; ditto), and an anti-abortion measure of unknown number in 1990. I don't know which Measure 50 you're referring to, however. The 2007 one I voted against and I didn't vote in 1997 at all. Other than those two, I don't know what OCA measure 50 you could be talking about.

It may interest you to know that I wasn't involved in voting for any of the measures I just named (except the 2007 Measure 50).
283. Richard Walter (soon | February 3, 2010 at 2:20 pm

No, Kay/Team George. Fiona is making the point that you and Team George have the same disjointed, convoluted, repetitive arguments, and that all of your arguments are so full of logical fallacies and so many other errors of critical thinking that you are really rather pathetic. As fo your earlier commen about being in my shoes, I doubt that your super-inflated ego would allow you to fit in my shoes. And you say that you don't have a man. I assume you also don't have a lady? I can plainly see why you don't have anyone. No one would be able to put up with you for very long. As for me, I have a husband who is a Lubavitcher Chasidic Rabbi. We are very happy together, and we are very committed. When we disagree on something, we sit down and talk about it, and resolve it in an adult rational manner. This is more than I can say for most of the heterosexuals I know. And if so many heterosexuals are so committed to their marriages, then explain to me why so many couples go into their marriages with prenuptual agreements, which for all intents and purposes state tat you are only going to stay with someone for a predetermined length of time, and then you are going to c lean them out. That doesn't sound like a very committed relationship. My husband and I have not gotten a prenuptual agreement. We don't need on. When we go to Connecticut in April and legally get married, in preparation for the day when even North Carolina has full marriage equality, our marriage will be for life. When you truly marry for life, you have no need for a prenuptual agreement. And when you eliminate the legalized persecution and oppression of people who are different from you then you also remove the same amount of persecution and oppression from yourself. And if you will look at the actual census totals, then compare those census totals with first, the number of people eligible to vote, then the number of registered voters, then with th number of people who ACTUALLY went out and voted, you will see that our elected officials are elected by a vastly far lower amount than the majority of their constituents. So you have just been PWND!!!! Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Maybe for once you will learn something useful.
284. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Actually, the reason I don't have a man/lady is more to do with significant physical isolation more than any difficulty with people putting up with me. That and I have enough arguments with myself to make up for the lack of a different person.
I'm pleased that you have a happy marriage, Richard. It has absolutely nothing to do with any argument I've made but it's nice to know anyway. 🙂
285. Sarah | February 1, 2010 at 4:32 pm

I certainly don't believe that everyone who voted for prop8 did so on that premise. And of course the people we face are not limited to CA, we've been discussing things on a much broader scale here.

Also hate to burst your bubble, but although you've dominated this particular thread, you're not the only one I'm talking about 😉
286. fiona64 | February 2, 2010 at 1:28 am

Kay-George certainly has ego issues. 🙂 It's all about "her."
287. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:23 pm

Well, that's certainly a relief, Sarah.

Who is this "Kay-George" you're referring to, Fiona? I know I'm not George and I've never met anyone with the surname "Kay-George"… wait, do you think I'm some reincarnation of King George? o.O
288. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:30 pm

No what you are is a trash bag that deserves to be set on fire…FUCKING BIGOT!
289. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Just out of curiosity Kay (et al.),

What would you do if the SCOTUS made marriage universal? This is actually a serious question…goes to state of mind.

Would you try to appeal it or would you just give up and live with it or just what would you do?

(I am very serious and have no intention of ridiculing your beliefs…I genuinely want to know!)
290. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:45 pm

That would probably depend on what came after, Felyx. SCOTUS being a tipping point that leads to a majority of the states quickly passing legislation reinforcing the decision would indicate that whatever the method, the majority essentially supports and ratifies the court's decision. However, if the SCOTUS decision enjoys the same sordid legacy of Roe v. Wade with even enthusiastic supporters denouncing it (both Justice Ginsberg and Lawrence Tribe who are strongly supportive of reproductive rights speak harshly of Roe), I think that those that oppose universal marriage would feel justified in pushing for it to be overturned. There are innumerable ways in which SCOTUS can render a decision and its precise method can be as important as its result.
291. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 2:57 pm

I think I am following you but I will be more specific. SCOTUS rules that State DOMAs or similar bans violate the 14th ammendment and as a consequence gay marriages become immediately legal and protected in all states as well as federally within, oh say, two years.

Public opinion remains fairly evenly divided throughout the country. Not all states agree with the decision but all must bow down to SCOTUS ruling.

Rephased question: Will you accept the ruling and move on to other issues? Would you continue to protest and try to enact legislation? Or would you do something else?

BTW Thank you for your serious reply.
292. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 3:19 pm

I expect that generally, it will be protested and opposed but on a much lower key that happens at present. In this way, it'd be like the reaction to Roe v. Wade but without the tragic and revolting excesses like murder and bombing that have become characteristic of anti-abortion extremists.

If you're asking about me personally, however, I'm thinking I'd treat it in the same way I treat Roe: registering my opinion and voting accordingly but not doing any donating or political actions or anything like that. Although, since I am personally acquainted with a gay couple (actually, the one I went to high school with; I've never personally met his finance), I'd probably send them the standard celebratory roses, rice, and a nice little wedding gift (the guy loves XBox 360 games and certain animes).
293. Felyx | February 2, 2010 at 3:28 pm

Wow Kay!

Just for that I have to totally respect you. I have perused your responses on other threads and there is certainly some ideological differences between us, but conceding to a higher (legal) authority with such grace just makes me feel so good about America.

Well wishing a gay couple with the traditional wedding gift in the same manner that you would treat any other wedded couple…very classy.

My hat is off to you and I will say no more!

Thank you and God Keep You!

Respectfully,
Felyx
294. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:31 pm

And there it is the quintessential bigot anti gay rights "I have a gay acquaintance or friend"

Do you have any idea who the fuck you are talking too?

Gay people are not friends or acquaintances with trash like you…Either they are lying to you or you are lying

SLUT
295. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 3:45 pm

Thank, you, Felyx. Breathe deep, seek peace.

Respectfully,
K. Moore
296. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 3:53 pm

FUCK OFF YOU SKANKY BITCH!!!!
297. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 3:55 pm

Let me think about it…

No.

Have a nice day.
298. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 4:35 pm

let me think about it…says the dumb swatzy twit…she is a he and a they with the personality split…This trash bag harasses like triple k asses. with its rose colored glasses. The point of troll is to instigate anger…and i have to admit that i sooooo wanna slash this stranger. I talk about my deceased uncle and how she's way out of line she apologies and insults me and us at the same time…a bigot says i have gay friends but we all know thats just as creditable as a cheep pack of depends….he says i have good intention….FOR WHO?….Not me, not you, just herself and the k K KU….I'm sorry I cursed not her but all of you…because that bitch is nuts …I honestly respect all of you…. Pardon my French…but I had to slap this wench…with by words and my swagger….I'll drop her like Ted Haggert….She says no and good night like she won the fight…be we all know that her words or supporting the reich! So I say to those who know the truth I will not attack until a bigot knocks out my tooth…don't resort to violence just yet, our rights still need to get though the 9th circuit… That bigot got me mad like a troll often does…but let my tell you something cuz… freedom of speech is on my side, as long as i don't do….I'll give you a clue…don't tell me how to talk or what to say..but when you come to this blog show some respect Ms. Kay…..don't give me a reason to curse…and my respect for you will immerse…. I don't have to agree with you because i'm rubber and you're glue….. You bigots want blood…and to kill us all…but when we throw your hate words back you cry hate and hit the wall….You people are the murders, with your bashing and a threat…but its ok for you to do it because your morals are backed up by a bible and holy water au du toilette….so with that I say sleep well…because this queen will be heaven while you burn in where I wonder, pray tell?
299. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 5:25 pm

That is very sad, Ronnie. I genuinely do not envy you the shackles of xenophobia and narrowness that you have chosen for yourself. I'm glad I don't have to be immune to reality the way you are.
300. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 5:35 pm

FUCK OFF SLUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
301. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 5:48 pm

Xenophobia?…narrow? said the swatzy homophobic trash bag..NO i don't fucking fear that which is unknown from oneself or different from oneself ……say it to my fucking face slut and see if don't fucking slash your god damn throat…. what is narrow is your tiny pea brain that leads you to thinks that you are better then gay people and you fucking bigots will not stop until you kill us….

GO FUCK YOURSELF TRASH BAG FUCKING HOMOPHOBIC V-JJ!!!!!
302. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm

Like every LGBT person I would be able to say the only thing I fear is being killed by a homophobic trash bag like you….But I have no fear what so ever because I'm not some fucking gay bitch that you people think you can push around ….i will have a gun with your name on it..if any of you fucking swatzies try it….self defense BITCH!!!!!!

and FYI the last person who tried to bash me wound up in the hospital
303. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 3:19 am

You know what's even more pathetic than a baseless xenophobic rant unmoored from the real world? Pretty much the last three tidbits you felt like adding to this discussion.

As to whether I'm better than you… no, probably not. I am, however, better than someone who is foul-mouthed and threatening to "slash [the] god damn throat" of a complete stranger, adding that "i will have a gun with your name on it" and informing that stranger that "the last person who tried to bash me wound up in the hospital." Best part of that is that someone chooses to be that piteous.
304. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 3:27 am

Yeah Ok…Julia can you ban Kay Moore also?
305. Ronnie | February 1, 2010 at 11:55 pm

Please excuse my French, to my fellow equality soldiers I apologize if I offended any of you…..I <3 you and I <3 Boies but thats a different story.

GOOD GOD MAN!!!!!!!
306. Dan Hess | February 2, 2010 at 6:43 am

As much as I hate Kay's views, I have to admit that her random use of an LFG reference brightened my day. ^_^
307. Kay Moore | February 2, 2010 at 2:25 pm

Glad to hear I'm not the only fan. ^_^
308. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 2:39 pm

SLUT
309. Ronnie | February 2, 2010 at 4:40 pm

I have to admit that I let these trolls get to me..but i'm a Cancer so anything less then my full heart and emotion would by the same as if I were still in the closet….I apologize to all my friends here.
310. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 4:34 am

Again I would like to apologize for my language, if you notice it was all in defense of personal attacks towards me. I understand that most of it was off base….I do get out of control when I am personally attacked, but I will calm down….You will not loose my humor and whit though…LOL
311. fiona64 | February 3, 2010 at 4:37 am

Thank you, Ronnie. Like I said, I am worried about you (and your blood pressure, LOL). I had a wonderful boss once who told me that people like K/G/M/KOG, etc., did not even deserve the energy it would take to ignore them.

Love,
Fiona
312. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 4:50 am

So true….to quote Franke Heck(Patricia Heaton) form ABD's "The-Middle":

"Ok this is not some kind of contest for prizes! This is about us becoming the kind of family where the Mother!! Doesn't!!! Have!!! to YELL!!!!!!!! starting now."
313. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 1:42 pm

And they was exactly right! It's dangerous to be exposed to alternate points of view. You might learn something and then pigs would fly and cats and dogs would be friends and lambs would lay down with lions and who knows what else? It'd be a disaster!
314. fiona64 | February 3, 2010 at 11:48 pm

Yes, Kay. You're right. I used to be a closed-minded, conservative, Bible-thumping know-it-all. Then I was exposed to alternate points of view and learned something.

Love,
Fiona
315. Kay Moore | February 4, 2010 at 2:52 am

Yes, I used to thump Bibles too. Grew out of that phase around 10 and went out into the world to discover a very conservative reality. In the meantime, I got myself a more shiny Bible that plays Handel's "Hallalujah Chorus" when properly thumped. Ah, good times…
316. fiona64 | February 4, 2010 at 3:55 am

Kay, if I were to hazard a guess (having grown up in Oregon myself), you don't live in Portland, Corvallis or Eugene.

Love,
Fiona (who knows that reality actually has a liberal bias due to things like facts …)
317. Kay Moore | February 4, 2010 at 10:51 am

Actually, moved from Long Beach California, lived in Corvallis until I was 4, then moved to Portland (actually, a suburb thereof).

Love,
Kay (who knows that facts have a conservative bias…)
318. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 1:43 pm

I accept your apology, Ronnie. 🙂
319. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 2:09 pm

To kay

Unfortunately I wasn't apologizing to you…. >[
but whatever,
Clearly you don't feel the need to apologize for anything that you said, that was completely off base…unless you do..I don't accept your acceptance and you really do need to apologize to everybody else that you harassed.

Do not harass me anymore..if you attempt to be respectful then I will return the favor….everything I said you deserved. I was defending myself.

Don't even reply to me just leave me alone, and i will leave you alone…unless it has to do with the topic…I am asking you nicely to please stop.
320. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 2:44 pm

I am as respectful to you as you are to me, Ronnie. Calling me equivalent to the KKK, accusing me of wanting to murder gays, informing me that you have a gun with my name on it, multipled instances of screaming "SLUT!" and the other delightful hysterics deserves much less kindness than merely calling you pathetic and xenophobic. Moreover, at least one of the back-and-forths came out of you popping into a very respectful conversation I was having with Felyx to accuse me of lying about having a friend who is gay. Now, it appears, you beg to be left alone.

I'm glad to leave you to your own devices, Ronnie, but please abide by your own request.
321. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 3:53 pm

You deserved it as simple as that…Ever last person in here agrees

1. This is not an a chat room, or AIM, there are no personal conversation on a public discussion board. If you want an A & B conversation the C yourself over to Prop ha8te(if their comments are turned on)

2. I wasn't having a public conversation with Richard when I directly asked him a Q. and you answered…so don't be a hypocrite.

3. "Don’t make me laugh at you" was because of the reply I gave you…you can do it but I can't…BIGOT

4. My mentioning the gun was to the fact that you said that i'm afraid of you bigots….hence you deserved it…you have somebody try to hit you with a pole because you are straight then maybe you can talk.

5.I mention my uncle who died and you respond with, "That you have a beloved family member who died of HIV complications is tragic but screaming and swearing at me for citing the government’s numbers on HIV is pathetic." I have an uncle that died of HIV complication and you pissed me off by talking about it the way you did, but i'm not allowed to scream curse and get pissed…you called it pathetic and that was not respectful, that was insult,,,therefore you deserved it.

6. all the names i called you were justified to what you posted it is not my fault that you don't agree bigots often don't..because only your feelings are important.

7. accused you of lying about having a gay friend because gay people are not friends with people who think like you, they fight people who think like you, that is the whole point of this blog.

8. you didn't deny wanting to murder LGBT people, you didn't deny have KKK parallels, you didn't deny being a slut, a lie by omission is still a lie…it would've been easy to say no and prove why you are not, so that i would have the chance to apologize, but instead you insult and give me more reason to call you those names..

9. I asked you to apologize for things you said that lead me to say those things and to all the other people who you are still harassing or do not reply and you reply by insulting me again

10. 3 times I apologized, 2 of them directly only pro-LGBT and the 3rd was for another reason but you assume that it was to you after both of the first times i specifically left you out. So when I ask you to apologize so I can return the favor because i was insulted by you first or their would have been no reason for me to say the things I did…. or leave me alone(which you never asked, and which makes me the bigger person because I did ask nicely I might add) you choose to do neither and insult me again.

11. I would ask you again to either apologize or leave me alone…but you will not do either, because as a troll( posting on the Internet intended to provoke an indignant response in the reader.) that is what you enjoy doing, that is what you did to me. But I whole heartedly hope that you will try to take the high rode like I tried to with requesting an apology, but instead you insulted me.

PLEASE STOP!!!!
322. Kay Moore | February 3, 2010 at 4:06 pm

You keep to your side of the line, I'll keep to mine. I regard that as the end of it.
323. Ronnie | February 3, 2010 at 4:11 pm

I asked you to apologize or leave me alone PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
324. Urbain | February 3, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Perhaps slightly off topic, maybe not … I've mentioned before that "family values" and the rest of the religion-driven political agenda can be traced to the Christian Dominionist movement. If you're interested in this subject, join in the talk tomorrow night — Prop 8 is undoubtedly going to come up in the discussion:
http://www.goddiscussion.com/19187/this-week-on-g…
325. chris | February 4, 2010 at 3:15 am

Let's all say a nice H-E-L-L-0 MRS K-A-Y M-O-O-R-E to show her that we all love her and wish her the best! We should not denigrate her and call her an abomination the way SHE has called us, but be cordial and pray for her. Kay and those like her are desperately graspy for straws because they have no basis for condeming our relationships. You notice that they keep CHANGING the arguments? As soon as one set of talking points are shot down, they INVENT
326. Kay Moore | February 4, 2010 at 10:43 am

I don't know what "Hell-zero" means but hellzero to you too, Chris. 🙂
I agree, generally, except for the part where I called someone an abomination. Or condemned someone's relationship. I suggest a new eyeglasses perscription… just got mine updated a couple months ago and it makes all those illusionary words you see disappear, almost as if by magic.
327. chris | February 4, 2010 at 3:15 am

new ones.
328. chris | February 4, 2010 at 3:17 am

Remember that "gathering storm ad"? I'm waiting for them to say that gay marriage causes global warming. LOL
329. chris | February 4, 2010 at 3:35 am

While I'm here, I'll take apart their four invented "threats"

1. A california doctor forced to choose between her faith and her job.
Actually, the case involved a doctor who did not want to provide fertility treatment for a lesbian. The same treatment that other women can get.

2. A New Jersey church group punished by the government for not supporting gay marriage.
Actually, the church owned a pavilion that is rented out to the PUBLIC. If you rent out buildings, just like restaurants, etc, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation in New Jersey. This law has nothing to do with marriage, because gay marriage isn't even LEGAL in New Jersey!

3. A Massachusets parent forced to watch the school teach their daughter that gay marriage is okay.
Actually, since marriage is legal in Massachusets, the curriculum acknowleges its existance, but makes NO JUDGEMENT about its morality.

4. Oh and my favorite. A group of California school kids were sent to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
Actually, the parents were very supportive of the teacher and came up with an optional field trip for kids who wanted to attend. Like any field trip, permission slips were sent out and had to be approved by the parents before anyone went.

The anti-gay folks knew ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, but purposefully distorted it to make people scared for their children. Shameful doesn't even begin to discribe what they did.

Kay, I know you want to hold on to you beliefs, but how much more do you want to twist reason into a pretzel to defend them?
330. Kay Moore | February 4, 2010 at 10:47 am

That'd be a much more relevant question if any of those four examples were used by me. It might be helpful, Chris, if you provided some citation of statements where I "twist[ed] reason into a pretzel" instead of where a random group to which I don't belong did so. I can't exactly defend a position I don't take.
331. http://www.itweb7.com/ebo&hellip | July 8, 2011 at 11:35 am

Websites you should visit…

[…]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]……