Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Julian Bond on Loving v. Virginia and why Prop 8 must not stand

Marriage equality

By Adam Bink

Writing in USA Today’s op-ed pages, the often brilliantly oratorical Julian Bond makes a case for why Prop 8 and inequality must fall on the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia:

In the Loving case, a unanimous court held that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man…fundamental to our very existence and survival.” The court also held that “under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.”

The Loving decision, which was a watershed moment in the civil rights movement, has deep implications today for gay and lesbian couples who want that essential freedom: to marry.

My wife, Pamela Horowitz, and I were married in Virginia in 1990. Prior to the Loving decision, we could have been sentenced to time in prison for that loving act — committed in the state that likes to claim it “is for lovers.”

Of course, prior to the Loving decision, the parents of the current president of the United States would have been committing a felony had they lived in Virginia.

Today, we look at anti-miscegenation laws as a stain on our history and an affront to our beliefs as Americans. In this country, we do not create separate classes of Americans based upon inherent characteristics. Sexual orientation is immutable and unchangeable. It is as much a part of our DNA as our race.

Because I have spent my life fighting to make ours a more just society for all Americans, I’m a supporter of marriage equality. I believe this to be a fight for civil rights.

Fourteen times, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that marriage is a fundamental human right. In Loving v. Virginia, the justices guaranteed that right could not be taken away because of the way we’re born. Yet that’s exactly what happened when California passed Proposition 8, which declared marriage valid only when between a man and a woman.

Last summer, after a lengthy trial, a federal court declared Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, saying that this discriminatory law does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution “the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.” Almost a year later, the case is on appeal, Prop. 8 still remains on the books, and a motion to throw out the case on blatantly homophobic grounds will be heard in federal district court on Monday.

Prop 8 continues to label some Americans as second class. It denies those Americans the fundamental rights afforded their fellow citizens. Like the anti-miscegenation statutes struck down 44 years ago, Prop 8 serves no purpose but to permit one group of Americans to degrade another.

Mildred Loving passed away in 2008, but on the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision, she reflected on the impact of her case.

“I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all.”

[…]

As Mildred Loving said four years ago, “That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

And that is why Proposition 8 must not stand.

70 Comments

  • 1. Ann S.  |  June 11, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    §

  • 2. Kathleen  |  June 11, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    Another futile attempt to subscribe

  • 3. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    Loving v Virginia is a perfect case to legally support marriage as man and woman. Look at what was said:

    "In the Loving case, a unanimous court held that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man…fundamental to our very existence and survival.'"

    Marriage is a basic civil right because it perpetuates the species.

  • 4. Ann S.  |  June 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    With the population of the planet straining all of its resources, under-population is what you are worried about? Surely you jest.

  • 5. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    You can try to deflect all you want but it does not change anything. What difference does it make if we are overpopulated or not? Is that a reason that will be used to argue for SSM?

  • 6. Steve  |  June 11, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    No court has ever tied marriage to procreation. On the contrary. It's why even prison inmates with life sentences have a constitutional right to marry, even when the marriage can never be consummated. There are several other similar decisions.

  • 7. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    No one is talking about any ONE individual marriage but they institution itself.

    Choose to be ignorant or face the truth… your choice!

  • 8. Steve  |  June 11, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    There is no such thing as "the institution of marriage". No one but NOM and their ilk ever used that term. Marriage is nothing but a legal construct. One that has changed countless times over the last few centuries.

  • 9. Joe  |  June 11, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Sure there is. The Supreme Court said so in Lawrence v. Texas:

    "Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage."

  • 10. Joe  |  June 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    And further:

    "Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

  • 11. Joe  |  June 11, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Sure they did. SCOTUS in Skinner v. Oklahoma:

    "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

  • 12. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    1942. This is 2011.

    Marriage by any definition, institution or not, is not a requirement for procreation.

    You deny this? Seriously?

  • 13. Joe  |  June 12, 2011 at 2:49 am

    Okay, and what about that statement by the US Supreme Court in 1942 has made it any less true today than it was in 1942?

  • 14. JonT  |  June 12, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Really? I have to spell out the obvious fact that marriage is not a requirement for procreation?

    In 1942, having a child out of wedlock would be unthinkable in polite society. So it is not in the least bit surprising the sentence is framed that way.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it is not possible to procreate unless you are married?

    You do know how procreation works don't you?

  • 15. Joe  |  June 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Nice try.

    Why dont you answer the question?

    What about that statement is any less true than it was in 1942?

    If you are like me, and teach your children that sex is reserved for marriage, then the two go hand in hand, marriage and procreation.

  • 16. JonT  |  June 12, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Nice try.

    Why don't you answer the question?

    See how easy that is? You won't answer it, because you can't. You already know that marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

    Dance around it all you want, the facts are the facts: Having a baby does not require that you get married, regardless of what you teach to whom. End of story, end of discussion.

  • 17. Joe  |  June 12, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Well then you are sadly misinformed.

    Marriage takes place when the sperm fertilizes the egg. So yes, having a baby DOES require marriage, of the man and the woman, that make the baby.

    As I said, the two go hand in hand, marriage and procreation.

  • 18. Kate  |  June 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    CONCEPTION, not marriage, takes place when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Did you skip biology class? Now I finally understand why you sound so….. uneducated and very, very young.

  • 19. Carol  |  June 11, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    How do you know the court was speaking of procreation? To survive, people need to be happy. If you don't know that people often procreate without marriage, you haven't been getting out enough.

  • 20. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    'Marriage is a basic civil right because it perpetuates the species. '

    You can keep repeating this fallacy all you want, but it doesn't change the facts:

    1. Marriage is not required to have children.

    2. Having children does not require that you have to get married.

    3. Getting married, does not require that you produce children.

    So, the 2 concepts – marriage and procreation, have nothing to do with each other. These are the facts.

  • 21. Kate  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Marriage doesn't cause pregnancy; heterosexual intercourse does. Duh.

  • 22. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    You will see how this plays out in the courts. Choose to believe me or not, it won't change the outcome one bit nor will I lose any sleep over it.

    Your bias has blinded you!

  • 23. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    'You will see how this plays out in the courts.'

    I already have Bob… 🙂

  • 24. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    What you fail to realize is that this issue does not rest with Prop 8, DOMA or any of the state courts rulings. SCOTUS will ultimately decide this issue with the next decade and they will uphold marriage as one man and one women.

    If you are basing your happiness on any small hollow victories that may come in state courts or with DADT and assume SSM will be a reality then you will be sorely disappointed.

    Enjoy your expanded civil unions when they come and be happy!

  • 25. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    'SCOTUS will ultimately decide this issue with the next decade and they will uphold marriage as one man and one women. '

    You say that with such certitude. I suspect that it is your bias that is blinding you.

    Me? I'll just see what happens.

    'Enjoy your expanded civil unions when they come and be happy!'

    I'll enjoy my marriage rights, when they come, and be happy. But thanks for your support!

  • 26. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    I agree,,,,, I was born equal, I am equal,, that's the way I was created,,,, my equality is not dependant on you the courts or anyone else,,, it is a simple truth which is accepted at the core of my being,,,, many have misguided notions that they somehow have an impact or control over my equality,,,, that is an simple error of judgement on their part,,,,, which they will come to accept ,,,,,, and truly realize no action on their part can void my status and equality as a human sharing this planet,,,,,, it is only a matter of tiime before they realize the shame of their feelings of superiority,,,,,,,

  • 27. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    ah rathe me thinks for you Bob we'll see how this pllays out in the churches,,,,,, wonder in which church you presently rattle the pew,,,,,,

  • 28. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Sigh! I guess self-deception, bigotry and wishful thinking rule the day here. Oh well!

    I will be moving on but my words will ring true whether i am around or not. Never say you never got a heads up when reality hits.

  • 29. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    now we'll see if you are a man of your word,,,,,, bye bye,,, don't let the door hit you on the way out,,,,,,

  • 30. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Back at you evil-Bob. 🙂

  • 31. Nicole  |  June 12, 2011 at 6:05 am

    I'm not sure how anyone could come to these conclusions without having rationalized to themselves a few things first.

    A) Why is population growth such a massive priority that we should ration who gets married? While we're at it, since when was marriage such a key to perpetuating the species anyway? Folks can have kids without getting married.

    B) To give you the benefit of the doubt, I can only assume you're trying to say that kids to better in a household where both their parents are married. If we're going to accept this then, then we might as well keep people who make below the poverty line from getting married, because after all, kids do better when they're more economically advantaged.

    C) Now having made it this far, we now have to prove exactly how giving marriage to all those 'undesirables in society' somehow compromises straight couple's ability to procreate. All these questions were asked during trial. The defense gave a comprehensive "Well, actually we dunno" every time.

    The procreation argument is an obvious piss poor excuse to attack someone. Somehow you single out gays and lesbians among the many people who don't procreate who wish to marry. Where's the outrage over older couples marrying – or the blatant insult to the institution made by folks who want to get married but have no intention of having children? It just goes on and on and on.

    All these sudden 'facts' about marriage are completely artificial. They're used as a device of convenience when one is trying to make a case against a particular group. It's irrational, it isn't very thought out, and it's very easy to argue against actually.

  • 32. Joe  |  June 12, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    "While we're at it, since when was marriage such a key to perpetuating the species anyway? Folks can have kids without getting married. "

    Youre exactly right, and you prove the point. Given that folks can have children without getting married, what is irrational about encouraging folks to have children within marriage, as opposed to outside of marriage?

    And, given that only a man and a woman as a biological couple can make a child, as opposed to a man/man or woman/woman non biological couple, what is irrational about limiting marriage to the only pairing that can perpetuate the species, a man and a woman?

  • 33. Nicole  |  June 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    "And, given that only a man and a woman as a biological couple can make a child, as opposed to a man/man or woman/woman non biological couple, what is irrational about limiting marriage to the only pairing that can perpetuate the species, a man and a woman?"

    If I'm even to refrain from the obvious point that child rearing has never been a prerequisite for marriage in this country (that is of course until coincidentally gays and lesbians started fighting for marriage rights), I'll have to say this: Only a man and a woman can biologically produce a child, yes. That doesn't mean that somehow by the same token only children are raised by their biological parents. There are heterosexual couples who cannot biologically produce children who are allowed to have children. More importantly, they are allowed to adopt as well. Going by your logic, it's also rational that we bar those parents from marriage.

    The bottom line that you're missing comes from the fact that your "Biological parents only" standard extends to so many different couples in addition to gays and lesbians. Children who aren't raised by biological parents are alienated from the government. What makes it worse is that if kids who are raised by non-biological parents are so bad off, you'd THINK it'd be even more essential that the financial backbone marriage offers should be awarded to them.

    What makes you seem irrational isn't even the standard itself so much as the fact that you only want to apply this standard to a specific group. It gives me the impression that you don't even believe the "Marriage is only about procreation" garbage that's coming out of your mouth. You just need a reason to justify attacking a demographic of people that has done nothing to you. Hope you learned something about yourself, Joe.

  • 34. Nicole  |  June 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    "There are heterosexual couples who cannot biologically produce children who are allowed to have children"

    Should be "allowed to get married"

  • 35. Joe  |  June 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    "child rearing has never been a prerequisite for marriage in this country"

    Nor could it be, because a woman/man could become sterile due to illness after marriage.

    "Going by your logic, it's also rational that we bar those parents from marriage."

    I didnt say that we should bar all men and women from marriage. I said that since only a man and a woman can make a child, then what is irrational about limiting marriage to a man and a woman?

    "What makes it worse is that if kids who are raised by non-biological parents are so bad off, you'd THINK it'd be even more essential that the financial backbone marriage offers should be awarded to them. "

    Apparently you dont know about "head of household" status. A person who adopts, or is divorced with children, is accorded "head of household" status by the government. That applies to both heterosexual and homosexual folks. So the "financial backbone" is already there.
    http://taxes.about.com/od/filingstatus/qt/headofh

  • 36. Nicole  |  June 12, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    "I didnt say that we should bar all men and women from marriage."

    Christ, you're not HEARING me, Joe. The fact that you're NOT saying this was virtually the whole point I was trying to get across. Not every heterosexual couple on the planet is capable of reproducing. If it's rational to prohibit gays and lesbians from marriage because they don't naturally procreate, then why is it suddenly irrational to keep infertile heterosexuals from marrying for the same damn reason?

    "Apparently you dont know about "head of household" status. A person who adopts, or is divorced with children, is accorded "head of household" status by the government. That applies to both heterosexual and homosexual folks. So the "financial backbone" is already there. "

    Are you kidding me? No seriously, is that your argument for real? Wow, okay, let me start with this: If we have all those financial benefits then I guess you wouldn't mind we just get rid of that pesky Defense of Marriage Act. It's not like the whole point and purpose of this legislation was to prohibit nearly 1,138 federal benefits like Joint tax filing, income tax deductions, Tax free transfer of property, immigrant sponsorship, family visitation rights, survivor benefits, spousal privilege in court cases, and etc. Watch out folks, I got "head of household" status!

    Even if we did have those 1,138 benefits, the bottom line is still a government treating gays and lesbians like second class citizens. I'm an American citizen and my life has no less value than anyone else's. I'm not a second rate person, and I refuse to let the government see me as a second rate citizen. It's actually very simple. I'm constantly amazed by how many people just don't GET that.

  • 37. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Also Julian better go back to school! He wrote: "Sexual orientation is immutable and unchangeable. It is as much a part of our DNA as our race."
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1286209/

  • 38. Steve  |  June 11, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    No one here takes you seriously. If you don't want to continue that don't quote wingnut sites like Free Republic or WND. They aren't a credible source anywhere in this universe

  • 39. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    If you believe that I care one bit if anyone here takes me seriously then you are sadly mistaken.

    I cant help it if you don't like truth and reality! But truth and reality will make itself known and marriage will ultimately be upheld as one man and one woman.

    So proceed in ignorance and false expectations but if I were you I'd take a long hard look at the reality of the situation, accept expanded civil unions when they come and be happy!

  • 40. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    of course American Bob is talking not only about his delusional little church community,, but the State it is in as well,,, while ignoring, the TRUTH and the reality that marriage equality is already a FACT in many educated, accepting,, loving ,, places all around the globe

    what are you saying Bob,,,, we're ignorant, and you hold the truth,,, if that is so,,, and you don't give a flip if anyone here takes you seriously,,,, well,,,,,, I don't think you get points for spending so much time not caring,,,,,,, TRY CARING

  • 41. davep  |  June 11, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    I understand that we need to differentiate between you two Bobs, but instead of calling you guys Canadian Bob and American Bob, how about if we call you guys Canadian Bob and UN-American Bob? It's more accurate and I kinda resent having him included in the same group as us actual patriotic Americans who understand and strive for the concepts enshrined in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  • 42. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    That's why I've been calling him evil-Bob — like the evil-Spock in the star trek mirror universe. Who knows, he might even be twirling his goatee when he posts… 🙂

  • 43. David Henderson  |  June 13, 2011 at 12:24 am

    To go off on a geeky tangent, the Spock in the mirror universe was not evil; he may have been the only "good" one on the ship. According to DS9, he tried to reform his society and improve it. Unfortunately, he was not as successful as he would have liked.

  • 44. Ann S.  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    I guess you're saying you could turn gay if you chose? When did you choose to be straight?

  • 45. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Yes I can choose the choices I make and my behavior!

  • 46. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    then make another choice about your belief,,,,, and choose another behavior,,,, try love and acceptance vs bigotry and hatred go ahead, it's just a choice

  • 47. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    Ah there we go! Cry bigotry or homophobia when you don;t liek what said!

    Continue you self-sabotage.

    BTW you might want to try and build bridges not alienate anyone who disagrees with you. You actually make the other side stronger when you do that.

  • 48. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 6:30 pm

    Self delusion is a wonderful thing isn't it evil-bob?

    You'll see the light one day. After all you do appear to support civil unions, so your full support of marriage equality can't be too far off.

  • 49. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    So please enlighten us. Tell us about the day you woke up and decided to be straight ?

  • 50. lsfoster  |  June 13, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Bob, I have to point out two things. First of all, there does not need to be a single gene that "makes" people gay for homosexuality to be innate and immutable. In fact, most people who know anything about genetics would understand that this idea is kind of ridiculous. Do you know that there isn't a single known gene that causes autism? Yet I sincerely doubt that you would go out and chastise any autistic person for making that "choice". The article that you link here is misleading in so many ways, but the worst is that it rests entirely on the assumption that there will be one single lone gene found to "cause" homosexuality, and that without this gene, homosexuality is confirmed to be a choice. It's simply untrue.

    The other thing that I find frustrating is the same mistake that you make in another comment, saying that you could choose to be gay because you can choose your actions. In the article, they claim that genetics hasn't been found to be responsible for behaviors. This essentially equates homosexuality as a characteristic with homosexual activity, which is, again, just false. Of course you could choose to engage in homosexual activity. That wouldn't make you gay. If you really think you could choose to make yourself only sexually attracted to men and not women, then that's a different issue, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you're claiming.

  • 51. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Looking for the 'ignore' button…. fortunately, I can ignore anyway. It's a nice weekend, non-Canadian Bob. Why don't you go outside and play in the heavy traffic.

  • 52. Bob  |  June 11, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    the bridges have already been constructed,,,, many have already crossed,,,, we are moving forward with building a brighter future,,,,,, you're welcome to join us, at any time,,,,

  • 53. davep  |  June 11, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    Hey Bob – just take a moment and compare your recent comments on this web site to the quote from Mildred Loving at the end of the article. We'll wait.

    You can post all of your NOM-ish double talk about 'choice' and 'protecting marriage' and 'don't call me a bigot' and it won't do a thing to hide your true motives or somehow 'win' some kind of argument. It can't. No matter what you say, there is STILL no rational basis for denying equal marriage rights to loving same sex couples. The only real motive for opposition is fear and bigotry and ignorance.

    When your comments are compared to comments like this one from Mrs. Loving the difference between the two of you speaks volumes. You are on the wrong side of history. Your beliefs and actions go against basic concepts of fairness, justice, human decency,and a whole list of principles found in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Open your eyes and take a good look at yourself. You don't have to be like this. THAT is a real choice.

  • 54. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Obama Extends Medicaid Protections To Gay, Lesbian Couples
    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=8630&…

  • 55. Kathlene  |  June 11, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Sigh! I guess self-deception, bigotry and wishful thinking rule the day here. Oh well! I will be moving on but my words will ring true whether i am around or not. Never say you never got a heads up when reality hits.

    Lmao the bigot is calling us bigots? It’s like dividing by zero.

  • 56. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    In Minnesota

    Next week: Activity surrounding gay marriage amendment
    http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/12

  • 57. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    And further debate

    Minnesota Bishop John Nienstedt Endorses Gay Marriage Ban Amendment; Denies It's Anti-Gay
    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=8619&…

    And for an opposing (and scientific) view

    Same-sex couples can be effective parents, researchers find
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-21-pa

  • 58. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    From New York

    Gay couples watch Albany marriage debate, feel accepted by public, but not state
    http://www.lohud.com/article/20110611/NEWS01/1061

  • 59. Sagesse  |  June 11, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Third Poll Confirms Majority Of New Yorkers Support Gay Marriage
    http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=8622&…

  • 60. JonT  |  June 11, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    I really hope that will actually translate into a majority NY Senate vote in favor…

    Somehow I'm… concerned it won't.

  • 61. Ronnie  |  June 11, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Sharing:

    On Tuesday at 10pm on PBS, the Independent Lens season will wrap up with "Two Spirits". "Two-spirited" is used in Native American tradition to describe someone who has both a male spirit and a female spirit. They were once revered by the tribe until religious based bigotry & inhuman selfish heterosexist superiority blighted this land.

    The documentary speaks of Fred Martinez, a Navajo boy who identified as gay & nádleehí. "Nádleehí" is a male person with a feminine nature, which was considered a special gift according to his ancestral culture. In 2001 Fred was brutally murdered at the age of 16 for being who he is. http://twospirits.org/

    Here is the trailer……<3…Ronnie:

    [youtube BUmYXI7k4y8&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUmYXI7k4y8&feature=player_embedded youtube]

  • 62. Kathlene  |  June 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Because America was drastically different in 1942. A LOT has changed since then. It’s like trying to use a Commodore 64 manual to repair an iMac.

  • 63. Jeff Tabaco  |  June 12, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    That's me and my partner, Thom, in the photo that accompanies Julian Bond's USA Today op-ed. That wire photo sure gets around! 🙂

  • 64. truthspew  |  June 12, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    Someone posted a photo from the National Equality March in DC in 2009 of the interracial couple that had signs supporting our cause. I went up and thanked them, gave them big hugs.

    It is about human rights, not race, not sexual orientation but human.

  • 65. Joe  |  June 12, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Because as you will note, a marriage can take place, but the zygote never implants and the female thus does not conceive.

  • 66. Kate  |  June 12, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Marriage is a contract, an act of law. It has nothing to do with fertilization OR conception. You are correct that fertilization can take place without implantation, however, and that therefore there is no conception. It surprises me that you know that while believing the silliness that "marriage" is what happens when sperm and egg meet. That's as strange as what someone I knew used to say — that eating ice causes pregnancy. Perhaps you are related. I applaud you for believing something that is even more ridiculous than that; I never thought that could be topped. You're due a prize for something. I'm just not sure what. I never dreamed I'd hear anyone say something even more biologically-ignorant than the ice comment, but you've managed to do so. Maybe you believe in storks bringing the babies, too.

  • 67. Bill S.  |  June 13, 2011 at 5:52 am

    Marriage does not perpetuate the species, heterosexual sex, when performed between two fertile people at the right time, does. Marriage or no marriage, people will be reproducing, and should current trends continue, reproduce at a rate that will hinder the human race, not sustain it.

    Marriage creates a stable legal structure whereby two people can be recognized by the law as related, and provides useful (and in some instances necessary) legal tools for families whether this family contains biological children, adopted children, or no children.

  • 68. Maggie4NoH8  |  June 13, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Thank you Bill!

    Bob/NOMbies – did you read this??????

  • 69. pubwee  |  June 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    BTW, I love your International Harvester logo!

  • 70. Doug Miller  |  June 13, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    It is interesting to note that all knew the judge was gay. If it were an issue, it should have been brought up at the beginning of the trial and NOT after it is over. This seems desperate

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