Gay Marriage

Common sense is the imperative of reason. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuals are born, but the influence of a cultural environment can induce homosexual behavior. American society, however, is not rife with homosexuality, like ancient Greek culture, for example. Common sense concludes that there is a diffrence between being homosexual and BEhaving in a perverted manner. Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals, for on the Titanic, it was women and children first, not Bruce and Goose.

After all, what would the world be like if everyone were honest. Common sense can conclude that a Christian motivation derived from the Bible is unnecesary to recognize that homosexuals should be tolerated in an ordered society but not accepted.

Calif. same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

By Robert Barnes, Updated: Tuesday, February 7, 12:58 PM

A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a decision that could lead to the Supreme Court’s consideration of the controversial social issue.

By a 2 to 1 vote, the panel overturned the proposition, which was approved by 52 percent of the state’s voters in 2008 and amended the state’s Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. “The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”

Reinhardt, a Jimmy Carter appointee considered one of the nation’s most liberal appellate judges, was joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented.

The court took a narrow route in knocking down the same-sex marriage ban, and did not address the issue of whether the Constitution protects the rights of all same-sex couples to marry.

Instead, it focused on the fact that same-sex couples in the state for a brief time had the right to marry, and that Proposition 8 took that away. About 18,000 same-sex couples married during a five-month period after the California Supreme Court found such a right in the state constitution and before Proposition 8 passed.

“By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause” of the federal Constitution, Reinhardt wrote.

“We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.”

He based the ruling on the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans, which invalidated an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that prohibited any level of government from enacting anti-discrimination measures that protected homosexuals. The constitutional amendment came after local governments in the state passed laws prohibiting discrimination.

“It’s no surprise that the 9th Circuit’s decision is completely out of step with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision in American history on the subject of marriage,” said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.

“Ever since the beginning of this case, we’ve known that the battle to preserve traditional marriage will ultimately be won or lost not here, but rather in the U.S. Supreme Court,” Pugno said.

Former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson, who represented the two same-sex couples named in the lawsuit, countered that “today, we are more American because of this decision.”

“This case is about equality and freedom and dignity and fairness and decency,” Olson said. “It’s about whether we’re going to eliminate government discrimination.”

Same-sex marriages in California are not likely to resume until the appeals process is completed. Proposition 8 proponents may ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to review the decision, or take it directly to the Supreme Court.

If they take the second option, the justices most likely would not consider it in their current term, which ends in June. If the justices accepted the case, however, it could schedule oral arguments in the fall.

The appeals panel’s decision upheld a 2010 ruling by former U.S. District Judge R. Vaughn Walker. The panel rejected a motion that Walker should have recused himself from the case because he disclosed after trial that he was gay and had been in a relationship for 10 years.

In his dissent, Smith said that he did not think the Romer decision mandated the outcome in the current case, and that the proper role for the judiciary is to defer to the view that the proposition advanced “legitimate state interests.”

The case was brought by two same-sex couples, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, as well as Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo.

The case had received outsized attention because the lead lawyers representing the couples are Olson and Democratic lawyer David Boies. The two men were on opposite sides in another historic Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore.

While a majority of states have similar constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, six states plus the District of Columbia allow such unions. They are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York.

half_time wrote:
4:57 PM EST
I’m pretty liberal on most issues but I draw the line at men marrying each other or women marrying each other….I do believe in the Bible (sorry) and whether it sounds loony to a lot of you intellectuals but bad things happen to societies when we don’t follow God’s laws. I think the current state of this country is proof that the more accepting we are of wicked acts the hard the sow we will reap. I don’t have an issue with homosexuals as human beings but I can’t accept their actions when it comes to marriage and sexual desires. Sorry.

Iconoblaster wrote:
4:57 PM EST
I wonder what “legitimate state interest” Judge Smith imagines was advanced by prohibiting gay people from marrying. But then, I continue to wonder why in the world some people think it is THEIR business if OTHER people get married, or how prohibiting gay people from getting married “protects” the institution of marriage (and from what). If the institution of marriage is in any jeopardy at all, the bigger threats would seem to be adultery and divorce… gay people getting married (or not) has ZERO impact on any heterosexual marriage.

DebraJMSmith wrote:
4:57 PM EST
Okay, let’s try this another way. Clearly we have a very sensitive liberal moderator working here today. (And I have reported this problem to the high-ups on WP.)
How ridiculous!
This has nothing to do with equal rights. It has everything to do with NAUGHTY people wanting to force their NAUGHTYNESS on the whole of society, by lying and claiming that they are a valid class of people; when all they are, are people who do NAUGHTY things with each other.
They say that they don’t push it on others. But just take a look at the number of businesses who get sued for not participating in their perversion, like bakers that won’t make their wedding cake, printers that won’t print wedding invitations for them. If they SO don’t want to push this on others, then why all of the lawsuits that do just that?
Debra…
“Informing Christians” Journalist

www.debrajmsmith.com/

[Her comment was removed.]

Steve1441 responds:
4:57 PM EST
SPAM, against the terms of service

RandomAnon responds:
4:57 PM EST
That’s still going to get deleted.

Gorble responds:
4:59 PM EST
DebraJMSmith seems to be doing a woefully bad job at being a “Informing Christians” Journalist”, because so many of the far-right Christians here seem terribly misinformed.

Buddydog writes
5:03 PM EST
WaPo, you made a mistake in censoring Debra’s comments, as odious and unpleasant as they were. I assume you think she violated on of your terms, “degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification.” But I disagree in this case.
Her arguments are not without relevance here. It is precisely the spirit of her beliefs and those of others that allowed Prop 8 to be passed in the first place. It would not have passed were it not for thousands of people who think like her. Her comments may make some uncomfortable, but they can be comforted by the overwhelming response of others in the comments board, who rightfully called her out on her hatred and bigotry. Debra is in the minority here, but without views like hers on the board, then a true discussion on what this issue is about is impossible, because her views are at the heart of the movement around this country that want one set of state-provided rights for heterosexuals and a different set for homosexuals.
I don’t think hiding uncomfortable views away does anything for anybody. Free speech can be messy, but it’s important for views like hers to see the light of day so they can be challenged. Reconsider how you apply your terms of service, moderator.

Iconoblaster responds:
5:05 PM EST
I hope your post isn’t deleted, Debra, but it IS silly. How is anyone imposing anything on YOU if gay people get married. Nobody is demanding that you marry a gay person… no gay person is trying to marry you. As for whether gay people are “valid people”.. THAT question is just too stupid to take seriously. YOUR assessment of what sexual acts are “normal” and which ones are “perverse” would probably conflict with the assessments of a substantial percentage of all humanity. These things really depend on religion and culture, you see? Some Americans think plural marriage is OK, some think it is terrible. Some think oral sex is perverse… but apparently many don’t agree with that. Nobody gets to decide for everyone else. Everyone gets to decide that for himself or herself. Personally, I think slamming other people for things that are not a matter of choice…like sexual orientation or physical characteristics… is pretty “naughty

softjazz41 writes:
5:05 PM EST
Debra…for sure, no one would want to do anything “naughty” as you call it., with you… no matter where they stand. Give it up girl. You aren’t God.

Abecedarian1 writes:
5:07 PM EST
You gotta love it — the gays are now comparing themselves to

1) infertile hetero’s
2) post- menopausal women
3) castrated men
4) or just folks that don’t want to have children

LOL — all in an attempt to blot out what is obvious to all — the pairings don’t make sense — and don’t qualify for marriage — an institution which our very existence depends upon

Biological relevance is about reproduction and emotional development. Raising children in a sexually confused environment of same sex marriage is another biological dead-end

Abecedarian1 writes:
4:59 PM EST
Marriage is about family
Family is dependent on biologically relevant pairings
Hetero’s are biologically relevant pairings
Homo’s are not
Therefore Hetero’s should marry
Homo’s should do something else

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/calif-same-sex-marriage-ban-ruled-unconstitutional/2012/02/07/gIQAMNwkwQ_story.html

sportster1200 said on: February 7, 2012, 9:36 pm
Once again political appointees over rule the will of the people. In no state that has put gay marriage on the ballot has it passed.(please corect me if I am wrong) The same thing has happened when legalized marijuana goes on the ballot. If it is approved the government overrules us. We the people no longer have a true say in what is legal in this country.

ILMugwump said on: February 7, 2012, 9:18 pm
To me, the whole civil rights aspect is being mis-stated, and misunderstood across the board. The reality is that married people, under law, have a whole host of automatic legal rights and privileges that gay folks, as well as heterosexuals who choose to not marry, simply don’t have without going through a complex legal process. Figuring out a way to regularize those rights for all IS an essential thing.

Perfecto said on: February 7, 2012, 9:16 pm
There are NO laws of nature.

elizabethcostello said on: February 7, 2012, 8:54 pm
I don’t see what the problem is with this ruling. If you don’t want to have a same-sex wedding, don’t marry someone of the same sex! Let others live their lives if they’re consenting adults, and you live yours.

electronmustang said on: February 7, 2012, 7:55 pm
I am probably in the minority here, but my issue isn’t with gay marriage. As far as I’m concerned; I don’t personally agree with gay marriage, but to each his or her own. I won’t press my views on you and you don’t try to press your views on me. My issue is on the way our Federal Appellate courts decide to legislate from the bench instead of following written law. This will now have to go to the SCOTUS to decide. It’s a cop out and judicial activism at its finest. Just my opinion.

USSEnterpriseNCC1701A said on: February 7, 2012, 7:54 pm
It’s very unfortunate that “anti-gay marriage” is viewed (by some) as the same as “anti-gay.” It’s not.
For what it’s worth, I think the federal DOMA was a mistake. It was a reaction to state trends recognizing gay marriage. In fact, it was a bit of a compromise- the feds wouldn’t recognize gay marriage at the federal level, but leave the states to chart their own course.
But DOMA is probably unconstitutional, for a contract valid in one state, not to be valid in another. And clearly, marriage and restrctions (age of consent, etc.) have always been a state issue.
I think for the feds, one issue that is going to be huge is re-calculating actuary tables for same sex couples. It’s only going to increase costs to have spousal survivor benefits, etc. calculated into social security. A small issue to be sure, since Medicaid and Social Security are going bankrupt anyway.

snootch said on: February 7, 2012, 7:17 pm
ILMugwump – “Disclaimer: I have a gay daughter, and there is no doubt in my mind that she didn’t choose to be gay any more than she chose to be blonde.”
There’s no doubt in my mind, either. Your daughter is not a freak and is not unnatural. Homosexuality occurs in literally every species of animal and insect found on this planet. Your daughter no more chose to be gay than you or I chose to be straight. I also have gay relatives, but I think, according to my libertarian values, that it wouldn’t have mattered. I really don’t care what other people do so long as it neither costs me money nor violates any my rights.

Unfair and Unbalanced said on: February 7, 2012, 6:55 pm
Bill Hanks – I am not a christian at all. I am native american and my religous beliefs are rooted in my heritage. I find homosexuality goes against nature not to mention immorality. I might take a peak at the Gay day parade though just see how many people are waving and flinging their arms screaming look at me I am a heterophobe. I am straight, but I have no need to parade in the streets saying look at me I am normal.

Unfair and Unbalanced said on: February 7, 2012, 6:50 pm
Editors Note * You were correct. Clean up your language, or please find another venue for the level of discourse you are choosing to engage in. thank you.

USSEnterpriseNCC1701A said on: February 7, 2012, 6:49 pm
Snootch wrote “The Court ruled, correctly IMO, that the only reason for Proposition 8 was to overturn the legislation allowing gay marriage in the first place.”
Actually, gay marriage was (at first) judicially imposed by a state judiciary that (in my opinion) misinterpreted the California state constitution.
First, an ordinary statute was passed (Prop 22) to ban gay marriages. The California Supreme Court invalidated that law, saying that the State Constitution required recognition of same sex marriage.
So, Prop H8 used the same wording to AMEND the California constitution, defining marriage as only between men and women.
A judge with obvious bias ruled against Prop H8. Essentially, the 9th circuit ruled that a state can’t amend it’s own constitution to challenge a dubious ruling by it’s own supreme court.
For these reasons, I find the judicial assault on democracy appalling

Unfair and Unbalanced said on: February 7, 2012, 6:48 pm
Editors Note * Such juvenile personal attacks are not allowed. Repeated violations will result in a ban. thank you.

electronmustang said on: February 7, 2012, 6:37 pm
Here is my question; If people want to allow a state to override DOMA and allow legal gay marriage, then why do the same people criticize a state for passing immigration law because it’s a federal responsibility? Two totally separate issues but the same principle as far as the law is concerned.

Clyde S said on: February 7, 2012, 6:30 pm
This is a good thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people of the same gender marrying. Hopefully this will open the floodgates and spread to the rest of the country. There is no logical reason to not let gay folks get married. I know many gay people, and they say they were born that way. I will take their word for it over a staright person. It is not unnatural. it has been around forever. It occurs in the animal kingdom. There is nothing to fear. The world will not turn gay, reproduction will not halt, and people will not cease to exsist. Gay people have been around forever, and this has yet to happen. Everything will be okay, life will go on, and we will eventually wonder what the big deal was.

AdifferentPerspective said on: February 7, 2012, 11:04 pm
Three words say it is constitutional: voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law. voter-approved law.

www.stltoday.com/news/national/court-california-gay-marriage-ban-is-unconstitutional/article_3a018fe8-51bd-11e1-afcf-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=comments

carl jung Wrote:
All I ask of anyone is to be accountable for their actions. Choosing one’s lifestyle is one thing but to mandate a lifestyle is a great offense. Walk it out, you have made the decisions, now walk it out. No jusifications or excuses, walk it out.

Brian Joness Replied:
“Walk it out?” Do you mean “Work it out?”
Not a choice, I don’t know why people would think it is.
No one is mandating a lifestyle. A gay engineer doesn’t have some crazy different life than the straight engineer that works for the same company and lives in the same suburb.
No justifications, no excuses, just mind your own business and we will keep our rights. Thanks

carl jung Replied:
Walk your decisions out. Words, deeds and thoughts. A little maturity and accountability couldn’t hurt. These are univeral laws that everyone is subjet to. Lattie, Dottie and everybody. Walk it out. Can you? Could you? Brian

Cullen Kehoe Wrote:
We’ve moved past whether anything is constitutional or not.
The whole argument hinges on this, being gay is not something you’re born with. There is no scientific evidence, no evidence at all to support this stance. But somehow everyone believes it because Lady Gaga says so. And the press said 20 years ago they found a gay gene (only to later admit they were mistaken).
So what you have is some folks who do some activities in their spare time which none of anybody’s business, sure. But which does not amount to marriage. If they want to draw up contracts to pool their assets, great. That’s called a Civil Union and they have the right to do that. But to redefine marriage against the will of citizens, it’s crazy.
Just some final thoughts on this. The ancient Athenians during the Golden Age chose to be gay. Alexander the Great and his army chose to be gay (the entire army). James Dean chose to be bi-sexual to advance his career. Men in prison choose to be gay for lack of women. It can be complicated and people can do it for a number of reasons but it’s still a choice.

Brian Joness Replied:
Being gay is not a choice, not because Lady Gaga says so… because gay people say so. They should know.

John Reale Replied:
Be gay for five minutes and your whole argument about it not being something you are born with would collaspe. As far as civil unions, you are conveniently forgetting the history of the amicus that was well borne out in the Prop 8 trial. Going back to the 70s and 80s when municipalities enacted, or tried to enact, non-descrimination laws regarding gays and employment, housing, etc. the screams were how those laws were destroying society as we know it. When the anti-gay folks lost that argument, they screamed about how civil uinions were destroying society as we know it and that the non-descrimination laws were enough. Now that they are slowly but surely losing the marriage battle, they admit that civil uniions should be granted, but marriage will destroy our society as we know it. We are six states and the District of Columbia into same sex marriage with one or more other states to soon join in. Can you tell me what has changed in our society because of it? Other than a group of people being granted dignity?

Clayton Holland Replied:
An argument from societal morays may be persuasive to some. But not me. Morality comes from God. It can come from no other. And just because earlier in our history homosexuality was more severely marginalized does not make the legal advancements of the Homosexual Agenda right, only might. The day may well come when Christians themselves are the marginalized ones in America. Some say that day is already here. Will you be at the tip of that spear? I believe many gays will be. The movement is militant.

Rosemary Albo Replied:
As a matter of fact homosexual acts have longed been distuingished as a mental disorder. Yet, out there in California, the Governor has even allowed for transexuals (perhaps among the most mentally challenged) to alter thier birth certificates to identify themselves in there new identiy as a man or woman.
Goverment is out of control.

Scott Davis Wrote:
You know, I am a bit shocked and appalled at many of the older people on this discussion board.
I thought that age brings common sense and wisdom. I guess not…
But what should I expect? I have only been called an “oriental” and been labeled with stereotyped traits by those over the age of 50.
Thank god the next few decades belong to my generation and not them. Hopefully the tolerance of my generation can override the inorance and bigotry of our predecessors.
Who knows, perhaps in the the near future society will judge a person based on their character and personality, rather than their skin color or sexual preference.

PHILLIP DUNCAN Replied:
Politics is about money and bigotry is a good way to energize certain people to open their wallets, so don’t expect tolerance or reason to settle this issue anytime soon.

Terry Weeks Wrote:
Is it just hugs and kisses in the bedroom? I dont get it ? How can same sex people have sex?

JOHN MCKAY Wrote:
This is going to be a boom to divorce attorneys when all these gay marriages dissolve–tons more volume of cases. Also, alot of work for PI’s, judges, paralegals, court reporters, etc.
If there is a flood of plural marriages AND those dissolve, WOW, imagine the legal fees–one guy divorces four women! Four times the fees for the attorney representing the wives!
I think I may consider going back to law school. You’d want to set up practice in the San Francisco bay area and in Utah!

Lynne Marino Wrote:
Ohhh, to be a California divorce lawyer. Money, money, money here I come.

Lyman Hong Replied:
I’m pretty sure divorce lawyers, regardless of residence, are doing fine in the United States of heterosexuals-who-have-a-glaringly-high-divorce-rate-and-would-like-to-blame-it -on-gay-marriage.

Lloyd Kelly Wrote:
Gregory Grenello, Man you have issues… who are you to determine who has a “real” marriage and who dosen’t …. that is why the courts had to get involved… cause peopel like you do not understand what it means to be born an American…. it means that I don’t need your approval… I don’t have to believe in the same God you do… I don’t have to look like you…. I don’t have to wesr the same cloths as you… but I do get the same right to live my life the way I choose as you do.
And for the record…somebody please explain how who I am married to affects you… If you don’t want to be gay then don’t marry a man… but don’t try and stop me…. and don’t insult me by saying you are more legit…because clearly as a human being you are not.

ROBERT MORTENSON Wrote:
What a farce California courts are. But with no Transcendent Code to reference – as in the Bible – how is any system of government going to establish an objective moral consistency in its law?
See C.S. Lewis and the “Abolition of Man”. The Tao of morality is found throughout the great religions of the world. And homosexuality is universally considered depraved. It is a fundamentally disordered pattern of thinking and behaving. The culture that embraces homosexuality as normal will drivel off into dysfunction, degradation and decay. It is just a matter of time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577209183209519256.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

Gay Marriage