The Real Threat to Religious Liberty

February 5, 2010 at 9:34 am 341 comments

By guest poster Rev. Lindi Ramsden, Executive Director
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA

America is not Iran. Our civil law is not supposed to track religious law. – Eric Isaacson

Wednesday, a group of faith-based organizations (listed below) submitted an amicus brief in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. The brief, written by our wonderful attorney, Eric Isaacson, cites the sobering reality of religiously based homophobia and makes the case that Proposition 8 was used to place anti-gay religious doctrine into our shared civil law – posing a real threat to religious liberty.

I and other clergy represented by faiths on this brief were among those who joyously married same-sex couples when it finally became legal to do so – couples that had waited for decades. We were stunned to hear those supporting Proposition 8 claim that legal marriage for same-sex couples threatened their religious freedom. Now that was a twist of logic!

As explained in the brief:

Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry threatens religious liberty of Catholics no more than does allowing civilly divorced citizens to marry in contravention of Catholic doctrine.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more threatens the religious liberty of those who oppose such unions in their churches and synagogues than permitting interfaith marriage threatens religious liberty of synagogues and rabbis who interpret their scripture and tradition to prohibit such unions….

The real threat to religious liberty comes from enforcing as law religious doctrines of society’s most powerful sects, to outlaw marriages that others both recognize and sanctify.

Back in 1948, when the ban on interracial marriage was challenged in California (Perez v. Sharp) the CA Supreme Court decided that the law which outlawed the marriage between these two Catholics of different races should be struck down because the couple’s right to marry “is protected by the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.”

Surely, Unitarian Universalists, members of the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community Churches, Reform Jews, Reconstructionist Jews, and others whose faith traditions bless marital unions without regard to the contracting parties’ race or sex, are entitled to the same religious liberty as the Catholics. Proposition 8 deprives them of that liberty.

To read the full Interfaith Amicus Brief in Perry V. Schwarzenegger click here.

The interfaith amicus brief was signed by the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA and the UULM Action Network, CA; CA Faith for Equality; CA Council of Churches and Church IMPACT; Progressive Jewish Alliance; General Synod of the United Church of Christ and both its Southern & Northern CA Nevada Conferences; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches; and the Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis.

Entry filed under: Statements.

Reason Will Triumph The Awakening of the GOP?

341 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Amen! The true threat to religious freedom in this country is the coalition of fundevangelists , Catholics, and LDS radicals who think they are the only ones with any morals, when in fact those same radicals, who are not the mainstream of religious folks I have met, they are only trying to hide behind a religious baner, in much the same way the terrorists who attacked the Trade Center in 2001 are merely radicals who are trying to hide behind the Islamic religion. And if they are not stopped, we will end up in a totalitarian regime that makes the era of communism in the Soviet Union look like a Sunday picnic.

    Reply
    • 2. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:29 am

      The only difference between Islamic terrorists and Christians is the violence.

      Beliefs are, at their core, much the same.

      Reply
      • 3. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:39 am

        I would say the level of violence, not violence itself. Don’t forget the acts of domestic terrorism and murder that have been perpetrated by “Christians” against those they deem unworthy of life.

        Reply
      • 4. mdweber  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:46 am

        Bill,

        The violence is still evident in the radical forms of both terrorist organizations – its just the Islamic form seems to have more quantity.

        Just one example of the violence by a Christian terrorist is the assassination of George Tiller by Scott Roeder.

        Peace – Mike

        Reply
      • 5. Kim  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:06 am

        Bill, ever checked the motivations of the home grown domestic terrorists? You will be shocked to see that the fundies at both sides are not that different.

        Reply
      • 6. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:59 pm

        As Mr HCI has said below, it is the LEVEL of violence. And even that has risen. Don’t overlook the recent conviction of the murderer of Dr. George Tiller, the man who dedicated himself to the risky care of late term abortion. Whatever your moral and/or legal stance on pro-life, pro-choice. this was murder based on radical (and misguided) religious belief. That is not what freedom of religion is about.

        Reply
    • 7. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:43 am

      Cool. Next, you’ll be explaining that a newspaper is a threat to freedom of the press or banning torture violates the 8th Amendment.
      As to the Al Qaeda terrorists, they don’t need to “hide” behind Islam… the Koran provides for martyrdom against paganism which is precisely how Islamic terrorists represent their cause. It is not a problem with Islam or someone hiding behind it… it is a problem of their justification being highly plausible to the majority of adherents to their faith.

      Got a kick out of your “we’ll end up in a totalitarian regime” tripe, though. Blinkered ignorance among those who decry ignorant stereotypes is always deliciously ironic.

      Reply
      • 8. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:08 am

        Ah, Kay …
        Do you not see how much a saying involving pots & kettles applies to you?

        Reply
      • 9. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:20 am

        Of course she can’t, Sheryl. She’s one of those “conservatives” who figures that as long as her rights are protected, who gives a shit about the rights of others?

        I grew up in Oregon; I knew a thousand “Kay Moores” who were delighted to wallow in their bizarre combination of heterosexist privilege and willful ignorance.

        I don’t miss living in Oregon one tiny bit — and I lived in Portland, which overall is considered to be hip and progressive.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 10. Scott  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:38 am

        Kay, I’m actually interested in better understanding your point of view… assuming you disagree with the points made in the amicus brief.

        You didn’t actually respond to the subject at hand. Several religious communities actually perform and sanctify same-sex marriage. Several others don’t. In the equal protection of all religions (and not just the majority ones), how is it just that the state sides with some and not others? The role of the state with regards to religions is to provide an environment in which one is free to practice a religion of one’s choice (as it pertains to oneself, not everyone else) — not to enable one religion while disabling others.

        Other than the “my god is better than your god” claim, what other argument is there against the points made in this brief?

        Reply
      • 11. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:44 am

        “Blinkered ignorance among those who decry ignorant stereotypes is always deliciously ironic.”

        Why yes it is Kay – the irony is always so very delicious when you post your ‘pot calling the kettle black’ statements.

        Love,

        Ozy

        Reply
      • 12. dieter  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:51 am

        It is also plagiarism Kay.
        and duly reported as such. perhaps next time you can use YOUR OWN words……..

        Reply
      • 13. Ed-M  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:52 am

        Project much Kay? After all you and your allies were the ones who said same-sex marriage posed a threat to traditional marriage, implying that GLBT people (gay men in particular) posed a threat to the (heterosexual) children (of married heterosexual parents) and that families headed by two parents of the same sex posed a threat to families headed by two parents of the opposite sexes — when nothing can be further from the truth.

        Reply
      • 14. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:17 pm

        The only thing on this planet more common than Kay Moore is the dirt that she walks on.

        Reply
      • 15. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:22 pm

        @Scott
        I didn’t attempt to refute the amicus brief, Scott, because I don’t have a dispute with it. I responded to Richard’s comments about how certain religions are trying to impose a totalitarian regime worse than the USSR because I disagreed with his comments.

        Now, to answer your question about the state siding with one religion over another… that there is precisely why we have a First Amendment: the state is meant to give no support whatsoever to a particular religion. Now, it is true that Prop 8 had significant support from certain religions and its concept appears to be religiously-based but the state is not siding with the Mormons because a majority vote has enacted a law with which the Mormons (and other religious sects) agree. This would be like arguing that if some religious supported a tax law and other religious opposed it, the government is siding with one group of religions over another if that tax law is enacted.

        Reply
      • 16. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm

        Oh, please… plagiarism? Who do you think I plagiarized, Deiter?

        Reply
      • 17. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        Same-sex marriage is being opposed for RELIGIOUS reasons. Therefore, it is a case of the state establishing a secular law based upon religion.

        Reply
      • 18. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:27 pm

        I’m glad you think so, Fiona, but all it is is your own notions and assumptions.

        I’m actually thinking of heading off to Washington eventually… I grow weary of Oregon governmental incompetence. I hear the Puget Sound area is nice.

        Reply
      • 19. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:29 pm

        Which cleverly explains the citation of non-religious reasons.

        Reply
      • 20. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm

        Non-sensical non-religious reasons

        Reply
      • 21. Scott  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm

        The truth is, when religious reasons are removed from consideration, the case against allowing consenting adults who love each other to make a legal commitment to each other dissolves into nothing (as evidenced in this trial and as continues to be demonstrated in sociological studies).

        The absence of state’s siding with one side vs. another would imply that the state removes barriers from, not adds them to, citizens’ participation in a state-facilitated institution. In allowing a barrier to be added, it is unquestionably siding with one side of a religious debate over another. In removing the barrier, it is honoring the First Amendment by facilitating participation in the institution by all citizens equally.

        Reply
      • 22. TakeAChillPill  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:48 pm

        Kay, the pharmacy called and your meds are ready.

        Reply
      • 23. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:50 pm

        “As to the Al Qaeda terrorists, they don’t need to “hide” behind Islam… the Koran provides for martyrdom against paganism which is precisely how Islamic terrorists represent their cause. It is not a problem with Islam or someone hiding behind it… it is a problem of their justification being highly plausible to the majority of adherents to their faith.”

        Kay, the quote I have included with your post I do take objection to on the grounds that most of the Islamic world ar peaceful; to paint them in this light is really no better than what Hitler did with the Jews during WWII. \

        I have some very dear friends, who are of the Islamic faith and I have had long discussions with them about just such topics. The reality, as explained to me, there are radicals in all religions and Bin Laden is just one of those radicals.

        Another point I wanted to make is that at one time, Osama Bin Laden was an ally of the US and he only turned, when our government “hung him out to dry”, as it were following some CIA covert operations in Pakistan.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 24. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm

        Excellently put, Scott!

        Reply
      • 25. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:21 pm

        @Scott
        When you remove moral considerations entirely from the debate, there is also no real debate. When there is no question of “this is right” or “that is wrong”, there’s no real language left to address the question of who ought to be married. Religion provides a blanket source of right/wrong guidance but an atheist has access to a means of deciding right and wrong that is just as legitimate as that of the theist. Out of curiosity, Scott, what do you think the language in favor of SSM would look like if you eliminated all claims related to right and wrong? If you could not argue that it is only right that any loving couple should be allowed state-sanctioned marriage? If you could not argue that it is deeply wrong for this right to be limited to heterosexuals? You’d essentially be left with “Study A indicates that Action B must provide maximum benefit for society so B must be done no matter what B is.” It is seeming to me that there is a great deal of verbiage from the pro-SSM side declaring that “our opponents only have moral arguments against our wishes” which is followed immediately by “denying us this is wrong” which is a statement of morality. Now, don’t get me wrong… “I feel” is a pathetic excuse for any legally-binding action such as making a law but it’s a part of lawmaking whether people want it to be or not. Even in a monarchy, the government is not Data, spewing an endless array of perfectly logical fiats absent any consideration of morality but someone who regards one action as more correct/right than another and tries to take that action. “This action is right and that one is wrong” is an essential component of lawmaking and it seems entirely dishonest to demand that one side abstain from such arguments while the other is free to use them.

        Inevitably, the state must side with one side of a moral question over the other side of it. People rolled their eyes at me and mis-characterized it as me trying to argue that SSM leads to pedophilia but the fact is that there are multiple opinions about such things as appropriate ages of consent and all of these things can be distilled down to “it is wrong for children below age C to be considered able to make decisions about sexual intercourse.” When the law is finalized, all of the judgments about proper age of consent are ignored except for one; the state sides with one side against all others no matter the source of any given side’s moral judgment. To fit the analogy more specifically, there are multiple opinions about which marriage configuration is acceptable; each of these boils down to a question of “this is right or that is wrong.” Even if the state sides against those who declare SSM wrong, the action involves siding against anyone who argues that yet another marriage configuration is right. But what, in this scenario, occurs if the state puts no limits at all on the institution, regarding every single possibility as equally meritorious? It is siding against no one and is indeed opening the institution up to anyone who applies for it but whenever this is pointed out, a chorus of protest erupts declaring the observation out of bounds, an illegitimate strawman seeking to equate homosexual marriage with bestiality. However, a direct comparison between two configurations isn’t even the point of the observation; the point is that when you rule that no invocation of “this is right” or “that is wrong” can be permitted in law, the law cannot recognize distinctions between reasonable marriage models such as homosexual couples and marriage models widely regarded as “extreme” or “fringe” (both of which, by the way, are largely statements of a moral nature). Yet this is essentially what someone who decries the invocation of the morality of a particular religion demands: either they say that only non-religious morality is permissible (I cannot imagine how you’d determine such a thing) or they say that no moral considerations can be admitted when the state is involved and the creation and sustenance of laws is state involvement.

        Reply
      • 26. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:44 pm

        You absolutely right Scott, by legalizing marriage equality they are saying that your beliefs are no better then theirs and both are tax paying citizens they are removing a barrier and saying both are equal under the law. SSM does not stop somebody from believing in god…and if it does that is their problem. gay people can not force you to be gay but they are forcing people to follow christian values.They have no right to tell us we can’t get married or to stop us from getting married based on religion. if that where the case then because of freedom of religion I have right to tell heterosexuals they can’t get married and I can stop them as well.

        This is why this trial is going on..the law was state by state,,,California legalized SSM and then it was taken away by a vote in which the evidence shows was based on religious arguments and funded by the church…it was not even the majority(the majority was those who did not vote)…it was equivalent to a class poll vote and thats it.(I voted in my class polls, but in my grad class only 32% of the ballots were handed in that is not a majority vote.

        Reply
      • 27. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:49 pm

        I see Kay is back – welcome back.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 28. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:54 pm

        Thanks much, David. :)

        Reply
      • 29. Scott  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:55 pm

        Kay, the point on which I fear we will never agree:

        Homosexuality is only a “moral issue” when you bring some people’s religious misinterpretations in. For a huge chunk of US citizenry, there’s no moral issue involved here, except the immorality of those trying to oppress the rights of a disadvantaged group of people who just want to love another human being. For us (and for the vast majority of social scientists), calling homosexuality a “moral issue” is as absurd as calling racial identity or gender or even eye color a “moral issue.” That’s because we understand (as I hope you can begin to) that it’s not a choice, that it hurts no one (including ourselves), and that it’s a normal variation in human sexuality (as virtually all psychological and medical authorities in the Western world now firmly understand).

        What if my religion decided that all left-handed people (also a minority) were immoral and we paid for a campaign to legally force all left-handed people to write with their right hands? After all, what do they need the privilege of writing with their left hands for when they are perfectly entitled to write with their right hands? That would be “special rights”! And just think if a left-handed person were to teach my child… my child might learn that behavior! Seems a little absurd, huh? Well to those of us who understand homosexuality is not a choice or behavior but an inherent characteristic and identity, it’s a perfectly workable parallel.

        And it doesn’t work to say “yeah, but a religion like that doesn’t exist, and religions that consider homosexuality immoral do.” Because I do not subscribe to those religious interpretations and should not be forced to live under their codes of morality in a country with religious freedom. I don’t personally have a problem with people who choose to subscribe to those religions defining morality for themselves (although we know many of them aren’t good at living by their own moral codes), keep me out of it. I’m not hurting anyone… in fact, I’m just wanting to participate in an institution that’s good for society.

        Reply
      • 30. Scott  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:13 pm

        By the way, Kay… why do you care who I love and how we file our taxes? You never have to befriend “immoral” people like me if you don’t want to, or really even give us further consideration if it’s too troubling for you to do so. And I really fail to see how my partner and I getting married will deter Jason and Jennifer next door from getting married if they love each other. If it is our mere existence–not our desire to get married–that bothers you, I’m afraid you’ll have to get over that because we aren’t going away anytime soon.

        Just let us be and we won’t hurt you.

        Reply
      • 31. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:15 pm

        @Scott
        I appreciate your impassioned denunciation of regarding natural characteristics as a moral issue but I’m not sure what it has to do with our discussion. I cannot see any particular point of mine that your protest addresses; I said nothing about the morality of homosexuality nor did I make allusion to it. So for the purposes of the discussion you and I are having, let us assume that we both agree that homosexuality is no more a moral issue than skin color or dominant hand. Given such an agreement, what are your criticisms of my argument about the role of moral belief (where religion is one of innumerable sources of moral belief) in making law?

        Reply
      • 32. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:30 pm

        Hey Scott…..maude…..hahahah….lol

        If you need a tux, let me know….If you ask me a question I will answer it….Oh I’m very good at making underwear….my best designing and sewing skill….but my tailoring is spot on(at least my teacher said so, I was the only one to get final Grade of “A” that quarter out of 30)

        Oh and now you got that song “Let it be” stuck in my head…I’m gonna be singing that in my sleep….lol

        Reply
      • 33. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:32 pm

        Your mere existence means everything but nothing to me: the existence of every individual human person is of the greatest interest to me but the fact that some of those humans prefer their own gender or have corrective surgery to reflect their personal conception of their gender or have sexual interest in both genders at the same time is of no interest to me. It doesn’t affect me, when put in its proper place is invisible to me, and I have yet to see any way in which it directly impacts me. Some manifestations affect me (for example, I think that a couple of any gender mix fondling and making out in public to be an irritation since I regard intimacy to be more appropriate to an intimate setting) but on the whole, it is a matter of indifference and can even be a matter of some delight; a gay coworker, for example, was occasionally visited by his significant other (I didn’t think asking him for details about his relationship would have been appropriate) who brought the most adorable little dog they called Panda and that was always a bright point in the day. I would also be delighted to hear news of my close friend from high school getting married to his beloved so I could send a gift and my congratulations; a wedding, after all, is a wedding and those can be delightful for friends of either partner.

        In short, to quote a commentator on the public indecency trial of author Oscar Wilde: “I have no objection to anyone’s sex life as long as they don’t practice it in the street and frighten the horses.”

        Reply
      • 34. Scott  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:37 pm

        Kay, I don’t disagree that moral belief has always and will always play a role in lawmaking. But when one group influences the formation of a law based on the flawed premise that a natural characteristic is a moral choice when the other group (backed by the vast majority of social scientific evidence) doesn’t even put it in the “morality” category, then it is the role of the judicial system to intervene as it hopefully will in this case. I would hope that if left-handedness is ever deemed immoral by a powerful religious group and laws are passed to prohibit it, that the courts would intervene as well.

        So I’ll agree with you that subjective views of morality are often codified into law. I hope you’ll agree that sometimes these are based upon false premises and harm a minority group, are therefore rightfully stricken down by the courts. That’s certainly the historical record (thank God), and the same will happen in this case eventually… I just hope it’s sooner than later so that my life isn’t wasted struggling for rights and can instead be spent making positive contributions to society.

        Reply
      • 35. Scott  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:46 pm

        Kay, I’m encouraged to know that my existence doesn’t trouble you. So why does the legality of my relationship status trouble you? Do you really think that if the state gives my partner and me a marriage license and the ability to file our taxes together that it will affect you, your marriage (if applicable), or the sustainability of the institution of marriage? Or are we really arguing about the meaning of a single word that has, in fact, changed meanings more times than can be accurately documented?

        Or perhaps you’re actually not opposed to equal rights and are just a person who enjoys the art of debate?

        Reply
      • 36. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:49 pm

        Hey Scott….Maude double yeah?…hahhah…lol

        If anybody looks back at history and ignores the incoherent propaganda and speculation of circle drawing. They can see that the minority group always won in the end and the majority is looked at as the villain and evil. The bigots are afraid because once again they are using the bible to oppress another that they see as an abomination and yet they don’t learn that they never win….We are suppose to study history so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past but low and behold here we are……right back at one….They biggest tactic…answering a question with a question as is we don’t see though that…yeah Scott?

        Reply
      • 37. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 12:19 am

        I think that for some religions, the morality of homosexuality becomes much more complicated than “being gay is a moral choice” but I concede to your general point. My question to your first paragraph is: what about the situation you describe requires judicial intervention? Judges, after all, do not rule on questions of morality and it is very fortunate that they do not: it would corrupt their role as the arbiters of a law’s meaning, remaking their role as the arbiters of the motivations of those that made the law. That two sides disagree on whether there is a moral component to the law doesn’t, itself, seem like an argument that a judge needs to step in and provide an answer. But overall, even when one side is backed by social science, the ultimate question that is addressed in any manner of lawmaking is: what is right? Is it “right” that marriage is heterosexual-only or is it “right” that marriage is for all couples that want to marry? At the moment, the “ruling”, as it were, of those empowered by the legislature to make laws is that it is “right” that marriage is heterosexual-only. It seems to me that the judiciary intervenes not on a moral question but on a technical one: is what has been ruled “right” consistent with all laws that are superior to it? If the answer seems clear-cut in the positive, the judge will typically refuse to hear the case. In this instance, the judge apparently regards the question to be complex enough to require that all arguments be presented to him in such a way that he can observe the legal debate to see which argument is the more valid. But ultimately, a judge never rules on a moral question nor does s/he rule on which side of a debate is correct in applying a moral framework. S/he rules on whether the lower law is in violation of the higher law or on a procedural matter such as which entity is empowered under the law to make the decision (which is the primary question that the CA Supreme Court considered).

        I’m glad we agree on the role of morals in lawmaking. I also agree that sometimes these are based on false premises and do illegal harm to a minority and are thus rightfully struck down. I part ways with you on whether that is true in this particular case but I believe that your preferred ruling will be the ultimate result because of a severe conceptual flaw that made its way into SCOTUS and other courts during the 20th century. I’d like to think that your preferred result would also come about through the judicial system if this flaw was absent but it’s very difficult to answer because the conceptual flaw built the precedents that make it even possible for the question to be seriously considered.

        Reply
      • 38. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 12:57 am

        Ultimately, it’s a technicality for me. I see marriage as an institution enjoying centuries of varying practices and viewpoints that have ultimately optimized it for its traditional understanding: a heterosexual union for the purpose of producing, normalizing, socializing, and educating offspring to be the best possible contributors to the larger society. To my knowledge, social science has established that a child with a stable female and stable male role model to whom they are directly related will enjoy the greatest possible socializing, normalizing, and educational benefit. I admit a certain level of bias because I feel that the presence of a very admirable father and mother have imbued me with certain habits of mind such as intense curiosity, literacy, and a desire to learn what is true. Yes, that mother and father also gave me a religious education but I find the moral system that that religion teaches to put great emphasis on seeking the truth for oneself, treating others with the greatest possible charity, and being consistent and thus I remain very dedicated to that religion. Because I regard myself as having benefited immensely from the traditional male/female marriage relationship, I naturally regard it as the best possible and am the most willing to support the form of marriage that has benefited me the most because I believe it will benefit others the most.

        In short, because my dedication to “traditional” marriage hinges so strongly on a technicality, I enthusiastically support civil union laws that bestow upon a loving homosexual couple every marriage benefit that it is possible for the state to provide. I do not believe the state has the ability to socially legitimize homosexual relationships and believe that it should not try to because an entity with immense power trying to do something it cannot do can cause inconceivable harm without even meaning to. I regard the prospect of the government forcing legitimacy as so perilous that I don’t even want to imagine the harm it could do. Because the title “marriage” confers legitimacy because of longstanding social tradition, I regard the government conferring it on a union that it has not previously applied to as an attempt by the state to dictate social legitimacy and am concerned that when fiat of title fails, other fiats will be considered. Social legitimacy is ultimately something that develops over time into something practically bulletproof: except among the tiniest minority, a nonwhite or a woman gaining immense economic, political, and social power enjoys full social legitimacy but this full legitimacy developed over a long time period and was only insignificantly accelerated by legislative and judicial decisions. I’m really sorry to be so long-winded and wordy but it’s hard to really describe how I oppose gay marriage without feeling even the slightest bit of malice towards homosexuals or any doubts about making every citizen of the United States equal before the law. Essentially, I think that civil unions identical to marriage make everyone equal before the law and the title of “marriage” makes everyone equal before the society so civil unions should be enacted now to equalize everyone under the law and “marriage” should be conferred later when a social consensus strong enough to confer full social legitimacy has been obtained.

        Now, that last question is a bit thorny because first, I have a different concept of equality than you seem to have (although not a severely different one) and second, I LOVE the practice of considerate debate. I see opinions and beliefs as gold riddled with impurities and debate as the means by which to purge them of those impurities so you eventually, after many decades of work, emerge with opinions that are the purest and wisest that is possible for an imperfect mortal to obtain.

        Reply
      • 39. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 1:20 am

        MAUD!!!!!!!!!…If you are against Marriage Equality you are a bigot there is no middle…either you do or you don’t

        Reply
      • 40. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 1:29 am

        separate but equal is not equal,,,peoples lives are not a debate…this is not a debate…it is OUR F-ING LIVES!!!!!!

        Reply
      • 41. Scott  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:23 am

        Kay, a study of history would surface at least two “impurities” in your argument.

        One: “Separate but equal” typically doesn’t turn out well. On the surface, it sounds like a plausible way for the state to provide for equal rights while catering to those who do not care to open their minds and hearts to people who are different. But I hope you’d agree that instances in history, not just in the US but around the world, where “separate but equal” has been attempted, the results have been less than optimal. Or perhaps you’re an advocate of US segregation laws and Apartheid?

        Two: The arc of progress through history is typically not bent by popular vote, but by events such as this very trial. Prior to the end of segregation, a majority in this country supported it. Prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, a majority in this country was not in favor. But decades after the courts intervened, popular opinion has changed in both cases. I don’t believe it would have, at least not nearly as quickly, had the courts not intervened and given a nudge to the arc of progress. I hope you can step back and see that the very same thing is happening here. As I think you conceded in your last point, there’s a certain inevitability about gay marriage (look around the world… it’s happening as we speak). History, debate, and necessary intervention are bringing the very “impurities” you spoke of to the top, and this is a very real, contemporary example.

        With that, I’m stepping out of this debate, at least in this forum, because it’s not the place for it. For most of us in this newly formed community, this is not merely an academic discussion. It has very real, very direct meaning in our lives. We’re angry, we’re hurt, but we’re hopeful, and at the end of the day, this is about no agenda other than to love. I hope that you can see that and can learn to respect it.

        Over and out, Kay.

        Reply
      • 42. Terri  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:30 am

        Kay,

        You are just obnoxious. You go out of your way to offend everyone with your “marriage is about procreation” speech, not minding who you run down as you run on and on. If Jesus was real then he was about compassion – and you quite obviously have none.

        Reply
      • 43. fiona64  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:40 am

        Terri, you’re completely correct. It’s just another verbose version of the trope that, in trying to avoid saying “I don’t want gay couples raising kids” puts down every single adoptee, adopted parent, single parent, stepparent, foster parent, grandparent doing the childrearing, etc.

        There’s no point arguing with a Rand lover who has determined Truth(TM), so it’s easiest to just ignore Kay. It saves your blood pressure if nothing else.

        And you’re right, of course. Rabbi Yeshua ben Joseph wouldn’t see any of his teachings there.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 44. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:42 am

        You know what’s the most fun thing about people do not bother themselves to read what they criticize carefully? They reinforce the sense of correctness of the person making the argument. Thank you for your contribution to my sense of rightness, Terri.

        Reply
      • 45. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:51 am

        It’s enlightening to hear what you believe was said, Fiona, but it’d be more interesting if your comments were about something that was actually said.

        It’s true that there is no point in arguing with a Rand lover who has determined Truth ™. Fortunately, I’ve never read Rand (and therefore cannot “love” her writings) and have yet to determine Truth ™.

        If you had Rabbi Yeshua ben Joseph debating you on a forum, Fiona, you’d be running to your “bigot” stereotypes fast as could be. Not because the infinitely compassionate Rabbi would have expressed anything remotely bigoted but because you’ve decided that opposition to your position could be nothing but bigotry.

        Reply
      • 46. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:00 am

        Hey Fiona64…..Maude….hahahah…lol

        You spin me right round……baby right round….like a (broken) record baby….right round…round round….hahaha

        <3

        Reply
      • 47. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:10 am

        @Scott
        In your first argument, it is entirely true that “separate but equal” has a sordid past in the United States and around the world. And for your information, I have no sympathy for previous iterations. There’s quite a bit I could say but I’ll leave it there since you wish to bow out having said your piece.

        Yes, the arc of progress typically is a fiat from the top. But a governmental system where it is possible to affect the arc from the bottom is extremely historically atypical and in that historically atypical governmental system, the arc has always been influenced positively without fiat. As above, there’s much more I could say but you wish to exit the debate having said what you feel.

        I don’t need to learn to respect it, Scott… I already do, irregardless of the unfounded opinions of certain other commentators.

        Over and out, Scott.

        Reply
      • 48. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:16 am

        Hey Scott……Maude triple…yeah?…..hahahaah…lol

        I agree with you…as you can see..that this website/blog is not a debate team situation its about our lives no matter what…but the bigots can’t see that because they only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear…the rest never happens and all else is fiction.

        Reply
      • 49. Michelle Evans  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:25 am

        Like most of you here, I almost find it funny (if it weren’t such a serious topic) about how the opposition maintains the idea that they totally support our right to marry–as long as we don’t call it marriage. They walk around with their noses in the air and say emphatically that it is okay for them to be married, but since those of us in same gender relationships are not really people anyway, why should we be so adamant about wanting to co-opt “their” word marriage.

        That some people are so shallow that they deny their own ingrained bigotry, is simply amazing. “I can’t be prejudiced because I have no problem with a colored person drinking from a water fountain–just not MY fountain.” or “Of course I wouldn’t deny you an education–just don’t do it at MY school.” or “Feel free to get married to anyone you want–as long it is not from MY race.”

        I find it hard to understand how certain people can look in the mirror each morning, look themselves right in the eye, and say it is absolutely justified and correct for me to put on my white sheet and hood today.

        It truly is mind-boggling to me that people with brains that work that way can even exist. They have no conscience and can’t think with any empathy toward their fellow human beings. They can’t put themselves in someone else’s shoes and say, “How would I react if I had my rights as a person taken away from me?”

        Reply
      • 50. Michelle Evans  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:27 am

        And as a follow up:

        As a transgender person, I face even more discrimination than other LGB people (I can only imagine what Miss Daisy, er, Kay, would have to say about me!). During the debate on the last ENDA bill, it was decided that protections for transgenders were just too much. The HRC specifically stated that it was okay to move forward without trans rights because at least the gays and lesbians would get theirs. If that had passed, how long do you think it would have been before anyone would have had the guts to step forward and propose the same for transgenders?

        “Just wait, we’ll get around to you eventually.” I don’t think so.

        Reply
      • 51. Michelle Evans  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:30 am

        But the “Book of Mormon” is based on the word from the angel Moroni, as I pointed out, so the question still remains valid.

        Reply
      • 52. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        Oh, there’s no need to strain your imagination, Michelle… Kay has nothing to say about you that she hasn’t already said about other LGB (which amounts to “LGB are no different than other humans”, vivid imaginations of other commentators aside).

        I suppose then that Jews should be called “Mosesians” because one of their most important laws was given to them by a prophet named “Moses” and Muslims should really be called “Gabrielians” because that is meant to be the angel that gave Mohammed the Koran? People use the nickname “Mormons” because of the name of their “new Bible”; you’re probably one of the few people who’d even know the name of the angel that gave that “bible” to Joseph Smith.

        Reply
      • 53. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 2:44 pm

        Hey Michelle Evans…..Maude some moore yeah?…hahaha…lol

        Your Imagination is exactly 100% right…..everybody who is important to the reality of this blog knows that…yeah?….I love Transgender Individuals. you have it the hardest of all humans…I am in awe of your strength….We know that that 10 commandments where not given by moses a human, but by the voice of god/burning bush(ohw that hurts)…so they are still what the are…and we all know that when people answer a question with a question they are either British, a Bigot, or ignorant…Don’t you think?

        Reply
      • 54. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 3:20 pm

        And now for the truth of the matter. The “everyone” herein referred would be strained to discover anything else because it does not exist. Admittedly, it is possible to imagine statements out of thin air but statements that do not exist cannot be copied and pasted as quotations. Ball’s in your court, ye who can claim much but prove nothing.

        Actually, if the preceding gentleman knew anything about the topic at hand, he would be aware that in the Bible, the 10 commandments were first spoken to the entire congregation of the children of Israel from Mt. Sinai and that God appeared in a smoke and with quakes and a voice like a trumpet. Later, Moses went up the mountain himself and God wrote the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone. There was no mention of a burning bush at this late juncture, as any informed person would know.

        Reply
      • 55. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 3:35 pm

        Hey Michelle Evans…….Maude even moore….lol….hahahaha

        I saw the 10 commandments….we know the TRUTH….Moses was a man who was given the 10 C’s by a burning bush (ouch) and some burning writing thing…on the side of a mountain….But we know that Bigots and ignorant Trolls…always say you know nothing at hand when you disagree with them…..yeah?because they have nothing better to do then harass people…yeah?

        From he who knows the truth about bigoted circles and answering a question with a question,

        Reply
      • 56. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:58 pm

        That may be because they can spot someone who sees fiction and regards it as real from a mile away (hundreds of miles away in my case). But you keep believing in your private world so I can have a reliable source of comic relief.

        Reply
      • 57. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:01 pm

        MAUDE!

        Reply
      • 58. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:33 pm

        KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!

        Reply
      • 59. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:43 pm

        MUADE!!!!!!!! Kaffer…gooi gooi moegoe

        Reply
    • 60. dieter  |  February 6, 2010 at 1:39 am

      great song

      Reply
      • 61. dieter  |  February 6, 2010 at 1:40 am

        my video links suddenly wont post anymore

        Reply
  • 62. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Perfectly stated. There is no reason for *my* religious beliefs to be overridden with the force of law because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
  • 63. Lo  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:57 am

    And that whole statement right there sums it up!!! Second AMEN to that.

    Reply
  • 64. David  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:00 am

    This is precisely the argument that I’ve been putting forward for 10 years; if the primary argument against gay rights is religious, doesn’t it follow that we formulate an argument for gay rights that is religious?

    By its very nature, religion is a thing of opinion. We are fortunate to live in a country that has codified respect for differences in that opinion, to the point where the state can take no action that explicitly endorses one religious opinion over another. However, that is what the state does every time they bar a GLB couple from receiving a marriage license after marrying in a church and allow a straight couple to obtain a license after marrying in the church next door.

    Reply
  • 65. rwg  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Threat to their religious freedom??
    Why hasn’t anyone proposed that we are victims of religious persecution? We are being marginalized by the religious beliefs or others. Isn’t one of the basic tenents of the founding of the United States, freedom from religious persecution?

    Reply
    • 66. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:08 am

      I believe that is what this amicus brief shows in great detail additionally, it goes on to show amicus by the Churches in this case – I just finished reading it!
      Love,
      David

      Reply
      • 67. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:37 am

        I assume you meant “it goes on to show animus by the Churches.”

        ^_^

        Reply
      • 68. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:15 am

        Yep, thank you, my brain won’t always engage with my fingers at times…chuckles
        Love,
        David

        Reply
    • 69. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm

      and/or/actually: “freedom from religion”

      Reply
  • 70. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:06 am

    “We were stunned to hear those supporting Proposition 8 claim that legal marriage for same-sex couples threatened their religious freedom. Now that was a twist of logic!”

    My sentiments exactly…..It only threatens your religious beliefs if you let it. We can change the things around us, what is written in a book, and definitions are changed all the time. We can change our clothes, the color of our hair, our eyes, the color of our skins with tattoos. But the thing that can only change by inch is your heart.

    You are entitled to you feelings, but denying me what you have because of your hatred and feelings is not only greedy, selfish, and spoiled; Its denying me my feelings, what my heart wants. Even the Grinch had a change of heart, but he is still called the Grinch. Ebenezer Scrooge had a change of heart, but he is still called Scrooge.

    The civil rights movement made discrimination against AA’s and other people of color illegal, but there is still racism and underground KKK. Women rights was legalized but there is still discrimination towards women. We can change our appearance but what is in your heart can only change if you let it.

    All we ask is that you change it enough to tolerate us the same way the we do tolerate you.

    This is not your America, It’s our America. This is not your Earth, It’s our Earth.

    Reply
    • 71. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:18 am

      Ronnie wrote: We can change our appearance but what is in your heart can only change if you let it.

      Yes, yes and yes.

      Okay, by now you all know I’m a big ol’ theatre geek, right? In fact, I wanted a career in theatre but didn’t have the support at home that I needed to make it happen.

      Anyway, there is a song from “Hair” that Ronnie’s post made me think about:

      The Flesh Failures/Let The Sunshine In

      We starve, look at one another short of breath
      Walking proudly in our winter coats
      Wearing smells from laboratories
      Facing a dying nation of moving paper fantasy
      Listening for the new-told lies
      With supreme visions of lonely tunes

      Somewhere, inside something, there is a rush of greatness
      Who knows what stands in front of our lives
      I fashion my future on films in space
      Silence tells me secretly everything, everything

      Let the sunshine
      Let the sunshine in, the sunshine in
      {Repeat}

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 72. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:27 am

        Thank you for sharing this with us, Fiona. I made the statement before, words can have a very powerful effect upon people – it just depends upon which side you are prone to listening to – my point is: there are some of the religious people that will never understand this is about civil rights and for them I feel empathy. When they shroud their hatred in citing scriptures, they employ a very dangerous standard. Most of them cherry-pick their scriptures and point to Sodom and Gammorah, as examples they are right. Yet, when you point-out to them the fallacy of their cherry-picked scriptures, most of them get enraged. How dare a faggot show me something in the Bible that contradicts what I believe. It is sad they cannot see the sunshine in life and appreciate our differences. Many use our differences in an attempt to divide us.

        Reply
      • 73. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:35 am

        Exactly, David!

        They decide which Biblical laws clearly must be enforced and which clearly are no longer relevent.

        They decide which Bible passages are clearly literal and which are clearly metaphoric.

        There is no room for any other possible interpretation, even if it is pointed out that passages have been mistranslated from the original language(s).

        Interestingly, I’ve been told both that one must interpret what one reads to truly understand the Bible and it is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong to interpret what one reads in the Bible.

        Reply
      • 74. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:14 pm

        I just want to interject here that I have no problem with Leviticus….

        It says, “A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman!”

        You won’t catch me putting MY penis into some other GUYS vagina! And that’s a fact!!!!!

        (Actually, I have to confess, I had a boyfriend that was female to male transsexual that never went through with the hysterectomy….does that count? Do you think that was what the Ancient Hebrews were talking about all those millenia ago?…)

        Who the hell wrote this stuff?!!!

        Reply
      • 75. bJason  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:23 pm

        I’ve played Claude on stage – thought of this, too. You rock!!

        Reply
      • 76. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm

        A note about Sodom and Gomorrah…

        Some so called ‘knowledgeable’ religious leaders would have you believe that the men of S&G came unto Lots house and demanded that he turn the two Angels over so that they could rape them.

        This could not be further from the truth.

        Here is what REALLY happened.

        The men of the town came to Lots house and demanded that the two men (angels) be forced into voluntary consensual two person long-term relationships on penalty of respectful disagreement!!!!

        This is why God smited them and this is why same-sex marriage will destroy the whole world!!!

        (Just sos you can’t say you weren’t properly informed.)

        Reply
      • 77. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm

        But then why hasn’t God smited(is that a word?) Canada? Belgium? Portugal? Massachusetts? The others?….hmmm!

        Jesus Loves us,Yes he do, Jesus Loves us you can too.

        But you don’t have to be IN love with us…..LOL

        Reply
      • 78. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm

        Ronnie, don’t be blatantly ignorant….God isn’t going to smite them… they aren’t Christian enough to even DESERVE smiting!!! He only smites really Christian people like ancient Abrahamites and Hatians….I know ‘cuz Pat Robertson done told me so!!!

        Doh!

        Reply
      • 79. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm

        But Patty is not the Messiah returned..He’s crazy….everybody thinks so…i think so…do you think so…I think you think so…you think?

        No No No Chis Angel is the son of Cher or is it Chastity is the daughter of Cher….it doesn’t matter it doesn’t matter…that’s the fun part!

        All I know…Is that I know…you know?

        Reply
      • 80. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:58 pm

        Thank you, Fiona! Once again, you prove how marvelous you are! Also, when you get a chance, check your inbox on FB. I am about to send you a note there.

        Reply
      • 81. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:05 pm

        Exaaaaaactly!

        Reply
      • 82. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:07 pm

        I sent you an email on FB too fiona….<3

        Reply
    • 83. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:33 am

      Indeed!!!!

      This is really about a heterosexual character-flaw that is passed on from generation to generation.

      And instead of heterosexuals dealing with this character-flaw, they choose, instead, to abuse their LGTB children.

      While screaming about morality.

      Um, OK.

      Reply
      • 84. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:35 am

        Um, I don’t really think character flaw fits exactly. I would describe it more, as a bigotry that is passed from generation to generation. When I was a boy, my father would shout and carry-on about gays and lesbians and call us all kinds of horrible names. Bigotry is learned, it is not something someone is inately born with, as eye or hair color.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 85. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm

        Dear David:

        Yup … just like the song from “South Pacific” I posted the other day. “You’ve got to be carefully taught …”

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 86. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:19 pm

        It’s more ingrained than simple bigotry.

        They have built their lives around this.

        Bigotry lets them off too easy.

        It’s a character-flaw.

        Reply
      • 87. bJason  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm

        I think that, on average, individuals try to identify with a group to belong. The natural tendency is to look only for surface similarities and associate thusly – rejecting out-of-hand those who do not “conform”. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It has served us well throughout evolution. It can go a little haywire, though. We homosexuals are, on the surface, the glaring opposite of that with which most identify. As such, it is easy for people to buy into the propaganda that is spewed about us – we are already seen as different. The lies spread about us simply reinforce the initial judgment – and, admittedly, each of us wants to be “right”. The problem comes when one’s need to belong outweighs, or completely circumvents, one’s compassionate or logical powers of reasoning with respect to another. We can’t appeal to these people. We can appeal to those who are open. In attempting to do so, we must always remember that they are looking for ways to belong – just as we are. We must appeal to their sense of belonging by showing them our similarities. Berating them in any way will only strengthen their resolve against us. Leave out religion, leave out upbringing. Understand that if they bring those things in to play that they are just “defending their group” (that is what they are supposed to do). Let them know who you are. Let them know that you want the same things. At that point, “the ball is in their court”.

        Regardless, we deserve the same rights and protections. We want to belong and are entitled. Most people are sheep – they don’t mean to be. Wear just one of their shoes while asking them to wear one of ours. Things could go much more easily that way.

        Reply
      • 88. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:27 pm

        bJason: Claude … what a great role! (I am now too damned old and chubby to play anyone in that show, LOL.)

        I think you have a really good point about “wanting to belong.” We are social creatures. People grow up in a given circle and it takes a lot of guts to walk away from it (e.g., LDS people who have left their church over Prop 22/8, as has indeed happened). It is scary to stick your neck out and say “Wait a minute …” when your critical thinking tells you that some social more with which you have been reared is wrong.

        I don’t think, though, that a lot of the Prop 8 proponents *care* about walking in your shoes; they just want to make sure that you don’t have a right to walk in theirs. Sure, it’s upbringing — and obviously fear- based. There are some people who will never be reached, as you point out.

        That’s why I try *always* to be civil (although I totally failed the other day when Marky-Mark was talking about raping lesbians … ugh), because there may be some reachable person reading and not posting who has that “Wait a minute …” moment.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 89. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:01 pm

        bJason….I <3 you….blushing like a school boy…LOL!!!!

        Reply
    • 90. Tim  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:52 pm

      Well said Ronnie !! I Thank You.

      Reply
      • 91. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm

        You are so welcome, Tim….<3

        Reply
    • 92. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:21 pm

      Bringing up Sodom & Gomorrah:

      If you *ever* need to do battle on this issue with someone who wants to insist that Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed by anything other than an asteroid (which was the real case), you need only refer them back to their Bibles.

      Ezekiel 16:49: Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

      Here’s the thing, friends. In a desert culture, hospitality is a huge deal; it means the difference between life and death. Sodom & Gomorrah were also on God’s Special High Intensity Training list for refusing hospitality to those in need when the angels were sent. What happened to them subsequently was confirmation of God’s concern.

      Now, all of that said, there is a real reason for what happened to Sodom & Gomorrah, and we have it in writing. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/31/kofels_asteroid/

      Anyway, what you will find over the course of these kinds of Bible-based arguments is that the people yelling the verses at you seldom know their Bibles very well. What they know is whatever their pastor spoonfed them. (Did everyone see the exegesis of Leviticus that I posted a couple of weeks ago?)

      I learned a few things before my childhood church went all Focus on the Family crazy, LOL.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 93. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm

        Fiona, my husband, the rabbi, asked me to let you know that your rabbinical wisdom is greatly appreciated, and that enlightenment to those who have yet to figure out that the standard answer for the demise of Sodom & Gomorrah was nothing and had nothing to do with homosexuality and/or any other halaca (Jewish law). The only reasons given in commentary by the grand rabbis of that periood were exactly your answer–nothing less and nothing more.

        Reply
      • 94. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:15 pm

        Fiona….you are just making way too much sense. If you start talking all reasonable and shtuff no one is going to want to listen to you.

        People are going to think that you are making fun of their ignorance and then they will gang up on you and vote away your rights!

        You would do better to just believe my DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of what happened at S&G and give me your money.

        BESIDES….who the hell let you on this site anyway?!!!

        This site is for White Anglo-Saxon Anti-Pagan Protestant Completely Heterosexual (except for that one time when I was in college and also the last five years of ‘massages’) Red-Blooded American (but not canadian, bahamian, haitian, cuban or native american) Masculine God Fearing Males.

        Do ‘Chics’ or ‘Darkies’ allowed!!…….(Unless your hot and slutty.)

        SO SAYETH THE LORD…and pat.

        Reply
      • 95. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:17 pm

        ‘Do’ was ‘No’…Doh!

        Reply
      • 96. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm

        BWAAAA!!!….Dude!…. I was so drunk last night…I don’t even know what happened!

        Reply
      • 97. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:26 pm

        Dear Richard:

        Not back for a shicksa, eh?

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 98. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:27 pm

        Dear Felyx:

        I am very glad that my palate has hardened; otherwise, beverage might have shot out my nose. ;->

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 99. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:31 pm

        (He he he he he he he! >:`)

        Reply
      • 100. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 6:45 pm

        Nope. Anyhow, for those who are not afraid to examine the Bible and look for the truth, here is a wonderful book. Due to the copyright date, I am not certain of its current availability, but it was written by an Episcopalian priest. If you can’t find it in the bookstores, maybe you can get it from Bishop Robinson in New Hampshire.
        The title is Jonathan loved David. This book goes into the fact that Jonathan and David were indeed lovers and also examines the culture and the modern day misconceptions commonly held in most radical fundamentalists sects regarding the views about homosexuality during the period covered in the Bible.

        Here is the full information on the book

        Jonathan Love David
        Homosexuality in Biblical Times
        by Tom Horner

        Westminster Press
        Philadelphia, PA
        Copyright 1978 by Thomas M. HOrner
        ISBN 0-664-24185-9

        By the way, it also talks about Ruth and Naomi, and why you don’t see much in the Bible about lesbian activity. Very interesting, thought provoking reading, especially because Dr. Horton is able to back up what his book says with outside references.

        Reply
      • 101. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 6:47 pm

        @ #63, that is supposed to read “Jonathan Loved David.” Having keyboard issues tonight.

        Well, must sign off for now. We are operating a two-couple house on only one computer, and the gaming boy will be home from work shortly.

        Reply
      • 102. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 6:51 pm

        TTYL…..dopty-daddy…. <3

        Reply
  • 103. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Holy cow! The NYT article cited under documents? That was written by my husband’s cousin!!

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
  • 104. The Reverend Susan Russell  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:21 am

    As a member of the sponsoring committee for California Faith for Equality it was a great honor to be part of getting this brief together and MASSIVE thanks to Eric, Lindi and everyone who worked so hard to make such a clear and compelling case.

    I hope it will get wide distribution as we continue to speak out as people of faith WITH faith in our foundational American values of liberty and justice for ALL and freedom both of and FROM religion.

    Can I get an “Amen”?

    Reply
    • 105. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:30 am

      Amen!

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 106. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:33 am

      AMEN!
      Love,
      David

      Reply
      • 107. Sheryl  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:37 am

        AMEN!

        Haven’t read it all but will definitely do so.

        Sheryl

        Reply
    • 108. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:36 am

      Thank you, Rev. Russell!!!

      Reply
    • 109. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:46 am

      AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Thank you so much for all of your contributions!

      Reply
    • 110. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:23 am

      I don’t know if you have considered this, but I believe by paring down some of what was said in your arguments for Marriage Equality, it could do very well as an opinion piece for the major California papers…it’s a thought.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
    • 111. Tyrras  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:37 am

      Amen!
      shalom,
      Ty

      Reply
    • 112. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:38 am

      AMEN!!!

      Love,

      Ozy

      Reply
      • 113. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:06 pm

        Lachiem!

        -Ronnie…<3

        Reply
    • 114. Shlee  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm

      Amen!

      Reply
    • 115. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:14 pm

      You got one here, Rev! I will dance the hora to the Hava Nagila at your anniversary–whether your wedding anniversary, your ordination anniversary, or the anniversary of your current congregational assignment!

      Reply
    • 116. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:19 pm

      AAAAAAAAAAAmen!!!!!!!!!!

      Reply
  • 117. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:26 am

    This really is a very, very simple matter, isn’t it?

    Reply
  • 118. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:40 am

    I also personally believe that people are not as concerned with their ‘religious liberties’ as they present themselves to be.

    They just feel that presenting it that way gives them stronger footing to deny citizens civil rights.

    I mean, they ARE aware that LGTB people live on the same planet, aren’t they?

    They ARE aware that we see THEIR level of morality, aren’t they???

    Open any magazine, turn on any TV station, see any movie or listen to any of today’s music for a display of exactly the kind of ‘morality’ it is that heterosexuals demand of themselves.

    It’s really kind of pathetic of them to blame LGTB’s for their less than stellar display of morals.

    Reply
    • 119. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:43 am

      “It’s really kind of pathetic of them to blame LGTB’s for their less than stellar display of morals.”

      Chuckles…well, it’s certainly not their fault!, said sarcastically!
      Love,
      David

      Reply
      • 120. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm

        Indeed! When there was talk in my state of amending our constitution to further codify my status as less than a full citizen, one of our local conservative newspaper columnists cited the problem of unwed mothers as one of the reasons to deny us the right to marry. I guess the fact that same sex copulation cannot cause an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy was somehow lost on him. Either that or he thinks Bobby sucking on Timmy’s penis will make Suzie pregnant.

        Reply
  • 121. Deborah  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:58 am

    I always find it interesting that when Christian conservatives talk about religious liberty, what they’re really talking about is religious priviledge. Their right to worship the God of their choice, their freedom of assembly and speech, is and will remain as protected as always. Only the “priviledge” of discriminating with impunity will be removed. Federal courts has long made a distinction between religious expression and religiously-motivated conduct.

    Reply
  • 122. waxr  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:58 am

    This is what we were discussing at home just now. It was our view that when ssm again comes up to vote, the backers should make it clear to the public that we are the supporters of freedom of religion.

    Reply
  • 123. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:05 am

    First, thank you Rev. Ramsden and Rev. Russell – and your colleagues – for preparing this.

    This amicus brief is a prime example of a logical, constitutional argument that is ideally suited for the legal arena. It is useful in the public arena as well, mainly to help break down the idea that marriage equality is anti-religious. The only weakness with respect to the second point is that the churches and temples whose religious freedom is infringed upon are already opposed to Prop 8; it requires a certain amount of sympathy from those in other faiths whose marriage rituals aren’t directly impacted. Hopefully, it will inspire some of the fence-sitters to see the issue, correctly, as one of separation of church and state.

    Reply
    • 124. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:24 am

      Just wanted to note in passing that I’m struck, again, by the overlap of ideas between marriage equality and sound evolution education as evidenced by references in the brief to Edwards v. Aguillard and Epperson v. Arkansas. I might have thrown in Lemon v. Kurtzman, but the point was made.

      P.S.: Fun fact: Justice Scalia was one of two Supreme Court justices that voted in favor of creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard.

      Reply
      • 125. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:22 pm

        ‘Fun’ is NOT the word I would have chosen. ; )

        Reply
  • 126. Sean  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:30 am

    As a Unitarian myself (and damn proud of it!) I’ve been saying for years that eliminating the rights of same-sex couples to marry is a blow to my own religious beliefs. I’m proud to see the leaders of my church standing up for what is right and pointing out the hypocrisy that is Prop 8.

    Reply
  • 127. Cat  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:32 am

    I just finishing reading the amicus brief. It takes my breath away… Reading in black and white what is being said about us by leading orthodox churches sends shivers down my spine, even though I’ve seen these statements all too often. Reading the amici’s response to these and the rebuttal to statements made by Miller, and defending religious freedom makes my heart beat with joy.

    Thank you so much for preparing this amicus brief. Amen!

    Reply
  • 128. Andrew  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:35 am

    These are some great arguments, and I’m very thankful to all the clergy who put the time into this, facing the prop8 supporters on one of their most common talking points within their own turf.

    Love,
    Andrew

    Reply
  • 129. truthspew  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:41 am

    While this is all well and good, we still don’t have strong support from Catholics nor do we have any from Southern Baptists. Those are the two biggest opposition groups in this country beside the Mormon church.

    Reply
    • 130. bruce daves  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm

      please see my comment #55 :)

      Reply
  • 131. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:46 am

    And the sad reality is, I doubt any of these religions will ever get it. I mean, it says so in the Bible, right?
    Love,
    David

    Reply
    • 132. Chuck S.  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:45 pm

      earlier post: [And the sad reality is, I doubt any of these religions will ever get it. I mean, it says so in the Bible, right?]

      That’s right…it does say that in the bible:

      “Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:14

      Reply
  • 133. dieter  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:54 am

    CHRISTIANITY:
    The belief that some invisible Jewish in guy in space will allow you to live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master
    so he can remove an evil spirit from your soul that is
    present in humanity because a rib-woman was
    convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree.

    but two guys loving each other would be too hard to believe!

    Reply
    • 134. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:59 am

      Don’t forget….He supposedly walked on water too….well hey, you know what Chris Angle must be the Messiah returned!

      And he supports LGBT rights and Marriage Equality…LOL!

      Reply
      • 135. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:01 pm

        See….

        Reply
      • 136. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:18 pm

        Wow, that was amazing – how did he do that?
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 137. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm

        He’s the son of God you didn’t know that?….LOL

        Reply
      • 139. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm

        If you read the comments on that page they say that it is not a fraud or fake..but whatever. H is gods son and I worship him

        Reply
  • 140. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    I just finished reading the brief for the second time… and I am completely blown away by it! It is an amazing document – breaking down the animus against us point by point, and it is both chilling to see just how MUCH animus there is against us by the largest mainline faiths, but also heartening to see more people of faith standing up on our behalf.

    Awesome!

    Love,

    Ozy

    Reply
  • 141. bruce daves  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    As a marginalized minority, I find it extremely ironic that the Mormon Church, (A major player in getting the proposition passed) who not so long ago espoused polygamy…pun intended…now has the GALL to “protect” the sanctity of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. Excuse my language but, WTF????

    Reply
    • 142. Lo  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:20 pm

      Exactly!!! And isn’t polygamy illegal? How come no one goes after their asses?!?!?

      Reply
    • 143. Billy  |  February 6, 2010 at 12:04 am

      For any information regarding Mormons, I just watch the movie “Orgazmo”. They talk the talk, but will sell out their morals when it suits them.

      Oh, and Bruce… <3 hehe
      See you tonight for my birthday!

      Reply
      • 144. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 1:07 am

        You’re seriously advocating that people watch a comedy for information about the Mormon church? That’s like suggesting that people watch “James Bond” for information about MI6 or “Delta Farce” for information about the US Special Forces.

        Reply
      • 145. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 1:37 am

        Hey Billy……Maude…hahahaha…lol

        I think any movie that puts light to their stupidity is perfect…same as all that false hogwash commericals they spread as truth…I haven’t seen that movie but I am going to watch it now…thank you

        Reply
      • 146. Michelle Evans  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:06 am

        Actually, I found the best representation of the Mormon church and its founding to be on a classic episode of South Park.

        Also, watching an amazing production, such as Angels in America, gives insights into the Mormon mindset. At one point in the story the Mormon wife who’s gay husband finally left to be himself, asks the question we’ve all wanted to know: “If the Mormon church is founded on the angel Moroni, shouldn’t our church be called Morons?”

        That pretty much sums it all up for me.

        Reply
      • 147. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:15 am

        *LOL* Yes, that was a great episode. I’ve some regard for the writers of South Park because they go after anyone and everyone for a laugh and don’t pull punches to avoid upsetting someone (even if they later are forced to apologize).

        And it’s a funny question but the church is actually founded on the Book of Mormon, thus the church’s name.

        Reply
      • 148. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:29 am

        Hey Michelle Evans…..Maude….hahahah…lol

        I love South Park…you will respect my authoritaaaaa!…hehehe

        You are so right Angel Moroni is who introduced the book of Mormon to Joseph Smith…so it should be called Moron….lol…thats good stuff right there….<3

        Reply
  • 149. Sarah  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    I have really really been wondering about this point a lot lately and I was wondering why there was so little said on the subject. I’m so thankful for everyone involved. This just gave me a case of the warm fuzzies. Going to read the full brief now with a smile on my face.

    Reply
  • 150. Monsignor Scott West  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Thank you for this breif, as a person of faith and an Old Catholic Priest, I belief that my spiritual journey has been trampled on by the religious right, and there should never be a religious test for basic human rights.
    I believe that all of my Atheist and Agnostic freinds have the same right that I do, and that someday, as a clergyperson, I will have the opportunity to witness this important sacramental moment as a representative of my church, and give God’s blessing on it.
    I do not however, nor will I ever believe in the ancient doctrine of marriage that made a woman a piece of property.

    Reply
    • 151. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:21 pm

      Thank you Monsignor Scott West, for putting it very eloquently.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
    • 152. LeftySJ  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm

      Thank you so much, Monsignor West! Your post brought tears to this Catholic School boy’s eyes. The chuch hierarchy has worked so hard to alienate me from my community of faith, and you, with those few words helped me take one step closer to home.

      Love,
      Jack

      Reply
    • 153. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm

      Monsignor West, my husband is a Lubavitcher Chaisdic Rabbi, and he asked me to let you know that Jewish women have been given a contract since the earliest of times that plainly spells out the husband’s responsiblities to her, and the corrective actions she can take should her husband fail to hold up his responsibilities. Under this contract, she is regarded as the total equal of her husband. This contract is HER property, with it, she can take him to a rabbinical court and demand either divorce or compensation for his breach of contract. PS: Modern day katubah’s (contracts) are made in egalitarian form to accommodate same sex marriage, and carry the weight of not just religious, but legal, status. And some have been in civil court, having the weight of civil contracts.

      PPS: Are you on FB?

      Reply
    • 154. Marlene Bomer  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:08 pm

      If you remember, back when Daddy Bush was prezzie, he made this statement:

      “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”

      This was also the man who used the phrase “Card carrying member of the ACLU” as a form of red-baiting!

      Reply
      • 155. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:20 pm

        He also said “I can’t smell because I can’t see” in that HBO special…..hahahahahaha.

        Reply
  • 156. American Dave  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    This is OUR country. We won’t be strong-armed into compromising our morals or our children’s lives.

    Who are ‘We’?

    Take a look at the polls.

    We’re the ones dominating by an incredible margin.

    We’re the ones who 31 out of 31 times have said “Marriage is between a man and a woman’. It’s simply the definition.

    If you’re not 1 man and 1 woman, well, you’re not a marriage then.

    As for a same-sex union having the same rights regarding children as a marriage… well… it’s pretty much common sense, and I also notice that all the SSU supporters never have a single reputable case study they can claim supports their case.

    Reply
    • 157. bruce daves  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:22 pm

      marriage is simply a contract btween two people…whatever any religion wants to imbue upon it I am fine with it….as an american i support freedom of religion….i don’t think anyone is asking that the government force churches to marry same sex couples if it is not acceptable to them.

      Reply
    • 158. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:23 pm

      That’s quite interesting, “American Dave.” Where do you think we live?

      Some of my acestors came to this country just shy of 400 years ago. How dare you even suggest that this is not my country.

      You should be ashamed.

      Reply
      • 159. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:14 pm

        thats not funny,,,but it explains a lot

        Reply
      • 160. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:16 pm

        That wasn’t to you Mr.HCI it was to Richard A. Walters note about Hitler being a repressed drag queen…I posted it in the wrong place.

        Reply
      • 161. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:24 pm

        Mr. HCI my mothers family came here 1 year after the D.O.I was signed…I too found that very insulting…and my fathers family..well we all know that AA’s back then really didn’t have a choice now did they?

        Reply
    • 162. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      Recheck that definition Bigot Swatsy, websters dictionary and dictionary.com

      We pay taxes too so this is OUR country also…i was born here so this is my country too… we will not be strong-armed into compromising our morals.

      Who are WE?

      We have children too so we are protecting our children also

      just because you say it doesn’t make it true…Harry Potter is a wizard but doesn’t make him real

      Take a look at the pools the majority us under age and those who did not vote…read the transcripts BIGOT.

      actually if you read the transcripts it was prop ha8te that had NO, ZERO reputable case study they can claim support their case

      DEBUNKED…say something I haven’t heard..BIGOT

      Reply
      • 163. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm

        Okay, I have to ask. What the heck is “swatzy”?

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 164. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:04 pm

        When you see me say “Swatzy” I refer to the paralleled notions of Hitler…That everyone must be same, believe that same thing, and be the exact same image of unrealistic virtue and morality. You are free to be like me attitude…ironically enough Hitler didn’t even fit his own ideals.

        Hense “Swatzy”

        Reply
      • 165. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:40 pm

        Good point, Ronne, especially considering that HItler was Austrian, not Geman, and was half-Jewish!

        Reply
      • 166. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

        And wasn’t he a little Gay too?…..No! that was “The Producers”…. Heil…Myself!….lol

        Reply
      • 167. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 6:55 pm

        Actually, they say that he was more than likely asexual, simply because he didn’t have anything to work with and was so ashamed of it that he would not even undress in front of the men he was incarcerated with when he wrote “Mein Kampf.” But had it not been for that, everything I have seen and read about Hitler points to a repressed drag queen with internalized homophobia.

        Reply
      • 168. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:13 pm

        LMAO…no wonder he committed suicide…lol

        Reply
      • 169. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:17 pm

        lets try this again…that’s not funny but it explains a lot.

        Reply
    • 170. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      American Dave, I am wondering how much of this trial you have witnessed. Given your statements about a very narrowly defined group of people being allowed to marry only. Are you aware of transgendered individuals, who have been married to their partner, once the surgery was completed?
      Love,
      David

      Reply
      • 171. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:33 pm

        Case in point:

        Reply
    • 172. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      Take a look at the polls.

      Oh, we do.

      Reply
    • 173. Sarah  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm

      “Our country”?

      Whose? As citizens it is our country too.

      “I also notice that all the SSU supporters never have a single reputable case study they can claim supports their case.”

      You will notice that this is the Prop8 Trial Tracker Website. In the trail cases were mentioned by both sides. You may want to refresh yourself on the case, check the case studies and get back to us on whose seem most reputable. I know, I know it is an awful lot to read, but I find it is very handy to have something to back up my opinions. I’m sure you will too.

      Reply
    • 174. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:35 pm

      Dear “American” Dave:

      There are specific legal definitions for things, not just “because my church says so” definitions. In the case of marriage, you may want to have a look-see:

      http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/marriage-term.html

      The legal union of two people. Once a couple is married, their rights and responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are defined by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be terminated by a court granting a divorce or annulment.

      Ya know, I just don’t see a single peep in the legal definition of marriage that specifies gender.

      I’m a straight, married woman. Your bigotry against my LGBT friends and family is duly noted. Numerous studies have shown that children reared in LGBT families do *at least* as well as with straight families. Your insistence that there are no such studies is ludicrous. Here’s just one. Enjoy.

      http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 175. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:22 pm

      “American” Dave,

      Troll post is trolling. The Irrelevancy Meter is also off the scale. Fortunately (for us), your ramble proves the brief exactly – so thanks!

      Love,

      Ozy

      Reply
    • 176. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm

      The problem with this world is the ‘American Daves’ and ‘Kay Moores’ are allowed to breed.

      Reply
      • 177. Lo  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:42 pm

        LOL so true. What a waste of oxygen.

        Reply
      • 178. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:58 pm

        Unfortunately they are not pure bred as they would lead people to believe.

        Reply
    • 179. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:43 pm

      Dave,

      Before you bgin talking about being in the “majority, you need to look at the following tabulations:

      1) Total Population of the United States
      2) Total number of citizens eleigible to vote based on being over the age of 18
      3) Total number of registered voters
      4) Total voter turnout.
      Once you do that, you will find that you are not part of the “majority” as you claim, but only part of a very stridently vocal, selfish, scared MINORITY!

      Reply
    • 180. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:48 pm

      Dave,

      Is that Canadian American? Or US American? (The term American applies to Puerto Rico as well.)

      When you say ‘OUR country’ I am guessing you were not talking about the good ol’ fashion Americans living in Canada….they already have universal civil marriage.

      Also, I would like to know….what will you do, if say the definition of marriage is expanded by the Supreme Court and all States and Territories are OBLIGATED to recognize same-sex marriage? Remember, if the SCOTUS does this there will not be any more votes on the matter. (I am curious for an honest opinion so please take this question seriously. It is a hypothetical so responding with, ‘It will just never happen.’ would not be a valid rebuttlal.)

      Very seriously,
      Felyx

      Reply
  • 181. bruce daves  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    it’s like someone who just quit smoking deriding a person that smokes….

    Reply
  • 182. Michelle Evans  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    I wanted to interject something concerning religion and it’s homophobia, that I have not heard anyone mention. Last weekend at a PFLAG Speakers Bureau meeting I heard from a couple who have a presentation they give talking about homosexuality and the bible. Their names are Terry Eselun and the Rev. Diann Davisson. One of the major points that they brought up is something I had not heard before.

    Most fundies like to point to the scriptures in the bible which are supposedly ant-gay, such as found in Leviticus. This is also where you find that you are not supposed to eat shellfish and other things of that nature, or else you must be put to death (watch out the next time you eat lobster or shrimp!). Anyway, Terry and Diann pointed out that all of these 365 Hebrew Laws of Leviticus and other Scriptural Codes, were revoked by both Paul and Jesus. It says so right in the bible!

    So, these people say they live by each and every word in that book, then what happened to those words from Jesus and Paul that eliminated the very thing they want to condemn? Seems like a pretty large oversight on their part.

    Unfortunately I do not have the exact chapter and verse of these revocations, so if anyone on this list knows where to find that, this info would be great for us all to have the next time they try to justify their homophobia by shoving their bible in our faces.

    Reply
    • 183. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:35 pm

      My rule of thumb is, unless you’ve stoned your neighbor to death for working on the Sabbath, you shouldn’t go citing Leviticus.

      Reply
      • 184. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm

        I wonder how many of these good Levitical-law-following’ Xtians will be watching the Super Bowl … (handling the skin of a dead pig and all …)

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 185. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:49 pm

        Realistically, Fiona64….we should all be wearing gloves, when handling the pig skin in a group situation such as the Super Bowl…if that’s what you’re into….LOL

        Reply
    • 186. Sarah  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:49 pm

      My parents are not fundies by any means. My mom is one of those who think that civil unions should be legal with all the same rights as marriage, just not the title. I’ve talked tot hem about this and they say they really only follow the New Testament because when Jesus came to earth part of what he did was free us from the old laws (which we didn’t need to protect us any more). They (like a lot of Christians) believe that homosexuality was specifically addressed again by Paul in his epistle to the church at Corinth. However there is a lot of debate as to what Paul actually meant. If you are interested you should really look up I Corinthians 6:9 online and read some of the discussion.

      I’m not a christian myself so for me it is purely academic but I thought it might help you out a little bit with your train of thought.

      Reply
      • 187. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:39 pm

        Paul is not God.

        When God tells me that my decade long relationship is against HIM, I will immediately break up with my partner.

        The ‘holy bible’ is a book written by men. And re-written, and changed, and updated, and blah, blah, snore.

        When heterosexuals from ANY walk of life start holding THEMSELVES accountable to biblical law in the secular world, they will have a leg to stand on.

        Until that day, heterosexuals, collectively, look like the biggest group of child abusers it has ever been my displeasure to witness.

        Reply
      • 188. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:47 pm

        People love to say Paul’s words were inspired by God and are therefore to be obeyed as law.

        They ignore, however, that some of what Paul taught is in direct violation of God’s word.

        For example, God told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply. Paul, on the other hand, taught that it’s better for a man to never touch a woman, and to get married only if he cannot control his libido. For that reason alone, I refuse to accept any of what Paul wrote as divinely inspired.

        Reply
      • 189. Sarah  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:09 pm

        Just realized my post kind of comes across like I’m defending my mom’s perspective. I absolutely am not. I just want to point out that it is more than just the fundies and that a lot of people believe these things and that’s why it is such a problem. If you are Christian I think this is a very important thing to address .

        “Until that day, heterosexuals, collectively, look like the biggest group of child abusers it has ever been my displeasure to witness.”

        I have a problem with that statement Bill. I really don’t like the us against them mentality. We have a lot of allies. And lets not forget that a lot of heterosexuals aren’t even religious. People aren’t good or bad because they are gay or straight and I feel like that is a perception we are trying to fight.

        Reply
      • 190. Marlene Bomer  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:18 pm

        Sarah — The major problem with 1Cor 6:9 (along with a many more passages in the bible), is the fact it’s been badly mistranslated through the years.

        Y’see, those passages were written in ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic — many of which don’t have an equivalent in Old English, let alone *Modern* English!

        As with any book, one must look at it through its historical, cultural, and sociological context!

        Using this passage to bash the TLBG community, is akin to taking a science book from the 1920’s and still claim that space travel is a dream, and supersonic flight is an impossibility!

        Reply
      • 191. Terri  |  February 8, 2010 at 1:16 pm

        The bible is a book that borrows many concepts from Greek philosophy and ancient stories. Also just because the book says “paul” wrote it doesn’t mean that he really did because there is a belief in mysticism that says one can have someone else occupy their body and sign their name when it really wasn’t them that wrote it and many of those that did the writing were believers in mysticism. It is also a book that was put together and agreed on by a select few and long after the authors of those books were dead. It is odd how so many can believe in a book that they have never really taken the time to study. I am not a believer and yet I chose to attend a Catholic University and took theology classes wherein I did study the New Testament front to back and sideways as well. Do most christians even know or understand what it is that they believe? I have to say that they don’t. In all the stories of the New Testament Jesus never said he was against homosexuality, not once.

        Reply
      • 192. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 1:29 pm

        Terri you are truly a voice in the wilderness. Thank-you.

        Reply
  • 193. Michelle Evans  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    “Are you aware of transgendered individuals, who have been married to their partner, once the surgery was completed?”

    I happen to be one of those transgender people, and have been in my marriage for 23 years and our relationship for 28. Thank you for pointing out this little known fact. I was in a same gender marriage even before the original CA Supreme Court ruling granting same gender marriage to everyone. And any couple who has a transgender member who completes transition now and in the future adds to the list of same gender marriage even today. Prop 8 did not change that law.

    Reply
    • 194. Marlene Bomer  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:23 pm

      That’s only if you’re lucky to live in a state which allows you to change the gender marker on your birth certificate, Michelle.

      Ohio and a few other states, don’t allow that, meaning that even if I were able to afford the thousands of dollars for HRT and surgery, my home state still sees me as male.

      Luckily, I happen to be lesbian, which means I’ll be able to get a fully *legal* lesbian marriage, but my heterosexual trans sisters and brothers are SOL.

      Reply
      • 195. Michelle Evans  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:54 pm

        Yes, I definitely understand how lucky I am to be able to change all my legal documents, whereas other trans people in other states are unable to do so. Sort of like the problems with the various same gender marriage laws. We need federal laws that protect us all, and do away with the disparities. Transgender people are literally the last bastion of all this. Any gay or lesbian who thinks they have it tough with so few laws for their protection, should count themselves as very lucky. Transgenders have even less, by an order of magnitude or two! At the federal level we have exactly one law!! That is the recently enacted hate crimes law. That’s it. All other protections are granted by the state only.

        If you want to get into a real legal nightmare, we could talk about transgender identification, and same gender marriage. Even with everything back to my birth certificate changed, if I cross certain state lines, there are states that will not recognize that and would still classify me as a male. If for whatever reason I were to be arrested, I would be put into a men’s jail. All you women out there, think how you would feel in those circumstances.

        Since I am legally a female and my wife is also female, there are some states that would not recognize our relationship, just like with gays and lesbians who are married, but add that they may also may not accept my gender transition, they may actually accept our marriage based on the fact they would still look on me as being male. But in another state they may recognize I am female, but do not accept same gender marriage, so again, we’re out of luck.

        Talk about a mess, it is truly dangerous to be a transgender person in this country (and most places around the world for that matter). We need what they have in places like New Zealand where they have a Human Rights Law that says everyone must be treated equally, no matter the circumstances. Of course, even then, NZ does not recognize same gender “marriage,” but chooses to call them civil unions.

        I am a married person, and anyone telling me I am not is simply wrong. And my wife, Cherie, would heartily agree with me on this one.

        Reply
      • 196. Jon (Doh!)  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:06 pm

        I am heartbroken to read these comments. I truly fear that the general gay and lesbian community will fall sedately into their new freedoms and leave behind those that stood with them. My greatest consolation is that me and my trans-boyfriend will not face the extreme opposition faced by the greater GLBT community. I hope that our struggle will go unnoticed by those who hate. I hope the the SSM equality struggle will make it easier for us. I have fear but I also have hope.

        BTW, since I am going to all the trouble to post this only because I feel so strongly, I maybe should give a back story. I am a straight guy…at least I thought I was. I still look at women. I was immediately attracted to this girl as she had a stunning female body. The dating was wonderful the sex was extremely hot and the confession was an absolute shock! But I loved my partner. I remained true to him and was honest when I told him I did not want to make a decision on marriage until the change. I honestly didn’t know if I could handle it. I had NEVER had any sexual relations with a guy EVER! He was very understanding of me and my limitations. The hormones were started (which just freaked me out) and then the mastectomy (which strangely made it better.) We worked out often together after that and really you could never tell he wasn’t anything other than a really good-looking short dude! A telling part of this is that my parents met ‘June’ and new we were a couple. I never told them anything about the transformation…we both agreed it would be simpler in case we were not going to go forward with the marriage. Then we went to Christmas with my family as Jon and his ‘buddy’ John. (June said he first liked me because of my name and that he wanted to be like me…what a tear jerker of a compliment!!!) There was never a question as to John’s gender….but I got serious looks from my father! He quietly pulled me aside later in the evening and said, (and he really did say it like this! Hilarious if you are not crapping your pants!) he said, “Be straight with me son, are you gay?” I just don’t really ever lie. I told the truth. I said, “I don’t know.” What followed (in the intervening months) was quite a few father/son/pastor heart to hearts. Finally I brought John with me and we laid it all out on the table. Everyone was speechless. Finally the decision was that, I was not gay, John was still biologically female(since he/we decided that he was not going to go through with the rest of the surgery any time soon) and that since we could still procreate (part of the reason he/we decided to postpone surgery) there was no problem. All things considered (mostly considering it is our decision alone) everyone was very supportive. The worst moment was getting the license. My parents went with us for support. I did most everything but John had to actually be present to sigh papers. The woman at the counter just glared at us FOREVER!!!! I had never felt so ashamed in my life! I almost cried like a boy who just got caught wetting his pants! Thank God my dad had my back. He went up to her and asked her what specifically her problem was. “Nothing.” she said. We got married, in the church, with matching tuxedos. It felt completely surreal to me…to see my ‘bride’ in a tux! I couldn’t believe I was doing it. I confess that I still don’t always see John as a man. On a side note, I found out that ‘cold feet’ is based on a REAL phenomenon! The church was emphatic about the fact that it was NOT a gay wedding but gracefully declined to specify why saying only that the Bishop saw fit to ordain this union as acceptable to God. I was very relieved at the time but now it kinda feels insulting. Nevertheless, we were married, we have not yet had children because we want to finish school and start carreers. We deal with awkward issues all the time. The easiest I guess is when people good-naturedly compliment us on being a good-looking gay couple. At first I would get defensive and John would stay silent. Finally I just got the message, it was insulting to him as he was after all a man. It is more important really to acknowledge his right to masculinity than it is for me to defend my straightness. So now I just say thank you and let it go. John is so supportive to me, very understanding. He accepted my difficulties with the issue and let me come to terms with it in my own way.

        So with all the difficult and challenging parts there are some awesome cool parts.
        1) We check out the ladies together….how cool is that!
        2) IMO Guys like really physical sex more than women…so I’m saying the sex is FREAKIN’ HOT!
        3) (Ok no judging here…) Since John doesn’t have one he really likes to take his time working mine…I mean eyes rolling back in my head working it!
        4) (Again you can’t judge cuz you ain’t NEVER going to be in my shoes!) It’s actually a joy to watch his clitoris grow! Seriously, it’s so cool.
        5) )There are many more but this is the most important…)
        John is probably straight too…he could have said, “Just friends” and gone on to be with a woman if he wanted to. He didn’t have to marry me. Therefore,

        John not only loves me as much as he loves life itself but …..

        HE IS THE BEST FREAKIN FRIEND A DUDE COULD EVER HAVE!!!!!!! There is no way in hell that we will ever not be best friends! And that is better than any marriage civil or ontherwise! You can take my rights and my priviledges but you can’t take away our love.

        And that is my story.

        Reply
      • 197. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:27 pm

        Jon (Doh!)….Amen brotha….I’m happy for you and you are apart of the fight……I cant wait to get married hopefully in the near(granted i need a boyfriend first) but I know marriage isn’t about sex but I bet it make it a whole lot better when its great…. right?….lol

        Reply
  • 198. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2010/02/la-filmmakers-produce-video-of-same-sex-marriage-trial.html

    There is more homophobia at this website, where the debate is about the video re-enactments being done of the trial. I suggest you take a gander at the animosity present by the other side.
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 199. Michelle Evans  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    So-called “American” Dave said, “Take a look at the polls. We’re the ones dominating by an incredible margin.”

    This is exactly why the courts exist. He has proven our point better than anyone could that it is their tyranny of the majority that must end, and the only way to do that is through the courts. It is unbelievable that he is too ignorant to understand what he has said!

    How would he feel if the majority of people happened to be LGBT and we all decided to gang up on him and say he could not believe or act the way he wants to? I bet he would be running to the court to protect him real darn quick.

    Reply
    • 200. Marlene Bomer  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:43 pm

      That is actually possible, Michelle where there are no protections based on SO.

      I do guest lectures on local college campuses, and I always try to get this scenario out:

      Say I win a lottery for a few hundred million dollars.

      For investment purposes, I go out and I buy up all the rental agencies in town, and the major real estate offices to boot.

      Seeing I have a few million left over, I go out and buy up some of the local businesses (car dealerships, restaurants, convenience stores, etc.).

      I summon a couple at random from the files, sit them down and tell them, “I see you two have a stellar record. No complaints, keep your place neat, and no pet odor or stains. Guess what — you’re evicted! You have until the end of the moth to find another place.

      “Kelly, I see you work at the laundromat I just bought, and Pat, you work at the car dealership. Guess what, you’re both fired as of this moment. Because I’m a nice person, I’m giving you a severance check equal to next month’s pay. Good luck finding a job.”

      Stunned, the couple has no energy to make anything to eat for supper, so they go to their favourite restaurant, where they’re stopped by the greeter: “Sorry folks you won’t be able to be seated tonight, as you violate our new policy.” She points to a sign at the podium. They go from place to place and see the same sign.

      This scenario is absolutely 100% *legal*! Why? Because the couple in question was discriminated not because of their rtace, or their age, or their religion, or their marital status — they were discriminated against because they were, wait for it… HETEROSEXUAL!

      Reply
  • 201. slsmith66  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    Sacbee added a story on it today also. Guess a few known actors have decided to take part in the re-enactments.

    http://www.sacbee.com/politics/story/2514860.html

    Reply
    • 202. Andrea  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:49 pm

      You had the front-page feature comment when I visited. Congrats.

      Reply
      • 203. slsmith66  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:58 pm

        I’m in a constant fight with the bigots on sacbee.com.. I’m going to put on my desktop some standard answers and copy and paste them from now on. I’m tired of writing way you can’t marry a dog!

        Reply
    • 204. dieter  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:02 pm

      Also acting in the trial will be Adrienne Barbeau, and I forget his name, but the guy who played TED from Queer as Folk.

      Reply
      • 205. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:04 pm

        sweet

        Reply
      • 206. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:02 pm

        I liked that character Ted. He was akward and daring to be sure!

        I wonder if the actor said, “Oo…oo….you GOTTA let me play blankenshit..er..ship..er..porn…er whatever the hell his name is! It’s the irony of it all man…it’s the irony!”

        (The Irony: A straight man playing a gay character with integrity but no confidence…to a gay character playing a straght man with confidence but no credibility!!!)

        As I saw in a prior post…..Delicious!!

        Reply
    • 207. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:23 pm

      Slsmith, I know the feeling. I was pasting in the same sources repeatedly over there. Gerewolf (under whatever the hell his latest handle is; he’s been banned more times than a teenaged underarm) and his wife are the worst of the lot. Remember that cyber-stalking I mentioned. Yeah.

      I have *never* seen so much hate speech in one place.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 209. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm

      And playing Bill Tam: Gedde Watanabe, a.k.a Nurse Yosh from ER and Long Duk Dong from Sixteen Candles! Awesome! :D

      Reply
      • 210. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm

        Oh gad! Gedde Watanabe is so great. That is *perfect.*

        Reply
  • 211. Rachel  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Wow. Powerful stuff. I do hope the SCOTUS buys the argument.

    Reply
  • 212. slsmith66  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    So has anyone seen the Meg Witless commercials that have started running today? I keep hoping Jerry Brown is going to enter soon.

    btw for out of staters, it is the CA governer race for 2010.

    Reply
    • 213. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:25 pm

      The weird sheep ad was featured yesterday on Rachel Maddow. I just sat there with my jaw hanging open. It looked like something out of Monty Python.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 214. slsmith66  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:26 pm

        That commercial freaks me out big time!!!! But it is soo bad it will probably be effective!

        Reply
      • 215. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:29 pm

        LOL, yeah I watched it too! Rachel does a great job of debunking their claims – too bad Rachel wouldn’t consider entering the campaign! I think she would make a great Governor!.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 216. Sarah  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:13 pm

        That’s a real ad?! What?! LOL!

        Reply
      • 217. Sarah  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:14 pm

        OMG I just saw the “wolf in sheep’s clothing”!!!! What is this?!

        Reply
      • 218. Alan E.  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm

        I thought of Gene Wilder in “Everything you wanted to know about sex” when he had that affair with the sheep.

        Reply
      • 219. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:04 pm

        Fiona, I saw that too. That ad was scary! It may have been styled like Monty Python, but the similarities end with the styling. If this is what she was like when she was in charge of H-P/Compaq, it is no wonder Carly Fiasco got fired. And who is Meg Witless?

        Reply
      • 220. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm

        Meg Witless = Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay, who is running for the Republican nomination in the gubernatorial election here in CA. She is also running on an anti-equality platform.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 221. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:13 pm

        That’s it i’m done with ebay!

        Reply
    • 222. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:27 pm

      No, I have not seen the ads – I am sure, they will make all the usual arguing points, they usually do – how it is the Democrat controlled Congress that is at the root of all this mess. I find it ironic that when Schwarzenegger ran in the recall for Governor, he was going to fix everything as the “Terminator”. I found it laughable and still do.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
    • 223. Andrea  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:39 pm

      Whitman is actually running that bizarre psychedelic Pink Floyd video of an ad? Tom Campbell better send her a thank-you card.

      Reply
      • 224. Andrea  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm

        My mistake – Carly Fiorina has the demon sheep ad.

        It’s like someone was supposed to read Bernays and just skimmed the Cliff’s Notes.

        Reply
      • 225. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:02 pm

        Oops. I thought it was Meg Whitman as well. I guess I was so focused on the WTF-ery that I didn’t even pay attention to whose ad it was, LOL.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 226. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm

        OMG!!!!….What was THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!….I’ma scured!!!!!!!

        Now I am going to have nightmares of some costumed creep with glowing eyes in a sheep costume…UGGGG!!!

        Reply
    • 227. Terri  |  February 8, 2010 at 2:06 pm

      Meg Whitman couldn’t run E-bay, how is she going to run California?

      Reply
      • 228. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 8, 2010 at 4:57 pm

        Because she has Carly Fiasco to guide her! You know, her buddy who couldn’t even run H-P/Compaq! To paraphrase Terri, “She couldn’t even run H-P/Compaq; How is she going to run California?”

        Reply
  • 229. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    he’s been banned more times than a teenaged underarm

    FIONA I LOVE YOU!!!!

    Love,

    Christopher in San Francisco

    Reply
    • 230. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:28 pm

      I love you back, Christopher. :-)

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
  • 231. PDXAndrew  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Thank you and Amen!

    Reply
  • 232. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    I think I am going to punch a baby!….I don’t what to do that but like Dane Cook I am hearing those sounds near my cerebellum and limbic system!

    Just Joshing ya!…..hehehehe

    Reply
  • 233. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    I hereby officially suggest that everyone here in our little family should agree from this point forward to COMPLETELY IGNORE KAY MOORE 100%.

    Kay has a plethora of web sites that she (or he) can visit that will keep her the superstar she (or he) is in her own mind.

    But the fact that she (or he) comes to a web site where LGTB people turn to each other for support and to help each other out, in an attempt to undermine those people, I feel, morally excludes her from warranting ANY recognition here on our web site.

    This has become a special place for us. Kay Moore can sense this.

    And she has only come here to destroy our hope and to try and make us feel bad about ourselves, when the person she (or he) is really feeling bad about is herself. (or himself)

    I believe that is reason enough for us to decide as a group that she has no business being here, other then to try and further degrade us.

    Of course, we can not stop her from posting. However, if each and every one of us agree to COMPLETELY IGNORE HER, she loses her voice here.

    Besides, it is clear that she has nothing intelligent to offer anyhow. instead, she chooses to kick people when they are down in an attempt to raise herself up. A fine example of morality?

    Morality indeed, Kay Moore.

    Morality indeed.

    PLEASE SIGN THE PLEDGE:

    I hereby solemnly swear that from this point forward, I will not respond to any of Kay Moore’s attempts to kick the LGTB community when it is down. By ‘signing’ below, I acknowledge that Kay Moore’s behavior on this web site crosses a line of morality that I as a member of the LGTB community do not agree with and can no longer support.

    Signed,
    Bill

    Reply
    • 234. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm

      I sign the pledge to IGNORE KAY MOORE!

      Reply
      • 235. Bill  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:31 pm

        I am actually considering having some ‘IGNORE KAY MOORE’ T-shirts made.

        Reply
      • 236. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:36 pm

        Kay Moore H8s Boies…..MAUDE!!!!

        Reply
    • 237. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:29 pm

      Like I said, once I figured out that she was a Rand devotee, I was done. Talking to Randians once they’ve decided on Truth(TM) is like talking to a wall, only more pointless.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 238. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:02 pm

        Fiona, this one’s for you:

        “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

        ;-D

        Reply
      • 239. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:03 pm

        That is *brilliant*! (I am going to use that line as soon as I get a chance.)

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 240. Frijondi  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:26 pm

        Hmm. I wonder what she makes of Ayn Rand’s glorification of rape?

        Reply
      • 241. JonT  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:50 pm

        Ha! Me too :)

        Reply
      • 242. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:48 pm

        Oddly enough, I’ve never actually read any of Rand’s works but I’m sure all of you folks are familiar enough with them to recommend some… right?

        Reply
      • 243. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:06 pm

        Fiona64 and Frijondi….I haven’t read Anne Rands books since high school so I don’t remember much…i was high on meds. that year but I remember finding the books interesting but very disrespectful to women.

        Reply
    • 244. slsmith66  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm

      Actually a few of us voted her off the island a few days ago! LOL

      Reply
      • 245. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:56 pm

        It’s like the friend nobody likes…..God Karen!….LOL

        They say the like her but when she’s not there um um um you know what I mean slsmith66, fiona64, Richard, Richard, David Kimble Christopher, Bill and pro equality supporters?

        Reply
      • 246. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm

        Actually, no, I never said I liked her.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 247. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm

        You know what’s funny? I know a lot of LGBT people who have colleagues who are anti-equality. They don’t call them friends; they call them acquaintances, or colleagues.

        Yet, the anti-equality always insist that the LGBT people in their circle (if any) are “friends” and “are okay with how I feel.”

        What’s that old saying about “with friends like that, who needs enemies”? Yeah. I don’t think people who say “you are my friend, but don’t deserve to be treated equally to me under the law” are really friends. Delusional, sure …

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 248. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm

        haha…I said the same thing, Fiona64, either on another thread or on here I don’t remember where..it was several L.M.A’s ago…but I concur with your statement… <3

        Reply
    • 249. Vaati  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:05 pm

      Consider it signed.

      Reply
    • 250. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:49 pm

      Ok I’ll sign it…but Bonnie Breathless said,,,,Are you otta your F-ing mind!!!!….That Mister-Sissita is going down like Mylie on a stripper pole!

      Reply
    • 251. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm

      When you do, please send the ordering link to me via my FB page.

      Reply
  • 252. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Yeppers, sign me up too!
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 253. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Kay, the quote I have included with your post I do take objection to on the grounds that most of the Islamic world ar peaceful; to paint them in this light is really no better than what Hitler did with the Jews during WWII. \
    Just had to get one more dig in!
    Love,
    David

    Reply
    • 254. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:21 pm

      I all for the IGNORE KAY MOORE or KAY MOORE H8S BOIES t-shirts!! Sign me up!

      And RONNIE, yes you’re right, she/he (or whatever persona it decides to take on that day) is totally like the friend no one likes! Kinda like the friend no one wants to hang out with and you can’t figure out why until he/she/it opens his/her/it’s mouth and realize how much H8 comes spewing out.

      Just ignore the KAY MOORE BEAST or better yet …per our pledge…”THE ONE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED”.

      Reply
      • 255. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:30 pm

        i can try…but my alter ego, Bonnie Breathless, That Betch cannot be tamed….A cop tried too and like Ms. Vida did to Sheriff Dullurd,…It’s Dullard, its a miss print….He got knock out…DING!!!!

        Reply
      • 256. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

        Christopher in SF wrote: ”THE ONE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED”.

        ::snerk::

        Dear Goddess, please forgive me for snickering.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 257. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm

        Oh, God, Ronnie … I love that movie.

        “Well, maybe if someone gives me back my princess points we will see …”

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 258. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

        LMAO….fiona64

        I got one for you guys….God is not a he….and He is not a she….God is a bush!…..Don’t you watch “The Ten Commandments”…Geeze!

        Reply
      • 259. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:15 pm

        Christopher, don’t tell me you have elevated KM to the same status as Voldemort? She is nowhere near that level. She is nothing more than a miseducated sheep, whereas the big V was a miseducated sheepherder!

        Reply
      • 260. Felyx  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:37 pm

        If God is a burning bush does that technically make him a venereally diseased pussy?!

        If the Religious Reich worships and submits to a bush does that imply that they are all pussy-whipped?!

        If God is a kunt, then it would explain why so many christians are dicks!!!

        ZOMG!!! It is all becoming so clear to me now!!!

        Reply
      • 261. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:42 pm

        LMAO!!!!!!

        Reply
    • 262. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:37 pm

      Since you repeated yourself, David, I think I’ll answer it here just out of convenience.

      I’d say that pointing out that the language of the Koran contains the precedents that Bin Ladin and others use to justify their terrorism is no less legitimate than pointing out that the language of the Bible contains the precedents that abortion clinic bombers and others use to justify their terrorism. In both cases, it isn’t possible to start out the argument against them with “that isn’t in the Koran” or “that isn’t in the Bible”; the argument starts with “those words ARE in the Koran/Bible BUT…” and then to explain how the words are being grossly misused to justify something that was clearly not desired by the author.

      Admittedly, it gets somewhat complicated when there is also historical precedent within a religion to justify a certain action. For example, when Islam was first formed and being spread among existing Arabian peninsula tribes, those tribes were regarded by Mohammed and his followers as pagans practicing things abhorrent to Islam. They were emphatically not monotheists like the Muslims and they were converted by the sword because they were not due the respect of a people who worshiped Allah even in a very flawed manner. Bin Ladin and his types draw upon this precedent, regarding those that they send suicide bombers against as pagans equal to the ancient Bedouin tribes that Mohammed’s followers originally slew in pious horror and citing this historical precedent as justification for doing whatever it takes to destroy or convert these new pagans. It is thorny because the Prophet himself did exactly this to pagans hundreds of years ago during the rise of Islam so a peaceful and moderate Muslim has the burden of acknowledging that the Prophet destroyed pagans (and was right to do so) while arguing that Bin Ladin is wrong to do a similar thing to unbelievers who follow practices similar to the ancient pagans fought by the Prophet. Is this a condemnation of Islam? Not at all; a religion’s history, as Christians are painfully aware, can be grim and bloody without it making the modern adherents of the religion morally suspect.

      Reply
      • 263. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:01 pm

        No, that is not what I said, if you are too benighted to understand what I really said, I think that speaks volumes about you!
        Love
        David

        Reply
      • 264. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:56 pm

        Correct, that is not precisely what you said. But what you said, after informing me that you were offended, had nothing to do with my assertion. So I expanded upon it to see if you’d respond with a more informative protest. It appears that was unsuccessful.

        Reply
      • 265. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:03 pm

        Hey David K…..Maude……hahaha…lol…<3

        Reply
    • 266. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:58 pm

      I have islamic friends David, actually one of my Chicks is 1st gen. american from an arabic family…she says real muslims do not follow what Bin Laden does…she feared for her life after 9-11…and I don’t blame her…the ignorant bigots in this country are the true abominations…she said she will help me make and design the tuxes and gowns when I get married…but I need to find I boyfriend first…she loves gay weddings….lol

      Reply
      • 267. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:04 pm

        Yes, I agree, Ronnie, and that was my point. OMG, you have islamic friends too – great. I have found them a very welcoming people. Great!

        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 268. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:15 pm

        Ronnie, where are you at? I am in Ridgecrest, CA.

        Reply
      • 269. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:18 pm

        My first boyfriend..well I can’t really call him boyfriend…he was a thing that went nowhere..anyway he is pakistani…and he says most American have a very warped idea of what islam is and who they are..similar to what bigots assume about LGBT people…its simply fear of the unknown and the unfamiliar, distaste, personal opinion and good old fashion projection.

        In other words you don’t look like me, you don’t act like me,you don’t believe in the same things as my so you a wrong and must be destroyed…

        I hate that and really find those traits utterly intolerable…and abundantly abhorrent….I don’t care what you think or what you believe just don’t force it on me…by taking my rights away…we all share this planet and I feel the bigots need to be zha zhaed by Mother Earth a little more…yeah?

        Reply
      • 270. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:20 pm

        David K…..I’m in Hawthorne NJ…aka Abercrombie and Fitch…lol

        Reply
      • 271. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:22 pm

        Too bad, I think you are a real catch for any man!

        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 272. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:31 pm

        Yes, I agree, Ronnie and that was my point. (hmm…I wonder if Kay had to look-up the meaning of benighted. I have muslim friends too and they tell me the same thing. Islam is a very peaceful religion, as a whole. Granted there are not a lot in the town, where I live, but there are a few and I have found them impecably honest!
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 273. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:36 pm

        Awe,,,thank you David K…..same …<3

        Reply
      • 274. fiona64  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:22 am

        Ronnie, my Aunt Aisha (who has a PhD in Arab studies) says exactly the same thing. Her birth name was Diana; she changed it when she converted to Islam. Those who characterize Islam as a violent religion are misinformed — and boy, do they get angry when Christian terrorists like Scott Roeder and Timothy McVeigh are poitned out to them.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 275. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:46 am

        So true Fiona….you know how when loose one war they move onto another?….well I think that that won’t be polygamy..because that is moot..I honestly believe, especially if there is another attack..that Islam will be next…It’s not like it hasn’t been done in this country..when Pearl happened we put anybody asian-american whether they were Japanese or not, in internment camps…I hope that doesn’t happen…because then I would have to start fighting again….any If I’m gay aren’t I suppose to be happy?….hahaha…LOL

        Reply
  • 276. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    Almost forgot from my last post….

    Love,

    Christopher in San Francisco : – )

    Reply
  • 277. slsmith66  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    The only good thing about Kay is it gives us someone to argue our valid points with… And it is fun to watch the responses back to “its” posts, of course “it” never answers a question directly back….

    But considering kay thinks it is a starship commander named Shepherd, I voted her off the island.

    Reply
  • 278. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Seriously Ronnie & Fiona and the rest of us here in our family, i don’t know what I would do without you guys!

    Soooo, anyone planning on being at court the day of the verdict? I know I’ll be there bright and early!

    Reply
    • 279. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm

      Dear Christopher: If it will work out with my office schedule, that is definitely my plan. :-)

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 280. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm

        You mean, I would actually get to meet the one and only Fiona!?!?! You made my day!

        YAY!!!! Whoo-hoo!! : 0 )

        Reply
      • 281. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

        LOL … yes. (Mea culpa on the double post. For some reason my first one didn’t show up on my end.)

        I guess we’ll have to pick something to wear on our lapels so that we can find one another. ;->

        Love,
        Fiona

        PS to Christopher: Are you on the FB group?

        Reply
      • 282. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm

        Hi Fiona,

        Actually, I’m not on the FB group. I am the single last living person on this planet who does not have a Facebook page. I have Twitter tho!! That has to count for something right? : )

        Love,

        Christopher in San Francisco

        Reply
      • 283. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm

        How about rainbow colored condom flowers?…It’s promoting safe sex (regardless of this whole abstinence kick they are on) and its the universal symbol of everything Gay (despite them using our symbol in their storm commercial)…I mean make up your mind…are you for LGBT people or not?…geeze!

        Reply
      • 284. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:05 pm

        Hi, Christopher. I have a Twitter account as well; my tweets are protected due to the aforementioned cyberstalker. (I only started tweeting once I published a couple of books; I was told that it was “essential to my platform” to have a Twitter, LOL.)

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 285. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm

      Okay, I hope this doesn’t come up as a double post, LOL.

      Christopher, if it works out with my office schedule, I plan to be there on decision day.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 286. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm

        Hope it works out!

        Love,

        Christopher is San Francisco

        Reply
  • 287. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Darn it!

    Love,

    Christopher in San Francisco : – )

    Reply
    • 288. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:38 pm

      I will try to be there., but I live in NJ.. and this Betch is broke!….we in a recession you know mang?

      Reply
      • 289. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:43 pm

        Yes, that would be quite a commute….ok, I’ll let ya off the hook……this time. : – )

        Reply
      • 290. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:53 pm

        LMAO….I’m actually considering going though…If I can get the G’s to go.

        Reply
    • 291. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:18 pm

      Christopher, My husband and I will be there via the live blog posts, since we live in North Carolina. Take plenty of pictures everyone!

      Reply
  • 292. rpx  |  February 5, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Most excellent brief. I clicked on some of the links in the brief and was shocked at how much the Baptists absolutyly hate you. Being a hetro grandmother I am jsut now getting up to speed on all of this simply because of Prop8TT. But my goodness read for yourself the abolute HATE from the Baptists, from thier own website http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=614
    Now I know why 15,000 of them showed up last week at the state capitol in Hawaii and convinced the lawmakers to drop voting on a Civil Union Law for all of 2010. I was ignorent I never really knew how much organized hate there is against GLBT’s. Now I knwo why our son married his hsuband in a Unitarian Church. Actually he was married at their National Cathedral in Washington DC, a beautiful church I might add. Both of our children are gay but they are just mind your own business type professionals, I don’t think either one of them or their partners are gay activists at all. I never knew any of this gay stuff what many of your lives are like until this website. I am very thankful of this great brief written by these churches I hope it helps. I want both our children to ahve their marriages legally recognized. Mostly though, I want it for my grandchildren even more than for my children. My grandchildren should be brought up in a home where their parents are legally married.

    Reply
    • 293. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:22 pm

      rpx, you are so right. Your children deserve the LEGAL recognition of their commitment to their spouses, and your grandchildren deserve the protections that legal recognition grants them. Keep on plugging, and remember that we will not give up this fight–not now, not tomorrow, not ever!

      Reply
  • 294. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Since I don’t have Facebook….if anyone is interested in getting in contact with me on TWITTER I can be found at:

    ChristopherPSF

    Not that I ever say anything interesting, but you know, whatevs…. : – )

    Reply
    • 295. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:34 pm

      Christopher, I will follow you. Look for tweets with the initials SC (my real name); you’ll have to send an invite to follow me back. :-)

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 296. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:36 pm

        Will do!

        Love,

        Christopher in San Francisco

        Reply
    • 297. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm

      Twitter says it can’t find you. :-(

      Reply
      • 298. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:41 pm

        Hmmm…thats weird?

        I’m on it now….

        ChristopherPSF

        hope that works!

        Love,

        Christopher in San Francisco

        Reply
      • 299. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:46 pm

        Okay, I found you this time. :-)

        Reply
      • 300. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:47 pm

        Argh … you won’t be able to see my tweets because of the protection. Drrr. Send a request to @sharoncathcart. Mostly you’ll find tweets about animal rights issues and my books, LOL.

        That goes for anyone here.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 301. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:51 pm

        Hi Fiona,

        Sent u a request. Yay!

        Love,

        Christopher in San Francisco

        Reply
      • 302. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm

        I have twitter but I don’t tweet…If I do I’ll look you up, Fiona64, send the info to my FB… <3

        Reply
      • 303. Sheryl  |  February 6, 2010 at 12:45 am

        Ronnie, like you I have a twitter account but don’t use it. guess it is time to locate it.

        Christopher, nice to meet you. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to be there. Work interferrs, Concord is certainly close enough. You ever go to Improv (specifically, BATS)?

        Reply
  • 304. Sarah  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    Ok so this is kind of way off topic but I thought some of you might appreciate it:

    Damn CBS

    Reply
    • 305. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:36 pm

      hahaha….Corporate Bull S – – T!!!! hhahahah

      I don’t know wether to be scared of those Grannies or be one for Halloween….lol

      Reply
      • 306. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:12 pm

        I vote for the Halloween!
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 307. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:29 pm

        LOL….sounds good to me!

        Reply
  • 308. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Dear Friends:

    I am sitting at my desk crying again. The pastor of my local MCC congregation, who is the reason I ever walked into a Christian church again after so many years away, has been doing so without pay for a while because of the financial problems of the church. He just sent out an e-mail to everyone tendering his resignation, softened by letting us know that he will stay on until a new pastor can be found.

    This has affected me in a very profound and unexpected way. I love the congregation there, and I have made some wonderful friends. As I told Rev. Mike in my response, I support him wholeheartedly in his endeavor, but that I am very much afraid that things will not be the same without him. :-( He has been such a rock of kindness and support for me.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
    • 309. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:52 pm

      That sucks…but hopefully he will be replaced with someone just as good.

      Reply
    • 310. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:56 pm

      Hi Fiona,

      I’m sorry to hear that. : – (

      I know how you’re feeling.

      Love,

      Christopher in San Francisco

      Reply
    • 311. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:29 pm

      Fiona,

      A good shepherd makes a great impression upon his flock, and I hope his example will sustain many, many people.

      Reply
      • 312. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 6:26 pm

        Thanks, SA.

        I would like to share another story about Rev. Mike and his kindness (I’ve blathered on about how he let me sob all over him at the No on 8 rally). Last year, my husband and I adopted a kitten who turned out to be very, very ill — with something incurable. The day that we lost her, I wrote something on my Facebook about her.

        That Sunday, Rev. Mike and two other members of the congregation came up to the front during the time we usually have meditation and he said “We have had two congregants lose dear members of their family this week. Berry lost his father, and Sharon lost her kitten Gigi. We would like to sing hashivenu for them.”

        Richard and our other Jewish friends here will know this as the Hebrew prayer for spirits returning home to God. It is a beautiful piece of music, and Mike, Karl and Ruth have the most amazing voices. That Rev. Mike would take a moment to help send our little Gigi home in such a marvelous way is a kiindness I will never forget.

        Love,
        Fiona (typing through tears again)

        Reply
  • 313. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 5, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Well my friends and family,

    It has been wonderful chatting and sharing with you today. I have to sign off now. Hope you all have a wonderful evening and weekend! Talk to you soon!

    Love as always,

    Christopher in San Francisco

    Reply
    • 314. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 5:02 pm

      Peace out…Homes…bump!…Bump!….<3

      Reply
  • 315. Tom  |  February 5, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    If a future trial ever comes down to testimony on, “The Real Threat To Religious Liberty,” I would recommend that the plaintiff council approach:A Rebuttal to “A Reformed Response to Daniel Helminiak’s Gay Theology”
    by Daniel A. Helminiak
    Found under link:

    http://www.visionsofdaniel.net/book3WBRS.htm

    Helminiak was a Catholic Priest for 26 years. His rebuttal above will demonstrate his excellent ability to represent the plaintiff’s position against Prop. 8.

    I have read nothing that comes close to Daniel A. Helminiak’s expertise on the subject of the Bible and Homosexuality.

    Reply
  • 316. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    I really was glad to be able to read this brief. I know there have been numerous amicus briefs files in the past few days. Does anyone know if there is anywhere online to read any of the others?

    Reply
  • 318. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Thanks, for the post – I am learning a lot about legal issues here!
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 319. Larry Little  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    Somebody ask Pat Robertson if the snow storm that God is dumping up to 30 inches of snow on Washington DC is a result of God getting angry because the citizens of Washington DC approved same sex marriage? Also try to find out if Focus on the Family is going to spend $43,000,000 dollars to have the decision overturned by Proposition Hate?

    Reply
    • 320. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:41 pm

      I fPatty syas that…He might be hung by Obama himself….personally I think all this snow we got this year is a good thing…I’m in NJ…more snow mean more water..more water mean less chances of drought this summer…My b-day is in June and is the same day ad NYC Gay pride…I can’t have that drought thing going on…no…no….no. But crazy Patty will probably say that.

      Reply
      • 321. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:48 pm

        Happy b’day early, Ronnie! Hope it is a happy one!
        Love,
        David

        Reply
      • 322. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:54 pm

        Thank you…<3

        Reply
  • 323. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    BTW, I got an e-mail from the HRC there are more problems ahead on the horizon – there is another battle about to be waged in another State, sorry I can’t remember, which one, but they are asking for our help. Everybody, please check your e-mails.
    Love,
    David

    Reply
    • 324. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:53 pm

      Oh Christ is a cracker…..don’t they ever learn…If they left us alone that we would do the same…..I might have to start getting emails from the HRC….I use to on my old email but i forgot about it and it was deleted….I’m going there right now,,thanks..D.K…..<3

      Reply
    • 325. fiona64  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:38 am

      Iowa. They’re trying to overturn Iowa’s marriage equality law, this time with specific language that invalidates the legal marriages already performed.

      I wonder how many of these people would be okay with having their own marriages judicially annulled?

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 326. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:12 am

        Opinion only….no rational evidence or case history or historical or sociologic knowledge here but…..

        There is no freakin’ way Iowa is going to give in to this!!! Every Iowan that I have ever met has been as fairly non-confrontational as they come. I think that Iowa is going to tell the Mormon church to shove it! That they don’t want some mob of religious outsiders swooping in and making a stink in THEIR back yard!

        Any news article links on this?

        I hope Iowa sends them a clear message that they are just fine with who they are and how they want to run their own ‘state’ of affairs.

        Reply
      • 327. andrea  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:25 am

        They can’t invalidate the ones already performed. It’s unconstitutional, via Article 1 Sec. 10.

        No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

        The contract obligations are already created. Can’t go impairing them now, ex-post-facto, now can we?

        Reply
      • 328. fiona64  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:29 am

        Andrea, that was why the 18,000 marriages in CA were left standing (no ex post facto). However, the Hate People have concluded that they must include language that invalidates the previous marriages completely since to do otherwise would allow for yet another Federal challenge in a different district and circuit.

        It’s idiotic, obviously … and they don’t seem to understand that seeking judicial annulment of the marriages of total strangers leave their own marriage subject to the same activity.

        Logic is not the driver of the anti-equality movement. Bigotry is the order of the day, no matter how they try to pretty it up with “I don’t hate gay people, I just don’t want them to call it marriage” or any of the other crap we’ve seen our crop of trolls spew here.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 329. fiona64  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:32 am

        Here’s an article on the matter. Apparently New Hampshire’s new equality law is also on their hit parade.

        http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Efforts_to_repeal_same-sex_marriage_continues_to_grow_in_Iowa_and_New_Hampshire

        Reply
      • 330. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:39 am

        I want to know what is actually being attempted. I haven’t found anything on the HRC website about it. Seems to me it is a constitutional judiciary ruling (7-0 I might add)…the only thing that could overturn it is a vote (if one has not already been made.)

        Any vote made would get the same challenge as CAs challenge.

        It’s like they WANT to get to the SCOTUS! This can really only bode well for us. If they don’t get a vote they look bad. If they don’t win a vote they look bad. If they win and get challenged and lose in the courts they will just lose the entire thing all together. They’ve only got one single chance to win….and it ain’t lookin’ pretty!!!
        (Remember, we can keep going back to SCOTUS as many times as it takes and once they say yes its over! No going back ever!)

        At least they can waste their money on stupidity instead of church building….it will slow the progress of cancer spreading.

        Reply
      • 331. Andrea  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:40 am

        @Fiona – Good morning! Same Andrea as always… I’m on a borrowed computer now and missed the “shift” key when I typed my name in.

        Reply
      • 332. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:41 am

        Thanks for the article, I’ll read it.

        Reply
      • 333. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:43 am

        what the hull….I swear they really go out of their way to make other people miserable…i think maybe I will start to do the same.

        Reply
  • 334. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    your welcome, Ronnie,
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 335. David Kimble  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:00 pm

    Well, it’s time for me to turn into a pumpkin for the night – I enjoyed the chat with everyone! Have a great night!
    Love,
    David

    Reply
    • 336. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:05 pm

      TTFN……you the same….<3

      Reply
  • 337. Randy  |  February 6, 2010 at 2:38 am

    This is an argument I’ve been making for YEARS. I’m stunned it’s never been introduced before now, but I’m thrilled to see it presented to Judge Walker at this time.

    Reply
  • 338. Bolt  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:11 am

    If Walker declares proposition 8 unconstitutional, does the wedding bonanza begin immediately? What could happen?

    Reply
    • 339. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:27 am

      Walker will make his ruling subject to appeal. If no one appeals (P8’s best move really) then yes go get married.

      If it goes to appeals and is upheld then the right to marry will be reinstated without ‘legal’ delay. The fact that it might go to the SCOTUS will have no bearing on the matter until it actually gets there.

      States under the jurisdiction of the 9th might decide to volutarily change but if not there will be challenges.

      The SCOTUS may want to rule in favor of universal civil marrige and may hold off on the case long enough to see how many states will make the change.

      IMHO, I feel confident that there will be favorable rulings.

      Reply
  • 340. Larry Little  |  February 6, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Religion is the enemy. That list includes Catholicism, Mormonism, Southern Baptist, Evangelicals, and the mostly dead KoolAid drinkers.
    Religion (Focus on the Family) which is a rightwing an extremist organization just paid CBS 2.5 million dollars to put on a misleading anti-abortion ad during the Super Bowl to proselytize 100,000,000 million people worldwide in an effort to portray Dr. Tiller as a murderer and Scott Roeder as a hero or some other misleading type of disinformation . The vital health care bill is being held hostage by Congressional and Senatorial demands to insert extreme anti-abortion language. We can probably assume that at least 39 or 40 members of the party of no had their seats influenced and perhaps purchased with the enormous wealth that accrues from tax free income by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Focus on the family to legislate religion’s viewpoint to replace that of medical science. Religion must not use tax free income to influence political positions……….
    The other hot button issue is same sex marriage and equal rights for gays and lesbians. Again religion is to blame for stirring up the hatred pot and threatening everybody with the Bible. The Republicans, like John McCain and John Boehner are at the top of their lungs about efforts to repealing DADT. They are campaigning for rightwing votes this fall, and are not representing the people. They are simply indefensible bigots and it is a public disgrace to dishonor men and women and treat them as second class citizens because religion says so. How could anybody be a Catholic or a Mormon if it means you have to hate people for who they are?
    In Iowa, where same sex marriage was approved, religious extremists are already spending big bucks trying to have it overturned. It is called puritanical meddling. They are trying to bring back burning at the stake. Everybody running for public office has to take sides on this issue and religion is buying votes and influencing political elections by seating anti-abortion fanatics or homophobes.
    Canada has same sex marriage, universal health care their gay population is welcomed in the military service and guess what? They haven’t been hit with hurricanes or violent earthquakes; everybody is happy and can pay their bills, not a child has been molested and nobody is trying to marry a goat or get another wife or two.
    We have to remove the yoke of repressive Christianity from around the necks of our second class citizens and let’s respect them for who they are, just like the president has asked us to, and not to behave like Republican bigot John Boehner.

    Reply
  • […] have banded together to file several amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff’s case. We heard from gust poster Rev. Lindi Ramsden, Executive Director of the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry on Friday about the brief […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...