Roundup of Amicus Briefs Filed on Plaintiffs’ Side

February 6, 2010 at 5:18 pm 158 comments

By Julia Rosen

Just because the testimony is over, that does not mean that there isn’t action going on with the case. A number of organizations 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 filed by a number of religious organizations.

But here is a bit of background courtesy of the American Foundation for Equal Rights on the rest of the briefs filed.

California Professors of Family Law

A number of eminent legal scholars from schools such as Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Pepperdine, Hastings, Loyola Marymount, USF, California Western, UC Davis, Whittier, Santa Clara, University of the Pacific, and Golden Gate University filed an amicus brief.

It reads in part:

“Amici agree with both the plaintiffs and defendants in this case that marriage is a critical institution in society. Through both law and culture, marriage imparts distinctive personal, psychological, and social benefits to adults and children. Thus, any laws that deprive individuals of access to marriage raise substantial concerns regarding the promotion of family life and the well-being of adults and children. Amici support plaintiffs’ claims that there are no reasonable justifications, relevant to the purposes of family law, for depriving individuals of the opportunity to marry someone of the same sex and that Proposition 8 therefore violates plaintiffs’ rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution,” their brief states. “The legal meaning of marriage has evolved considerably since the beginning of California’s Statehood, especially with respect to such basic elements as who may marry, the roles of the spouses, the management and control of marital assets, and the duration of the marital entity. … Since Statehood, the only constant element has been the goal of facilitating the decision of two people to integrate their lives into a single entity called marriage.”

“By consigning lesbian and gay couples to a marriage substitute, the State signals that their relationships are inferior and less worthy.”

The ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Center for Lesbian Rights

This brief by these three groups is particularly interesting given their relationship to the case. While not initially supportive of this lawsuit, they have worked to support the efforts by AFER, and this brief is further evidence of that. There is background on the case’s Wikipedia entry about these three organization’s relationship to this case, for those who are interested. And here are some snippits from their brief:

“The purpose of Proposition 8 was to declare same-sex couples unequal under the law to different-sex couples. California recognizes that same-sex couples are similarly situated to different-sex couples, but Proposition 8 requires that same-sex couples’ relationships be designated as unequal to the relationships of heterosexual couples who marry, thereby denying the families of same-sex couples the dignity and respect afforded different-sex couples’ families through marriage,” their brief states. “There are some things that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits so absolutely that they can be considered per se violations of the clause’s guarantee. The government may not decide that two groups of people are similarly situated with regard to the purposes of a law, but nonetheless have that law treat them differently. The government may not treat some people differently than others merely to declare them unequal. And the government may not permanently forbid itself from protecting a group of people against unequal treatment. Proposition 8 unconstitutionally does all these things.”

People of color organizations

The following groups also filed a joint amicus brief with the court: Asian Law Caucus, Asian American Justice Center, Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles, Asian Pacific Legal Center, Asian Pacific Bar Association of Silicon Valley, Bienstar Human Services, California State Conference of the NAACP, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Japanese American Bar Association, La Raza Centro Legal, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, National Black Justice Coalition, South Asian Bar Association of Northern California, Zuna Institute.

It reads in part:

“Defendants’ argument that this court should only examine whether a minority group can attract the attention of lawmakers (the Attention Test), is unworkable and runs afoul of more than 70 years of Equal Protection jurisprudence. Indeed, the Attention Test urged by Defendants would threaten the well-established protected status afforded many minorities under the Equal Protection Clause, all of whom have demonstrated a historical and present ability to get the ‘attention of lawmakers.’ A finding that the mere ability to attract the attention of lawmakers is, by itself, sufficient to prevent protected minorities from receiving heightened judicial scrutiny would eliminate suspect classifications for all persons under the Equal Protection Clause. In this respect, gay men and lesbians are no different than any other group who, in the face of societal discrimination, should be entitled to demonstrate through empirical evidence that homophobic prejudice, like racism or sexism, has curtailed their ability to rely on political processes to protect them from state actions motivated by bias, hate and prejudice,” their brief states.

“For example, with respect to race, it cannot be contended that blacks had ‘no ability to attract the attention of lawmakers’ at the time the Court applied heightened scrutiny to the anti-miscegenation statute at issue in Loving v. Virginia,” their brief continues. “Like racial minorities and women, the existence of state laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not an indicium of political power but a reflection and recognition of the enduring prejudice this group faces in almost all facets of American life. Accordingly, the argument that recent enactments of legislation protecting gay men and lesbians from certain isolated or limited forms of discrimination end the political powerlessness inquiry is without merit.”

American Anthropological Assn, American Psychoanalytic Assn, National Assn. of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics California Chapter

This brief focused in part on the effects of the denial of marriage to children of gay couples.

“Moreover, the substantial social and psychological effects of this stigmatization are borne not only by same-sex couples and individuals, but by their children as well. … The positive benefits children accrue from being raised by civilly married parents are independent of those parents’ sexual orientation. It is the consensus view of the field of developmental psychology of children, the traits of an effective parent do not depend on the gender of that parent. This is because the factors that must affect child development … have nothing to do with parental gender or sexual orientation.”

They also added:

  • “Depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry has adverse effects on their children.”
  • “The stigma created by the state’s differential treatment of gay men and women has severe psychological and social impacts.”
  • “Singling our gay men and women as ineligible for the institution of marriage invites the public to discriminate against them.”

Justice Donald B. King (ret.), California Court of Appeal

According to AFER, Justice King is a preeminent family law authority and has authored more family law opinions than any other appellate Justice in California history. Among his honors are the State Bar’s Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year award. The state bar has since renamed this honor the Justice Donald B. King Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year Award.

From Justice King’s brief:

“Proposition 8 is but one example of how a majority can trample upon the fundamental rights of a disfavored minority by stoking the public’s fears and prejudices. Constitutional protections become meaningless when they can be overturned by a mere majority vote because an individual’s inalienable and fundamental rights then only exist by a license that is revocable,” he writes in his brief. “Marriage is among those fundamental rights that are protected for all people by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no rational reason for an exception to be carved out for how this fundamental right applies to gays and lesbians, just as there was no rational reason for an exception to be carved out for how this fundamental right applies to interracial couples.”

All together these groups represent a wide array of professionals, every day citizens and advocates. The arguments will butress those laid out in court and will be part of what Judge Walker spends his time studying during this period between oral and closing arguments.

Entry filed under: Statements.

Hiding from Sunlight Did They Know Justice Alito Is Male?

158 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 6, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    THANKS! This is the kind of follow-up I’ve been hoping to see. It has sufficient plain language to get beyond the legalese and be useful for the average reader.

    Reply
  • 2. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    And the amicus briefs(is that correct?) for the Defendants will go as follows:

    It’s in the Bible!

    Reply
    • 3. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:29 pm

      I’ve read the briefs Julia’s summarized (for those who are interested, it’s a fascinating read…. just read the words and skip over the legal citations). They are powerful… articulate, professional, logical in the tone of the Plaintiff’s case. These are social science and legal professionals discussing a constitutional challenge.

      http://erlc.com/documents/pdf/perry-v-schwarzenegger-brief-amicus-curiae-erlc.pdf

      This is the only brief for the Defendants I could find online, from the Southern Baptist Convention. You’re right… The Bible, The Manhattan Declaration, The Baptist Faith and Message (the Catechism for Baptists) and David Popenoe. The difference is eerie… gives new meaning to the term ‘holier than thou’.

      Reply
      • 4. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:35 pm

        They seriously can’t think that they are going to win using the bible do they?…It didn’t work to stop civil rights, It didn’t work to stop interracial marriage, It did”t work to stop women’s rights, and it didn’t work to stop the education of Evolution….are they really this dense?

        I want to have some faith in them but seriously the bible is not a legal document and holds no weight in a court of law.

        Reply
      • 5. Marlene Bomer  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:40 am

        Did you not think the SBC would *not* be holier than thou? It’s part and parcel of the cabal who’s controlled the sect since the Reagan Regency.

        Reply
      • 6. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:18 am

        I didn’t bother reading any further once I saw their source list. Not one of those sources is pertinent to civil law and are, therefore, irrelevant.

        I paid particular attention, OTOH, on the brief from the American Anthropological Association (I am an anthro major). As is always the case with that organization, the amount of research that they rely upon to prove that marriage is NOT just between one man and one woman was amazing.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 7. Dave T  |  February 8, 2010 at 6:55 am

        Check out the following from the brief above (Thank you Sagesse!!!)

        The ERLC believes that an order by this court that California’s constitutional definition of marriage violates the guarantees of the United States Constitution would undermine the critical contributions marriage has always made to society.

        Notice that they never say that their definition of marriage doesn’t violate the guarantees of the Constitution. They always talk about (unstated) harms to society.

        Why don’t they just spell it out: “Our position is discriminatory, but there are good reasons for allowing this discrimination to continue. Those reasons are ______”. I’d have some respect for them if they could only make that argument – they’re wrong, but at least they’d be spelling it out & presenting it in a straight-forward, intellectually honest way.

        Reply
      • 8. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:59 am

        Because they are not intellectually honest…They are Irrationally deceivers….They know is they say exactly what they mean, those that they have brainwashed will turn on them like everybody else does….JMHO!

        Reply
    • 9. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:36 pm

      It would be interesting to see an analysis done of Amicus Briefs for the Defence.

      It would be nice to see what the opposition has to offer….if anything.

      Reply
  • 10. becca  |  February 6, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    wow. Powerful stuff, powerful people, powerful arguments.

    Has The Opposition filed any briefs? who are they from? I’d like a similar rundown, please

    Reply
    • 11. misken  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:07 pm

      Look above. Apparently, there is one.

      Reply
  • 12. Kathleen  |  February 6, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Is this a comprehensive list of the briefs filed? Besides the brie filed by the Unitarian Universalists, et al, I think there were also motions for leave to file AC Briefs from other organizations: (1) Progressive Project and COLAGE, (2) National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation, (3) Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, et al,; as well as two individuals: Michael Wolf and Michael James McDermott. It’s not clear to me if the individuals were asking leave to file briefs on behalf of plaintiffs or D-I’s.

    Reply
    • 13. couragecampaign  |  February 6, 2010 at 6:31 pm

      Kathleen you are correct. Other briefs have been filed and we are working to get information on them to post about.

      Please share any links that you see to other amicus briefs. These are several of the ones highlighted by AFER.

      -Julia

      Reply
      • 14. Kathleen  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:48 pm

        If I find any links, I’ll sure pass them on. So far, I just know that they were filed, but don’t know where to access them.

        BTW, I notice from the TT Facebook page that you’re affiliated with Vassar. That’s my son’s alma mater!

        Reply
  • 15. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    God is going to bless everyone who had a part in coming together for these amicus briefs in favor os marriage equality. After all, God has a track record of blessing those who tell the truth.

    Reply
    • 16. PDXAndrew  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:45 am

      Right… Apparently these fundamentalists forgot their own Ninth Commandment: ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’ (Exodus 20:16)… But we already knew they like to pick and choose which pieces apply to them.

      Reply
  • 17. Mr. HCI  |  February 6, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    I’ve found four opposition briefs on-line, so far. They’re all PDFs and freely downloadable, so I downloaded them. I’ve not had a chance to read much yet, but, what I have read, is pretty pathetic. Here’s the heading and first paragraph of the brief from the Family Research Council:

    RESTRICTING THE NAME OF “MARRIAGE” TO THE UNION OF OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.

    Plaintiffs complain that, by reserving marriage to the union of opposite-sex couples, Proposition 8 (CAL. CONST. art. I, § 7.5) violates the fundamental right to marry protected by the Due Process Clause. Doc. 1-2 at 9, ¶¶ 38-39. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides, in part, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, § 1. Amicus responds that Proposition 8 does not violate the fundamental right to marry because that right applies only to opposite-sex marriages.

    Of course! We don’t have the right to marry because that right is expressly for opposite-sex couples only. Just like the women’s sufferage movement was clearly absurd: women weren’t denied the right to vote; voting was a right reserved only for men.

    Anyhow, I’ve uploaded the four I’ve found so far for anyone who’s interested:

    The American Center for Law and Justice [for heterosexuals]

    The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty [to legislate belief]

    Eagle Forum

    Family Research Council

    Since these are all publically downloadable documents provided free of charge, I don’t believe it is legally improper to redistribute them.

    Reply
    • 18. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:09 pm

      So basically they are saying that LGBT’s are not people and therefore the state can deprive us of life, liberty, and property and as LGBT’s we cannot be protected under the law…do I have that right?

      Reply
      • 19. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:19 pm

        No, these briefs are saying the opposite thing – they are saying we are people and as such should be afforded all the rights of any other citizen of the State of California.

        Reply
    • 20. Mr. HCI  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:21 pm

      Please forgive me, I must’ve been only half awake when I downloaded these.

      The ACLJ and Eagle Forum briefs are a year old.

      The Becket Fund and Family Research Council briefs are for Perry v. Schwartzenegger, however.

      I thought the ACLJ was planning on submitting a brief because I swear I heard Jay Sekulow mention it on his radio show the other day. He’s a slick little liar, that one.

      Reply
  • 21. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    Wow, thanks, I have downloaded everything from the trial that is available so far. It will be useful at a later date, when Prop8 loses to de-bunk the “BIASED JUDGE CLAIMS”, when they arise and I am certain they will.

    Reply
  • 22. Mr. HCI  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    Please forgive me, I must’ve been only half awake when I downloaded these.

    The ACLJ and Eagle Forum briefs are a year old.

    The Becket Fund and Family Research Council briefs are for Perry v. Schwartzenegger, however.

    I know the ACLJ was planning on submitting a brief because I heard Jay Sekulow mention it on his radio show the other day. He’s a slick little liar, that one.

    Reply
    • 23. Dave T  |  February 8, 2010 at 1:49 pm

      A question for anyone who can answer it…

      I just finished reading the Becket Fund brief & I’m not sure what to make of it. They go on at length about the problems that religious organizations will face if they are forced to stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation – some of the things they discuss are things I hadn’t thought of, so I found it interesting. Personally, I’m of the opinion that your religious beliefs are no excuse for discrimination, but I guess they think it’s ok.

      My question is this: to what extent are religious organizations shielded against claims of discrimination?

      For example, if I start a church and say that only white people can get married in my church, is that ok? Of course I’m going to claim that it’s an important element of my religious doctrine that only white people are worthy.

      What if the church starts a soup kitchen for the homeless and then we bar anyone who’s not white? Is that OK?

      If the church is looking for funding for the soup kitchen and we apply for a grant from the local/state/federal government, can I be denied because I’m refusing to serve non-white people? If a discriminatory policy is a matter of “deeply held religious conviction”, isn’t the government’s refusal to help a violation of our religious freedom?

      Reply
      • 24. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 1:57 pm

        Dave, if it is your church, you can do whatever the hell you want (you should excuse the phrase) from a liturgical perspective. You can refuse services in that regard to anyone. That’s your right under the 1st Amendment.

        Where your example falls apart is the soup kitchen. You’re offering services to the public at that point, and that is not liturgical. That goes double if you are getting federal funds — you cannot discriminate in what services you offer to the public to begin with, but when you get tax money you REALLY can’t (if you see what I mean).

        That’s why Catholic Family Services left Massachusetts voluntarily; they were told that, since they handle adoptions for the state and received government funding as a result that they could not have any religious requirements for adoptions and could not discriminate against gay and lesbian couples who wanted to adopt. They closed their doors voluntarily rather than comply with the law.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 25. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Is anybody getting the same feeling about Prop8 as I am, they trying to wage a campaign based upon popularity, rather than the law?

    Reply
    • 26. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:24 pm

      I feel that they are trying to wage a campaign for re-criminilazation of Homosexuality…

      1.They are trying to tell a company that is Gay owned to remove its Ad by saying that it is sexual in nature as well as homosexual…their words…

      2.They are attempting to go state by state of those who have legalized marriage equality and getting it repealed.

      3. They are attempting to have the hate crimes bill repealed saying that it is a violation of?, I can’t remember which amendment(I don’t get it).

      4. Since Prop Ha8ate passed Hate crimes have risen in cali

      5. Pretty much everything the do and pay for is paid for via church untaxed capital.

      I’m sure there is more

      Reply
      • 27. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:30 pm

        Welcome to the confusion, Ronnie. The reality is for the judge to consider these claims as serious and pertinent, they needed to establish “animus” (I hope I got the word right) as a minority, which won’t fly.

        Reply
      • 28. Ed-M  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:09 am

        Ronnie, they want elimination of homosexuality as well. IOW they want to kill us! The $64,000 question is, will they go to the extremes Hitler and the Nazis did in their campaign to rid Europe of Judaism?

        Reply
      • 29. Ronnie  |  February 9, 2010 at 6:52 am

        I believe they would…..If they could.

        Reply
    • 30. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:28 pm

      That is exactly the sense I am getting.

      Reply
  • 31. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    That’s not what I am getting – what I am getting is all of these briefs are in our favor!

    Reply
  • 32. Deborah  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    I know the tension between marriage equality and religious liberty is something that even some pro-equality people take seriously, but a quick glance and the Beckett Fund amicus brief (thanks, Mr. HCI) did make me laugh: “If Prop 8 is overturned, they’re going to call us bigots!”

    I mean really. Has “now they’ll call us names when we actively discriminate against them” really ever been used as a defense in a civil rights case before?

    Reply
    • 33. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:27 pm

      I agree, Deborah, and what’s even more hysterical is they will claim, it’s the big, bad, gays, who are in control!
      Love,
      David

      Reply
    • 34. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:42 pm

      Where exactly does it say that I need to see this

      Reply
    • 35. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:54 pm

      ZOMG!!!

      Beckett Fund:

      We are actively discriminating against them. We are saying that we are actively discriminating against them. We have no problem openly admitting in a legal brief that will last forever that we are actively discriminating against them. We will continue actively to discriminate against them.

      But if you overturn this law they will call us names.

      So to sum up the entire amicus brief in one word….

      WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Reply
      • 36. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:58 pm

        Felyx You forgot:

        It’s in the Bible……..bwwwaaaaaa!!!!

        Reply
      • 37. James  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:04 pm

        I was just brushing up my Leviticus. Found a horrible error in the **bible** . Bats are considered to be fowl. IT’S IN THE BIBLE, FOLKS!! so therefore, it is so.

        Now I know how to accept the rest of the “book”.

        PS. There are more punishments for hetero adultery than there are for homo acts.

        Reply
      • 38. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm

        Listen James,

        Some scientist will even try to convince you that the world is older than 6000 yrs.

        What do professionally trained educated degreed peer reviewed scientists know anyway?!!

        Reply
  • 39. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    oops, I stand corrected the ones listed from MR HCl are the amicus briefs from the other side.

    Reply
    • 40. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:26 pm

      Yeah David I meant what Mr. HCI posted,,,I’m not a lawyer but based on that statement,,,that has to be what they are trying to say…right?

      Reply
      • 41. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:32 pm

        Yeppers, that’s what I am getting too!

        Reply
  • 42. Mr. HCI  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    I took the liberty of swapping out some terms in an early section of the Becket Fund’s brief.

    Hmmm . . . this would’ve been appropo in the ’60s:

    Adopting interracial marriage without robust protections for religious liberty will result in wide-ranging church-state conflict. Legalizing interracial marriage—without providing protections for conscience—threatens the religious liberty of people and groups who cannot, as a matter of conscience, treat interracial unions as the moral equivalent of racially homogenous marriage. Without conscience protections, immediate, widespread, and long-lasting church-state conflict will result.

    How about this one?

    Adopting interfaith marriage without robust protections for religious liberty will result in wide-ranging church-state conflict. Legalizing interfaith marriage—without providing protections for conscience—threatens the religious liberty of people and groups who cannot, as a matter of conscience, treat interfaith unions as the moral equivalent of marriages between persons of the same faith. Without conscience protections, immediate, widespread, and long-lasting church-state conflict will result.

    Reply
    • 43. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:40 pm

      Thanks, I was feeling confused again there for a minute – thanks for the clarity, MR. HCl! :)

      Reply
    • 44. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:01 pm

      Church-State Conflict:

      State: Will handle all matters of governance, law enforcement and taxation.

      Church: Will shut up and take it like a be-atch!

      Reply
    • 45. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:57 pm

      And I guess they just so conveniently forgot that thre are churches and synagogues who are LGBTQQI friendly who will cheerfully perform our weddings for those of us who desire a religious ceremony. And that means thy also conveniently forgot that by trying to impose their religious views on those churches and synagogues that tey are threatening the religious freedom of those people. Wonder how they would feel if the situation were reversed?

      Reply
  • 46. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    It appears to me this will boil down to who amica curae briefs carry the greater weight. We have amica curae briefs that show exactly the opposite. I am hoping the judge will consider these, when he makes his final decision. Given the testimony heard in the trial, relating to a clear pattern of discrimination on the part of Prop8, this should be enough to tip the scales in our favor.
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 47. Ray in MA  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    The ACLJ breif states:

    Religious colleges and universities have also been threatened with the loss of accreditation
    because of their opposition to homosexual conduct. In 2001, for example, the American Psychological
    Association, which is the only government-approved body that can accredit professional
    psychology programs, threatened to revoke the accreditation of religious colleges and
    universities that gave preference in hiring to coreligionists—a threat that would particularly
    harm organizations with religious beliefs forbidding homosexual behavior.16 If same-sex marriage
    is judicially mandated, religious colleges and universities that oppose same-sex marriage
    will likely face similar threats.

    Well, duhhhh, as they should have the threats of limitiation!

    They are something that society SHOULD recognize as a sub standard contributor to society’s well being! Why encouarge their view, which is a detriment to any portion of society and their families!?!?!

    … let’s call it “survival of the fittest” … if they don’t contribute to the benefit of society, they should become extinct (based on their own volition!)

    Reply
    • 48. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:47 pm

      I mean seriously…they are not serious?…..Our taxes go to pay for accredited colleges..their students who are there on financial aid are doing so on our dime but what to be able to discriminate based on orientation…you can;t use our tax money and then say no Gays…WTF…I am choking a pillow right NOW!!!!!!

      Reply
      • 49. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:51 pm

        I hope it’s not a serious or permanent condition! LOL

        Reply
      • 50. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 9, 2010 at 8:35 pm

        I agree, here is my favorite quote of for today from an article out of North Carolina by a city council member:

        As for the complaint that taxpayers are forced to foot the bill [for same sex domestic benefits], Bothwell said, “There is a homosexual population here and they are being forced to pay benefits for straight people in this town.”

        http://www.mountainx.com/news/2010/city_of_asheville_moves_toward_same-sex_domestic_partner_benefits_for_emplo

        Reply
    • 51. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:07 pm

      No one is forcing them to be REAL psychologists.

      They can just be…..Religiously Accredited Psychologists.

      They can call their accrediting organization…

      Religiously Accrediting Psychological Institution of Sovereign Theological Science!

      (You figure it out!)

      Reply
      • 52. Bee  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:56 pm

        haha, rapists :)

        Reply
    • 53. Dave T  |  February 8, 2010 at 7:16 am

      Idiots. The APA has found that “treatment” of homosexuality is at best ineffective and at worst harmful to the individual and their family.

      The APA is threatening to revoke the accreditation of schools that are teaching a “therapy” that does more harm than good. Seems perfectly appropriate to me.

      Reply
  • 54. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    You know what, we need smily faces here! All I get, when I do colon and parenthesis is this :)
    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 55. Kathleen  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    The brief from the California Professors of Family Law use “The Case for Marriage” by Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher (2000), as one of their authorities.

    Specifically they cite is as support for the statements: “More than 90% of Americans rate having a happy marriage as a very important life goal, generally the most important goal in life.” (pg 10) and “Leading researchers from many disciplines and differing value perspectives agree that formal marriage, both in its meaning to the couple and its treatment by the broader society, contributes to the quality and stability of the relationship” (pg 11).

    Gotta love the irony. heehee

    Reply
  • 56. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    Religious colleges and universities have also been threatened with the loss of accreditation
    because of their opposition to homosexual conduct. In 2001, for example, the American Psychological
    Association – again they really need to update their data base – I mean 2001 – that was ong before Prop8 even came upon the horizon and I believe before the other Prop 22? (sorry, I am not sure of the number assigned to the first proposition that was struck-down by the California Supreme Court.

    Reply
  • 57. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    From:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

    Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Nowhere does it say straight people only. Nowhere does it say Christian only…F-ING BIGOTS…..my brain hurts

    Reply
    • 58. Mr. HCI  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:18 pm

      I’ve pointed that out before and been told the writers of the amendment didn’t feel it necessary to include that as it’s just plain obvious that homosexuals are not included!

      Reply
      • 59. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:19 pm

        Hmmm, and exactly how did they come to that conclusion?

        Reply
      • 60. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:24 pm

        Then if they use that as the stone, Then I am going to demand that interracial marriage be repealed because they didn’t include people of color either.

        Reply
    • 61. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:26 am

      Ronnie, I used to say, when I cited that as the reason that Prop 8 was unconstitutional to begin with, “Now, show me the appendage that says “unless they are a different ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation/I think they are ‘icky.”

      It tended to shut people up pretty quickly.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
  • 62. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    I just read the brief and from my conclusions, they cite no serious studies in the Baptist brief and mostly rely upon traditional law and Scritpure to justify their position. Another thing I found of interest is their admission of a greatly increased “out-of-wedlock birthrate”, so exactly what has this got to do with same-sex-marriage? They say, “Old Testament Laws no longer apply”. Oh really and where do we get the Ten Commandments from, by the way, they are extremely upset, when they are not allowed to display them in public?

    Reply
    • 63. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:13 pm

      Update…

      New Testament ALSO doesn’t apply!

      Reply
    • 64. James  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm

      As disgusting as it is, I suggest that everyone read Levitcus. My main take is that there are many, many references of types of hetero-sin including punishments, vs. only one for homos.

      Just ask any televangelist.

      It’s easy. Just pick and choose the condemnations you like and say the rest don’t apply any more.

      Reply
      • 65. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 6:17 am

        Perhaps you might consider reading _What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality_. Leviticus is not refering to same sex unions…it is refering to ‘pagan’ sex rituals. (Personally I am all for them!)

        Reply
  • 66. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Here is the deal if they can honestly get away with this BS….I will not pay taxes anymore…If the 14 amendment does not protect me and the constitution does not protect me as an American whose caucasian side of the family has been here for 7 generations and whose African side of the family has been here since slavery…Then I will officially say that I am not an American….this is total BS….My family fought in the civil war. My grandfather saved lives at Pear Harbor. My Cousin fought for this country and and saved lives. My great uncle got a purple heart for what he did for his country. I ma just as American as anybody else in this country if not more.

    UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
    • 67. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:25 pm

      Yeah, I’m with you there! Ronnie, this makes so little sense, but what really scary is they believe everything they wrote.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
    • 68. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:19 pm

      According to PM and NOM, it was only the heterosexual ones that saved lives.

      Furthermore, Blankenhorse-shit will testify, based on his expertise in the subject, that the homosexual ones that did die, didn’t do it for there country but rather just accidentally got caught in the cross-fire.

      It’s true, it says so in the Constitution of the United Church of Gawd.

      Reply
  • 69. David Kimble  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Well, I think I have been Sado-Masochistic long enough today, so twizzle, twazzle, twizzle, tum – time for this one to go to bed! My head is hurting terribly from reading all of this. I will see everyone tomorrow.
    Love,
    David

    Reply
    • 70. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:41 pm

      TTFN……<3

      Reply
  • 71. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    I think we should all not file taxes and not pay taxes anymore…Let’s see how good the gov. does without out Money….you know what I’m not filing..there I said it!

    IRS…..come get me!!!!!….I will take one for team….I hear the Canary islands are nice…yeah?

    Reply
    • 72. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:47 pm

      Not that I have any money and taxes technically I am unemployed and I’m still in the process of starting my own business….OMG….My mother just said she might not file either….she is so awesome…..lol

      Reply
  • 73. Kathleen  |  February 6, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    A Mr Wizard reference!

    I know, doesn’t it make your head just kind of explode reading this crazy stuff?

    Good night, David. Sweet dreams.

    Reply
  • 74. Larry Little  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    For those of us who are not gay and haven’t been indocrinated by terroristic Christianity, I support you in all your efforts to throw off the yoke of extremely inhumane discrimination. Do you lose your ticket to Heaven if you let gays in the military or to permit them to marry? Won’t hurt me at all, so I guess I am bound for Hell.
    I empahtize with the victims of religions’ hatred. Can anybody clap their hands when a gay person is getting pummeled by a high school bully who is a religious bigot? Yeah, Reverend Phelps and Jimmy Swaggart for two and thousands of Mormons.

    Reply
    • 75. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:22 pm

      Hell is for drinkers, whores and gamblers!!

      See you there at 8? ;`P

      Reply
  • 76. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    “Anyone who cares about religious freedom would have had good reason to be deeply concerned at the California Supreme Court’s failure to protect religious liberty.”- Becket Fund

    WTF are Y F-ING kiding me with this I cant I acant

    What about my religious liberty?

    Reply
    • 77. Lo  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:19 pm

      I think that those fucking dumbasses forget that CHURCH AND STATE ARE SEPARATE, and that they simply CANNOT USE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TO MAKE LAWS AND TAKE AWAY RIGHTS. Fuckin dumbasses! Geez, it so simple!

      Reply
    • 78. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 6:19 am

      They were not refering to THAT kind of religious liberty…

      what you are talking about doesn’t really count as a real religion…like say Zoroastrianism. (I notice there were not supporting Wicca either!)

      Reply
  • 79. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    “Both types of conflict implicate the fundamental First Amendment rights of religious institutions, including the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of association” – Becket Fund

    @%&$^&*%*%*%*%*$$@^^$*^$&^$

    Again what about my freedom of religion and my freedom of association?……uggggg!!!!

    Reply
    • 80. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 6:23 am

      Ronnie,

      We iz only stupid ni99er fa9s! We’z better learn our place, boy!

      (Attention: All above comments meant to be derisively humorous….any offense taken is strickly acceptable!)

      Reply
  • 81. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    “B. Religious people and institutions that object to same-sex marriage will be labeled “bigots” and penalized by state and local governments.
    Legalizing same sex marriage not only subjects religious organizations to civil liability at the hands of private litigants, it also subject religious organizations to the denial of benefits at the hands of the government. Specifically, once same-sex marriage is legalized, those who con- scientiously object to such marriages can be labeled unlawful “discriminators” and thus denied access to state and local government benefits.” – Becket Fund

    You are already Labeled BIGOTS!!!!!!!!…..uuggggggggg!!

    Reply
    • 82. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:27 pm

      I have to agree with them….’cuz when the Catholic Church got sued for child abuse….yeah, that really sucked big time for them.

      And I would just HATE for the Mormons to lose their tax-exemption benefits over this!!!

      Reply
  • 83. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    A. There is a consensus among legal scholars that conflicts between same-sex mar- riage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.- Becket Fun

    DAHHHH……you want to be free to kill us and the government will not let you…..OMG The ego on these crack heads!

    Reply
  • 84. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    “A. There is a consensus among legal scholars that conflicts between same-sex mar- riage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed”.- Becket Fund

    DAHHHH……you want to be free to kill us and the government will not let you…..OMG The ego on these crack heads!

    Reply
    • 85. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:25 pm

      sorry double post

      Reply
    • 86. Marlene Bomer  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:54 am

      Ronnie — This reminds me of a line from an old Cheech & Chong routine:

      “I used to be messed up on drugs, now I’m all messed up on the Lord.”

      Reply
      • 87. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 1:00 am

        Yeah thats it…..I feel high reading all this…I haven’t felt this way since freshmen year of HS….that was the first time i tried to kill myself…I have never done drugs but my medication was medication….I didn’t know you can O.D. on pills without taking them…this BS ranks right up there.

        Reply
      • 88. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:28 am

        There is a reason that so many dry drunks turn to evangelical churches …

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 89. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:32 am

        Doah!!!!!….hehehe

        Reply
  • 90. Les Late  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    Man this is good stuff!! I never thought I would enjoy reading legal mumbo jumbo as much as I do these days! This is one of my favorites, from the amicus of Justice Donald B. King (ret.), California Court of Appeal:
    “Plaintiffs in this case, like same-sex couples throughout the country, seek the same right to
    marry that already exists. They do not seek the right to “gay marry” any more than a religious couple seeks the right to “church marry,” or an interracial couple seeks the right to “interracially marry,” or a prisoner seeks the right to “inmate marry.” This fundamental right applies to all of those classes of citizens. “

    Reply
  • 91. Les Late  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Here’s my other favorite, again from the amicus of Justice Donald B. King (ret.), California Court of Appeal:
    “It is sophistic to suggest that same-sex marriage is a different institution than opposite sex marriage due to the fact that same-sex couples were not explicitly mentioned in laws relating to marriage. It appears that “the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not
    emerge until the late 19th century.” Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 568. Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association had homosexuality misclassified as a mental disorder. Petition of Hill, 775 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1985). It is outside the realm of reason to expect that a group would have been explicitly mentioned in marriage laws at a time when that group was not known to exist, or during a period when that group was classified as being mentally ill. “

    Reply
    • 92. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:01 pm

      Right on!!! WTG!!!

      Reply
  • 93. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    “Without adequate safeguards for religious liberty of the sort proposed in this letter, the recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to socially divisive and entirely unnecessary conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. That is a needless and destructive path where both sides lose. There is a balanced “middle way.” The New Jersey legislature should avoid either extreme and be the peacemaker. On that note, we would welcome any opportunity to provide further information, analysis, or testimony to the legislature.” -Becket Fund

    Yeah this is the middle ground:

    1.You get to discriminate against human beings while we let you… as opposed to us getting married while your beliefs are being called on when you use them to discriminate against tax payers which you are not…In short you can discriminate against us but what can’t do the same to you….BIGOTS!

    2. You continue onto the next step which is re-criminalizing Homosexuality….You get to murder us and we get to let you murder us.

    What the F%*$&^$&$&$& You F@%@% Piece of F#$^&%…Who the F$%@% do you think you Dealing With….i am an American too!

    People all this comes down too…ME ME ME ME ME ME and Screw everybody else…..I don’t know about you but if this happens they are going to have bigger problems then I see Gay people…yeah?

    I mean they are worried about what’s going to happen to religion(that has been losing people because of this) if SSM is legalized…did they even stop to think what will happen to them if its criminalized….I’m just saying

    Reply
  • 94. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    I am loving the Beckett Brief….

    It is a long laundry list that boils down to….

    If you legitimize gays then we will be forced to treat them with respect or risk not getting government money.

    I can only think of the pain and suffering they had to go through when nig…I mean AA were allowed to be equals..!

    (If we don’t let negros marry in our church or receive our services or be housed in our schools or give them benefits then we’ll just DIE!! AND IT WILL BE ALL YOUR FAULT!!!)

    BTW Beckett fund says it represents all faiths…even the ones that are on the pro-gay side of the issue.

    No really….go read it for yourself!

    Reply
    • 95. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 9:59 pm

      I was doing some cutting and pasting… the ‘nig…I mean’ was supposed to go in front of negroes. Sorry.

      Reply
    • 96. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:05 pm

      What I’m P,O.ed about is they are actually afraid that they are going to loose government Money….Where the hell does that gov. money come from?

      US!…………WE OWN YOU BIGOTS!!!!!!!!

      Reply
    • 97. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:18 pm

      I was jesting over the racial thing but then I saw this…

      BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE BECKET FUND FOR
      RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-INTERVERNORS pg. 10

      20 See Bob Jones v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) (rejecting Free Exercise Clause defense
      to IRS withdrawal of 501(c)(3) status based on religious belief against interracial dating
      and marriage).

      I get the feeling BFund was paid to write this and so they did the best they could…this actually being the best they could.

      This reference alone is enough to turn the whole brief down as being without bearing or merit!

      We were not allowed to keep down the ni99er and it caused us to lose tax exemption. If you make us accept gays….well then we will have to choose between church or state! Waaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

      (2012….my place!)

      Reply
    • 98. Bill  |  February 7, 2010 at 3:11 pm

      You can always count on ‘people of god’ to come out fighting for their rights to continue treating people badly.

      Reply
    • 99. Ed-M  |  February 9, 2010 at 2:17 am

      “If you legitimize gays then we will be forced to treat them with respect or risk not getting government money.”

      IOW, they are saying “If you legitimise gays we can’t get government money to run our faith based gay-to-straight cult anymore!!! Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!”

      Reply
  • 100. Sagesse  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    I’m partial to this compelling argument, from the Beckett Fund, p 12

    “2. Exclusion from government facilities and fora

    Religious institutions that object to same sex marriage will also face challenges to their ability to access a diverse array of government facilities and fora. An example foreshadowing this threat is the reaction to the Boy Scouts requirement that members believe in God and not advocate for, or engage in, homosexual conduct.

    Because of their position on homosexual conduct, the Boy Scouts have had to fight to gain equal access to after school facilities. They have lost leases to city campgrounds, a lease to a government building that served as their headquarters for 79 years, marina berths reserved for public interest groups, and the right to participate in a state facilitated payroll deduction program.”

    The Boy Scouts are a religion now? Who knew?

    Reply
    • 101. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:19 pm

      I was a boyscout….and much to my chagrin I didn’t quit because I am Gay….I quit because the Scout Master was a racist Bigot….and when I got braids in the Freshmen year of HS…He called me black boy…I popped him in the face and kneed him in the balls…And said “I am Mocha and you know my motha is white…..crakca….F-you Bigot I quit.

      Reply
    • 102. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:24 pm

      The Boy Scouts were founded on serious religious principle. I was in the BS…(knee deep as a matter of fact) although I didn’t particularly care much for God and I did fool around with lots of other boys.

      Seriously. In NC at Camp Grimes.

      Reply
      • 103. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:29 pm

        I went to Camp Terrell in North Jersey and yes very God this and God that….thats where I learned how to shoot…..a gun….keep your head out of the gutters….however…blushing

        Reply
      • 104. Alan E.  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:18 am

        Every 4 years was the Jamboree. I went twice and had a great time ; )

        Reply
      • 105. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:34 am

        Well, I can’t say, as that I ever went to any Boy Scout meetings – I never got past Cub Scouts…sounds like I missed something. The situation for me; I was raised on a farm and there was never time for Boy Scouts – damn it! I missed-out on the boys!

        Reply
    • 106. Les Late  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:46 pm

      I do not want those hateful people meeting at public buildings. They should lose those public supports! If you are going to teach that other people are bad and wrong, you will have to do that in your own places with your own dollars. Essentially they want to benefit from the very people whom they want to be free to hate.

      Reply
      • 107. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:57 pm

        Exactly!….We pay taxes, they don’t, the churches want to take our money to pay for their colleges, and their hospitals while saying Oh you’re gay heres a noose….I just came up with the best parallel that tops over civil rights, women’s rights, and interracial marriage…..

        They are the Red Coats……and we are the Colonials….they want to tax us but not let us be equal…..Hey Bigots…how did that turn out?

        Reply
      • 108. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:38 am

        Do you think we could petition Congress to pull their tax-emempt status with our GAY AGENDA AND CLOUT, being so libidomous (sorry, I don’t think that is word) and that we have so much support from Congress on this issue?

        Reply
      • 109. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:46 am

        I think we should….I don’t want anymore of my tax money, what little there is, so that some welfare bigot can get a better education, just so that they can use it to attack me and discriminate against me…..I mean that’s like say, “Here’s $44 thou+ so you can Kill me or Here’s $44 thou+ so you can say no Gays allowed”…..WTF

        Reply
    • 110. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:31 am

      Wow … you mean facilities that are not allowed to discriminate because they rent to the public *followed* the law by not allowing organizations that discriminate, so religious conservatives are crying foul?

      Gosh, who knew that following the Unruh Act was so onerous for the Boy Scouts?

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 111. Dave T  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:05 am

      I was a cub scout in Canada and there was never mention of god or religion. I don’t know if it’s different here, but my son is never joining the Scouts in the US – the values of the organization are just too far from my own.

      I do remember the activities with fondness and I would like my son to be able to experience camping, etc. Anyone know of any alternatives?

      Reply
      • 112. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:11 am

        God and religion is huge part of boy scouts in The U.S….there is scout sunday at church…and prayer at every meal at summer camp…they mention God in the scout oath, we have to go to mass on sunday at summer camp, no excuse…it really is cultish if you think about it.

        Reply
      • 113. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:13 am

        There is the Boys Club of America, I don’t think they have any religious affiliations.

        Reply
      • 114. Felyx  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:25 am

        You could always consider the Boy Scouts anyway. They are not always that religious (unless things have radically changed in the last decade). Usually depends on the troop. Important thing is that if he is in and you attend as a loving father then it would be good promotion for gays if you are liked and people realize (quietly) that you are not a threat.

        Or not. Just an idea. I would take my kids there though, it is still a fun organization. I would rather that I and several other gay friendly members mass together and strongarm the organization (quietly and patiently) into acceptance. (Since it can’t be legally done, maybe then we can just work on just changing the hearts and minds of people.)

        Again, just a though.

        Reply
      • 115. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:32 am

        You might see whether there is a local Spiral Scouts group. I understand that, in a change since my day in the organization, Camp Fire is now co-ed as well.

        http://www.spiralscouts.org/

        Other link will follow so it doesn’t sit in moderation forever.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 116. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:33 am

        Camp Fire:

        http://www.campfireusa.org/

        I really enjoyed Camp Fire; when we moved, there was only Girl Scouts, and that just didn’t seem like as much fun.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 117. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:34 am

        PS – My father was the first male Camp Fire leader. When no one stepped forward in the local Council and it looked like our group would fold, my dad said he’d do it.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 118. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 8, 2010 at 12:06 pm

        Felyx (@#108) taking his son to the Boy Scouts may not work, depending upon where he is. My husband made Eagle Scout, and is also a trained, ordained Lubavitcher Rabbi, yet when his son wanted to be in the Boy Scout, they told his son that he could not, because it would not be appropriate for his faggot father to be involved with the other adults or with the scouts. And to think, I was a boy scout once, and enjoyed it. But I can no longer support them. Until they allow LGBT parents to be involved with scouting to the same extent that the heterosexual parents are, they will receive neither any time nor any money from me.

        Reply
      • 119. David Kimble  |  February 9, 2010 at 4:15 am

        Some of my fondess memories are of camping and fishing with my Grandpa and just leaving the boy scouts out of it. It’s a thought, many of the scout troops on the West Coast are affiliated with the Mormon Church – sorry I don’t know much about other areas, but it is a thought.
        Love,
        David

        Reply
  • 120. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Reading all this anti LGBT hogwash suddenly makes me want to be more GAY!!!…..anybody else?

    Reply
    • 121. Les Late  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm

      Absolutely!

      Reply
    • 122. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:59 am

      Yes, and it’s not like I could change who I am, even I wanted to!
      Love,
      David

      Reply
  • 123. Mr. HCI  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Obviously, we need to return to the values and mores of the past, when straight, white landowners ran the country, had pretty incubators and spawn at home, and had a buncha darkies to do the housework and whatnot.

    Reply
  • 124. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Another gem!

    Chai R. Feldblum, Moral Conflict and Conflicting Liberties, in Emerging Conflicts 123, 124-25.

    (Taken a tiny bit out of context but…)

    “…in areas of unavoidable conflict, gay rights should prevail over religious freedom…”

    Defense really needs to start getting themselves some witnesses and amicus briefs…..for them!!!

    Reply
  • 125. Casey  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    I was amazed at the laundry list of organizations filing these briefs. What a beautiful thing that there is suddenly this perfect forum for them to organize and directly lobby a judge. I narrated the list to my fiancee, and she couldn’t *believe* how long I kept going on and on, listing these wonderful organizations who are speaking out. I am going to start sending them letters of thanks in the morning.

    I worked at BSC Sabattis in NY for two summers in the late 90’s. As a gay woman, let me tell you, it was ugly – and I don’t just mean the food. The tremendous violence of the conversations and experiences I had there damage me to this day. Reading through discussions on this board is digging up all the memories from my life when discrimination has created pain for myself or those dear to me. And yes, I do believe it’s making my gayer. Ooh! I just felt it!

    Off to buy some power tools before my flag football game…

    Reply
    • 126. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:25 pm

      I’m going sen strongly worded letters made out of magazines clippings(so they see how much time I put into it) to all the anti marriage equality people filled with discrimination and dripping with distain….I mean if they can do it to us, then we should be able to do it to them…yeah?

      They said it The want to discriminate against LGBT people, well when i officially start business and eventually when I start my own store…If you don’t support LGBT people no service and I will have the right to thump them of they come onto my property….but no that is unconstitutional,,,,,Give me a break!

      Reply
  • 127. Felyx  |  February 6, 2010 at 11:37 pm

    The Eagle Forum brief is killer! It is sharp like a dagger.

    But…
    While is seems to have teeth I think the argument starts to break dowm just about where it gets to Inalienable Rights.

    Argument 1) It does not violate inalienable rights because the question put forth was really addressing separation of powers. (Voters passed P8, Judges butt out.)

    Argument 2) If it is in the constitution it is constitutional and cannot be considered unconstitutional.

    At least that is how I am reading it. Seems flimsy even by ‘Jewish’ Lawyer standards. (I don’t split hairs as finely as Kay but… well just read some of my past posts. Shalom baby!)

    Where I think the Brief just implodes is where they try to justify retroactively invalidating ALL same-sexed marriages prior to P8.

    Just venturing a guess but….

    Allow gay marriage….. life goes on,

    Invalidate 18000+ marriages….

    ALL CIVIL UNREST HOLY RIOTING HELL will break loose!!!!!

    (Granted, I don’t see looting and window smashing per se but I can see quite a few pink triangles plastered across California!)

    I take that back…Hell hath no fury like 18000+ GLBT scorned!!!

    Reply
    • 128. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:11 am

      Argument 2) If it is in the constitution it is constitutional and cannot be considered unconstitutional.

      Well last time I looked it didn’t say say No Gay people, bad Gay people no rights for Gay Tax Paying Americans. And well the people who wrote these sure did wear perty wigs…yeah?….i don’t think constitution says due to the word of God all gay men are wrong and must be persecuted against….HOGWASH…They have no case..The judge is going to read this and be like but what about their beliefs, you are doing to them what you don’t want done to yourself…overturned…go pray cry babies and wait for the Rapture

      It says We the People..and we all know that unless you directly state it, there are a ton of wholes to work your way though. The constitution has more swiss cheese then a club sandwich.

      The Rapture couldn’t come any sooner…If they are right then Good they can go and we(LGBT and straight) can have the Earth….and then all will be right with the world.

      Reply
      • 129. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:41 am

        I wouldn’t get too excited there Ronnie, the two Briefs I read didn’t seem to me to have enough merit.

        The religious one looks untenable since that want to use tax dollars from everybody but only for those they choose. The judge will see this for what it is.

        The Eagle Brief is mostly munbo-jumbo. Walker knows that the marriages cannot be overturned ex post facto (legal for can’t undue what’s been done!) without serious reprocussion to society. Instigating a riot of civil unrest by nullifying marriages would be perhaps the greatest proof of harm to the state…WAY trumping a perceived threat to the institution of marriage. On the other hand, having already granted them makes it hard to justify upholding P8 and not let everyone be equal.

        Religion, once again, is being exposed for what it is. Philosophy mixed with Mythology. A true God would clearly not endorse what is being commited in Their name!

        Reply
      • 130. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:53 am

        Felyx I honestly believe that the judge is going to read these fiction novels(bad Ones) and be like So what if You don’t accept that LGBTs can get married….they are tax paying americans and you want to discriminate against them but they can’t discriminate against you who do not pay taxes….what a bunch of malarkey

        Reply
    • 131. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:44 am

      Okay, really? They tried to justify ex post facto law? In a legal brief?

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 132. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:16 am

        The Eagle Brief is clear on this….those marriage are not valid, according to them, because they were never legal to begin with.

        All the names are on the legal brief….I suggest they get a head start now while there is still time!

        Reply
  • 133. Jose Luis  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:40 am

    HI! Thank you all so much for the responses to my comment in a previous post about my teacher discussing her “gentle” homophobic beliefs in my class. I’m the one from Tijuana, México, but I feel I didn’t quite tell you enough about my university. It’s one of the biggest and best public schools in Mexico, the Universidad Autónoma de Baja California (Autonomous University of BC). A semester is around 200 bucks thanks to our heavy socialized ideology which believes higher education should be as free as possible, but there are tons of great private collages and universities in MX. So, my faculty is the humanities one, so it’s as liberal as you can get, and homosexuality is accepted by most of the faculty and student body, with those with some homophobic tendencies singled out as “pendejos” or “mamones”. But, institutionally, the policies in place are the same ones all mexicans grew up with “respect religion, respect race, politics and private life” with the usual caveats.

    I think, that if I go up to the dean or other members of the faculty and tell them about my teachers “curious statements” she would get called out by them, but I don’t know… I think I can handle it myself and, not so much to prove HER wrong, but to get the word out to the rest of my classmates. I can tell that she has been casually mentioning her “80% of gays have strong mothers, weak fathers” and “the guy who said homo’s weren’t sick, now says otherwise!” and other stuff for some semesters now, and she is respected by most students and knows how to debate for her to sound truthful and reasonable.

    I want to put an end to that… She has to know the damage she can cause, and I think she knows it actually… everybody knows that Humanities is full of gays .

    Here is my earlier post:

    HI from México…
    I’m a young mexican 22 y/o from Tijuana, final semester in communication sciences. Well, I have this teacher that I respected a lot, and has a lot of expertise in psychology, although she isn’t a real psychiatrist. But, last semester she casually repeated a common slander against gays, but I ignored it. (even tough she is no ragging homophobe and talks rarely about controversial issues). But, she repeated it again on thursday, at the beginning of this semester… “it has been proven that 80% of male homosexuals grew up with a strong mother and weak father” the usual bullshit. I couldn’t help it and gently (at least I tried) told her that as a gay man (at that moment, I came out to my whole class, with very funny but kind reaction from a friend beside me :p ) and that I found the whole statement offensive.

    Now, I expected her reaction, which is to say that there was none. She is VERY adapt at sounding both neutral and convincing, typical “soft homophobe” reaction. She repeated the study, and almost comically said to the whole class that “there are ABSOLUTELY no studies that prove biological reasons for homosexuality”. I knew, and so did most of the class, that that is the equivalent of the other common right wing myth about there not being any proof of evolution or global warming. There are hundreds of studies showing amazing prof of homosexuals having distinct biological characteristics, even different brain functions. But, she is still the teacher and we where in a Advance Writing class, not a psychological class. She claimed that “the guy who took homosexuality out of the DSM in the 70’s, now says that he was wrong and gets lynched by the pro gay groups” (and she says this in a very gentle, comical and convincing tone and also she is a very good teacher, in that she manages to teach her subject quickly and efficiently each, so that we have a lot of spare time during our two hour classes, and sometimes get sidetrack with interesting conversations).

    Of course, I asked for her sources… No surprise. NARTH of course, or the mexican groups affiliated with them.
    So I looked it up. Found out it was Robert Spitzer she was talking about, which made the “controversial” study about ex-gays, and that ex-gay groups have been using as evidence that “the guy who too homosexuality out of the mental illness section of the DSM now says that he was wrong”… Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth, and Spitzer himself supports gays rights and says that the Christian right has twisted his words to conform to his agenda.

    But, I studied all of this in-depth after getting home from school, and I’m still gunning up on studies, quotes and more about this Robert Spitzer guy and the real story about the reason why homosexuality was removed from the DSM-III list of mental illnesses (Evelyn Hooker was the one who responsible for that) and other stuff.
    But, I need something to fight her bogus claim about the strong mother weak father theory. I looked all over the Internets, and found absolutely nothing, only some claims in mexican websites about that being a “fact”.
    Can anyone help me?”

    Reply
    • 134. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:51 am

      Jose,

      I based my recommendations on US Educational conduct policies.

      I see your point now. Perhaps I would suggest that when you present her with new information you just ask her questions. As in, “If that were true then why does this scientifically validated source directly contradict it?” Then she has to come up with pointless nonsense but at least you don’t look disrespectful…merely curious.

      Buen Suerte!

      Reply
    • 135. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:41 am

      Jose, while I don’t claim to be an expert on Mexico, I am wondering if the Dean of your University is aware of what she is teaching. It seems to me she is teaching a subject outside of her area of specialty or maybe I misunderstood the quote from your text. Another option you might want to consider is doing an anonymous recording of her, when she espouses these views and beliefs and then submit the tape recording to the Dean anonymously. I know it sounds underhanded and I recommend doing this only if you are uncomforable doing a direct confrontation, which may lead to consequences for you.
      “But, she is still the teacher and we where in a Advance Writing class, not a psychological class.”

      Reply
    • 136. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:32 am

      Jose, really its simple…Just ask… “then how does that theory apply to Gay men who have no mother and a very strong willed father?”….It’s always fun to hear them spin that….One person actually told me the absence of the mother to nurture them is what made them Gay….I mean wow!…..So if you have a strong mother then you are gay and if you have no mother then you are gay….and basically saying no matter what it’s the fathers fault that we are gay because they mother is to strong, dead, or not in our lives at all…..There is so much spinning that I feel dizzy just thinking about it.

      Reply
    • 137. rpx  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:53 pm

      Why don’t you tell her that the biggest macho war hawk this country has ever had, Vice President Dick Cheny, his daughter is a lesbian. I would not say he is a weak man, would you?

      Reply
  • 138. dieter  |  February 7, 2010 at 5:12 am

    I had NO IDEA Judge Walker was GAY!!!

    The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.
    Matier & Ross

    Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.

    They also don’t believe it will influence how he rules on the case he’s now hearing – whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians.

    “There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view,” said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8.

    As evidence, she cites the judge’s conservative – albeit libertarian – reputation, and says, “There wasn’t anyone who thought (overturning Prop. 8) was a cakewalk given his sexual orientation.”

    State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who has sponsored two bills to authorize same-sex marriage that were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said that as far as he’s concerned, Walker’s background is a nonissue. “It seems curious to me,” he said, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices’ sexual orientation “was never discussed.”

    Leno added, “I have great respect for Judge Walker, professionally and personally.”

    Walker has declined to talk about anything involving the Prop. 8 case outside court, and he wouldn’t comment to us when we asked about his orientation and whether it was relevant to the lawsuit.

    Many San Francisco gays still hold Walker in contempt for a case he took when he was a private attorney, when he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a successful bid to keep San Francisco’s Gay Olympics from infringing on its name.

    “Life is full of irony,” the judge replied when we reminded him about that episode.

    And did he have any concerns about being characterized as gay?

    “No comment.”

    Shortly after our conversation, we heard from a federal judge who counts himself as a friend and confidant of Walker’s. He said he had spoken with Walker and was concerned that “people will come to the conclusion that (Walker) wants to conceal his sexuality.”

    “He has a private life and he doesn’t conceal it, but doesn’t think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn’t bring it to bear in any decisions,” said the judge, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the Prop. 8 trial.

    “Is it newsworthy?” he said of Walker’s orientation, and laughed. “Yes.”

    He said it was hard to ignore the irony that “in the beginning, when (Walker) sought to be a judge, a major obstacle he had to overcome was the perception that he was anti-gay.”

    In short, the friend said, Walker’s background is relevant in the same way people would want to know that a judge hearing a discrimination case involving Latinos was Latino or a Jewish judge was ruling in a case involving the Anti-Defamation League.

    Walker, by the way, didn’t seek out the Prop. 8 case – it was assigned to him at random.

    If the judge decides that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, supporters of the measure are sure to take it to the federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary. Kendell expects that if that happens, the measure’s proponents will make an issue of the judge’s sexual orientation – at least in the public arena.

    Not so, said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the group that sponsored the Prop. 8 campaign.

    “We are not going to say anything about that,” Pugno said.

    He was quick to assert, however, that Prop. 8 backers haven’t gotten a fair shake from Walker in court. He cited both the judge’s order for the campaign to turn over thousands of pages of internal memos to the other side and Walker’s decision to allow the trial to be broadcast – both of which were overturned by higher courts.

    “In many ways, the sponsors of Prop. 8 have been put at significant disadvantage throughout the case,” Pugno said. “Regardless of the reason for it.”

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL#ixzz0er5kIsIZ

    Reply
    • 139. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:05 am

      They really will stop at nothing…Now Judge Walker is Gay….WTF does that matter?……What?…anybody who makes decisions in this country and for this country has to me straight?…..WOW!….there you go more illegal discrimination.

      Tell me prop ha8ters, to make it fair so that either side has an impartial judge, who or what should it be?……I know a Monkey!……….BWAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

      Reply
    • 140. becca  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:16 am

      oh, this makes me worry about grounds for a mistrial…

      Reply
      • 141. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:21 am

        There could be no miss trial because he was given the trial as a case…he didn’t choose it….They wouldn’t be saying this if he was in fact a straight far reich(right) conservative activist judge….They are hypocritical Bigots.

        Reply
      • 142. dieter  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:17 pm

        unless you think that all cases who were presided over by a straight judge regarding any straight issue should also be retracted., then this means nothing to our case.

        Or any christian judge who decides a case involving christians..etc…this is not a big deal.

        Reply
  • 143. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:23 am

    This is news to me…”Judge Walker is gay”, really. Hmm…let me see, the defendants in this case really didn’t have much of a case, so that means when they lose, they will simply label him, “Gay Judge” – Oh pleeez! I have no knowledge of his sexual orientation and the facts do not support him being gay (appointed to the bench by President George HW Bush. And unless I am wrong, during the trial at their website (COMMENTS TURNED-OFF) weren’t they cheering the judge? This is ludicrous!

    Reply
  • 144. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 11:28 am

    I have no idea why…but suddenly I feel very proud!

    It seems to me that this will have an ENORMOUS bearing on his decision in a very unusual way.

    It would be hard to believe that Walker has not experienced the internal conflict and the pressures of bias that we all have felt. While he will be an extra cautiously scrutinizing Judge and take the case very seriously… he nonetheless will have been toughened by years of religious bigotry, just as we all have, and see it for what it is. Better yet, he will most likely write a judgement so exacting and thorough that it will leave little room for ambiguity.

    If he rules for the plaintiff BY GOD it’ll stick!

    Reply
  • 145. Sheryl  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    Been thinking about this issue and wondering if somehow the other side will say, “we told you gays has political power, see the judge is gay.”

    And I am so tired of hearing how they were at a disadvantage.

    Reply
    • 146. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:29 pm

      “we told you gays has political power, see the judge is gay.”
      That is a very slippery slope and I doubt they would go there, but stranger things have happened!

      Reply
    • 147. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:30 pm

      And that’s when you say,”And so does Harry Potter, but he’s still in High School.”

      Reply
    • 148. Felyx  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:35 pm

      Well they were….

      I mean after all….they are founded from a persecuted religion based on a flawed bible!

      Reply
    • 149. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm

      Unfortunately, Sheryl, if you look at Re-Pug-NO’s comments, they are already saying that, they just aren’t saying it in so many words. And I, too, am suffering illness and fatigue over their constant comments about how mistreated and disadvantaged they are. When will they ever grow up? Oh, sorry about that. I forgot that they think they are grown up!

      Reply
      • 150. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:44 pm

        And dopty-daddy…thats when you say, “Well Mentally and Logistically, So was Benjamin Button, but he still looked like a child”

        Reply
      • 151. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:07 pm

        You did it again, dopty-son! You got me rolling in the aisles! Thanks! BTW a little off-topic, but for those who missed the super bowl, New Orleans Saints won!

        Reply
      • 152. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:20 pm

        No problem….I got a ton of them…lol

        Reply
  • 153. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    Ronnie, can you send me an e-mail…I need to tell you somethings in private?
    Thanx,
    David

    Reply
    • 154. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 7:55 pm

      ok hold on

      Reply
      • 155. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:03 pm

        thanx I got it and sent you a message – please read ASAP. Thanx,
        David

        Reply
      • 156. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:19 pm

        You suck (and not in the good way)…lol….I replied….but on a lighter note how about them Saints?

        Reply
  • 157. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    LOL! Yeah, they need to get real!

    Reply
    • 158. David Kimble  |  February 7, 2010 at 8:28 pm

      OOPS, I misunderstood what Saints you were talking about – great – they won!

      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...