idiot logic

If Prop 8’s Supporters Make an Issue Out of Judge Walker Being Gay, Here’s How to Shut It Down


Judge Vaughn Walker, the federal justice overseeing the Prop 8 trial, is a big gay. It’s been speculated about, but it took for the trial’s end nearing for the open secret to be confirmed. It’s an interesting aside to Perry v. Schwarzenegger, because Walker was once despised by the gays, and his decision to let this trial play out has been seen by some as a path to “redemption.” But what will many expect to happen, should Walker rule against Prop 8’s proponents, is that the defendant Protect Marriage/Yes On 8 will make an issue of his sexuality, and charge that he was biased in his ruling. This is ridiculous.

For the same reason we do not expect non-white judges to recuse themselves from affirmative action or similar discrimination cases. Immutable characteristics do not disqualify a person from exercising justice.

Shooting down the argument is as simple as that, and requires no further discussion.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #afer #americanfoundationforequalrights stories and more


  • Mark

    “He was bias”?

  • J.D.

    So only heterosexual judges should be allowed to rule on these kind of cases? Bullshit.

  • Other Libertarian

    @J.D.: We will only know if we give Judge Vaughn Walker the One-Drop purity test. We can have him recite passages from the Bible (FACT: 70% of Evangelicals are biblically illiterate) and we can have Tom Tancredo give him a literacy test from Ted Haggard’s new tell-all!

  • Same Crap

    Only straight white males can be truly objective and impartial judges. Duh.

  • David Ehrenstein

    Just because you’re gay doesn’t men you’re in favor of gay marriage. Many gays aren’t.

  • AndrewW

    He didn’t disclose. That’s enough to end the case. Mistrial. Appeal. Appeal. Start over.

  • KirilleXXI

    Well, I’ve heard about these speculations before the trial, but I figured they might be just attempts to discredit him, though, looking at this picture of him back then, I could swear he is gay.

    Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter. With his experience and everything, it all comes down to his affiliation with the very group he has to decide should be equally protected or not under the law? You gotta give him some credit. Are female judges more sympathetic to mothers when deciding which parent should raise the kids? Nobody questions that. How is this different?

    If anything, Walker’s homosexuality should be something that will help him to make the right decision — he saw these injustices with his own homosexual eyes, he lived his life observing the society and its attitudes toward us (and him), maybe he was even discriminated against somehow. And, of course, he knows at first hand that there is nothing wrong with gay people per se, we are just like everybody else. So, we do not deserve this kind of treatment. And that’s all that matters.

  • Lukas P.

    Grasping for straws?
    Is this all the Prop 8 proponants have left to talk about?
    Question to ask is: Did Walker demonstrate any bias or prejudice toward/against either side during the procedings? Did he follow procedure and did he uphold his oath of office?

  • 1EqualityUSA

    AndrewW, #6 Really? Are you sure about this? What a damned nightmare!

  • Same Crap

    @AndrewW: What idiocy and completely untrue. He’s a federal judge for crying out loud. You don’t get there by being some loud, abrasive queer activist.

  • Lukas P.

    Calling all Lawyers!
    I’d love to hear what some of our legal folks say about the chances –and grounds– for a “mistrial.” Meanwhile, I’ll stick to my ground that as long as Walker conducted the trial fairly & according to procedure and his oath of office, without demonstrating bias/prejudice, then there shouldn’t be any basis for Prop8 proponants to cry foul. I’m not schooled in law and don’t know the precedents, so I await the opinions of people who have that expertise.

  • Steve

    If a homosexual judge is presumed to be biased in cases involving sexuality, then a heterosexual judge must also be presumed to be biased in those same cases.

    If a judge were to be excluded on that basis, it would present a practical problem of finding any judge who can hear the case. I suspect that there are very few judges in the country who are neither homosexual nor heterosexual.

    Further, the same presumption of bias would apply to each appellate judge and supreme court justice. Every judge and justice in the nation would be excluded from hearing the case.

  • J. Clarence

    It’s a touchy one. On one hand I agree with many that it doesn’t make a difference, and that a judge can be impartial regardless of their race, sex, or sexuality’s involvement in the case; however, that being said if you were the defense in a criminal trial or like the prop 8 lawyers in this case appealing the decision would be the first thing I would do. And that shouldn’t be at all surprising. I am sure if we were all on the Prop 8 side we would do the same thing.

    If for example the judge had been a member of the Mormon church or gave a speech at an anti-gay event. All of those things give off the impression of basis, which doesn’t mean that s/he was, but it makes a case for an appeal. And all that means is that an court will review the decision and make decision, just be careful, because, you know, some judges have in the past let their basis influence their ruling.

  • V

    “Shooting down the argument is as simple as that, and requires no further discussion.”

    Queerty says no further discussion so STOP.


  • KirilleXXI

    For all we know, judge Walker could be biased the other way around: internalized homophobia is one of the worst enemies of our movement that comes from our own, gay people who hate their own homosexuality so much that they make our lives worse. Just watch Outrage (2010), a documentary about closeted gays in power who never wanted anything good for their own people because of the overwhelming self-loathing.

    I’m pretty sure judge Walker is not one of them, he doesn’t come off like one of those self-hating closeted cases. All I’m saying is we gotta remember that having a homo in power does not necessarily mean s/he would be biased to be on our side, it can always be the other way around.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    #12 Steve, Woof. True blue.


    Oh My.

    This case just got delish!! Of course his orientation matters. Have u forgotten OJ Simpson’s case? Why do you think they got an Asian judge? Hmmm??

    Let us not B.S ourselves. Every human is biased in one way or another. The challenge is ensuring your shit dont stink. Judge Walker shit is stinking a mile long.

    He threw a monkey wrench in his impartiality when he went out of his way to get this trial televised.

    The pro-8 side dont have to say anything.

  • KirilleXXI


    Yes, everybody’s biased, that’s why we have the whole judicial system — to rely on principles of the law recognized and accepted as imperative by the society, not on some decisions of some people, whoever they might be: male or female, Caucasian or Asian, homosexual or heterosexual. That’s why Walker’s decision must be precisely and perfectly formulated in terms of the existing law protecting minorities and promulgating principles of Equal Protection and Due Process, and it should something more than that cowardly decision made by New York Senators to proclaim that marriage is all about procreation when it is clear to everyone that it is no longer like that at all.

    Walker’s decision to televise the trial has nothing to do with his impartiality. He perfectly knows that this trial is very important for Americans all over the country; hell, it’s important for me over here in Russia. Why not televise it? Really, why not? Your point is what stinks here, my “friend.” We are tired of lies being distributed about us without any proof, we want these lies to be exposed in the court of law, and televising the trial would be a perfect opportunity to do so.


    What lies are u referring to?
    1. The lie that gay marriage will be taught in schools..okay so King and King is what? Hmm? Or the fact some kids were taken for a lesbain wedding without consulting the parents?? What ‘lie’ is that?
    2. How about the fact that people who do not support gay marriage are being forced to participate in them? The case in New Mexico is what?? What lie is that? Did he not cite the fact that his religious beliefs did not allow him to serve the lesbians? Why was he sued?
    3. How about the fact that gays are asking people who for their doctrinal beliefs do not support somthing..thus ignoring their own fundamental lose their tax exempt status? They have every right to fight against something they fear will compromise their beliefs. Gays have been deceptive on this. You said.. religion will not be why the hell are you harassing people for not supporting your marriages. If a church said i wont serve, why attack them? Why blacklist them? Why protest against them? You pay taxes right? Well so does everyone else… we all have a right to our opinions. Respect me and ill respect urs.

    Stop calling every one who does not understand how two men can get married a bigot. Have u tried talking to them? Have u tried to understand them…yet you expect them to understand you? This is bullshit.

    You keep losing public ballots. SMELL THE SCENT. People do not believe marraige should be redefined. I want gays to have all legal rights just not at the expense of what a marriage really means. That must make me a klan member right?

    Im not pro religion im jsut saying it as i see it. The victims here are not the gays as far as i know.

  • Brian Miller

    Bussy, go away. You’re pathetic.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    KirilleXXI said, “That’s why Walker’s decision must be precisely and perfectly formulated in terms of the existing law protecting minorities and promulgating principles of Equal Protection and Due Process, and it should something more than that cowardly decision made by New York Senators to proclaim that marriage is all about procreation when it is clear to everyone that it is no longer like that at all.”

    At least it would give us something to examine, in a most thorough and public way. That’s why we need to look at this situation with a bird’s eye view on the world, rather than from an emotionally unhealthy place. Equality will win because the Constitution of the United States cannot allow legally sanctioned discrimination. Our framework is bigger than ourselves. It will exist long after we are dead and equality will prevail. Foolishly, the tedious Right is busily handing out flyers to high school students. Misinformation has been a long standing strategy. Offering students a chance at having their orientations treated, as though it were a case of uncontrolled diabetes, is misinformation. The more they growl on about “behavior” and “choice” the more they can Red Herring the real legal matter. Equality for all Americans, even the unpopular ones, is supported by the framework of the Constitution. This big idea may be challenged, but it must not be defeated. If the rights of GLBT Americans are suspended this century, who will they target next? Freedom will have to win. The Constitution is above mere justices and politicians. Religion could win hearts, but not acting like children, playing with toy machine guns, shooting Bible bullets, (their version-hollow points), they could win hearts. That’s the thing about teaching the Truth, it has a certain pitch. No need to earn anything, it just happens. When money and power come into the picture, the Word becomes tainted. Greed is a creepy crawler. Fear is a grand mobilizer of money.

  • Brian Miller

    Queerty is absolutely right.

    If a gay judge cannot decide questions of law related to gay people, than a Christian judge cannot decide on a case related to Christian religious freedom, and female judges cannot participate in questions of sex discrimination.

    This is one rabbit hole the haters don’t want to go down.

  • Mykel

    There’s a very simple solution to the whole issue. Take religion completely out of the equation. Make ALL marriages a civil matter and require everyone to be married by a civil servant. If someone wants a wedding ceremony in a church and the church agrees, then have at it, but it’s a religious service and not legally binding. Take legal status from church providers and put it back in the civil system where it belongs. Seperation of church and state is a constitutional right.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    #17, Bussy wrote, “Oh my, This case just got delish!! Of course his orientation matters.”

    Thank you for making our case, orientation matters.

  • KirilleXXI


    How can you be so blind?

    Same-sex marriage taught at schools.
    This point is exactly why gay people must be recognized a suspect class (not done yet) and protected by hate-crimes legislation (done, see Matthew Shepard Act of 2009).
    When you say that same-sex marriage should not be taught at schools, you simply imply that this kind of marriage is something inferior to opposite-sex marriage we are used to, and gay people’s relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships.
    Yet, we all are equal, we all were created equal under the law of the land, every man and woman, no matter what’s the color of their skin, or who they love. This is the central pillar of human rights, civil rights. And this is what you attack when you say we should not tell our children that there are alternative families.
    Some case in New Mexico that I haven’t heard about.
    I don’t know what case you’re referring to, but it’s as simple as that: no one should be forced to participate in anything. Marriage is a voluntary union of two people. Marriage is a civil institution that the government provides for its citizens. People can get married in government institutions, or, if they want to, they can, but don’t have to, get married in any other establishment that was licensed by the government to officiate and solemnize people’s unions. Nobody forces, upon licensing those establishments, to provide services on demand. Especially if those establishments have something to do with religion. Even today, some churches refuse to officiate and solemnize some opposite-sex marriages if two people who want to get married for some reason seem to be unfit for a marriage according to religious beliefs of those churches’ clergy. And that’s perfectly normal — their religious beliefs is what they live by, and freedom of religion is protected in First Amendment of the US Constitution. If people were denied solemnization of their marriage, they can do it in government institution.
    When, and if, somebody is trying to force a religious establishment to solemnize the wedding this establishment sees unfit for the religious reasons, it is at least against the Constitution that guarantees the freedom to exercise religion. A lawsuit of that kind you’ve mentioned should and would be dismissed. They should sue the government which refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, not some poor priest for not solemnizing their marriage. Believe it or not, there are idiots among gay people, too, so don’t you accuse all gay people in something some idiots did God knows where for God knows what reason!
    New Mexico is the state where same-sex marriages are not performed whatsoever, but the state law does not explicitly limit marriage to opposite-sex couples only, it doesn’t even limit the number of parties in marriage to two. This issue is yet to be resolved there by legislature, by courts, or by popular vote through initiative process. It’s a tough situation there right now: legally speaking, same-sex marriage is not prohibited there, and there is no stipulation that only a man and a woman can be legally married there, so same-sex couples have a right to demand marriage for themselves, and, I imagine, that’s what they are trying to do.
    Alleged accusations that gays are trying to make religious establishments lose their tax exempt status.
    You gotta pay attention, buddy! Churches in Washington, D.C., were blackmailing the government saying that if it adopts same-sex marriage, they will cease their charity programs and will stop helping the poor. Blackmailing and threatening is exactly why these organizations do not deserve a tax exempt status. Yes, they have a right to fight something they do not agree with, but blackmail is something that should always be out of the question. Why should the government let them have those exempts if it’s being threatened? What is this, fifth grade? If you cease your charity programs, why should you have a tax exempt status? What good do you do for the society then? If all you do is collect the money from your congregation, then pay the taxes like everybody else who makes money, both corporations and citizens.
    As for attacks, there is a difference between attacks and freedom of speech. Churches are free to say that homosexuality is a sin that should be fought through sole-searching, and praying, and whatnot, though any violence is out of the question. But we also have a right to express our opinions by saying that churches are wrong, they ruin our lives, they promote stigma and hateful environment that creates a lot of psychological problems for GLBT people, especially GLBT youth. And overall, it’s done for no good reason, except that it says so in the scripture. We have the right to say these things, and we will exercise this right exposing lies and promoting the realistic image of GLBT people as worthy fellow citizens who should not be feared or hated for no good reason.

    Bigotry — bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
    I don’t know about others, but I call people bigots when they fall under this definition — when they are intolerant, when they don’t wanna listen to anything and anyone, when they have their own opinion they don’t want to change, when their minds are made up. If Prop. 8 trial was allowed to be televised, we could have a chance to talk to those people who do not understand us — that’s exactly what we wanted: to display the facts and evidence for everyone to see and evaluate for themselves. Were we allowed to do it? No. And now you have the audacity to ask me if we’re trying to reach those who do not understand us, and then claim that we fail to do so? Unbelievable!

    And I’m not gonna say anything about marriage being redefined or not. I’m tired of reiterating things that you won’t believe anyway. You don’t want to listen and you don’t want to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples which shows your intolerance — if that doesn’t make you a bigot, I don’t know what does.

    Playing the victim is so pathetic when everyone can see you have all your rights and you are in the majority — I can’t stand this kind of hypocrisy.

  • RS

    @BUSSY: Your facts are completely wrong in every one of your points.

    1. Regarding the old “gay marriage will be taught in schools” canard … what exactly do you think they will be teaching? Are you saying that in states that permit same sex marriages, schools have to pretend they don’t exist? No one is saying they should teach about same sex sexual practices. King & King is as safe a story as any Disney movie. Yeah, two guys get married, just like a guy and a girl get married in Snow White, Cinderella, and a million other Disney movies … but none show anything sexual. King & King was read in a classroom in Massachusetts, where same sex is legal. Why should they pretend it’s not.

    And you’re wrong about the kindergarten class taken to their teacher’s wedding without their parents knowledge. First of all, the field trip was planned by the children’s parents and was a surprise to their teacher. And second, it is illegal in California (and probably every other state) to take a child to an off-campus function without written consent from the child’s parent or guardian. Every child at the wedding was there with their parents full knowledge and consent. If you believe that parents didn’t know, prove it. Find an article from a real news source that says that.

    2. People are forced to participate in same sex marriages that they don’t believe in? Who? Where? Prove it. What is this New Mexico example you’re talking about? Same sex marriage isn’t even legal there. Religious leaders have never been forced to marry anyone that they didn’t want to, nor have they been required to allow private church property to be used for it. If you’re referring to the New Jersey case (not New Mexico), this was a situation where a religious group was permitted certain exemptions for public property on the condition that they allow public use of it. When they tried to deny selective members of the public from using it, those exemptions were rescinded.

    Or perhaps you’re suggesting that city clerks should be allowed some sort of conscientious objection to decline to issue marriage licenses to couples they disapprove of? Sorry, can’t support that. We’ve never allowed them to decline to issue them for people of different religious faiths, for example, and no longer allow it for inter-racial marriages. These are government employees with a specific job to do. They do not get to pick and choose which members of the public to serve. Processing the damn paperwork does not in any way indicate whether or not they support the couple getting married.

    3. Your third point seems to simply re-hash your second. Cite one example where a religious official or institution was attacked or sued for refusing to perform a wedding of any sort (same sex or opposite sex) on private religious property. The so-called harassment you are referring to is against the people who gave money to support Prop 8, inserting themselves into the legal sphere, and the pro-Prop 8 people were actually the first to start boycotting businesses that gave money to the No on 8 campaign.

  • B

    No. 6 · AndrewW wrote, “He didn’t disclose. That’s enough to end the case. Mistrial. Appeal. Appeal. Start over.” You can’t be

    But then, what do you want him to “disclose”? That years ago he represented the U.S Olympic Committee, which didn’t want a gay group to call an event “The Gay Olympics”? Walker won BTW, and the event is now “The Gay Games”. He probably treated it as a simple trademark case.

    This should be a non issue – he obviously puts his job first when he’s at work.

  • VoDongCung

    If asking to remove Judge Walker without any of his fault but only his sexual orientation, showing clearly the action of discrimination base on sexuality.

    To me, “Pro 8 is destroying the traditional marriage”. Gay people will stay incloset and marry with straight. How happy of this kind of family that Pro 8 creating?

  • Lukas P.

    Don’t dumb it down!
    Is we or ain’t we getting sidetracked by the trolling ‘phobes. Ignore them. Engage them = risk to your sanity, = loss of time, and = automatic decrease in IQ points. Don’t let THEM make you forget what the trial is all about. Por favor.

    SO: is there any legal merit in the argument that Walker’s [unproven?] sexual orientation invalidates whatever ruling he may make in this trial? Are there relevant precedents? Does anyone catch wind of this being the next step in the Prop 8 proponants gameplan?



    1. I never said i have an issue with gay marriage being taught in schools. I said is it a lie to say it will be? You just cited instances and reasons why its ok to teach about the realities of gay relationships. I agree. However why is it suddenly a lie when people are stating it as a reason to ban gay marriage? Hmm? Is it a context thing? It means you are also liars too. Its very simple english..will kids be taught about gay relationships or marriage in schools? No matter the grade?
    Yes. They already are. The problem is many parents do not want their kids learning about that.
    2. The jugde is not biased. Really? I wont even waste my time on that. Its just too obvious its embarassing to all parties involved.
    3. People should NOT be attacked for their beliefs. Did they write the bible or the quran or the torah? Did you? This arrogance is annoying and perhaps the most insulting. They have every right to fight for their beliefs..arent you doing the same? Funny how the name calling is all from you? The prop 8 trial is a stupid gameshow as far as i am concerned. As a voter in this country i am insulted by it. I went to ballot to vote for something and now someone is doing the jig to make a mockery of my vote. It is annoying. What is your business for anyone’s reason to vote? Did you not campaign as well? Why did u not do a better job convincing people? People voted out of animus? Duh?! If someone votes out of a difference of opinion from yours, isnt animus sometimes a part of it? I voted for Obama, whats ur business why i didnt vote for McCain? Why am i under attack because Obama won? Why dont we travel down south and insult all the white folk who voted for McCain just cos he was white? Or attack all the black votes that voted for Obama just because he was black?
    This trial is not about the fact Peter and Paul cannot marry. Its about the constitutionality of prop 8. The way i see it, a law was passed and the people rejected it. Simple. My question to you is will all your emotional tearjacking and rather ridiculous arguments hold if prop 8 lost?

  • Lukas P.

    @BUSSY: Go start your own thread or your own blog. It would be fascinating, perhaps, but, please stick to the issue at hand: What happens to the Prop 8 case next?

    Your attempts to sideline the discussion are amusing and your attempts to write English are laughable, but you should get a GED before trying to sway opinion in your favor! Best of luck to you.

  • KirilleXXI


    1. Same-sex marriage taught in schools.
    It is not our place to say if this issue will or will not be discussed in schools. The Board of Education will decide it, the government — they decide what to talk about in public schools. It just seems that way that if the government of the state recognizes same-sex couples and their unions on a par with married opposite-sex couples, there is really no reason not to talk about marriage and of its variations with children in schools. Do people have anything against children learning about heterosexual marriage? I don’t think so. Why? Because it’s not even PG-13, this topic is suitable for any audience, nobody’s talking about sexual practices or something, it’s all about love and commitment. And just like that, same-sex marriage can be discussed in the same terms and under the same circumstances. And nobody here is shoving anything to religious people — public schools serve the public. Don’t forget that only 30% of Californians claim to be Catholic. Plus, maybe, 10% of people of other religions that also stand against same-sex marriage. And so we have less then a half of population that tries to ban people’s relationships and spreads information about these relationships because of their own adverse beliefs. And they resort to lies and misrepresentation of facts (like you do right now about same-sex marriage taught in schools). Religious people may choose religious schools for their children, not public schools, if they are so concerned about these topics being discussed. Public schools have nothing to do with religious beliefs, the state is divided from churches — read the First Amendment.
    However why is it suddenly a lie when people are stating it as a reason to ban gay marriage?” — Who said it’s a lie? It’s a direct result of animus and hatred toward gay people and their relationships promoted in the Bible and other pieces of scripture. The lie is underneath — the lie is that homosexual people’s relationships are not real, are inferior, are something bad and sinful, are artificial, superficial and undeserving to be recognized and respected like heterosexual relationships. There is no good reason for the state to uphold the Bible when it has to uphold the Constitution. There’s a good statement expressed by someone not long ago, “You put your hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, you don’t put your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

    2. This should be embarrassing for you.

    3. “Attacks” on people for their beliefs.
    We do not attack people for their beliefs. We just want them to stop attacking us! Do you think it’s OK for them to attack us because their beliefs say so? Should attacking people according to scripture be condoned by the society and the government? No! When some scumbag attacks you on the street — what’re you gonna do? turn the other cheek and let yourself be beaten and even killed? When we are being attacked we have a right to protect ourselves by exposing bigotry, animus, hatred, and lies, boycotting businesses that give money to those who try to destroy us. It’s called self-defense. They have no right to tell us how to live our lives and who to love. They do not fight for their beliefs, they fight against people they think are sinful and inferior.

    4. Voting on other people’s rights.
    So, you feel insulted that your vote is now being questioned? Don’t you think we feel even more insulted that your vote took away our rights? The rights that were recognized by the Supreme Court of California! The question is who’s more insulted and whose rights are being suppressed. And, oh, boy, those are not yours! Those are ours!

    5. Comparing elections of representatives to voting on people’s rights is inadmissible!
    When you elect a President, you don’t take away every defeated candidate’s inborn right to be a President. It’s not a civil right that everyone should enjoy if one wants. Unlike that, marriage is an inborn civil right that every human being deserves to enjoy if one finds a loving companion to share this union with. There is no competition to be married, like there is to be a representative of the people in the government. And that is why taking away this right from a group of people who want to be married, who are capable of staying committed in this relationship, is wrong and inadmissible.

    6. Perry trial is about constitutionality of Prop 8.
    Yeah, it’s about constitutionality of Prop 8, meaning plaintiffs claim that Prop 8 goes against the Constitution of the US, to be more precise, against Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution guarantees that all American people are born equal, should be equally protected, and should have equal civil rights. “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man,” says the decision in Loving v. Virginia, the decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967, the highest-level court in the land. And, so, the fact that homosexual people, who are not mentally challenged per se (homosexuality is not a mental illness or a mental inclination, according to WHO and ALL American associations of professionals in the field), who do form stable and loving sexual relationships (just like their heterosexual counterparts), who do want to and are ready to enjoy marriage, are being denied this civil right for no good reason means they are made unequal, inferior, and less worthy for no good reason. This is unconstitutional. And this is why Prop 8 is unconstitutional and should be struck down. Voting on civil rights is unconstitutional. Voting on rights of minorities is unconstitutional. Many things are done the wrong way, in the heat of the moment, with adverse feelings toward people not many can understand. And that’s the injustice this trial ought to correct.

    I rest my case. I don’t know what else could be possibly said.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Bussy is to Naghenenu is to Maggie Gallagher. We have hear from Naghenenu for a while. Bussy has similar writing style but with more of an anti-gay slant. Pathetic.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    When humans are nearing death, many times they rally. They often give the impression that they are getting better, which has fooled families on many occasions. The dying seem to get one last burst of energy before passing on. I feel as though NOM-skulls are doing this. Someone should warn their friends and families about this “rallying” before death, so it doesn’t come as a shock when the notions of NOM are seen for what they are, intolerance and discrimination.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    I had better not admit that I’m dyslexic, as Bussy, Naghenenu, and Gallagher will form a non-profit to take my rights away. If gays are targeted now, who’s next?


    Ok..No. 33 · KirilleXXI
    1. So you admit that it is not a lie. Gay relationships and marriage are being taught in schools by teachers and individuals.
    2.Oh honey it isnt.
    3.From what i can see they are not attacking you. Gay drama. They are not the ones going after you with signs outside your places of worship. Or shouting shame on you at your place of business. So no you are the ones doing the attacking. Check out the Perry Trial..why did the Supremes step in if they did not believe the threats were real? There is a very controversial debate going on and they are speaking their mind.
    4.Last i know marriage is not an inborn right? Christ! How is marrying someone a right? Its not a right. Its an institution that has privileges attached to it. Like all institutions there are requirements to enter it. Although it has now decayed to the point that we are actually having this kind of debate. I guess nothing is sacred anymore so of course two men can get married.
    Hell yes, im pissed. A law was passed. Due process was followed to contest the law. Your side lost. Fair and square. Now u want to reverse it. My question to you which you have failed to answer is what will be the argument if prop 8 had failed? Will the so called Mob rule argument make sense then if your side had won? Sore losers!

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Marriage is a civil contract dealing with property rights. To exclude other Americans, because of popularity, is unconstitutional, Maggienaghanenubussy. This is a losing battle being waged, as discrimination, no matter how unpopular these icky Americans are, in your opinion, is not supported Constitutionally. Post#21: Equality will win because the Constitution of the United States cannot allow legally sanctioned discrimination. Our framework is bigger than ourselves. It will exist long after we are dead and equality will prevail. Foolishly, the tedious Right is busily handing out flyers to high school students. Misinformation has been a long standing strategy of NOM’s. Offering students a chance at having their orientations treated, as though they were cases of uncontrolled diabetes, is misinformation. The more they growl on about “behavior” and “choice” the more they can Red Herring the real legal matter. Equality for all Americans, even the unpopular ones, is supported by the framework of the Constitution. This big idea may be challenged, but it must not be defeated. If the rights of GLBT Americans are suspended this century, who will they target next? Freedom will have to win. The Constitution is above mere justices and politicians. Religion could win hearts, but not acting like children, playing with toy machine guns, shooting Bible bullets, (their version-hollow points), they could win hearts. That’s the thing about teaching the Truth, it has a certain pitch. No need to earn anything, it just happens. When money and power come into the picture, the Word becomes tainted. Greed is a creepy crawler. Fear is a grand mobilizer of money.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    The majority rule is not due process. Here’s an article for you to read Maggienaghenenubussy, because when you are reading, you are not writing:

    Columnist Edward Fitzpatrick: The conservative case for gay marriage

    01:00 AM EST on Sunday, November 22, 2009

    Conservatives shouldn’t just allow same-sex marriage. They should insist on it.

    The conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks made that argument in a 2003 column, and the liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. recalled his words when he was in Providence on Nov. 8 to speak at the Central Congregational Church.

    Brooks’ argument is worth revisiting now that Governor Carcieri, a conservative Republican and Catholic who opposes same-sex marriage, has vetoed a bill that would give domestic partners the right to claim the bodies of — and make funeral arrangements for — their loved ones. The bill passed the House and Senate by a combined vote of 101 to 1. (Only Rep. Arthur J. Corvese, D-North Providence, voted against it.) Two days after the controversial veto, Carcieri told a gay-rights group he was open to a domestic-partnership law bestowing many if not all the rights of marriage, without the right to marry.

    Dionne, who describes himself as a progressive Catholic, said he used to oppose same-sex marriage while favoring civil-rights laws protecting gay people. “I’m not going to say anybody who is against gay marriage is a bigot because I once held that position myself,” he said in an interview.

    Dionne said he changed his mind because he was persuaded by the conservative case for same-sex marriage.

    In a November 2003 column, “The Power of Marriage,” Brooks noted nearly half of all marriages end in divorce and, in some circles, marriage isn’t even expected. Men “trade up” for a younger “trophy wife.” Men and women split when their “needs” don’t seem to be met. “Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency,” he said.

    Brooks noted some conservatives base their opposition to same-sex marriage on biological determinism, portraying men as savages who need women to tame them. “But in fact, we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender,” he wrote. “We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.’ ”

    Brooks concluded, “The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.”

    Dionne quoted Brooks in his 2008 book, “Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith & Politics After the Religious Right,” and he quoted Jonathan Rauch’s book, “Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America.”

    “A solitary individual lives on the frontier of vulnerability,” Rauch wrote. “Marriage creates kin, someone whose first ‘job’ is to look after you. Gay people, like straight people, become ill or exhausted or despairing and need the comfort and support that marriage uniquely provides. Marriage can strengthen and stabilize their relationships and thereby strengthen the communities of which they are a part.”

    Rauch agreed that until recently no Western society had embraced same-sex marriage.

    “But until recently, no Western society had ever understood, to the extent most Americans do today, that a small and more or less constant share of the population is homosexual by nature. Homosexuals aren’t just misbehaving heterosexuals,” he wrote. “Barring them from the blessings of marriage is inhumane and unfair, even if that is a truth our grandparents did not understand.”

    Rauch agreed that allowing sex-same marriages would in a sense redefine marriage. But given what we now know, he said, “Today’s real choice is not whether to redefine marriage but how to do so: as a club only heterosexuals can join or as the noblest promise two people can make. To define marriage as discrimination would defend its boundaries by undermining its foundation.”

    In his book, Dionne said he understands how hard it is for people who live “traditional lives” to accept same-sex marriage. But he said the main cause of family breakdown isn’t that homosexuals want to wed; it’s that heterosexuals leave marriages to pursue other heterosexuals.

    “I confess that watching self-proclaimed conservative traditionalists who divorced one, two or three times profess their loyalty to ‘traditional marriage’ by opposing gay unions made me highly cynical about their supposed fealty to family values,” he wrote. “In 2007, the conservative writer Kate O’Beirne quipped that among the front-running Republican presidential candidates at the time, the only one with only one wife was the Mormon, Mitt Romney.”

    Dionne said one of the most extraordinary changes over the last generation has been “increasing openness, connectedness and empathy toward homosexuals.” He said, “This happened because so many heterosexual Americans discovered, as their gay and lesbian friends and relatives came out of the closet, that people they liked and loved were homosexual.”

    Consider former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter. In June, Cheney said he supports gays being able to marry but believes states should make that decision. “I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone,” he said.

    In opposing same-sex marriage, some conservatives cite the Scriptures and talk about values. But they could just as easily cite those sources in support of same-sex marriage, talking about the values of fidelity and commitment, fairness and equality, love and acceptance.

    Newsweek ran a December 2008 cover story by religion editor Lisa Miller under the sub-headline: “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.”

    “In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified,” Miller wrote. “Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins.”

    In an interview, the Rev. Christine Johnson Foster, co-pastor of Providence Presbyterian Church, said Jesus says nothing about homosexuality in the Bible, but in at least 14 stories and parables Jesus explores the issues of poverty, the use of money and economic justice. “He talks more about those issues than any other subject,” she said.

    And what does that tell you? “That where we put our energies is out of balance,” Foster said. “To me, the amount of energy that goes into trying to keep same-sex couples from committing to marriage is unbelievable.”

    In her article, Miller concluded that “religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible” but “in custom and tradition” and “to talk turkey for a minute, (in) a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument.”

    A federal judge talked turkey in October when supporters of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 is constitutional because it furthers the state’s goal of fostering “naturally procreative relationships.”

    Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asked: What would be the harm of allowing same-sex couples to marry?

    Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer for the group that sponsored Proposition 8, replied, “My answer is: I don’t know.”

    But Cooper insisted the government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages “to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.”

    Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1989 by former Republican President George H.W. Bush, said, “The last marriage that I performed involved a groom who was 95, and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?”

    The judge wasn’t missing anything. But Governor Carcieri is. He is missing the chance to usher hundreds of committed couples into the stability of an ennobling institution: marriage.

    [email protected]

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Maggienaghanenubussy, Legal recognition for GLBT Americans would be beneficial for society. With legal recognition comes legal responsibilities and stronger ties to loved ones. Spouses would be more readily available to assist their other half through tough times, whether old age or job loss. Having two be legally fused together would be better for society. It would strengthen our system, not weaken it. The community hospitals and long term facilities would need to absorb fewer people. “Spouses for life” would be more inclined to be present, both emotionally and financially. These kinds of couples exist now, though we are not legally recognized, illegally so.

  • KirilleXXI


    1. I never said it’s a lie and, frankly, I don’t even understand why are you talking about this issue as if someone implied it was a lie. Show me one example that said explains your concern about it.

    I don’t live in the United States, I’m live in Russia, so I don’t know what’s going on there on the ground. But from what I know, when teachers in Massachusetts talk about marriage with students in schools they mention that some people marry someone of the opposite sex, and some other people marry someone of the same sex — that’s the reality in the state of Massachusetts.

    And King & King is a perfect example — this book tells children that people do not choose who they love, it’s just one way or the other; if that King liked girls, he would have chosen one of those young ladies that wanted him to propose, but he didn’t like neither of them at all, because he was gay, and when he saw the other King he fell in love with him and realized that’s all he ever wanted, that’s who he ever was — gay. Unlike whatever people tell themselves to justify their fury, children are not being taught that you can just choose who you wanna love — men or women; it’s not a choice, it’s gotta be clear to every normal child who is not retarded; unfortunately, their parents cannot understand that, unlike their kids.

    My question is: Why is it so bad to talk about same-sex marriage in public schools? That’s the core issue of this discussion about schools. I think it’s a good thing for some reasons: on the one hand, children are shown the real face of homosexual relationships which are just as good and normal as heterosexual relationships — and thus they learn to be tolerant and accepting, peaceful and benevolent; on the other hand, some of those kids are gay, and they don’t know about it yet, but as they grow in a tolerant atmosphere, as they see gay people are not being subjected to hatred and condemnation, by the time they figure out they are gay, they don’t have to deal with this as a crushing reality, they don’t have to go through all those circles of hell on the road to accept their homosexuality — not everybody can handle this, some gay kids commit suicide because they are condemned, it is really important to create a favorable atmosphere for gay youth so they could feel safe and normal to come out and live their normal lives.

    3. You know, this is very ignorant of you to say that gays persecute people of faith, picket them with signs, or shout “Blame on you!” — haven’t you heard that the same thing is being done by anti-gay side? Same signs, same pickets at places of worship (those that open their doors for gays — Metropolitan Community Church and others), and hate speech like “GAY — Got AIDS Yet?”, or “God hates GAYS!” and many more! Google it if you want. Don’t you dare to insinuate the anti-gay side is the victim. We have a right to express our fury about our rights being taken away! And blame about gay-hatred is really on those that worship God by the books that say you gotta love all the people, but you gotta stone gays to death for being who they were born. The blame is really on those who spread this kind of hate speech. This is the truth on those signs. But does God hate gays? We don’t know that. We believe in different Gods, apparently, and that’s why only it is already a lie.

    As for Perry trial, we perfectly know that the Supreme Court of the US is mostly as bigoted and intolerant of gays as the majority of Americans, they represent those Americans, so no wonder they stepped in and “believed” in this crap fabricated by the Prop 8 side. I believe that most of the witnesses dropped out because they realized their testimony is not gonna stand at all (examples: Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young — see for yourself at their depositions), others were kicked out by the defendant-intervenors’ attorneys who realized the same thing about that testimony, so Prop 8 side figured they will cry wolf and use this to their advantage — to stop televising the trial. However, this did not have any effect at all: cameras could have been turned off to hide witnesses’ faces if they wanted so, no photos would have been allowed. If you think you have something important to say, you shouldn’t be scared to say it out loud. Miller and Blankenhorn were not scared, they testified, and what happened? Are they dead? Were they attacked somehow? Did anything at all happen to them? No! All those worries were just a scam. You were fooled, congratulations! Unfortunately, it’s not Candid Camera, it’s real life, life of gay people who just want to have what everybody else has, nothing more. We’re not here to besiege fortresses or blow up buildings, we’re not terrorists, we are just people who got tired to be looked down at. None of their witnesses was attacked in any way, none of our witnesses got scared not to step up and openly express their expert opinions. The whole vigilante thing is just a pathetic scam of those who cannot win the case by facing the truth (because it’s not on their side), they have to invent things that are not real and show magical tricks; that’s all they have — smokes and mirrors. And you believe them.

    4. I cited you the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia that specifically said, “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man,” and this statement was reiterated in many other Supreme Court’s decisions. According to the law, under which we all live and that we have to abide, marriage is a civil right. You may not understand that in terms of unions and institutions, but this is a fact recognized on the highest level of judiciary system of the United States. Marriage as a right means that every citizen of the country has a right to marry the person of their choice. Marriage as an institution is a union of two people who seek to be in a stable sexual relationship recognized by their government and their society. Requirements are artificial, they serve some purpose, and we argue that there is no good reason to require people to be of opposite sex — first and foremost, it is a relationship between two people who create a family together; and then they can have and raise children together, like any other family.

    As for “sacred” that you mention, there is a big misunderstanding: civil marriage that we are talking about, the one that government grants issuing marriage licenses, is de jure and de facto a civil union, nothing more. There are no religious implications to this union, it’s a civil union that we call marriage. Sacred stuff is a sacred stuff, it comes with those rituals people have in their places of worship or just with clergy members to solemnize their marriage and to enter into a relationship that their faith recognizes. You gotta understand that there is a difference. Don’t you know that atheist are allowed to marry? Do you think they shouldn’t because there is nothing sacred to that marriage for them? Good God, man! We do not ask for religious marriages from Vatican! We ask our the government to issue marriage licenses. That’s all. There are no religious ramifications here, just a civil union officially called marriage and recognized by the government. And if you expect us to respect your religious understanding of marriage, you gotta respect our non-religious, civil understanding of this union called marriage for the sake of tradition.

    5. You’ve admitted yourself that the issue of same-sex marriage is a very controversial issue. And controversial issues can be dealt with differently in different times. Sometimes one side loses, but later it wins. That’s what happened with interracial marriages: at first they were prohibited following someone’s desire to enter into such marriage; and due process was supposedly followed. At the time it was a very controversial issue. People were mostly against it, religions were against it, courts were against it. They refused to see that there is no good reason to forbid people of different races to enter into a marriage. The support of this prohibition was overwhelming. But in 1967 this ban was finally struck down. And now people don’t see how this could have happened in the first place, how those people could be so arrogant and blind!

    Same thing is happening with same-sex marriage. The reality is that nobody knows how to deal with things like this. I’m pretty sure justices of the Supreme Court of California were lost, they didn’t really know what to do with it. Their initial decision was that same-sex marriage should be legalized: when you interpret the law and the Constitution with all those Equal Protections and everything else, it is clear as sky that same-sex marriages must be a part of that law. But on the other hand we have an angry mob that wants gays to be burnt at the stick. And so justices think, “We are just a bunch o’ people, there are 9 of us and 36 million of them. Maybe, our voices do not matter that much? Maybe, we are not those who should decide this?” — cowardice, so to speak, they refused to assume responsibility and thrown us to the angry mob to be burned.

    So, again, learn your lessons about controversial decisions and don’t tell me that if a law was passed, this is it, nothing should ever be changed and this law is as perfect as it could ever be!

    Regarding your question, I haven’t answered it because I couldn’t make sense of it. And I still don’t understand it one way or another: “What will be the argument if prop 8 had failed?” First of all, I think it should say, “What would have been the argument if prop 8 had failed?” but English is not my native language, maybe I’m wrong in that assessment. Secondly, argument about what? whose argument? ours or theirs? I don’t understand what you’re trying to get from me with this question. What I think is, if Prop 8 had failed, adverse feelings, and hatred, and malevolence would not have been gone like that. We would have won with just a narrow margin, and the decision would have been contested by the other side in courts (and, maybe, even through other ballot initiatives), like we do now in court, and we still would have been there, with this issue unresolved completely, except gay people would have had a right to marry after November 4, 2008, till this day. You can change the law, but you can’t change the people. Some of them will never change their minds, and this country is centuries, if not millennia, away from being completely accepting of gays (religious condemnation will always continue to stigmatize us in the eyes of religious people who are not going to drop off the face of the Earth just like that). I doubt that answers your question, for you’re obviously not trying to get the answer, you just want to catch me on some twisted logic or something, but that’s what I think would have happened.

    I’m really trying to get my point as clear as possible, that’s why I’m being so verbose. I’m sorry for that, dear readers.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Years from now, is the entire subject of marriage equality going to be silenced? Just like some hotels skip the 13th floor, history class will be let out early that day. Will our story will be given the royal NOM-twist? If this were a drink, it would be a bitter one.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    If berating a judge’s impartiality doesn’t show blatant animus, then what more is needed? If that’s how they want to play this game, gays should be able to say the same thing regarding the 5 Catholic justices on the Supreme Court bench.

  • KirilleXXI

    Well, that is a very good point!
    Catholic justices not gonna be biased if their Bible says to stone us to death?
    Why should we believe in their justice?

    (Assuming that your information about their religious beliefs is correct.)

  • 1EqualityUSA

    It’s an expensive notion, granting equality to our community. With the recent Supreme Court’s decision, could it be that Corporations will now take reins? A large segment of Americans having their rights out of reach, can save the government lots and lots o’ dollars. Since the Churches failed so miserably, perhaps it’s time to let Corporations solve these “unnecessary” expenditures?

  • soul_erosion

    @1EqualityUSA: I so enjoyed your posts on this thread. Thank you very much.

  • Bill

    Someone should point Bussy to the Supreme Court decision circa 1967 when it was deemed that marriage is, indeed, a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.

    Not a fundamental HETEROSEXUAL right, mind you.

    But a F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T

  • Bill


    as a human being, you are really, really yucky.

    feel however you want about whoever you want.

    but just know that as a human being, you fall quite short of the mark of respectability.

    i suspect you already know this to be true of yourself.

    which is why you try and demean people that you feel are beneath you.

    what you fail to see, dear bussy, is that there simply IS no form of human life beneath you.

    because any human being that would advocate for the oppression of another is the only type of human being that this world needs protection from.

    so, how does it feel, bussy? to be the kind of human being whose only positive effect on this earth will be their eternal departure from it?

  • Randy

    If you have 10 judges on this case. Each one will have a different reason. So, it’s easy to say that if there is only one judge that it will be a matter of luck if the case favors yours. It is important to have an impartial judge. Anyways, the fore fathers of America knew about the existence of gays back then but never mention anything about gays in the constitution or anything can be found anywhere. They never intended to allow same sex to happen. When soldiers were fighting to establish a country. Before a soldier goes to battle, he would pray for courage. Even a dying soldier would pray to God before his death. The forefathers left this land believing in God and establishing this Country in faith of God. Who are we to ignore it and forget about it.

  • KirilleXXI


    Do you realize that you’re practically idolizing forefathers now? It seems to me that you are a religious person, probably, Christian. And Christianity forbids people to idolize anyone but God Himself. Idolatry is one of the seven deadly sins.

    Forefathers were just people, like you and me, they did a great job to lay out some basic principles of freedoms and civil rights, but they also stated that the system they left us is not a perfect and complete one, it must and will change in centuries to expand people’s rights and freedoms and abolish discrimination that was created for no good reason. And that’s what happened: some very important changes were done after forefathers, following their steps! See women’s emancipation, equal treatment of African American people, introduction of interracial marriages, to name a few.

    Yes, forefathers left this country believing in God, but now we know that we must respect all people and their beliefs, whatever they are, that’s why we have First Amendment establishing most important rights — freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    The notion that forefathers allegedly knew about homosexuality and never mentioned that anywhere only means they were following directions from the Bible that explicitly condemned sodomy. It’s perfectly understandable: why would you think otherwise if you have no scientific proof that this opinion is wrong and all you do have is your faith based on the Bible word written millennia ago? Now we have science and we can say that scientists do not see anything wrong about homosexual people, no good reason to discriminate against them, the only reason is the word left in the Bible by someone thousands of years ago — hardly a scientific proof of anything.


    Ok let me pass some knowledge

    Interracial marriage is not a good comparison for the fact that race is clealy immutable. What is the scientific fact that sexual orientation is? There is no solid fact of this. Point. Interracial marriage ban was senseless as it was still a union between a man and woman. Anyone that has hang ups on race should deal and not keep others from marrying based on that.

    Im sure you will say that the same principle applies to gay marriage. And u are right. Its not my business or anyone’s for that matter how you choose to live your life. But its a problem if you force everyone else to deal with it.

    All people want is to practice their religion freely. They have every right to say they do not want their families exposed to things that derail their beliefs. Religion teaches people gays are living a sinful life. It sucks for you but that is the fact. No religion i know teaches racism is ok. You know that. No religion teaches homophobia is ok. Just because people do not support your lifestyle does not mean they are out to kill you. Its their opinion..just like you have yours. Accept it and maybe people will actual begin to accept yours. Marriage is family..children come from marriage. You would not be here if your mommy and daddy could not reproduce. Yes once in a while it happens and a child just cant come the natural way. It sucks horribly and many marriages are destroyed because of it but that doesnt mean the true essence of marriage should be destroyed. In my heart, i dont believe marriage is between any other party but a man and a woman. The love argument is just juvenile. I love my twin..cant see why i cant marry him after all his 34 and im 34. See stupid argument that love thing. Or better yet whats stopping a polygamist from marrying? In short, if gay marriages become going to advocate for polygamy. There’s no reason to wait anymore. Everyone can get married now anyways. See why we have to draw the line? If you want benefits for your union..ok cool. Call it marriage..hell no.

    P.S. No one has answered the question “IF PROP 8 FAILED WHAT WILL THE ARGUMENT BE”? All you have done is quote stuff to me.

  • KirilleXXI


    1. Race is immutable. How about sexual orientation?

    What about those many people who don’t even know what their race is, what their ethnicity is because of miscegenation? They are born this way and they can’t change it, but who are they?

    Sexual orientation is somewhat the same thing: there are not so many people who are completely straight or completely gay, most of us are somewhere in between, and there is this whole spectrum of sexual orientation from straight to gay (Kinsey’s findings based on wide study).

    Most of straight people are close to the heterosexual extreme, but those who are not there simply choose to be there for the reasons of being raised in this tradition and because of social stigma about any unconventional relationships, so any little same-sex attraction they might have just disappears into the thin air.

    Most of gay people are close to the homosexual extreme, but, I imagine, there is a bigger chance to have some kind of opposite-sex attractions for the same reasons — traditions we all are raised in and social stigma against gays (we grow up and believe we should be attracted to people of opposite sex, we believe it so much that later can’t help but feel this pull; it’s hard to rearrange your whole identity after figuring out you’re gay and always have been, in spite of everything you were being taught).

    And because we do not fully fall into one of three groups, some of us think it means we have some kind of choice, which is totally consistent with scientific findings: 87% of gay men, 70% of lesbians, 59% of bisexual men, and 45% of bisexual women reported they experienced no choice or very little choice about their sexual orientation (others were too confused because of their place on the spectrum of sexual orientation). I cite these numbers from Professor Gregory M. Herek, his testimony in Perry case, volume 9, page 2055 (lines 18-25) and page 2056 (lines 1-2) — and that’s just one memorable example from all the testimony in this case I familiarized myself with, I wasn’t looking for others, but I’m sure this issue was brought up many times. The only reason to dismiss this study is to say all those LGB people were lying; but for what reason? and why not lie all the way and report 100% that none of us ever felt any choice? Doesn’t make any sense (if you’re not a conspiracy theory freak)! And I’ll add: I’m a gay man and I don’t feel I had any choice, though I happen to grow up in a very anti-homosexual society (Russia) which only made it significantly harder for me to figure out I’m gay and what does it mean for me.

    You’re looking for solid evidence in psychology and psychiatrythat’s never gonna happen! These are studies about people and their minds conducted by people with similar minds, our capabilities are limited here, it’s not mathematics, or physics, or chemistry. We can observe behaviors and study large groups of people to make assumptions and conclusions, reveal underlying connections and explain them. We can’t show you a formula of homosexuality or an equation of sexual orientation. It doesn’t work that way. You’re gonna have to accept that.

    On the other hand, mutability or flexibility of some feature does not mean people should be denied something directly connected to this feature: religious affiliation is not something immutable, however, freedom of religion is highly protected, and the hate-crimes legislation recognizes religious people should be protected particularly.

    2. Forcing others to deal with it.

    Nobody’s forcing anybody. Frankly, I was surprised to find out officials in Massachusetts decided it’s fine to talk about same-sex marriage with children in schools. Considering what a controversial issue this is, it would have been better to leave it alone and get back to revise this decision in a couple of decades. But, hey, those are officials that you, guys, elect yourselves. Don’t blame the gays for that. Not that there is something worthy of blaming for.

    Now, let’s take it apart:

    1)They have every right to say they do not want their families exposed to things that derail their beliefs.” — I already commented on that: if people do not agree with secular public education, they can transfer their kids to private schools controlled by religious organizations that share same anti-homosexual views. Public schools shape their educational programs with accordance to state policy, and if the policy recognizes same-sex marriages on a par with opposite-sex marriages, and the topic of marriage is being discussed with students as part of their educational program, there is no reason not to talk about all forms of marriages recognized by the state. What other exposure?

    2)Religion teaches people gays are living a sinful life.” — there is a lie already: not every religion shares these views, not every denomination within major religions shares these views; there are reformed people who gave up those archaic beliefs on sinfulness of homosexuality. And you gotta respect other religions if you want yours to be respected in return.

    3)No religion i know teaches racism is ok.” — you don’t know this for sure; there are so many religions in the world that you gotta be a specialist to claim that.

    4)No religion teaches homophobia is ok.” — that’s another outright lie: anti-homosexual tendencies in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, as well as in Islam, are based on obsolete scripture of Old Testament that clearly says sodomy is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22) and every sodomite deserves to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13), and in scripture of New Testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1); not familiar with Qur’an, so not gonna look for that evidence — it’s evidence enough that in most Islamic countries gay people are still being executed for being homosexual. Officials of those biggest denominations in the world have not come out to say these passages should not be interpreted as a permission for homophobia; au contraire, they support any measures against homosexuals and no measures for them, not even protections in employment or against violence, not to mention housing and cohabitation!

    5)Just because people do not support your lifestyle does not mean they are out to kill you.” — unfortunately, many religious people read the Bible literally, and when they see words like “sodomites should be put to death” they don’t think twice and just go and do it. And this is a direct harm to people caused by religious zealotry. And that is why it is so important for religious leaders to adopt the policy that is sometimes referred to as “hate the sin, not the sinner” — in spite of any beliefs, no religion can be allowed to call for open violence against a certain group of people, no one should be allowed to break the law and use religious lies to justify hatred and manslaughter. If we let Vatican and suchlike shape our laws, tomorrow gays will be burnt at the stick and we immediately will be back into the Middle Ages, aka Dark Ages; and you will be standing there completely horrified by the sight of it thinking, “Oh, my God! What have we done?!!

    6)Marriage is family..children come from marriage.” — yet another misrepresentation! Children come from a pregnant woman, not from a marriage. You don’t need to be married to pop out kids. You make it sound like marriage is some essential requirement to knock up a woman. And all the rest things you wrote do not make much sense. Reproductive capability has nothing to do with marriage. What’s the natural way for a baby to come to this world?

    7)The love argument is just juvenile. I love my twin..cant see why i cant marry him” — clearly, you have no idea about love, this is so sad! We are talking about sexual love, not the fraternal love, not the love to our parents, not the love to our relatives, not the love to our friends, not the love to our countries. If you can’t see the difference, you are the one who should not be allowed to get married, not gays! Sexual love is the special kind of love, the one that makes you want to have a sexual relationship with the person you love. I can’t believe I even have to address this.

    8)In short, if gay marriages become going to advocate for polygamy.” — go ahead! I don’t care about polygamists! But my position is that I don’t believe in polyamorous relationships, I haven’t seen one that actually works. If there is one, it’s so rare that those people are not gonna ask for marriages. Who really would want that kind of marriage are those double-faced people who just like to have several lovers who do not know about each other — that’s not a marriage, that’s a lie…
    You can use David Blankenhorn’s ideas (they are as crazy as yours) about polygamous marriages that are not really polygamous — he says, every time a man marries a woman, it is a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, doesn’t matter if he already has several wives — each of these marriages is monogamous, according to Blankenhorn who, by the way, is opposing same-sex marriage as an apology for an expert in Perry v. Schwarzenegger case to overturn Prop 8.

    9)If you want benefits for your union..ok cool. Call it marriage..hell no.” — so, now you don’t care if homosexuality is immutable or not? You’re changing your teams like diapers on a newborn baby! In the meantime, you don’t give even one good reason why not the word “marriage,” all I hear is “just ‘cause.”

    3. If Prop 8 had failed…

    I believe I answered your question here, in the very end, it starts with “Regarding your question.” And I requested some clarifications from you if you want an answer. I answered about what would have happened if prop 8 had failed. And I wasn’t quoting anything, those are my own thoughts.

    The argument is still the same — a lot of people harbor hateful feelings toward gays for no good reason: some of them because their faith tells them so, some of them just can’t understand how a guy can fall in love with another guy and have sex with him, it seems to them too unnatural and unimaginable, hence the detachment and fear of something unknown, that it should not be allowed.

    If Prop 8 had failed, it would only mean that the society is changing, and less and less people allow themselves to be sucked into that web of misconceptions and outright lies about homosexual people. This is the future we are going to. Look at polls for the last 50 years: acceptance of gay people was only growing, slowly, but steadily. And at some point it will be over 50 percent to win any elections. This could have happened in 2008, if not for the sleazy campaign run by anti-gay forces (with LDS church behind them: they gave half of all the money for the campaign — $20 million). That campaign was completely exposed to the public in the course of the trial, and the pro-Prop 8 side agreed to every piece of evidence that proved how sleazy it was.

    I don’t see why this question is so important for you all of a sudden. I think you’re just trying to draw some attention to the question that can’t be answered the way you demand it. Nice try.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    One of my favorite posts from a gal named Meryl:

    The Constitution does not exist to better society. The Constitution is basically just the set of rules we hold the government to after we, the People, granted the government the power to govern. The theory behind the Constitution and the theory the framers subscribed to was that ALL powers of choice and action are each initially in the hands of the individual. The Constitution lays out the types of individual conduct that the government has the power to regulate or restrict. This is not simply my interpretation. Any constitutional scholar will agree with me.

    So, it is not for the government to “permit” us to do anything (be it gay marriage or owning property). It is the burden of the government to prove that ANY restriction on our conduct is justified and within their Constitutional power. Some restrictions are so easily justified no one even questions them (criminalizing murder or rape). Some restrictions are inherently suspect and fail to survive scrutiny (anti-miscegenation laws).

    Therefore, the relevant legal question is not whether gay marriage benefits society. The relevant legal question is whether restricting gay marriage is within the power of the government and whether it furthers a legitimate government interest. Furthermore, the interest the government seeks to further cannot be one that itself is unconstitutional. So, if the government restricts the issuing of marriage licenses to hetero couples because of religious doctrine, then that justification is unconstitutional and the restriction is void.

    Now, find me the passion, dogma, or emotion in that argument.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    In applying the California Constitution’s equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not “immutable.” Although we noted in Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, that generally a person’s gender is viewed as an immutable trait (id. at p. 18), immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 123, 128; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 156, 161-162), and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].)

    Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is

    not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual

    orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment.

    Read the decision here:

    Clearly, immutability is not the issue here, the central issue here is equal protection under the constitution.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Slippery slope arguments made when one feels as though they are losing a debate:
    Another Favorite post from Boxturtle:

    January 29th, 2009 | LINK
    I think it is important to look to what society defines marriage as, in contrast to what individuals or institutions consider as marriage for themselves. Society does not require married couples to procreate, nor does it require couples to have the capacity to procreate. Soceity appears to qualify marriage as the affirmation of a relationship of two persons, nothing more, nothing less. Should individuals or institions wish to apply a different definition or different requirements to marriage, they are free to do so for themselves. The fact of the matter is that society does not require anything more.
    In regards to the polygamy/incest/animal arguments, they are fairly simple to distinguish:
    1) Polygamy: without discussing the moral or social implications of permitting polygamy, this extension would create a whole new set of rights which no one in society currently enjoys, homosexual and heterosexual alike. The extension of marriage to homosexuals is based upon granting an existing right to a group in society who has been excluded on the basis of an immutable charactersitic – the right exists, but it is being denied to certain persons. Regardless of whether polygamy is right or wrong, that issue is completely separate from the same-sex marriage issue.
    2) Incest: this has been prohibited in many societies for various reasons, one of the more prominent of which is the preservation of familial relations and prevention of abuse. Due to the importance that family plays throughout one’s life, it is wise to prohibit the development of sexual relationships, which can often result in the abuse of power differentials and the breakdown of essential, life-long family relationships. As well, by preventing homosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex, you are preventing them from marrying anyone of the gender to which they are attracted. By prohibiting incest, you are merely removing a handful of people from the 3 billion persons of the gender to which you are attracted – hardly an equivalent restriction.
    3) Animals: this argument angers me, because it is the most irrational and desperate of them all. Animals cannot give legal consent, end of argument. Marriage is a contract, in the eyes of the state, and thus animals are completely out of the question. With same-sex marriage, we are talking about consenting adults. There is absolutely no logical way to think that same-sex marriage somehow leads to human-animal marriages. This argument, in my opinion, automatically identifies the speaker as someone incapable of rational thought on the subject.
    I currently live in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriages, and am extremely thankful for that right. If society wishes to take that right away, then I will respect that decision. So long as you also take away that right from barren women, impotent men and senior citizens, in addition to dissolving all childless marriages.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Bussy, If my marriage,”derails” your beliefs, then your beliefs were not very strong to begin with. A mature Christian is not derailed. You argue like a person who is losing an argument. The beauty about having an older sister, who is a mentor and a friend is that she will tell you when you’ve lost the argument in a matter of fact fashion. Bussy, go home now. You are done.

  • Lukas P.

    @1EqualityUSA: You are freaking amazing.
    If you don’t have a blog, start one. If you don’t have a blolumn, create one. If you haven’t written for the press, start. Really.

    Very few people have your gifts of logic and clarity. I think that arguing with Bussy is like trying to teach algebra to a three year old, but you have an original and distinctive voice and it NEEDS to be heard.

    Thank you for inspiring me.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Oh, Thank you Lukas P, I’ve enjoyed this site very much. I’m just hanging out and talking. The greatest fiction writer in the world couldn’t come up with some of these characters posting here. I’m a serious nurse and a very serious painter, but writing (talking) is just that, pure joy.

  • schlukitz

    Wow. Where was I when this thread got started?

    KirilleXXI and 1EqualityUSA have made some profound and powerful arguments that are as impenetrable as a armored Sherman Tank in response to Bussy’s mad rants that are as good at holding water as a leaky bucket.

    There is little doubt in my mind that Bussy is scurrying around like a shit-house rat, looking for some additional dung to fling into this blog so that he/she can continue to enjoy watching the many well-meaning people like yourselves come a’running with the bucket and the slop-mop to clean it up.

    I know that you mean well, but why do you gentle, caring, wonderful, erudite folks caste your pearls before dumb fuck swine like Bussy? He/she is a troll who is playing with you folks like a cat plays with a mouse.

    And we all know that the mouse never wins.

  • schlukitz

    Lukas P, I co-sign your observations and comments about 1EqualityUSA. She IS absolutely freaking amazing.

    You are absolutely right. Very few people have her gifts of logic and clarity.

    And like you, I am very inspired by her, but she already knows that. :)

  • schlukitz

    Ah yes, indeed. One of my fave comedy groups from the 70s when I was still a young, weed-smokin’ hippie living in the mountains of upstate New York. lol

    I hadn’t thought about them in years until you just mentioned them.

    “Why, Mr. Tirebiter, this is just a bag full of shit.”

    “Yes; but it’s wonderful shit!”

    When you’re stoned, a remark like that was enough to make me ROTF and LMAO.

    Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

  • KirilleXXI

    Your quotes per Meryl and per Tim are very powerful!
    They gave me some very important arguments to deal with in the future!
    Thank you for sharing them with us!

    You ask why do we waste our time here on this…
    How else can we let the word out to contest all those arguments their side makes?
    Their blogs contain premoderation for comments, none of my comments made it there.
    Yet, we allow them to comment here without any moderation.
    This is so sad that only our side actually upholds the freedom of speech.

  • schlukitz

    No. 64 · KirilleXXI

    My apologies if I offended you by saying that. My comments were, in no way, meant to denigrate or disagree with anything you have posted on this thread.

    On the contrary, I have only the highest regard for your obviously erudite and intelligent points of view that you have presented on this site. Both you and 1Equality have posted commentaries that go beyond the norm with respect to intelligence and writing capabilities, which garner only the greatest of respect and the highest praise from this humble scribe.

    I could not agree with you more. It is grossly unfair, that your comments should be moderated by the very same bigots and haters who come to our site and are allowed to use it as a latrine in which to dump their putrid comments at the expense of the feelings and sensibilities of the openly gay posters who visit this site regularly and support Queerty’s advertisers by doing so.

    And is indeed sad that only our side actually upholds the freedom of speech. But then, this is not a very fair world in which we live, is it, Kirille?

    Given the very great distance that you live from America (in Russia), I am awed by the knowledge you display about this country and the struggle of the LGBT community for equality. I just want you to know how very much those of us who oppose people like Bussy, appreciate your interest and desire to be of help in the cause and we sincerely hope that you will continue to inspire us with your words of wisdom and support.

    Nostrovia. :)

  • KirilleXXI


    Gosh, I apologize if I inadvertently made you think I was offended, for I was absolutely not (it’s probably my bad English). In fact, I agree with you: it seems really pointless to waste all this time and effort to preach to the choir and to those who would never agree with you (but secretly I always hope I can change some minds).

    I find some comfort in thinking that thought thrives on conflict, and every time I write something here I shape my opinions and sharpen my arguments for the future debates I intend to have with people who were brainwashed by the religious right. It is my education and preparation, if you may.

    We live in an unfair world where they can get away with anything because they are in majority, while we have to have our noses clean if we want to be heard and respected. I understand that and I accept that. Bring it on! We have nothing to hide and nothing to be ashamed of!

    As for my knowledge, you’re giving me too much credit. I’m a gay man, it is my “duty,” so to speak, to know the issues my people have to deal with all around the world. One day, over here in Russia, we’ll have same battles and same feces will be flying right in our faces. Whatever is happening now in USA is gonna be an important part of our history and a basis for future fights.

    I appreciate your appreciation. And I am the one who’s inspired by all the people here, the Queerty Community, who refuse to remain silent and who care!

    25-year-old Russian gay man

  • schlukitz

    No. 66 · KirilleXXI

    If, indeed, our future is in the capable hands of young men like yourself, then I am confident that we will not only endure, but win our struggle for equality as well in the not too distant future.

    And please, do not apologize for my bad English

    Your English is excellent and I dare say, that there are probably many who post on these threads, who only only wish that they had the command of the language that you obviously have, not only in the literary sense, but in the vernacular as well.

    It does me proud to say that you are a class-act. We are honored to have your presence.

  • Ben

    @AndrewW: Why would he be expected to disclose? Judges are expected to disclose any kind of connection they have with a defendant or plaintiff that might give the appearance of impropriety. For example, if the plaintiff’s kid babysat for him, or something.

    There is no evidence that this judge has ever had anything to do with the plaintiffs. The fact that he is gay is something that no more needs to be disclosed than the race of a judge who makes a ruling on a racially charged case, or the sex of a judge who sits on a case involving sexual discrimination.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    KirilleXXI said, “You ask why do we waste our time here on this…
    How else can we let the word out to contest all those arguments their side makes?
    Their blogs contain premoderation for comments, none of my comments made it there.
    Yet, we allow them to comment here without any moderation.
    This is so sad that only our side actually upholds the freedom of speech.”

    This is so true. Or they just close the site down if refuted beyond recognition, such as the case of this site which now gives the number 404, from Examiner:–Culture-Examiner~y2009m11d14-DC-councilman-tells-Catholic-Church-shut-up-or-shut-down?#comments

    Don’t bother opening it, it doesn’t exist any longer.

  • schlukitz

    No. 68 · Ben

    I concur with you wholeheartedly.

    My knowledge of the Judiciary is exceedingly limited, therefore, I do not consider myself qualified to make any sweeping generalizations concerning this matter.

    That said, however, it is apparent to me, as it should be to any person with a lick of common sense, that a Judge’s sexuality should have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his ability to preside over a trial involving sexual discrimination.

  • schlukitz

    No. 69 · 1EqualityUSA

    I took a stab at opening it, just out of curiosity. This is the message I found on the site.

    Article Not Ready
    This article is currently being published.
    It should be available for viewing in 5 minutes.

    The Team

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Dear Schlukitz, It has said that for over a month. Losers.

    Dear KirilleXXI, I would apologize for the length of the following article, if it weren’t so good. I speaks of slippery slope arguments that people, like the NOM-skulls, make when they are losing the debate. Maggienaghanenubussy should read this article, but they won’t. They too busy creating propaganda to support their hatred.

    Gay Marriage and Polygamy

    by Dale Carpenter

    First published on April 29, 2004, in the Bay Area Reporter.

    Will gay marriage lead to polygamy? “If we take the step of allowing gay marriages,” we are told, “we will slide down a slippery slope to polygamy.” For the most part, gay-marriage advocates have been flustered trying to respond to this argument. Often, we respond with something dismissive like, “Don’t be ridiculous!” Slippery-slope arguments must be scrutinized with care because the public often believes them and because they divert attention from the core issue: whether gay marriage itself would be a good or bad thing. While the polygamy argument has some superficial appeal, it ultimately doesn’t work.

    Slippery-slope arguments take the following form: “Proposal X contains within it a principle. That principle not only supports Proposal X but would also support Proposal Y. An honest person supporting Proposal X must therefore also support Proposal Y. While Proposal X may or may not be bad in itself, Proposal Y would surely be very bad. So to avoid adopting Proposal Y, we must not adopt Proposal X.”

    Substitute “gay marriage” for Proposal X and “polygamous marriage” for Proposal Y and you have a slippery-slope argument against gay marriage.

    There are three possible stock responses to every slippery-slope argument. First, one might argue that the supposedly horrible destination(s) down at the bottom of the slope are not so bad, so we need not fear the slide. Second, one could argue that the slope may slide both ways, so that if we do not take the step proposed we may be in danger of sliding down the other side of the policy hill, which would be bad. Third, one could argue that we will not slide down the slippery slope if we take the step proposed because there is a principled stopping point preventing us from reaching the bottom.

    In the gay marriage debate, the first stock response would involve arguing that polygamy is unobjectionable. That’s an unattractive reply for reasons I’ll explain below in connection with response three. The second stock response would involve claiming that if we repress gay marriage, there is nothing to stop us from prohibiting other marriages, like those involving people of different races or infertile people. This second response is the kind of argument lawyers love to make, but is not likely to impress many people as a reason to support same-sex marriage.

    It’s the third response — that there is a principled stopping point preventing the slide toward polygamy — that best refutes the slippery-slope argument. The argument for gay marriage is indeed an argument for a liberalization of marriage rules. But it is not a call to open marriage to anyone and everyone, any more than the fight against anti-miscegenation laws was a call to open marriage to anyone and everyone.

    So, formulating the principled stopping-point, we should ask why the recognition of a new form of monogamous marriage would lead to the revival of polygamous marriage, which has been rejected in most societies that once practiced it? What is “the principle” supporting gay marriage that will lead us to accept multi-partner marriage?

    One possible principle uniting the two is that gay marriage, like polygamous marriage, extends marriage beyond partners who may procreate as partners. But that doesn’t work because procreation is already not a requirement of marriage. Sterile opposite-sex couples have already taken that step down the slope for us.

    A second possible principle uniting gay marriage and polygamous marriage is that both exalt adult love and needs as the basis for marriage. Yet this step down the slope has also already been taken by straight couples. Marriage for the past century or so in the West has become companionate, based on love and commitment. Among straight (and gay) couples, children are a common but not necessary element of the arrangement. So even if gay marriage were justified solely by the love same-sex partners have for one another, recognizing such relationships would be more analogous to taking a step to one side on a slope already partially descended, not an additional step down the slope.

    Still, how do we avoid polygamy? Here is where many advocates of gay marriage run into trouble. If we claim that gay couples must be allowed to marry simply because they love each other, there is indeed no principled reason to reject multi-partner marriages. Multiple partners in a relationship are capable of loving each other.

    But satisfying individual needs is not “the principle” supporting gay marriage. Instead, gay-marriage advocates should argue that any proposal for the expansion of marriage must be good both (1) for the individuals involved and (2) for the society in which they live. Gay marriage meets both of these criteria. The case for polygamous marriage is distinguishable (and weaker) on both counts, especially the second.

    On the first issue — the effect of recognition on the individuals involved — the deprivation to gays of the gay marriage ban is greater than the deprivation to polygamists of the polygamy ban. A polygamist may still marry someone if we ban polygamy; he simply may not marry many someones. The deprivation to the polygamist is large, especially if polygamy involves the exercise of his religious faith, but not total. The gay person, however, has no realistic choice of a mate available under a gay-marriage ban. The deprivation is total.

    Further, there is no “polygamous orientation” causing a person to need the close companionship of multiple partners (though some people may prefer it). There is, however, a homosexual orientation, causing a person to need the close companionship of a same-sex partner. The ban on polygamous marriage is the denial of a preference, perhaps a strong one; the ban on gay marriage is the denial of personhood itself.

    On the second issue — the effect of recognition on society — the differences between gay marriage and polygamous marriage are more pronounced. There is ample evidence that people who live in stable, committed couples are healthier, happier, and wealthier than those who are single. Gay marriage is a good idea because it will benefit not only the gay couple but their families, friends, neighbors, and taxpayers whose burdens to care for the gay partners singly would be greater.

    While multi-partner marriages might benefit the partners involved, the much greater potential for jealousy and rivalry among the partners make for a volatile arrangement, reducing the expected benefits to them and to everyone else. In a multi-partner marriage, it may be unclear who has primary caretaking responsibility if a partner becomes sick or injured; there is no such uncertainty in a two-person marriage. While we have some evidence that children do well when raised by same-sex couples, we have no evidence they do well when raised in communal living arrangements. Since multi-partner marriages will almost always take the form of one man having many wives, they present special risks of exploitation and subordination of women, which is inconsistent with our society’s commitment to sex equality.

    Perhaps none of these considerations is a decisive argument against polygamous marriages. But at the very least they suggest that gay marriage and polygamous marriage present very different issues. Each should be evaluated on its own merits, not treated as if one is a necessary extension of the other.

  • KirilleXXI


    This is very sweet, but you’re making my head way too big which is not good at all. :) I am honored to have my comments actually read by someone!

    If only the future was in our hands and not in the hands of politicians elected to lobby corporations’ interests! Now with SCOTUS’ decision to forget about corporations’ expense limits USA turns into Russia — we don’t have a real control over who can spend and how much on a political campaign to get someone elected, so I boycott elections here. And this issue is also important for our movement — bad politicians (elected into the office thanks to corporations’ money) make bad decisions and put unfavorable to our cause justices in Supreme Court who won’t rule to allow us to get married. Not to mention any other piece of legislation to indulge corporations’ interests.

    And, I’m sorry, guys, for diverting this discussion so far away from the topic of Walker’s alleged homosexuality — I’ve expressed my opinions on that (here and here) and I agree with you now.

  • KirilleXXI

    Dear 1EqualityUSA, this is a very good article by Dale Carpenter! I haven’t encountered anything better so far! Carpenter lays out the logic behind the slippery slope argument and brilliantly applies it to polygamous marriage. There are certain subtleties that, if not known to the debater, usually do not let one make a good point in showing the inherent difference between same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage. These subtleties became a shiny gem of this article, along with the irrefutable logic.

    Thank you for sharing this article with us, too! I’ve noticed you’d shared this article before on some other websites in comments, like Chicago Tribune blog. I tried to find the source so I could link to this article in the future; unfortunately, Bay Area Reporter offers online access only to articles published since August 2005; at least there is Independent Gay Forum link.

    I only have a problem with one phrase: “While we have some evidence that children do well when raised by same-sex couples, we have no evidence they do well when raised in communal living arrangements.” As far as I’m concerned, and I may be wrong, polygamy per se as a communal living arrangement is not outlawed in the US, like in Canada, for example. So, I’m sure there are people who live in such arrangements even today, and they have kids. And, I believe, there is no evidence to claim the opposite — that children do not do well in such arrangements. Moreover, some time ago polygamous marriages were allowed in the United States (for Mormons’ sake), there must be a body of evidence that there was no concern for children in such families. Frankly, I can’t imagine that such an arrangement would be worse for children in comparison to a two-parent family, I can only imagine that jealousy and rivalry among wives can be for once a significant contributing factor here. We also know about countries (Islamic, for instance) that allow polygamous marriages, and there are kids involved, and they seem to be fine; but, then again, those are completely different traditions, nothing like Western, and religion plays an important role in those arrangements making women inferior to their husbands, which, probably, leads to less jealousy and rivalry among wives who must be submissive to their husbands and not cause any troubles in the family where they are nothing but property.

    Even though we agree to these points in the article, go ahead and try to prove something to others! I’ve had a “pleasure” to debate about same-sex marriage with one individual who called himself Hanson; he dismissed every argument of this article: he talked about procreation being the central purpose of marriage, about requirements people have to meet in order to enter into a marriage, and about the legitimate state interest in procreation, which is why, according to him, same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Good luck proving a point when even obvious arguments are being contested!

    I was curious if there was an official paper listing purposes of marriage — haven’t gotten the answer.

    I inquired about the legitimate state interest — is this interest enough to be a requirement for marriage — he cited the decision of the New York Supreme Court that said marriage should protect those who might have unwanted and unplanned kids, in order to give those kids their parents (they are less likely to split if they are married), while gay people cannot have unwanted and unplanned kids, so their unions are already stable enough by the time they decide to have kids, no reason to use marriage as a crutch for them. I’m curious about this one — another subtleties are used to justify marriage discrimination.

    The whole concept of marriage being a crutch is ridiculous! What about helping children in a family where both parents are married — this helps them to cut their taxes and use their health insurance to cover their spouses — this ultimately saves some money that goes to children instead. Isn’t this a purpose of tax deductions and spousal insurance coverage — to save money for children (I know I’m cherry picking and channeling here, but somewhat I’m right)? So, by explaining their decision this way, they practically discriminate against children of gay parents.

    Another gem from Mr. Hanson allegedly proving that the legitimate state interest in procreation is indeed a requirement for marriage — infertile couples are not banned from the institution only because the procedure of determining their infertility is too expensive and too intrusive. I asked, what if in 30 years the technology becomes so easy, cheap and non-intrusive that we could install those fertility booths in city halls to have applicants examined for fertility before issuing marriage licenses — would we forbid infertile people to marry? He only answered that people should decide this at the ballot box when the time comes. I’m pretty sure people would not vote away their right to get married in this case.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    The majority rule is not due process.

  • 1EqualityUSA


    Beautiful words, “F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L H-U-M-A-N R-I-G-H-T”

    Just like the Hollywood sign, these letters should be brightly painted, so that they can be seen from airplanes. They should be propped up on the lawn of the Casa Blanca, with picnic tables arranged around each letter. Hungry Supreme Court Justices, grabbing a bite to eat, could lean their robed scapulae against these sun-warmed letters, while consuming their hot Cross buns.

  • schlukitz

    No. 76 · 1EqualityUSA

    Hungry Supreme Court Justices, grabbing a bite to eat, could lean their robed scapulae against these sun-warmed letters, while consuming their hot Cross buns.

    Sounds like a veritable orgy! ;P

    Seriously, however, Bill’s words are, indeed, beautiful and those who would seek to deny or take away a fundamental human right from anyone, would do well to carefully study these words until the full meaning sinks in.

    In my mind, at least, these words are synonymous to Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.

    All, great words to live by.

  • Chairm

    There is a good deal of pro-SSM delusion going on in this discussion.

    The original topic was Judge Walker’s bias.

    In California, and in San Francisco to an even greater extent, is it not reasonable to presume that a gay man would be against the CA marriage amendment? Yes, I think so. Do you?

    A judge can potentially act impartially, of course, gay or not. He can also act impartially even if his personal bias is very, very strong.

    And, it must be acknowledged, he can also act partially. That should not be ruled out.

    Given Walker’s decisions and performance, and the rebukes from the higher courts, can you honestly say there is not the least indication that Walker has advantaged the anti-8 litigators and disadvantaged the pro-amendment litigators?

    Can you explain how the case turned into a trial in which the Judge is investigating the personal motivations of trial participants? The legal question is the constitutionality of the CA marriage amendment and that stands, or falls, independantly of the personal feelings of the defendants.

    For that matter, the personal feelings of the plaintiffs has no bearing on the constitutionality of the amendment.

    If you want to argue about equal protection and due process, then, that could be done the usual way — through written briefs and oral arguments.

    I think there is a very good chance that Walker will decide in favor of the defendants, on the question of law, because he will not pose as a trial judge who is empowered to over-rule the controlling federal precedent.

    But in writing his opinion, he may indicate reluctance to so rule. And the consolation, such as it might be, will be comprised of a package of “facts” that he will pluck out of the testimony and shape for future consideration.

    By that I mean he will list some “legislative facts” for the higher courts. These he can’t dictate to the appellate justices. They usually assessess such “facts” for themselves and are not beholden to the trial judge. But, more significantly, Walker’s list and shaping of “facts” from his inquiry will be used politically by the SSM campaign outside of courtrooms and in elections and in legislators.

    This is how I think Walker’s bias will be expressed. Whether he is gay or not, I don’t know. But he has already shown a prejudice in his judicial behavior on this particular case. His libertarian leanings alone might explain that. However, I don’t think he is so much of an oddball (even though he is known to be a little odd in general duty on the bench) that he’d thumb his nose at controlling federal precedent.

  • KirilleXXI

    You’ve written a lot, but I don’t agree with most of it.

    Personal motivations of people who drafted Prop 8 and of people who voted for it are a legitimate part of this trial. Constitution is supposed to protect us from bigoted and hateful decisions made against insular minority groups for no good reason. If the state recognizes there is a group that needs to be protected from majority’s bias, such a protection would be granted and any decisions made to limit or take away any rights from that minority group would have to be strictly scrutinized, narrowly tailored and carefully explained why such a limitation is legitimate and reasonable.

    I think this is the way the plaintiffs are going: proving what has already been proved by Supreme Courts of California, Connecticut and Iowa — sexual orientation is a suspect class, strict scrutiny must be applied to any discriminatory statutes and amendments like Prop 8:
    • this is why we were presented with testimony from GLB (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual) people about the ongoing discrimination against them;
    • this is why we’ve heard experts talking about unsubstantiated prejudice, hostility and stigma towards GLBs throughout the history;
    • this is why plaintiffs’ experts testified about discreteness and insularity of this group and its minority status;
    • this is why opinions of pretty much every major medical association in the US (confirming the immutability and lack of evidence to suggest non-traditional sexual orientations are some kind of a pathology) were presented into evidence;
    • this is why experts shared their opinions and presented evidence proving political powerlessness of GLB people.

    It is clear that suspect classification recognition for sexual orientation is what we need nationwide to apply strict scrutiny to review Prop 8 and all the other State Constitutions’ amendments and statutes barring homosexuals from entering into marriage, from legally adopting children in some states, etc. — it will be next to impossible, under strict scrutiny, to prove that measures like these have a legitimate reason to continue to discriminate against GLB people. And same-sex marriage ban in California is one of those measures.

    Suspect classification is something courts have to consider when Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, exactly like with Proposition 8 in this trial. I suppose, if, while hearing this case, the court finds the evidence presented to be compelling enough to recognize this group as suspect class in the process, new status and new level of scrutiny will be applied to make a final decision about legitimacy of marriage amendment in California Constitution.

    These issues are tied in one knot, I hope you see it now.

    As for the so-called “prejudice in [Walker’s] judicial behavior on this particular case,” I find those allegations unsubstantiated. Either elaborate on that — present us the evidence that proves your words — or don’t make such statements! I’ll be happy to examine that evidence and have a chance to contest it.

  • NYCNathan

    You can’t shut this down — you can’t talk this down. You folks are just plain deceived. “Judge” Walker exercised judicial fiat in the most inexcusable manner – he should have recused himself from hearing the case – but since this was a personal matter to him, he personally delivered an errant ruling which is the most revealing evidence of his bias in this opinion justifying the moral equivocation of a behavioral vice with inalienable citizenship rights – the man is insane, he needs to be unbenched and his decision vacated. He violated the 14th amendment guarantee of due process for the voters of California who followed the only civil discourse the Constitution allows for dealing with social issues legally, they put forth a referendum on the ballot, and it won. If the gay advocates put one up and it won… those who opposed it would have honoered it or appealed it. But this is not good enough for these insane progressives on the fringe here.

    But the tragedy here is arrogant, bloviating ideologue simply pulled a Bill Mahr, “pushed us to it” so to speak and steam-rolled over the voters and asserted that the 14th Amendment could guarantee protecting a vice, which is unconstitutional. He can use all the co-optive language Jedi Mind-Tricks he wants, it’s his decision and “judicial temperance” that is suspect. He claimed it was discriminatory to tell citizens who engage in homosexual behavior they cannot marry — distorting the equal protection clause to (somehow) cover a vice, which homosexuality is still in a majority of the world, it may not be prosecuted on the books, that’s up to the people of that state — but the behavior is commonly known to be just that… a vice. Vices are criminal, therefore subject to regulation under the law and (not to mention) the law itself is inherently discriminatory. What do you think law does? It openly discriminates against behavior that presents itself short of the established standard.

    Law draws a line, so the assertion by “Judge” Walker was pure fantasy, marriage is a privilege not a right – that is why states issue permits, to regulate it just like drivers licenses, they are granted that by the 10th amendment on issues that may impact the general welfare — this certainly does, it’ll get reversed, but more importantly this judge needs to be unbenched, period. The integrity of the American justice system was impugned in a very serious way by a very disturbed mind.

  • One of the CA 36,000

    And the Freepers wander in from the Internets…!

    Listen losers, just because you’re 36-year-old fat unemployed douchebags still living with your parents and unable to find girls stupid and/or high enough on meth to marry you, doesn’t mean you have ANYTHING to say about this decision.

    The judge’s sexuality has nothing to do with the case. A straight judge would have “skin in the game” as well, wouldn’t he?

    The facts are these:

    The court heard the case and made a decision. The decision is on the Web; you can read it. The decision is detailed and filled with findings of fact that are uncontroversial because they’re FACT, and the rulings are based on established cases that stand as Constitutional precedent. Some of those were carefully and cagily selected since sitting Supreme Court justices WROTE them.

    There is NOTHING “activist” about this decision. It will stand up to appeal.

    The upshot: The Majority CANNOT deny basic human rights to a minority group based on the perceived ickiness of the group, as long as the group isn’t breaking laws.

    And fuck you, assholes. I pay MORE taxes than you but get LESS basic human rights? I call “bullshit” on that. Go fuck yourselves.

  • One of the CA 36,000

    @NYCNathan: You are a breathtakingly stupid person.

    “Vices” are NOT criminal. They might be regulated, but they’re not criminal.

    Do you smoke? Access to cigarettes is regulated, access to places where one can smoke is regulated, but the vice itself is NOT outlawed.

    Do you masturbate? I imagine, given your general idiocy, that that’s your only sexual practice. According to your precious Bible, it’s a vice. But it isn’t criminal.

    Lovings v. Virginia establishes marriage as a fundamental human right (go read it yourself). So you’re wrong. Walker simply follows established stare decisis.

    Go fuck yourself, Freeper moron. YOU LOST. You don’t like it, go live in a country where they have the same respect for tradition and personal freedom you do. Say, Iran. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Uganda.

  • NYCNathan

    [email protected]One of the CA 36,000:

    Get a life, we lost nothing – you just exposed a weakness in your own argument, that’a all. The simple shame is look what you nutters have to go through to advance your fantasy of a state sponsored, strong armed equivocation of a universally condemned deviant sexual proclivity? You gotta lie, lie, lie… obstruct, obfuscate and flat out break the law to adnace this abject stupidity… nope the day is coming soon that the people are going to get pissed off enough at the brazenness of you lifestyles and simply clip your wings for you legally.

    -I’d say get bent but you were twisted first.

  • Pitou

    @NYCNathan: You’re awesome.
    Can you please, Please, PLEASE read Judge Walkers verdict and then come back here and dispute his findings right here in this forum? PLEASE? I would really love for all of Queerty to read how in fact you will dispute them. Where in NYC were you when the ProH8 people were vetting “expert” witnesses for this trial? They clearly needed your well-rationed insight as their own “experts” botched the case for them completely from day one.
    FYI.. You did lose! Sucka! In 2 years, this will reach SCOTUS. By then, we’ll have Kagan.. and we all know how you nutty T-baggers claim she’s pro-Gay biased. Hopefully Obama will have the opportunity to put another rational person on the bench to conteract the Right-Wing-psycho-delusional justices already there. We will prevail at SCOTUS.. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CASE! You haven’t had a case this whole time.. yet still threw gobs and gobs of cash into keeping the oppressed, oppressed. You could have fed the homeless, or built an orphanage for the children that you choose to keep out a loving family because it just so happens the heads of it are LGBT.
    Just so you know… My “vice” would split you in two…and you’d like it, Baby! Just admit it.. you would.. I see your package growing in anticipation! Freak! You suck, and you’re cleary a poor loser. Please go back to your fleshlight in your Moms basement. Douche.

  • Cam

    @AndrewW: said.

    “He didn’t disclose. That’s enough to end the case. Mistrial. Appeal. Appeal. Start over.”

    Andrew, that statement right there proves what so many on here have thought about you for so long. That you are actually an anti-gay person trolling the site and dropping little bombs once in a while. That you sould almost sound gleeful about this pretty much seems to prove this.

    Several issues you seem not to realize,

    1. You know nothing of the law. Judges must disclose when there is a personal relationship with the plaintiff or defendant that could influence the case. I.e. they own a huge amount of stock in one of the companies involved.

    2. If Judge ito in the O.J. Simpson trial failed to disclose that he had a black grandparent that is not grounds for a mistrial.

    3. If a judge in a domestic abuse case fails to disclose that they are married, divorced, there sister was beaten etc… that is not grounds for a mistrial.

    The judges personal life is not held up for scrutiny, if it was, then Scalia would never be allowed to hear any cases invloving abortion. He is an opus Dey Catholic. Additionally, by that logic, Scalia should have been removed from the Lawrence v. Texas case. Thomas would never be allowed to hear cases invloving affirmative action as he is black.

    So again, your comment is so off base as to be ridiculous. But you will no doubt go on repeating it as you so often do with your opinions on here.

  • Cam

    @BUSSY: said…

    No. 51 · BUSSY
    Ok let me pass some knowledge

    Interracial marriage is not a good comparison for the fact that race is clealy immutable. What is the scientific fact that sexual orientation is? There is no solid fact of this. Point. Interracial marriage ban was senseless as it was still a union between a man and woman. Anyone that has hang ups on race should deal and not keep others from marrying based on that.

    Actually you are completely wrong. You say that the reason interacial marriage can’t be used for comparison is that race is clearly immutable and that there is no solid scientific fact that being gay is (This is in fact incorrect if you read the peer reviewed scientific studies). Well then by your logic, we could just as easily say that religion is not immutable. It is CLEARLY a choice and yet enjoys protection under the law.

    You then say “Point, the interactial ban is sensless because it was still a union between a man and woman” When I find interesting is that you can just make a statement that something is sensless but over no proof other than your opinion, yet you are asking gays for scientific proof to back up our claims for civil rights. Isn’t it funny how when something is your opinion it seems to be automatically proven, yet when something isn’t you seem to want mounds of scientific evidence for it?

    The interacial marriage bans were about two consenting adults, not being permitted to be with the person they had chosen to spend their life with legally. This is the same thing, end of story.

  • JohnS

    Homosexuality is not a vice as decided by both every professional Medical board in the country an most in the world & the SCOTUS during the Lawrence v. Texas trial. Furthermore, the SCOTUS has already said that marriage is a fundamental human right, in 1967 at that. Also, as far as your “the day is coming soon that the people are going to get pissed off enough at the brazenness of you lifestyles and simply clip your wings for you legally” comment, I don’t think anyone on this board is stupid enough not to get your “subtle” message, so I say bring it. If you actually want a legal fight, you will loose because according the the Constitution, your bigotry is no reason for my denial of rights & if, what I think is the real meaning of your message, you want a literal fight, I welcome that too. All you Conservitards think that gay men and women are weaklings who will collapse like a house of cards. I can assure you, we will not go quietly into the night, and we will stand up for our rights, at any cost. Now, on to the real issue, if Judge Vaughn’s homosexuality were enough to cause him to be prejudiced in this case, then to carry your argument out to it’s logical end (which is what the law requires) would mean the following:

    No straight judge could reside over Divorce hearings.
    No parent could reside over Family Court.
    No gun owner could reside over Gun rights cases.
    No judge who ever, even once, used an illegal substance could reside over a drug case.
    No judge who ever, even once, had an alcoholic beverage could reside over a DUI case.
    No theist or athiest judge could reside over a case involving religion or a religious person.
    No judge that owns property could reside over a property rights case.
    No judge that uses a telephone or communications device could reside over a case regarding the FCC.

    I believe you can (or should at least) be able to see where this is going. Of course most people like you refuse to look at the facts directly in front of your own face so I would be surprised if this were the case.

  • JohnS

    Also, regarding the “our kids will be taught homosexuality in schools” issue: boo-fucking-hoo. If you feel so strongly that they shouldn’t learn about these issues, the solution is simple. Pull the children out of public school and send them to indoctrination camps (AKA, Religious School) or even better, home-school them. There is less a right to free education than to marriage equality written in the constitution & I would appreciate having less competition for employment when I get older since they will have no knowledge of anything that goes against the bible.

  • Jon (not that one)

    I guess the “recycled” title isn’t obvious enough.

  • B

    In No. 79, KirilleXXI wrote, “It is clear that suspect classification recognition for sexual orientation is what we need nationwide to apply strict scrutiny to review Prop 8 and all the other State Constitutions’ amendments and statutes barring homosexuals from entering into marriage, from legally adopting children in some states, etc. — it will be next to impossible, under strict scrutiny, to prove that measures like these have a legitimate reason to continue to discriminate against GLB people. And same-sex marriage ban in California is one of those measures.”

    … While strict scrutiny is obviously desirable, Judge Walker’s decision included the statement that strict scrutiny was not needed to overturn Proposition Eight because it had no rational basis whatsoever. It’s possible to discriminate against a class of people (not a suspect class where the standard of proof is higher) as long as there is a rational basis for the discrimination – an example would be laws allowing higher health insurance rates for smokers – and in most of these cases, it is pretty easy to find a rational basis. For Proposition Eight there was none – at least none presented to the court. Basically, the “yes on Eight” people had a very weak case.

    BTW, someone else posted as “B” earlier – while I don’t disagree with what that post said, it was in fact written by someone else.

  • Jallon

    Um, maybe I missed it in the millions of previous comments, but there’s another very simple way to shoot down the argument that the judge was biased.

    If you assume that a heterosexual judge would have been unbiased in this case, then it means that a heterosexual person would have no personal vested interest in whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed.

    Which basically would kill the defense’s argument.

  • Mr.Lawyer

    activist judges, whether gay or straight, are dangerous, and they circumvent the Constitution and the will of the people, whether with agree with the majority or not.
    Bad precedent set by Walker.

  • MrEguy

    @Mr.Lawyer: the term “activist judges” is used by arrogant, whining losers who suddenly dislike the conservative, Republican jurist who inconveniently ruled against their myopic interpretation of the Constitution. FAIL.

  • MrEguy

    Will be anyone be calling for Justice Antonin Scalia, a Catholic, to recuse himself from the Prop. 8 case? when it gets to the Supreme Court? Considering the Catholic Church, and its members, spend millions to fund anti-gay marriage campaigns and had a big hand in passing Prop. 8? Not to mention the fact that all of the current justices are known to be heterosexual. That’s not fair and balanced. Bias goes both ways, after all.

  • ewe

    I never heard Walker put down any straight people for being heterosexual but i have heard some Supreme Court Judges putting down gay people for being homosexual. The rest of the court should insist certain judges do not preside on any appeal they may hear.

  • swarm

    It’s not about his bias, they all have them. It’s going to be about his finding of “fact”. If he ONLY cited pro gay marriage publications and “experts”, and made this about “religion is mean”….his opinion is in jeopardy. Case law is based on existing constitutions, prior case law, events and legally based opinions.

    SCOTUS is nothing more than political appointees who should keep OUT of state business as much as possible, imo. Has the fact that they are confirmed by MAJORITY vote Senate consensus escaped everyone? Oh the irony. It’s ok to citizens vote for Congress and SCOTUS and majority rules but state law should be decided by who? One guy?

    Somebody tell me the difference between the life cycle of Roe and the life cycle of gay marriage. Two extremely heated topics wherein one side finds the entire ultimate outcome completely shocking and perverted. The other side finding (or pretending to believe) that their adversaries are ignorant and rednecks (for lack of a better term).

    In WHAT WORLD is it conceivable that killing a viable BABY (late term abortion) acceptable? Complete with the bogus “life of the mother” clause that is non existent and abused by the medical “profession”. We won’t even get into the first 6 months of the fetus. (enter Obama who believes that abortion is GOOD for the state). People who find abortion disgusting and shocking, have to live with the decisions of voters and courts. Buck up and deal with this one, too, everyone.

    AND btw, “religion” is a red herring for both sides. “Tradition” is not a synonym for “religion”. I interact with gay detractors, rude heteros and ignoramuses daily and not a single one is “religious”. You guys need to stop blogging and actually DO SOMETHING in your daily lives. Like stop idolizing homophobes like Kimmel, Letterman and th rest of them who think it’s funny to make LGBT a punchline. Is it their “religion” that makes them that way? And I’m saying all this as a pro gay marriage person.

  • JohnPratt04

    Is his decision likely to be influenced by the fact that he is queer? Is the Pope Catholic?

  • YeahRight

    @MrEguy: Yawn. Mr. Lawyer is right. And again, the lynch-mob, gay herd mentality, that is anyone goes against it, one has to be a sellout, an anti-gay gay, or a self-loathing homo homophobe. This argument would e totally different if Prop 8 had failed and instead a straight judge had ruled that in its favor, changing the entire game. THEN all you bloviating queers here with your equality treatises would be up in arms saying that “the will of the people comes first!” Admit to that at least. And if y’all want the same misery of the straights in marriage, go ahead losers!

  • YeahRight

    @MrEguy: Really weak argument you are making here.

  • YeahRight

    @Mr.Lawyer: Rock on Mr.Lawyer, you said it all with just two simple words, more powerful than all the unbelievably boring and desperate arguments being presented here: “activist judge”. If a straight judge had ruled against the victors of Prop 8, then he would be hailed as a hero. If a straight judge ruled in favor of Prop 8, then the queers would have accused him of discrimination, blah blah blah. So yeah, who says sexuality does not come into play in this decision? Please, grow up.

Comments are closed.