Prop 8 Hearing - Ken Starr on invalidating existing same-sex marriages

[Pilgrim812]

Thanks to all you Prop. 8 supportesr because the unintended consequences

of your intolerance will be full marriage equality in all 50 states!!!!

[azodinblitz]

this guy is obviously a nazi.

[Jacksonholenativ]

California S.C. has not ruled on this issue yet. It was fascinating listening to the debates in the Vermont House before the VT legislature passed the Same Sex Marriage Bill. Several in the House Chamber said that Vermont is NOT like California in that it "thinks they can willy nilly change their constitution by a simple referendum" They made California look like a very immature state when it comes to governance. Vermont has come a long way, is very mature and has been a state a long time.

[sammehwhoreface]

So is your concern perhaps the age of the children being taught sex education? (I'm not sure what age all the grades are in your system, explanation of them would be helpful here!) I am 18, almost 19 and have been sexually active since I was 17. I'm glad I waited until I was 17 to have sex, but I feel that education in school about the emotional side of it, which I didn't get from my religious parents, would have been very helpful.

[sammehwhoreface]

I don't see why there would be any problem with your child learning about gay famillies, gay people and gay marriage unless you yourself, had a problem with these things. I feel being gay is blown way out of proportion. Teaching children that it is ok to be gay is a positive step forward for society, and if parents do not want to take on that responsibility, then I think someone has to. If that is schools, then so be it.

[sammehwhoreface]

first step to being accepted and appreciated fully in society. The reason I feel like there shouldn't be a difference in marriage is because of the things I just said. I want to be accepted and treated the way everybody else is. Also, I think you missed another comment I made because you didn't reply! It was about expanding on the ripple effect of prop8 not passing.

[sammehwhoreface]

Continued. All I want are the same rights everyone else enjoys. In regards to the ripple effects of prop 8, could you please elaborate on the examples you gave? I am particularly intrested in the diminishing of parental rights.

[bballer619]

Sorry didnt see this comment earlier...you can easily look up the court cases in Mass where the parents werent given the chance to take their kid out of learning about gay relationships. You can also go to the states where gay marriage is recognizes, like Mass, where there is now enforced "gay week" in elementary schools...because it is part of the curriculum, parents are less successful in pulling their kids out.

[bballer619]

on top of this, you and I both know that if No had passed, over time lawyers and lobbyists will begin to distort the original message, and begin to push the boundaries more and more as they always do.

Soon adoption agencies in CA will be forced to close (see Mass.), religions forced to marry gay couples (see Mass.), and parents lose more rights to school curriculum (see Mass.). It's easy to see these ripples happen when you see them actually happen in a state that it has passed in.

[bballer619]

Now you may say these things wont happen...but how can we be so sure if it has happened already in our country? How is MA so different than CA?..it could happen, and to avoid it, I voted Yes.

Now I agree with President Obama, I dont believe in gay marriage...but I do believe in an equal civil union/DP. This is what he has been quoted saying, and i agree with him 100%.

[sammehwhoreface]

I can see how these things worry you and that, although a lot of people most likely will call you a bigot, I don't believe that you are. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to make your child aware of gay marriage or the fact that gay people exist. What I worry about is that if someone doesn't teach them that it's ok when they are young enough, then by the time they are older, they will already be prejudiced. (cont)

[bballer619]

I appreciate the understanding, and believe me I definitely get what you are saying too...

My concern about teaching gay marriage in elementary/middle school is not so much to "prevent" kids from turning gay, but more to repress children from further discussions about sexual activity. Younger and younger now do kids engage in sexual activity, leading to having kids too early, or spreading STD's at the age of 13! That scares me! Sex is already a difficult subject to teach youth...

[bballer619]

...and then to introduce an alternative lifestyle of sex and its pros and cons, in my opinion will add to the curiosity of children to further "experiment" with sex. I am a staunch believer of being celibate until AFTER marriage...I did it, and I feel like my relationship grew stronger for waiting. We can only "blur" the lines so much, but at one point, we just have to put our foot down and tell 13 year olds to stop having sex, instead of passing out condoms to them "just in case".

[bballer619]

Sorry to keep going, but I just wanted to mention that this is why parents took such an initiative on this prop8..many of the Yes on 8 were for "parental rights" which we talked about before. Again, solely my opinion, but the younger we teach kids about sex and its "alternatives" the earlier we give them ideas. The same reason why Movies still have age restrictions, why 13 year olds cant drink..anyway, sorry for going on so long, but all of these could have "rippled" faster if NO had passed.

[Jacksonholenativ]

No is going to pass as No is going to be on the ballot again for 2010. The petitions are already being collected. Also (BTW) the Vermont legislature just passed the same sex marriage bill through the Senate with flying colors and the House is prepared to do the same. Maine is next.

[lcswoosh]

Well, looks like my state of Iowa was next. Shocking.

But, my thoughts are really with you all in California... I can't believe the whole thing even happened.

[Jacksonholenativ]

That's where religion needs to teach it. Not the public schools. That's also why parents can pull their children out of class if they don't like what their kids are being taught. They also have the home schooling option as well. Your belief system should not influence the public educational system (to keep kids from learning) however because many parents don't agree with you and want their kids to learn the truth about sexuality and that includes the truth about sexual minorities.

[77heavensent]

Re: That's where religion needs to teach it. Not the public schools.

Jacksonholenativ, when I was growing up in Bible Belt, all taught according to God. Among those I knew or heard of in my church, school, ywca, piano recitals or wherever, it was so rare for a girl to become pregnant. I hardly recall any, yet I know a few did. Parents, aunt, uncle, neighbor, teacher, Sunday School or Vacation bible school, nurse, doctor, etc most lovingly helped 2 teach/warn but from same source. Spankings tho.

[Jacksonholenativ]

The spankings (I must admit), if they are used in a consistent way and not very often, can often be effective as a last resort in disciplining children. The community used to help children grow up and now days that's much more of a rarity. I think that for families and also communities to raise up children is a healthy thing.

[Jacksonholenativ]

No you have to teach teenagers about sex and sexuality and then you also need to teach them about responsibility including the options they have and their outcomes. Condoms are to be presented as an option (as part of a sex ed curriculum) but obviously abstenance is the number one choice and teaching by example including teaching young men to respect and never to hurt women in any way is essential. It's far better that a young man use a condom than to bring another life into the picture.

[Jacksonholenativ]

If children learn sex education in an age appropriate curriculum they can be far more prepared and equipped to make healthy choices throughout their teen years. As for "alternative lifestyles" the appropriate thing to teach kids is that the vast majority of people (when they hit adolescence) are attracted to the opposite sex. There (however) is a minority who are attracted to their own gender. Kids then can be taught to be sensitive and understanding of people who are gay. That's it.

[sammehwhoreface]

I can't really make too much of a comment on how sex education is taught in America as I'm actually from England. Here in the UK, the sex education is very very limited. I went to a Catholic school and we were taught very little about sex. A lot of the girls in my school left pregnant. I feel if sex education had gone further, this would not have happened. Granted I grew up in a pretty rough place, but I feel the point still stands that education is the key to eradicating these problems. (cont)

[Jacksonholenativ]

You're right. Much of it would not have happened had they been educated.

[Jacksonholenativ]

Youth are going to get the information through their peers. I did as young as 1st grade as my friends shared a lot of misinformation to me. Thank heaven I learned sex ed in 4th grade from a very strict and scientific focused teacher. She was very forthright and clear. The myths were then dispelled. The statistics show that when kids learn the age appropriate sex education that knowledge can equip them to make healthier choices as they get older.

[jugganaut35]

The problem is, civil unions are NOT equal to marriages. There are over 1,000 federal legal rights conferred by the institution of marriage that state civil unions cannot confer upon gays.

You can call civil unions "equal" all you want, but they're not. They're unequal not only in the abstract "separate is not equal" sense, but also in the substantive legal sense.

[Jacksonholenativ]

Actually President Obama has been quoted as saying he supports same sex marriage. He said it 2 years ago and his statement last Fall regarding voting NO on prop 8 makes his intention pretty clear.

[jugganaut35]

I defy you to cite ANYTHING that supports your argument that religions are required to marry gay couples in Massachusetts. That's simply UTTER BULLSHIT.

It's sad when you have to lie to preserve your viewpoint.

[bballer619]

Sorry that was New Jersey...not Mass. You can look up...."New Jersey rules against Church group."

Again...the point being that this could all happen, which is why I voted Yes. You can continue to claim of the thousands of "rights" that you feel are owed to you...but please read the previous posts and realize that the reason Prop 8 has been upheld is because it has been found as constitutional. Coming off as disrespectful as you seem to be wont get your side very far. Thanks.

[jugganaut35]

Umm, that NJ matter concerned a piece of beach property that a church rented out to the public, NOT the church being required to perform a wedding ceremony. Basically NJ's law says that if you're going to rent to the public at large, you can't do it in a discriminatory fashion.

If the church kept their property private, they wouldn't have had to rent it to gays.

Btw, the Cali SCt HASN'T ruled on Prop 8's constitutionality yet. Yet another bit of misinformation on your part.

[Jacksonholenativ]

What do you expect from bballer's religious rants and fantasy world view. bballer is on the wrong side of history and one day will be left behind as the world passes by and wonder what the hell happened.

[bballer619]

Please re-read all previous comments...they are far from religious rants. And it is comments like these that show just how "equal" and "tolerant" Jacksonholentiv actually is. As I have said before, its comments like this that hurt the No argument.

[Jacksonholenativ]

"I am a STAUNCH believer in abstinence until marriage".... and then you self-righteously go on and on wherein marriage is not even available in most states for gay people. It's you that is hurting you bballer and you are saying far more about yourself in your statements than you are about gay issues.

[Jacksonholenativ]

17 Mar 2009 04:04 pm

The Christianists Won't Debate

The University of Pittsburgh invited me to debate former senator Rick Santorum on the question of marriage equality. I said: bring it on. Santorum refused to debate me. Rick Warren has also refused to engage in any public forum. ANDREW SULLIVAN

[davetoob]

Let's say the majority of Californians were homosexuals. What if the homosexuals voted to "invalidate" opposite-sex marriages. Would people stand for this?

This is about the principles of a constitutional republic. The fact that government exists to keep the majority in check; to protect and maintain individual rights.

[Rigger4100]

Your assuming by that premise that ALL majorities are wrong or unjust. The fact is that you cant call the 53% of Californians that voted for Prop 8 unjust until there is Some LEGAL precedent at any level that defines Homosexuality as an "unchangeable" minority. I know you will say that they ARE a minority, fine cool. But until its defined in Cali or U.S. Law that Gays are the same as women or Blacks its all specualtion from a Legal standpoint and therefore not a Civil Rights Issue.

[Rigger4100]

AND I know that there are Decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court that Define MArriage as a right and many other things but they do not define Gays as sharing the same definiton as a minority as ethnic minorities and women. Im not saying its right or wrong, im just saying that Legislation does not exist anywhere and thats why Prop 8 will be upheld this time around.

[Jacksonholenativ]

This issue will take more time to define more clearly because we have been a hidden minority. I mean it's not like you can typically tell if a person is gay like you can a person's skin color, gender or nationality. It's an innate thing and it was pretty easy to hide among the heterosexuals for a long long time. We have had other civil rights fights in the past but they have been squelched quickly by the powers that be. This is the first time in modern history that we have had our stand.

[davetoob]

Why should homosexuals be defined as being the same as women or blacks?

Marriage is a contract between people. Do people have an infinite right to contract? Yes. People, whether gay/straight, male/female, black/white, have a right to get married.

Lastly, in my hypothetical, where homosexuals were the majority, I'm almost certain that people in opposite-sex marriages would not maintain a passive attitude while homosexuals walk to the ballot box to "invalidate" opposite-sex marriages.

[Rigger4100]

You should forget hypothetical and think Practical. Not even the Liberal Cali Courts have the option to ignore legal parameters. So therefore they can not go on with the argument about Civil Rights because Civil Rights are for Legally defined "unchangeable"groups which has not happened yet. Thats all im saying. You said "gay/straight, man/woman/ black/white" and im saying the "gay/straight" comparison is not yet legally a valid inclusive group as the others. I call for Civility not Passivity.

[davetoob]

In re Marriage Cases, a California Supreme Court case holding that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying

The right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people

[Rigger4100]

It IS a Legal basic Right of all People as we speak. Marriage is not illegal for anyone in California. What you said is correct but it still leaves out legal definitions of seperate but equal minority groups, Women, Blacks etc. In other words if certain groups wish to Marry a member of the same sex than it the idea embraces a NEW expanded defintion of the word. Thats why the ? of wether Gays are "born Gay" or "Choose to be" needs to legally founded to fall under that Civil Rights umbrella.

[Jacksonholenativ]

In legal jurisprudence precedence is powerful and the APA, the AMA and virtually every mainstream public health organization says that homosexual orientation is not learned but is a complex mix of biological, hormonal (in the womb) factors with the hard wiring happening very early in infancy or childhood. Those arguments have been used successfully in courts of law.

[Jacksonholenativ]

So who would the Supreme Court trust? The religion based ex-gay movement who holds up NARTH as it's scientific arm (sort of a religious parallel universe) or the science based research into the etiology of homosexuality? The very existence of the ex-gay movement is evidence to the Christian Right's agenda to make the case argument that if a person can change their orientation ("pray away the gay") then homosexual orientation is a choice and therefore should not be protected. Pretty insidious.

[Jacksonholenativ]

Rigger Google the American Psychological Association's statement on the unchangeable factor of homosexual orientation in the vast majority of people. Also read their statement (very clear) about the fact that gay people do not choose their orientation anymore than you chose yours. Therefore we have the fundamental right to commit to (marriage) the partner whom we love. It's called equality.

[Rigger4100]

I believe you, and ive heard or read hundreds of reports and documents on the issue. The Problem is that the APA, AMA or any other Public Health Organization dont dictate State or Federal Law. They can be expert witnesses or special cousel in Lawsuits, hearings etc. But my point still stands thta until is Legimtized in a Court, preferably a Federal Decision (John Doe V. California) the issue will always remain subjective if not an illegitimate argument to use for Civil Rights laws.

[Rigger4100]

Also if you did have the APA or AMA (or both) get it in words that The S.C. would accept in a Decision it would also eliminate alot of the (Slippery Slope)arguments (Marrying you own Sister, Polygamy etc.) because then Gays are an established legal minority spererate from those two groups. If there is so much evidence im not saying there isnt, The Gay Lobby needs to get with those guys and make a case to the Courts, quickly.

[Jacksonholenativ]

This is a whole universe of legal discourse that I have not seen discussed much.

[Jacksonholenativ]

This is a fascinating discussion. The government (along with health and human services orgs) need to do a longitudinal peer reviewed study over a period of years that is exhaustive regarding gay people with several questions being at the forefront. 1) Do gay people live healthier, more productive lives the more they accept and embrace themselves/orientation? 2) How do gay couples do when they are in solid commitment vs. the opposite? 3) How do children do in committed same sex households?

[Rigger4100]

All good points which I lean toward s agreeing with, but do you now understand what I mean about the "proof in Law" vs. "proof in thought" idea? I think we all sort of know the answer to the "Choice v. Born that way" Argument but do you get what I mean that it will need to be in Golden Lawfull words before it can be used as a steppingstone to the next level for the Gay Lobby? If that point gets ignored it will a long decade for gay rights. Its Way too easy.

[darklydreamt]

This country rots around us.

We strip rights from our citizens. We place others, who are, like all other men and women, equal to us; into a separate and second class.

If your god told you to do this, I would like to know why you worship him. Know this, you members of the extreme christian right, if there is any judgment to be found upon the ending of our lives. It will be you, who burn.

[bballer619]

Ken Starr is the man...he was far better than Minter and Stewart...and especially Krueger (who was representing Jerry Brown). Starr was far more articulate, prepared, and knowledgable about the case and the laws that pertain to it. It was a great hearing for Prop 8 Supporters.

[livelovebe1970]

Ken Starr is the man? Were the people holding the signs saying "White hero killing queers" outside the courthouse then men too?

[bballer619]

Nope, but neither are the signs being held up that say "bigot" "nazi" "mormon = hate" signs either.... maybe people should pay attention less to the extremists that hold derogatory signs, that's what I have to do. and yeah....Ken Starr was the MAN in this case.

[livelovebe1970]

Ken Starr is not the MAN in the case...You all seem to think if Prop 8 passes it is over...lol...Ken Starr said it himself...rights can be voted on!

[livelovebe1970]

Ken Starr is the man? I don't see Ken Starr being able to stop marriage equality in other states or COUNTRIES....each time another state or COUNTRY in the world proves they can give gays equality and NOTHING BAD HAPPENS- ONLY GOOD- your Yes Campaign will see what side of HISTORY they will be written into. You sound so ignorant...

[bballer619]

The only ignorant comment I see is you saying "Nothing bad happens, only good" - - sure buddy, that blanket statement really makes people think your right. How about lawsuits causing adoption agencies to close...how about parents losing rights to control the sexual curriculum their child is taught. Sure...only good things huh?

[livelovebe1970]

How about the children I know who have been HARMED because of the YES CAMPAIGN

[bballer619]

Then fight for those rights under Domestic Partnerships. If you are really concerned about the children you know, the label of Marriage isnt going to fix it....you can love and protect a child with or without the title of marriage. Or are you incapable of separating the two?

[livelovebe1970]

NO...I'll fight for the rights of gays and lesbians to be equal as everyone else...I'm straight....DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!

[bballer619]

Well guess what, I'm a registered Democrat voted for Obama, and I voted Yes...so deal with that! (whatever that means)

Let's remember that as individual citizens Gays/Lesbians have the SAME RIGHTS! What the LGBT side want is further BENEFITS for gay COUPLES. If this was really just about love and marriage, then the No side wouldnt be pressing for benefits like tax breaks and retirement transfers.

[livelovebe1970]

I don't care....As long as you walk into a courthouse for a marriage certificate in the USA it is an EQUALITY ISSUE...GAY PEOPLE pay the SAME TAXES AS YOU. Grow up....

[bballer619]

There is the issue, is that you "don't care". You dont care that its more complicated than you make it, and that the majority of CA has a different opinion than you. Gay ppl do pay taxes, that's great!....everyone pays taxes....but if a institution has rules to abide by, then they need to be abided by. And in this case that institution is marriage.

[livelovebe1970]

Please grow up...YOU SO OBSESSED WITH GAYS...its DISTURBING....GROW UP AND TREAT PEOPLE EQUAL IN AMERICA!

[livelovebe1970]

And dont write a piss poor comment like that when it is PROVEN the YES Campaign LIED to win....I mean...YOU MAKE ME SICK

[bballer619]

Please show me where the Yes campaign "lied" to win.

Here's an example for you on how the No side did just so you can see both sides: It was said gay sex wouldnt be taught it schools by the No side, the CA superintendent went on a commercial and said it would only need to be taught in sex education which is optional to schools.

What he FAILED to tell you, and it is found right there on his website, that 95% of all schools in CA from K-12 teach sex education.  Misleading huh?

[livelovebe1970]

You really are Obsessed....seriously...seek help!

[s31kp7]

Sex education is optional. The parents/guardians have to sign a form that says the child is allowed to be taught sex education. So yeah, it may be taught in 95% of schools, but parents have the right to keep their child from the class.

[sammehwhoreface]

I've read some of your comments, and you seem to talk a lot about wanting to protect marriage. I'm just wondering how you think someone else's marriage would affect another person's marriage? Such as Britney Spears 55 hour marriage doesn't affect the marriage of my parents, I fail to see how two people of the same sex getting married would affect it either?

[bballer619]

Allowing same-sex marriages does effect the institution of marriage by re-defining it. Just because a same-sex marriage doesnt undo my marriage, doesnt mean that I have to agree with it or vote to allow it.

In my opinion, this argument of yours is very short term...something like "give us what we want now...nothing else matters."

What a lot of people dont want to discuss is the ripple effect if No on 8 had passed. Continued lawsuits, parental rights diminishing, 1st amend. cases.

[bballer619]

to continue...

The Britney Spears marriage does effect marriages like your parents, or my parents. People see the Spears marriage as a reason why marriage isnt so sacred anymore. Something small like this has given ppl reason to doubt the sanctity of marriage. I dont condone marriages like it just like I dont condone same-sex marriages. To me, there would be an issue if there was no alternative solution that had been given, but there are Civil Unions and DPs that recognize those couples.

[sammehwhoreface]

But it doesn't recognise same sex couples in a satisfactory way. It's like saying you can sit there, you just can't sit there. We can all sit down, just some people can only sit in certain places. It is crazy! I just fail to see how it makes any difference to your marriage. What it does do, is affect my life directly in a negative way. I don't think people look at the Britney Spears thing and think that marriage isn't sacred, I think they think that she simply abused it.

[bballer619]

What you mean is that YOU dont think its satisfactory...

I dont see marriage as a tax break, as a chance to claim my spouse's retirement money if she dies, etc. No matter how much the No side wants to make it about these things, it is MUCH more than that.

Without these "benefits" I would have still gotten married.

If you truly dont believe CU or DPs are satisfactory yet, then fight for those rights under these institutions, dont try to re-define marriage because its the shortest route

[sammehwhoreface]

Genuinely, I would still want to marry my partner as a statement and celebration of our love if I didn't get lots of benefits from it. In fact, I know very little of the benefits marriage actually provides. I view marriage as a beautiful thing which shows to the whole world your commitment to another. I dream of the day I can say "Will you marry me?" and not "Do you want to enter into a civil partnership with me?". I'd like to say my wife, not my partner.

[bballer619]

I understand what you're saying here Sammeh, but and I know that Same-Sex Couples and Hetero Couples are different, no doubt about it.

You celebrate your differences, your alternative sexual lifestyles, your proudness of being gay, your want to not conform, but to be "loud and proud" ...

so why then is it not okay to differentiate gays and heteros when it comes to marriage? Its not about discrimination, but more about differentiation.

[sammehwhoreface]

Yes I can see where you are coming from here. I know that the reason I am gay and proud and attend gay prides and such is because that is the first step to showing people that it is ok to be gay. It is actually because I want people to accept me, not because I want to stand out. A good example would by my mum, who was homophobic before I came out, but after I came out she realised that in fact, I'm not different to how I was before. Being open about being different for me at least, is the (cont)

[bballer619]

You also point out that you view marriage as a beautiful thing and not about the benefits you get...you and I agree there.

But CU and DP can be like that too...marriage has been upheld on a pedestal for forever, but CU and DPs are new. If it really is just about love, you dont need the label of "marriage" to recognize your love...do you? I feel sometimes that the gay community just wants the term Marriage because of what it connotes...but thats not what its for.

[sammehwhoreface]

I guess in response to this, I feel like marriage is just really important not only for the gay movement on a large scale in terms of acceptance or at least tolerance, but also on a personal level. I'm not entirely sure why, but marriage is this engrained idea in me of how a family unit should be and I want to be a part of that. I can't however, go against my own long term happiness (i.e. turn straight) to do this. A CU or a DP does not have the same respect from most people.

[livelovebe1970]

If religions were concerned about children they would BAN DIVORCE...that HARMS MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN MORE.....Its SOOO OBVIOUS WHAT YOUR AGENDA IS...and its DISGUSTING

[bballer619]

Let's do that! If there was a prop to ban divorce, hey, I am all for that! See, for me, its not about being gay or not, its about protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

2ndly, you cant quantify what harms children more...its either harmful or not. And PLEASE dont tell me that, if gays were married, they would never have a divorce...

And what's disgusting is propaganda that you claim there is a further "agenda". I voted Yes to protect traditional marriage, thats it.

[livelovebe1970]

Dude...I know gay married people who have marriages who put straight marriages to SHAME..How FUN when it turns out they have BETTER MARRIAGES with well rounded, tolerant CHILDREN for society!

[bballer619]

This has nothing to do with the ability of gay people to raise children. You keep wanting to make it about that.

I'm sure they have great families, but so do families of hetero parents....so what? The point of this prop is to protect traditional marriage.

[livelovebe1970]

You need to take some HISTORY lessons...NAZIS put gays in concentration camps, persecuted them, etc. MORMONS ARE BIGOTS- look up the DEFINITION.

[bballer619]

It's comments like this that lost you prop 8, you scream for tolerance but yet cry and name-call when you need to show tolerance. Heres a defintion: livelovebe1970 = hypocrite.

If you want further tolerance, show some.

[livelovebe1970]

I'm a very tolerant person...When you see me donating money to campaigns to strip Mormoms of their rights or another group of their rights or VOTING to strip rights..you can call me INTOLERANT....YOU SEE I CAN GIVE YOU EQUALITY...Im so glad you will go down on the NASTY side of HISTORY...AMEN

[bballer619]

just because you say you're tolerant doesnt make you tolerant. "Mormons are bigots" doesnt seem like a tolerant comment does it?

And it doesnt matter to me who you donate money too, you can vote on any issue the way you want, donate money to any party, but what you are unable to do is knock me down, insult and demean my religion, just because I voted Yes.

[livelovebe1970]

I dont care what your religion IS. I've never told a Mormon to stop being Mormon. Mormons need to keep their religion out of LAWS AND EQUALITY IN AMERICA....Im happy Mormons and all the Yes People will go down in history as the group how are right allong with the Nazis though!

[bballer619]

You dont care what my religion is but you said...and I quote what you just said about 5 comments up,

"You need to take some HISTORY lessons...NAZIS put gays in concentration camps, persecuted them, etc. MORMONS ARE BIGOTS- look up the DEFINITION. "

See how hypocritical that is?  THEN you compare Mormons to Nazis in this past comment... you cant just stick to the issues, once you run out of rhetoric you go straight to hate speech. You've just proved my point.

[livelovebe1970]

Mormons will go down on the same side as Nazis in the History od gays fighting for their Equality...there is nothing to debate about that...its Fact~

[bballer619]

again, my point just proven.

[livelovebe1970]

You have not PROVEN anything because Im not trying to take away your rights...stop trying to PLAY VICTIM and OWN WHAT YOU DO TO PEOPLE...YOU KNOW BE AN ADULT!

[bballer619]

Please go back to the beginning and re-read all the comments and you tell me who is "playing the victim"....

And yes, you're right, I'm an adult, I voted and supported a prop I agreed with...it passed.

[livelovebe1970]

and your point? I have to stop fighting for equality because of you? AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!­!!!!

[livelovebe1970]

DUDE...Its a good thing you voted for Obama...why don't you visit the new White House website and read his agenda for civil rights...YOU ARE ON THE LOSING SIDE OF HISTORY...all the Yes Campain did long term is WAKE UP THE GAY COMMUNITY TO FIGHT....You have won nothing that will last more than a year and a half tops. The Courage Campaign allready has organizations popping up in every community ~

[bballer619]

Just because YOU think the gay vote will win over time, doesnt mean that the country would be moving in the right direction.

[livelovebe1970]

The gay vote? NO...The EQUALITY vote...that is where YOU DONT GET IT and you show your TRUE COLORS....NOW GROW Up...YOU ARE DISTURBED AND OBSESSED

[bballer619]

haha..that's pretty cheesy

"the gay vote, no the equality vote"

Again proves my point, you read my previous comment automatically as a derogatory remarks towards the "gay vote"...when it was meant to allude to the vote that benefits the gay community.

And you keep calling me obsessed, but all I am doing is responding to each of your comments. You probably have more comments than me...who's obsessed?

Lastly, I have grown up, I dont write only in caps.

[livelovebe1970]

You are OBSESSED. FInd a doctor.

[Rigger4100]

Thats because Starr is Articulating Real Life not Utopian Viewpoints that have no Legal Basing. He IS the man!

[labolafia]

oh what irony!!! the self-loathing self-hating closeted homosexual Kenneth Starr is arguing against the rights of gays. will somebody please out him already? it was no big secret when he was in DC.

[Rigger4100]

Hes not arguing rights hes arguing the Legality of the Measure. Hes saying it was legal because it was. Prop 8 doesnt take away any rights from anyone.

[jfsfrnd]

Entire oral arguments on CSPAN has better audio than the CA site:

cspan(dot)org

Click on "LIVE TV/RADIO"

Lower right side click on "California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments"

[MICHAELMEM]

I'm wondering if anyone can answer the question of whether a state supreme court can strike down a provision that is in the state constitution by declaring that the provision violates the U.S. Constitution?

[johhnyturbo]

Here's what my understanding his, feel free to correct me.

Invalidation would make it so that the marriages were never valid in the first place. Since Prop 8 makes no claim to act against past acts (what's the legal term for that again? My head is ready to burst from me trying to recall it) that would mean that Starr is saying that it won't strike the marriages from the book.

[johhnyturbo]

When he says "unrecognized", that would mean the marriages would be on the book but not recognized. Which would mean that there will be no benefits but at the same time the couples could say they are legally married.

At least that's what I think is going on.

[Jacksonholenativ]

"is that really fair to the people that depended on what this court said was the law? That is the grand question.

[rahimi5]

No, do not fuck Ken Starr up the ass. You faggots are the ones who fuck guys asses. Ken Starr, I beleive, is not a faggot. Keep your faggot ways to yourself. You faggots do not beleive in democracy - or majority rule. Get your socialist president to give you faggots something that never was yours, marriage. Better yet, get your own faggot island were you can create the most horrible diseases known to man on to yourself in privacy.

[davetoob]

The founders of the United States didn't believe in democracy either; they called it tyranny of the majority. What some fail to recognize is that, in a democracy, the minority loses.

In a democracy, 51% of the people can vote to take away the property of 49%.

The United States is a constitutional republic. There are certain things you can't vote on in a constitutional republic.

Furthermore, the needs of 99% of the people can't violate the rights of a single person.

[johhnyturbo]

The founders did not believe in democracy at the *federal* level. They made no claim as to the state level or lower.

I believe (feel free to correct me) that Vermont has had referendums since the 1700's.

California has referendums in it's constitution for over a century. I feel the debate should of been over whether Prop 8 violated the 14th Amend. to the US Constitution but apparently both sides agreed to have the case be about state law and not federal law so as to not bring SCOTUS into it.

[davetoob]

Each of the 50 States have State Constitutions which contain a Bill of Rights at the very beginning. Why is the Bill of Rights at the beginning? Because the purpose of government is to protect and maintain individual rights.

As I said before, in a democracy the minority loses. So, some see government as a means to keep the majority in check; to prevent the majority from voting on such things as "invalidating" same-sex marriages and thus violating their right to get married.

[freekangenwater]

If you seen the whole thing , you would know that prop 8 is going through....it will not be stopped because it doesnt take away the rights or benefits....prop 8 wins....just get use to it ....its been that way forever ....it was changed by a few judges and now we are changing it back to the way it was for hundreds of years.......get a grip......you lost this one

[jfsfrnd]

freekangenwater - can you answer this?

". . .but this court had said, as a matter of Constitutional interpretation, this is the law in California. If Californian's can't rely on the statements of this court about what the Constitution says--who should they ask?"

[Jacksonholenativ]

You're pretty simple minded about these issues and you obviously have a bigoted view about this.

[TheCyMan]

If the Court does NOT strike Prop 8 down as unconstitutional the dangerous precedent set will have serious implications for suspect class minorities and their Constitutional protections previously deemed inalienable being removed by a simple popular vote. Ken Starr has seriously embraced this possibility to attack many Civil Rights advances of other minority groups as part of the new Neo-Conservative agenda. The rights of all minorities and women are at stake here!

[isirina]

i love the last statement made. Damn Ken Starr!! Validating and recognizing is the SAME THING!!!

[traslaverdad1]

Fuck Kenn Starr up his ass.

[klark99]

oh THAT Ken Starr. I really hope that the court makes the right decision. Lets see what happens.

[wood9670]

Where can I find the whole court hearing?

[SpeedyBruin]

That...made Kenn Starr look foolish.

[mrlovespread2006]

was there ever a doubt that ken star was foolish? ;)