I live in oklahoma, we have no gay marriage, divorce rates of 70% and 4500 children in the OKC metro foster program right now. My cousin was put up for adoption by her birth mother she was a single mom, who never even wanted to see her baby. My gay aunt adopted her and raised her, she now has two kids and a husband in the army. Tell me exactly how it messes up a child.
Particular fetish? A fetish is an attraction to materials and objects not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature. Excuse me if I’m wrong but men are quite conventional and sexual.
How exactly does gay marriage affect your rights to determine anything? You don’t have to accept it, you don’t even have to perform them but because you dislike it you attempt to use the law to banish it. It already exists, we just want the legal protections that state sanction provide so that situations like this don’t happen over and over again. We’ve tried wills, we’ve tried contracts, and we still get screwed. We pay a shit load in taxes and we want something to show for it.

@Bkennedy “No minority is being stripped on any legitimate rights. ” how amazing that you can decide on what is legitimate, I suppose if the population strips you of your right to bear arms than it’s okay because obviously it wasn’t a legitimate right?

The right to bear arms is in the explicit text of The Constition. The right to marry whomever you deign appropriate is not. Try again.

The right to name one’s own family, the right to pass on property, the right to raise children. This is what Prop 8 is stropping and I find your caviler attitude towards majority oppression hilarious, since I’m sure should a majority decision overturn one of your rights you would be all over the tyranny of the majority.

Prop 8 does not even touch upon any of those rights. Want to write someone into your will to inherit your property, someone who just happens to be your sexual partner and of the same gender? You can do that.

Want to raise a child? Hey, nothing stops you from doing that either. If you mean gay adoption, then sorry, robbing a child of a mother or father to stroke your own ego and give yourself the status of “family” isn’t a proper reason to start a family.

Give it a rest, like all gay marriage supporters, you pretend to talk about rights and federalism, when really it is all about public acceptance of your particular fetish.

I live in Massachusetts. Our right to determine what the definition of marriage was overturned by a majority of four. It’s called judicial fiat, and the only reason you’re happy with it is it happens to agree with your policy preference. Federalist? Don’t blow smoke up my butt, sir.

The court has it’s authority for a reason, these same arguments were made over miscongenation. If the masses were expected to be able to govern themselves the founding fathers wouldn’t have put so many restrictions on their abilities. But the history of democracy shows that republics evolved because the masses COULD NOT govern themselves responsibly.

Zekecorlain on December 22, 2008 at 12:16 AM

Narcissists can marry anyone who’ll have them, it just has to be someone from the opposite sex.

Look the reason I am outraged is the basic premise that the proponents of Prop 8 can retroactively apply ANY law, a premise which is not only unconstitutional, but morally repugnant as well. Also the premise of majority control of rights was specifically addressed by Jefferson himself, as well as other Founders, and is unsupportable by any clear thinking federalist. No majority however strong should be capable of stripping any minority of rights simply on a whim. The basic foundations of the bill of rights was specifically written to counter that possible threat and for the manics to try and over throw that basic tenant is an affront to the Republic and the Constitution.

Zekecorlain on December 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM

No minority is being stripped on any legitimate rights. The right to marry anyone you want is not a right. Clearly the prohibition on incestuous marriages means that even if marriage is a right, it is not unlimited.

Furthermore, a true federalist would be more concerned with the power of four justices on a seven seat judiciary overriding the right of the people to govern not once, but twice in a row.

Declaring the amendment of a constitution unconstitutional is a logical paradox. It turns the judiciary into a Star Chamber like Canada’s. If I recall correctlty, it was the federalists who dispised the outcome of Marbury v. Madison.

So that means the people who voted for it are what…. chopped liver?

mindhacker on December 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM

And all the money that was spent. The libs can save a bit next time. Just let it pass and use our tax dollars to litigate it to death.

Not at all true. Churches would still retain the discretion to marry whomever they choose.

JetBoy on December 20, 2008 at 4:01 PM

At least until they got sued over it.

You know it will happen JetBoy, I mention it time and time again, but I also know you don’t care.

Religious bigotry is the last acceptable bigotry. No one who argues separation of church and state even bothers to fight actual state intrusions of churches, but will quickly fling into battle at even an imagined intrusion of church into state.

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.

Prop 8 doesn’t bring back the sodomy laws, therefore this argument is specious and should be tossed out immediately.

My Advice to gays is to enjoin in Domestic Partnerships and leave heterosexuals alone because, in using the words of some gay marriage supporters, “It’s only a word”.

The folks need to realize exactly how serious this is!
For a court to even hear this case puts ever State’s Constitution and the U.S. Constitution at risk. Will we see leftists suing to abolish the First and Second Amendments next?

ANY judge that would actually hear an unconstitutional case such as this should be impeached IMMEDIATELY as that judge would be in contempt of his oath of office to protect and defend that Constitution and would be in contempt of the Constitution itself.

Imagine the paradox the Courts would put themselves in because a suit, ruling that a Constitutional Amendment is in itself unconstitutional, would violate that very Constitution, which would in fact render the decision of the court unconstitutional rendering the court in itself unconstitutional, rendering the power of the court unconstitutional. A Paradox like going back in time and killing your father, before he had fathered you, rendering you unmade.
Also, this suit would set precedent for the other 49 states to sue California for endangering THEIR Constitutions.

For ANYONE in California to legally overturn Prop 8, which is now a valid part of the State’s Constitution, Prop 8 would have to be Constitutionally Amended, any other attempt to invalidate the Amendment would be illegal.

Marriage has evolved from the beginning, from being a simple property exchange to being arranged by families to including multiple wives etc.

Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 4:08 PM

ALWAYS between men AND women you moron. Dowries, polygamy, arranged marriges etc. All of these are aspects of a relationship between a MAN and a WOMAN. THAT part has ALWAYS been a constant.

…Besides, excluding women from male/male unions or guys from female/female unions would be, by your “logic”, discriminatory. Cannot say that about a marriage! We got 50% male and 50% female in every marriage!! Equality!! The femminazis should be happy about marriage – there is equity in it! It’s the homosexuals who should be sued for discrimination here!

Look, the gays want their lifestyle choice to be placed on the same level as a normal heterosexual lifestyle. What better way than to REDEFINE marriage. Throughout history that has not occurred and it never will. The hissy fit they are having in California proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt; trying to force acceptance.

And a for Jerry Brown, He should be fired for not doing his job.

Seems the Governator has muscles but no berries………

They are bigots. It seems strange to have this fight now. We just have to wait five year for the old bigots to die and gay marriage will have majority support anyway. I say let’s win this by a vote, not by the Supreme Court.

thuja on December 20, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Why even wait that long? Since “religious bigots” are behind this, perhaps the AG should go after these “religious bigots” for violating anti-descrimination laws already on the books and by revoking their tax-exempt status. If these “religious bigots” refuse to alter their “bigoted” beliefs to conform to the laws of the State, they should face the consequences, or leave the state. Mission accomplished.

Yes, this is California, and if you bothered to study legal history in this country you would realize that what happens here ALWAYS spreads across the country eventually. We stand and fight and sometimes lose, but when we lose, so do YOU.

We do not ask you to do much, but don’t spend your time maligning us for what we do. Many times there are more of us that share the conservative ideology, but have little to no access through the media and must rely on the more fundamental grassroots approach to political action. There is a lot of money spent trying to staunch the flow of the liberal agenda here. They spend even more. The schools, and I am a public school teacher so I know, teach liberalism as the default position on everything so the kids don’t have a chance. The media is wholly owned and operated by liberals. The state legislature is bought and paid for, and therefore run by the teachers union, which couldn’t be more liberal! In the face of all of this, we still fight the fight.

So, either help out by contributing to the Prop 8 legal fund, of offering pro bono legal support, or man a phone bank and help raise funds, or any other thing you can do, but please stop putting down those of us in California who are trying to stop this wave from washing over you.

Marriage has evolved from the beginning, from being a simple property exchange to being arranged by families to including multiple wives etc.

Noneya on December 20, 2008 at 4:08 PM

Weak. Very weak. Marriage is now magically evolving.

Just another way of saying, “It’s different now.”