Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Prop 8 decision: look at the evidence

In a court of law, evidence is presented by the plaintiffs and the defense. A judge or jury considers the evidence. A verdict or decision is rendered. In the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the plaintiffs went before Judge Vaughn Walker with the legal equivalent of the New York Yankees. The defense showed up with the Bad News Bears. The pro-Prop 8 defense single-handedly undermined just about every argument that has ever been used to justify denying gay men and lesbians entry into the institution of marriage. Thus, Walker handed down a sweeping victory for marriage equality.

There are folks out there who are a tad freaked out by just how sweeping Judge Walker is in his decision. Dale Carpenter at Volokh Conspiracy calls it “A Maximilist Decision” in which “[a] sweeping victory [could become] a sweeping defeat.” But I’m not going to get into any of that. First, because I addressed similar concerns last month. And second, because this debate will rage on until the case reaches the Supreme Court. So there’s time to come back to it. I want to focus for a moment on the case presented by the defense, the proponents of Prop 8.

During the course of the trial, I would see Tweets from Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend (“...always steamin’” is her rather accurate tagline) about how utterly inept the proponents of Prop 8 were. Judge Walker’s opinion obliterated their Swiss Cheese-like arguments. Sometimes using their own past statements to do it. As we know, the Perry of Perry v. Schwarzenegger had Ted Olson and David Boies on her side. And the legal odd couple came loaded for bear. Most of the witnesses for the Prop 8 proponents bailed when there was a possibility that the trial would be televised. It wasn’t -- and they still didn’t show up.

Except two did. David Blankenhorn, “an expert on marriage, fatherhood and family structure,” and Kenneth P. Miller, “an expert in American and California politics.” Blankenhorn (turn to page 38) is from the school that says same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage and is bad for children. But...

Blankenhorn agreed that children raised by same-sex couples would benefit if their parents were permitted to marry. Tr 2803:6-15. Blankenhorn also testified he wrote and agrees with the statement “I believe that today the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before.”

Miller was supposed to play up the notion that gays and lesbians were not an oppressed minority but a powerful bloc with money and access to lawmakers. Unfortunately for him, Judge Walker found that Miller’s assertions in his courtroom didn’t jibe with things he’d written.

Specifically, Miller previously wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process,... contradicting his trial testimony that gays and lesbians are not politically vulnerable with respect to the initiative process. Miller admitted that at least some voters supported Proposition 8 based on anti-gay sentiment.

Look. I’m happy with the outcome of the case and with Judge Walker’s ruling. The consequences of it will make themselves known soon enough. But if I were the conservatives I would troop back into court -- and sue the pro-Prop 8 attorneys for malpractice.

By Jonathan Capehart  | August 5, 2010; 1:43 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: U.S. terrorism arrests an ominous sign
Next: A final warning to WikiLeaks?

Comments

When you don't have a valid argument you can't win in court.

Posted by: rlj1 | August 5, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

As a gay man living with a partner for 12 years I say with joy - What a great day it is today! In the end, tradition and the moral beliefs of one group are not enough a compelling enough reason to deny another group their civil rights.
Read this beautiful article written by TV host Rene Syler where she compares it with the struggles of her black community. http://www.goodenoughmother.com/2010/08/proposition-8-good-enough-mothers-take/

Posted by: Roggiep | August 5, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

A valid argument that fell on deliberately deaf ears-Judge Walker is Gay. This is like appointing a child molester as Judge in a child molestation trial-of course he is going to rule in accordance to his preverse "opinions". Since when does a Judge's opinion trump the rights of a people that have twice voted as a majority to not allow liberals and gays the right to cram their way of life down America's collective throat!

Posted by: bingham22 | August 5, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute...so the verdict was biased because the judge was gay? Can't I say the same thing if the judge was straight? "The judge was straight so OBVIOUSLY he's going to support the Prop 8 side.?"

So I guess if a judge is Italian, we shouldn't let him rule on anything where Italians are involved. Or if he's married, he shouldn't rule on anything where married people are involved...or if he's a SHE, where women are involved, or if a Christian where Christians are involved...or MAYBE, just maybe, if the judge is HUMAN, he shouldn't rule on anything where humans are involved.

Maybe the "argument" fell on deaf ears because it ISN'T valid. It's absurd, pointless and offensive.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: abthesp | August 5, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I just saw Mr. Capehart on the Dylan Ratigan show. Mr. Capehart you need to brush up on the facts before going on teh air to argue a point. First, the Prop. 8 case is not the first time a federal judge has weighed in on the constitutionality of denying gay and lesbians the right to marry. In Massachussets a federal judge ruled a couple of months ago that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment. There are also two cases also in California federal courts regarding partnership benefits that have been ruled on. Second, same gender marriage is not limited to six states in the US, it is spreading across the world and when the other guy said it is unprecedented, he was wrong and you failed to speak up.

Posted by: attyrose3 | August 5, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

bingham22 - I'm not going to let you get away with such a blatanly false and hateful statement.

Equating gays with any kind of criminal activity is like equating bigots such as yourself with decent, fair minded human beings. It just doesn't work!

Posted by: Rounds77 | August 5, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

@bingham22
by your logic the constitution is good only when it suits your viewpoint. equal protection under law means just that. i suppose you are against civil rights and interracial marriage, both were legislated, both shared strong public support, both overturned due to it being unconstitutional. you wrap yourself in the constitution but only apply it, as i said above, when it suits your viewpoint. the constitution is for every american, not just those that agree with you. you can't legislate morality, which is exactly what you're trying to do...

Posted by: ttanner509 | August 5, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"As a gay man living with a partner for 12 years I say with joy - What a great day it is today!"

Sort of. Do celebrate. But the really great day will be when something like Prop 8 hasn't a snowball's chance in He11 of getting a majority vote.

Posted by: fzdybel | August 5, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

What the "majority" wants does not matter if their wishes cause the deprivation of constitutional rights. What horrible crimes have been committed in the name of the "majority!" Didn't any of these wingers ever take a civics class in middle school?

Posted by: socaloralpleazer | August 5, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

More than likely the poor performance by defense counsel had more to do with the absence of sound logic and reasons in support of their position. There is no rational basis for denying access to a legal status on the basis of gender, and the defense had no rational arguments to make.

Posted by: daubry | August 5, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Rounds77;all,

"Rounds", EVERY major religion (Buddhist, Christian, Confucionist, Hindu, Islam, Jewish, Shinto, etc.) on this planet says that homosexuality is condemned as wrong, a sin, forbidden, anathema, etc. - NONE of The Scriptures/sacred works condone what your "life-style" accepts.

are all of those religions are completely WRONG
and
the 2-5% of people (who are "gay") are the only people, who are CORRECT in their beliefs?

IF that is what you & your "subculture" ARE saying then you are at the very pinnacle of ARROGANCE & frankly i question both your FACTS & your SANITY!
(also, i wouldn't count on the rest of the people on Earth accepting your "life-style" as the ONLY correct one OR even an ACCEPTABLE choice, either.)

frankly, i couldn't care LESS what you/anyone does in the privacy of their own bedroom but don't (PLEASE) be too arrogant/DUMB/SELF-important to admit that you MIGHT just be "in error" and/or DEAD WRONG, in what is NOTHING but secular-humanist, unfounded, personal OPINION.

furthermore, do NOT expect the rest of human society to "kow-tow to" what is NOTHING but YOUR OPINION of what is correct/acceptable/normal/decent behavior; expect, at MOST, everyione else to TOLERATE what their respective religions say is WRONG/SINFUL/etc.

finally, a little personal HUMILITY is a GOOD THING!= i suggest that you go aquire some of that excellent human quality.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 5, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

TN46,

Apparently you are completely oblivious to the number of times religious institutions have been wrong or performed evil in the name of good...talk about arrogance.

Also, you really need to do your research about the major religions because your sweeping generalizations don't hold water.

And finally, one of the amazing things about this country is the freedom of religion, to choose what you believe or what you DON'T believe. I don't have to live by your religious rules and you don't have to live by mine. So if you want to believe being gay is a sin, great, knock yourself out. And if I don't want to believe in your god or your rules or what you think is moral, I don't have to.

We just have to live by the law which is supposed to treat us all EQUALLY.

Isn't this country great?

Posted by: abthesp | August 5, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Whatever the cover, gay marriage opponents all operate on one, and only one, fundamental principle: They think gayness is gross.

To elaborate: When Bible-bangers call gay marriage “wrong,” they really mean “gross.” When they call it “unnatural,” they really mean “gross.” When they refer to God’s condemnation of homosexuality (their interpretation), they are saying “God says it is gross,” which really means “we think it’s gross.”

And this is the crux of their opposition. That's all there is! How this ruling is surprising to anyone with half a mind is beyond me.

Posted by: DunceCapQuarterly | August 5, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

When I saw 8:THE MORMON PROPOSITION, I, as one raised LDS, educated at BYU, and married in the Salt Lake Temple, agreed with the information presented as consistent with my own impressions and experiences. I have never been able to understand why the Mormons felt their beliefs in Celestial marriage (polygyny) would be threatened by the same-sex marriages of homosexual, non-LDS people.
I was taught in Sunday school (LDS) that if I were the kind of Mormon woman who would get to the Highest Degree of Glory, the Celestial Kingdom, after I died, then I would just BE the kind of woman who would BE a polygamist wife; I would just BE the kind of woman who would enjoy being pregnant for eternity to "populate worlds" and become one of, perhaps even 100 wives, of one man who would himself be a god.
I am delighted and thrilled that Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional in California. I don't see how legalizing same-sex marriage makes any difference at all to Mormons who believe that after earthly death a worthy LDS man may marry as many worthy LDS women as he likes (more than, say, the 72 virgins promised in Islam, and the LDS wives aren't necessarily virgins either).
The Celestial promise of scores of wives and being a god shouldn't be affected by civil unions between people whom the Mormons believe to be unworthy to enter the Highest Kingdom of Heaven anyway.
Thanks, Judge Walker.

Posted by: kekiwahinepRN | August 5, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

@ texasnative46 -

Perhaps I'm ewrong, and you actually have some grasp regarding the beliefs of the major religions...but I doubt you can tell Shiva from Shinola.

FYI, the Buddha - while asking his disciples to renounce sensual pleasure - said nothing specific about homosexuality. Pre-Raj Hinduism did not de facto condemn homosexuality - in fact, there were gay temple sex workers, and gender variant folks performed sacred rituals. Reform Jews - America's largest Jewish group - celebrate same-sex marriage and hailed the anti-8 decision. Confucius did not condemn homosexuality. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, either, and until the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was largely tolerant of homosexuality.

But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good argument, right, bubba?

Posted by: mishi69 | August 5, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

mishi69; abthesp,

IF you can (and you cannot TRUTHFULLY do so, as the positions that you advanced are either HALF-truths or total FICTIONS) PROVE that your FOOLISH, SILLY notions, from actual/prime/unbiased sources, are ANYTHING but meaningless blather, wishful thinking & ignorant/personal opinions.

alternatively, you could just be honest & simply tell everyone here that you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT".

fwiw, i took two courses at above the 500 level in "comparative religions" (thus i am NOT an expert) in my grad school days & what you said, based on my classes, was simply: bilge.

to "abthesp": did i not make it plain that i couldn't care less what anyone does/does not do in the privacy of their bedroom
BUT
that asking everyone/society to accept what homosexuals do/don't do is UNreasonable & unlikely? = the MAJORITY will NEVER do any more than TOLERATE the acts of "gays", as they are (rightly in my opinion) considered UN-natural & perverse.

to all: the courts cannot have it both ways. = we currently have TWO completely different & opposing federal court decisions on "gay unions".
in MA a federal district judge declared that the FEDERAL government could NOT approve/outlaw "gay marriage", as it was a STATE obligation.
otoh, in the CA case, another federal district judge decided that FEDERAL laws trump STATE laws.
both decisions CANNOT be correct under law; one will stand & the other fall.

imVho, the SCOTUS will decide the case by a 5-4 decision & against "gay marriage", as "marriage" has ALWAYS been a state issue & i cannot believe that the majority of the SCOTUS will change that status at law.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 5, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

texasnative46

-Again you fail to see the real point it does not matter how many religions disaprove of gay marriage because we do not make laws based on religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". "The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era."

Since there is no state religion and I do not belong to yours why should your religious rules apply to me. Marriage is a Legal construct that give committed couples rights and responsibility under state and federal law. if your church does not want to officiate gay weddings the same clause protects them from being forced to do so. why the hell do you care if a gay couple want to find a justice of the peace and get hitched in the privacy of a hotel ballroom full of those that love and support them. if you don't approve don't go because it has no effect on you at all.

Posted by: srl51676 | August 6, 2010 2:09 AM | Report abuse

texasnative46

-Again you fail to see the real point it does not matter how many religions disaprove of gay marriage because we do not make laws based on religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". "The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era."

Since there is no state religion and I do not belong to yours why should your religious rules apply to me. Marriage is a Legal construct that give committed couples rights and responsibility under state and federal law. if your church does not want to officiate gay weddings the same clause protects them from being forced to do so. why the hell do you care if a gay couple want to find a justice of the peace and get hitched in the privacy of a hotel ballroom full of those that love and support them. if you don't approve don't go because it has no effect on you at all.

Posted by: srl51676 | August 6, 2010 2:09 AM | Report abuse

This was why it was such a great thing to have a full court trial on the issue; it made the total lack of evidence for the anti-equality position glaringly obvious.

Before the case started, Prop 8 supporters knew that Judge Walker was gay and stated that it did not matter to them, they were sure he could be objective--because they knew he was appointed by George H.W. Bush and they considered him conservative. They did not object to a trial presenting evidence and expert testimony, because they thought they were right.

If Judge Walker being gay, and the trial being an examination of the rational basis for the law, were legitimate objections, they should have been made before the trial ever started. Raising those objections now is just an attempt to evade admitting the facts: there IS no rational basis for denying equal rights to same-sex marriages; you tried to prove one and you couldn't.

Posted by: AnitraWeb | August 6, 2010 4:18 AM | Report abuse

For those who cite scripture to flesh out their social views, you do realize that scripture has no standing in a court of law. Yes? Not in America, where rule of law trumps mob democracy, where no imam, priest, minister or witch doctor runs the country. The theocracy you long for can only be found in Islamic states. Perhaps you would be happier living in one?

Posted by: calendo | August 6, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

to sr151676; calendo; all,

"sr151676" & "calendo": off-topic, SILLY, fact-FREE, fictitious, brain-LESS & ignorant comments, posted on WP/PP (especially TWICE), do not magically become true.
thus, your comments are fully considered & discounted to their actual value: NIL, ZILCH, NADA, NOTHING.

the TRUTH is that the US Constitution is BASED UPON Judeo-Christian values & your IGNORANT OPINIONS does not/will not change that REALITY.
also, pardon me, but those who do NOT know that FACT are exposing their DUMBed-down "modurn fedral gumbmint apruvd edumakashun".
(it's NOT really the student's fault that they KNOW so little, as they weren't taught the facts of American history. "public education", today, is more concerned with making students "feel good" & "form proper liberal social attitudes" than it is with teaching them uncomfortable TRUTH.)

to all: MOST students, who come to our college, know almost NOTHING about their government because "civics" is generally NOT taught today in high school. - those here who doubt, what i've said about the Constitution, should go find/study THE FEDERALIST PAPERS & the 13 State's commentaries upon the writing/ratification of the Constitution.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP


Posted by: texasnative46 | August 6, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Dear Texasnative46:

May I suggest to you that when same-sex marriage becomes legal in all states, you avoid marrying a person of the same gender.Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for 6 years now and we haven't been destroyed by meteors, or lightning strikes. We love the Lord and He loves us. To quote the Reverend Troy Perry, from his book: "The Lord Is My Shepard, And He Knows I'm Gay."
Proposition 8 should have never been allowed to be placed on the ballot in the first place. Hopefully a Proposition that discriminates against minorities will never again be tolerated.

Posted by: bobaloo1 | August 6, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

bobaloo1,

can you give us even ONE legitimate reason that the citizens of CA should not be allowed to vote their conscience? OR, for that matter WHY Americans should CARE what a Canadian thinks/feels/wants?
NO? - i thought not.

unlike Canada, we Americans have a written Constitution & a Bill of Rights, which allows our citizens the FREEDOM to do a variety of things that Canada does NOT allow. - imVho, that is ONE of our strengths, as a Constitutional republic.

just my opinions.

yours, TN46
coordinator, CCTPP

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 6, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

bobaloo1,

btw, the chances of "same sex marriage" (fyi, that term is an oxymoron) becoming lawful in all the 50 states is about as likely as bank robbery becoming lawful in the USA.

hear me now & remember it later: the SCOTUS will NOT overthrow 200+ years of legal precedent, when "same sex marriage" is heard by the Supreme Court. - it will (likely) be a 5-4 decision to maintain the staus-quo and to uphold the lawful rights of citizens to decide such issues in their own STATES.
(marriage laws have not been, are NOT & will NOT become a federal responsibility.)

furthermore, i believe the SCOTUS will uphold the rights of individual states to VOID "marriages" of persons who "marry" in states where "same sex marriages" are legal. - about 1/3 of states have such provisions in their laws or state constitutions.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 6, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

TN46:

It's strange that you compare same-sex marriage to bank robbery. That seems to be the method used by those on the right of this issue: Always compare homosexuality with something terrible, such as murder, rape, child molestation, and sex with animals. In that way you strike fear in the hearts of those who don't know better. Of course this method was used to pass Proposition 8, however when the "Experts" for the proponents gave evidence in court, their words were hollow, shallow, and had no merit. This is why Judge Walker ruled the way he did, there was no valid argument why gay and lesbian people shouldn't marry.
Now hear me and remember later, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage, because the facts support it, and it's the right thing to do.

Posted by: bobaloo1 | August 6, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

bobaloo1,

NOTHING strange about it = BOTH "bank robbery & "same sex marriage" are UNLAWFUL in well over 90% of America & a considerable MAJORITY of voters consider BOTH to be "destructive of society".
(btw, do you KNOW how many places that "same sex marriage" has been legalized by VOTERS? = what the LEFT cannot/WLL NOT ever get by vote in the USA is achieved by the judicial fiat of LIBERAL/LEFTIST judges, until such time as we "regular citizens" FIX that "problem" by Constitutional Amendment!)

fyi, the MAIN REASON that Proposition 8 passed (even in the "more liberal areas" of CA) was that the proposition was SUPPORTED BY well over 75% of CA Latinos and African-Americans & about 60% of other "church-going folks".= "exit polling" indicated that OBAMA VOTERS voted YES on Prop-8 by a 2-1 margin.
(being a Canadian, you have no reason to know that Black & Latino culture in the USA is generally VERY hostile to homosexual BEHAVIOR & even MORE hostile to the idea of legaling "same sex marriage".)

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 6, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

bobaloo1,

NOTHING strange about it = BOTH "bank robbery & "same sex marriage" are UNLAWFUL in well over 90% of America & a considerable MAJORITY of voters consider BOTH to be "destructive of society".
(btw, do you KNOW how many places that "same sex marriage" has been legalized by VOTERS? = what the LEFT cannot/WLL NOT ever get by vote in the USA is achieved by the judicial fiat of LIBERAL/LEFTIST judges, until such time as we "regular citizens" FIX that "problem" by Constitutional Amendment!)

fyi, the MAIN REASON that Proposition 8 passed (even in the "more liberal areas" of CA) was that the proposition was SUPPORTED BY well over 75% of CA Latinos and African-Americans & about 60% of other "church-going folks".= "exit polling" indicated that OBAMA VOTERS voted YES on Prop-8 by a 2-1 margin.
(being a Canadian, you have no reason to know that Black & Latino culture in the USA is generally VERY hostile to homosexual BEHAVIOR & even MORE hostile to the idea of legaling "same sex marriage".)

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 6, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

bobaloo1,

the MAIN reason that Judge Walker decided as he did in "Perry" is because he, himself, is an open homosexual (even the CA "gay press" commentators admitted that yesterday.)
AND
Walker is smart enough to KNOW that Proposition 8 would be PERMANENT in CA, if he did NOT overturn it by court decision.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 6, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Congrats Capehart. The goober gobblers won a round.

Posted by: mgrantham2 | August 6, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

mgrantham2,

so, since you don't have any FACTS and evidently FEW brains OR even a HALF-intelligent opinion,
you decided to say something extremely IGNORANT & that would make you look like a brain-DEAD FOOL?

have we all got that correct?

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 6, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

excuse me but, I have read the constitution and read the Federalist papers.I have never read in all these documents one word about how we should be vigilant that same sex marriage should be protected. Likewise, speaking of Bias we once had a federal judge who opposed the death penalty. So every imate would appeal their case to him and he would throw it out. Sound familiar.

Posted by: tglasgow | August 6, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

tglasglow,

despite the assertion that you've actually read THE FEDERALIST PAPERS & THE CONSTITUTION (i salute you for being ABLE to read them.), i don't think that ANYONE here said that The Constitution or the Federalist Papers were ABOUT "gay marriage".

the REASON that i brought them up is to point out that:
1. the writers of the Constitution intended that the USA would be based UPON Judeo-Christian principles & the Bible.
2. that the founders of this Constitutional republic had NO intent to make "kings & queens " of any judge.
3.that the current activist judges are PERVERTING The Constitution & the BoR by overturning the WILL of the MAJORITY of ANY state/group of states on matters (like marriage), where the federal government has NO obvious business having ANY position or role. = in point of fact, the 10th Amendment FORBIDS any such intrusion into the affairs of the several States, UNLESS the States have clearly CEDED those powers to the federal govewrnment.
(NO STATE has ceded those RIGHTS/POWERS, thus what Judge Walker decided was ON ITS FACE, a clear VIOLATION of the 10th Amendment.)

so you see, the Constitution & particuliarly the 10th Amendment HAS relevance to this "same sex marriage" issue. - the 10th CLEARLY forbids the federal courts from even HEARING such suits at law, much less disallowing what the majority of voters of CA decided.

yours, TN46

Posted by: texasnative46 | August 6, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

A judge’s ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 may be a victory for gay marriage, but at what cost? I submit that it is at the cost of some who support same-sex couples having “… the same rights and privileges enjoyed by their opposite sex counterparts,” but who do not support the use of the word marriage to describe such relationships. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman, and to redefine it to include same-sex couples denies that both homosexual as well as heterosexual couples exist and have achieved, not been relegated to, equal status under the law. Such denial is inconsistent with attempts by gay men and lesbians to move openly in other venues of society, such as serving openly in the military. So, choose another word, come up with a new word, but leave the word marriage alone. Words do matter.

Posted by: adb3 | August 9, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I and my same sex partner care not a whit about the constraints which religions place upon marriages occuring at their altars.For all I care, they can require that brides and grooms dance naked around the altar 14 times. But when they show up at my Courthouse and try to impose their little dance on me,I'll kick their asses while I chant the 14th amendment.

Posted by: wp121606 | August 11, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company