skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Analysis: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Evening Edition

Above: Mattheus Stephens, a civil trial lawyer who has more than a dozen years experience in LGBT law, and Charles LiMandri, general counsel for National Organization for Marriage, speak with Joanne Faryon about Proposition 8.

Aired 2/7/12 on KPBS Midday Edition.

Guests

Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo are two of the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial.

Mattheus Stephens is a civil trial lawyer who has more than a dozen years experience in LGBT law, he is a lecturer in Constitutional Law at UC San Diego

Charles LiMandri, was general counsel for National Organization for Marriage, his law office is in Rancho Santa Fe.

Transcript

A federal appeals court has declared California's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional, paving the way for a likely U.S. Supreme Court showdown on the voter-approved law.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 Tuesday that a lower court judge interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly in 2010 when he declared the ban, known as Proposition 8, to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, two of the four plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 trial, spoke to KPBS-FM's Midday Edition about the ruling.

"At the end of the day, we not only feel like we’re on the right side of the law, we feel like we’re on the right side of history," Zarrillo said.

Mattheus Stephens, a civil trial lawyer who has more than a dozen years experience in LGBT law, and Charles LiMandri, general counsel for National Organization for Marriage, were also on the show and spoke with KPBS Television's Evening Edition.

Stephens said the 9th Circuit found there is no legal purpose for the law enacted by Proposition 8.

"The only thing that it does is rob a specific group of people of their human dignity," he said. "The language of marriage must be equally applied to all Californians."

But LiMandri said marriage has a purpose—producing children—and allowing gay marriage interferes with that purpose.

"Obviously there’s a rational basis for marriage, because it’s intended to bring the two halves of humanity, men and women, together to produce the next generation," he said. "Heterosexual couples can do that, whereas our brothers and sisters in the gay community, although entitled to all the respect and dignity that we can give them, there are differences. Two people of the same sex cannot have a conjugal union that produces a human being."

Stephens responded that the court addressed this argument and found that nothing about Proposition 8 "lends itself to achieving that objective."

"Proposition 8 does nothing to enhance procreation among anybody," he said.

LiMandri said he was disappointed, but not surprised, by the court's decision.

"Everybody knows the 9th Circuit is the most liberal and most reversed court probably in the history of the United States," LiMandri said.

LiMandri said he expects an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will bring a reversal, and marriage will be left up to the states.

The California Supreme Court ruled in November that the state's vigorous citizens' initiative process grants official proponents of ballot measures the right to defend their measures in court if state officials refuse to do so.

Former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker disclosed he was gay and had a partner of 10 years after he retired from the bench last year. Proposition 8 backers have argued that Walker's relationship posed a potential conflict of interest and that he should have revealed it before he declared the measure unconstitutional in August 2010.

It was the first instance of an American jurist's sexual orientation being cited as grounds for overturning a court decision. Walker's successor as the chief federal judge in Northern California, James Ware, rejected claims that Walker was unqualified to preside over the 13-day trial. The 9th Circuit held a hearing on that question in December.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

The ballot measure inserted the one man-one woman provision into the state Constitution, thereby overruling the court's decision. It was the first such ban to take away marriage rights from same-sex couples after they had already secured them.

The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the four-month window before Proposition 8 took effect. The California Supreme Court upheld those marriages but ruled that voters had properly enacted the law.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 7, 2012 at 1:14 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

*Attorney Charles LiMandri, the west coast director of the Thomas Moore Law Center, told KPBS that the track record of the 9th Circuit meant its pro-Proposition 8 decision was to be expected.*

And what is your track record, Mr. LiMandri?

One of profiting from homophobia.

Anytime a high-profile issue regarding gay rights surfaces in this county, you are there like a parasitic ambulance chasing fiend to swoop in and embed yourself in it.

You thought that firemen who had to ride in a gay pride parade deserved to be millionaires, you defend your bigot friends like Papa Manchester, and you wrap yourself in your Catholic religion, valuing draconian and outdated church doctrine over equal rights and civil liberties.

I find it hilarious that someone as biased and set in their Neanderthal ways as you is now slamming the 9th circuit for having a predictable "track record".

No "track record" is more reliable and consistent, sir, than your own in defending hate and bigotry.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'TheKindGardenersCollective'

TheKindGardenersCollective | February 7, 2012 at 1:44 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Well written, Peking! It's up to you and me to support social & political decisions that create a better future for our world.

I would add that it is our civic duty to promote fairness and freedom for our citizens. Allowing marriage among gays or lesbians actually promotes 'Family Values' by creating more-stable family units which most closely resemble the 'traditional' model (TwoParents+2.2kids).

The fact is, in families with gay or lesbian parents, the fact of an extra penis or vagina seems NOT to affect the kids at all. Really now, what kid wants to know details of their parents' sexuality!

The fact that a married partner is unable to procreate should have NO bearing on marriage. I've got a vasectomy, my wife's in menopause, so no 'children production' for us... should that invalidate OUR marriage?

Politics based on 'Religious Dogma', no matter if it is Christian, Muslim or Jewish, is NOT good policy. Please don't preach your "shellfish abomination" or any other "abominations", thank you.

Our 'Proud American Heritage' includes some awful history: Slavery, Native Americans mistreatment, Immigrant bigotry, more recently, Guantanamo. Religious bigots, you can let the grip on your fears loosen a bit... The gays won't hurt you & your marriage: you are safe, and your children are safe.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 7, 2012 at 1:46 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Disgusting how children are manipulated in some instances, sexualized beyond their ages in others, expooited by family members and/or purposely confused with complex issues beyond their intellecutal understanding or capacity.

It reminds me of the Hamas children with firearms in their hands, the rabbi in Horton Plaza leading a group of young children (who wouldn't even be able to find the USSR on a map) with signs about Soviet Jewry back in the late 1980s.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 7, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

@UNKINDGARDNER,

"The gays won't hurt you & your marriage: you are safe, and your children are safe."

Gianni Versace begs to differ.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 7, 2012 at 5:34 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Mission, what in the world does an Andrew Cunanan reference imply?

There are plenty of straight serial killers, should we assume based on that that straight people are all a danger to society?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 7, 2012 at 6:40 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

My goodness Mr. LiMandri is a relic of the Dark Ages.

I am listening to his rationale on KPBS evening edition as I type, and am floored.

His entire argument is based on procreation.

I am waiting for him to evoke floggings or declare the world is flat.

This guy is a fossil.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 7, 2012 at 6:57 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

INT. HOUSE.
NERD: Mom, I'm getting married.
NERD'S MOM: Who's the girl?
NERD: It's not a girl. (uncomfortable pause) It's bacon.
Int. Next day. Church.
MINISTER: You may now eat the bride.
-- SB Jack commercial (lol)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 7, 2012 at 6:59 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Duck, I was responding to Unkindgardner's dumb comment.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Oceanside'

Oceanside | February 7, 2012 at 9:35 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Missiongasbag, your spam like comments on this board are getting old.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 8, 2012 at 8:42 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Can't take the social satire, can you? Kudos to Jack-in-the-Box!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 8, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Mr. Stephens talks of dignity? Does he mean like the "dignity" expressed by certain eccentricand self-debasing participants at garish Pride parades?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 8, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Again, mission, I am disappointed that you are cherry picking extreme examples and trying to extrapolate them to the gay community, satirical or not.

Using your logic of Cunanan and "garish" gay pride parades, I Guess I can refer to Ted Bundy and Gasslamp Mardi Gras where "garish" straights exposé their genitalia for beeds as they slurp own vodka and conclude straight people are unfit for decent civil society and should be kept away from marriage and kids.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 8, 2012 at 1:12 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

It makes me cringe when folks in rural areas of the country and the Midwest say things like, "Keep your big city values away from my children!"

Fine. Let "big city" folks keep their taxdollars, too. You know which tax dollars I'm talking about. The ones which keep your impoverished county's schools and hospitals open. Why do we allow the tail to wag the dog on so many issues affecting broader and more civilized society.

P.S.: If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, make divorce illegal.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 8, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

DeLaRick, well said.

One thing that used to always bug me is when Bush was in office and Republicans controlled Congress, we had the mainly red state hawks like Cheney owning 9-11 and making foreign policy based on what was popular in the rogue fly-overs despite the fact that the city directly hit with the most damage was NEW YORK CITY.

We saw this again with the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero.

Most New Yorkers were fine with it, but radical zealots from backwoods evangelical belts took up the issue and once again New York's future was being dictated by rural bigots.

Gun laws are another example. One size does NOT fit all, and it might make more sense for the city of Chicago to have firearm restrictions that rural Oklahoma would not need, yet the radical NRA fueled gun crazies fight tooth and nail any ordinance designed for a pecific region.

Most of what makes our country great is in "blue" states on the two coasts - our largest financial institutional headquarters, our largest ports, our most popular tourist attractions, our most prestigious universities, our most iconic skylines, our most recognizable symbols, our best museums, our entertainment industry, our busiest transportation hubs, and the list goes on. I have to laugh when tea party types say Texas should succeed or the red states should form their own country - I'm down, where do I sign! :)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'hopeheadsd'

hopeheadsd | February 9, 2012 at 8:37 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

These comments are pretty interesting. I think at least over the course of my lifetime, that this is an issue which has national spotlight and rightfully so.

Regardless if one is from Texas, New York or Idaho, we have the ability to express ourselves here in this country. I dont condone of name calling for the sake of 'right' and cherrpick administrations or location. That in of itself is a cheap cop out to further a position.

Marriage is not a 'natural' human feeling or compulsion its a choice dictated by a quasi form of social norms or tradition.

This whole issue applies towards a universal acceptance and recognition of a union between two people (sex being irrelevant). However it has also been partially dictated in history as one of spiritual or religious sanctity. Now it has become a game of political rhetoric and 'right'.

There is truly a fine line between creating national laws to help dictate safety and well being vs fair and balanced social policies.
If marriage were not to be recognized in CA regardless of sex type, I for one as a married man would feel quite comfortable with that decision. Because "choosing' marriage is a commitment two people choose and respect regardless of title. Civil union laws certainly seem to clear up many of the logistical aspects.

If its simply for the title of being married just because one 'feels' its a right, then we are absolutely at a low point in how we view public policy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'hopeheadsd'

hopeheadsd | February 9, 2012 at 8:56 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Peking_Duck,

You make great points about the position you are taking. I agree with some of them because they are true observations. WIth all the pros come cons though.

Dont forget, for all that the blue states have, the red states have their own strengths.
- Farms
- Oil
- Percentage wise, most of the kids that are actually going INTO the military are from red states. These are folks that defending this country so that Blue and Red states can have the freedom to have the say they want.
- Manufacturing

I see the value in the above being just as relevant as your perception of how important blue states are.
Being liberal minded is ok, but at times can be just as narrow and bigoted as those on the other side because neither understand each other.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | February 9, 2012 at 1:19 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

So we live in a RELATIVELY democratic system of government?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'hopeheadsd'

hopeheadsd | February 9, 2012 at 3:06 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

DeLaRick,

Of course we live in a Relatively democratic system of Govt. It comes down to how you view policy should be implemented. That is the issue. Otherwise there would be no state law or any elected official trying to get laws enacted.

Make divorce illegal or make marriage illegal and leave it as a ceremonious/religious event based on tradition. Marriage should NOT be public policy if civil unions have proven to establish a pretty fair parallel.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 9, 2012 at 6:29 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Duck, I haven't heard any of that in any local media. Don't you think SDPD would arrest them for indecent exposure? If you even so much as urinate behind a bush, that's indecent exposure even though there is nothing sexual involved! But you know, I was just reading a review today of 1980's controversial CRUISING, on Amazon.com, and one of the reviewers referred to the screaming extravaganzas on Folsum Street in San Fran--saying how the film pales to what you can see there in public.

@De la Rick, since when is any town in Idaho a small city? They approved same-sex marriage already.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'HarryStreet'

HarryStreet | February 10, 2012 at 9:34 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

50% of marriages between man and woman end in divorce, so to claim we believe this a sacred union that should not include same-sex marriages is nonsense.

Marriage is about love between two people. The church and advocates against same-sex relations can spin it however they choose. That's the benefit of living in a free world.

Our constitution clearly states separation between church and state for a reason. The church is not run by God, but by people on Earth. Specifically, men. Men who are unelected by the people and enforcing their own versions and beliefs of the religion on us.

Let people get married who choose to be and move on. We've better things to do.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 10, 2012 at 10:09 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Mission, come on. You think just because you don't hear about something in the local media, it doesn't happen? People expose their genitals for beeds during Mardi Gras in the Gasslamp, I saw it, and it wasn't isolated it was prevalent.

I have been to the Gasslamp during Mardi Gras and Hillcrest during gay pride and can tell you they re both equally as sexually charged.

At both you have a minority of mostly younger people wearing skimpy outfits, drinking in the streets, and being sexually explicit.

At both of them you also have a majority of more low-key individuals just enjoying the event.

Since heterosexual sexuality is in our face everywhere - movies, tv, billboards, advertisements,etc., etc., people are desensitized to it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'mccolgan55'

mccolgan55 | February 10, 2012 at 1:51 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

My biggest concern about legalizing same sex marriage or polygamous marriage or any of the other non-traditional marriages is that marriage has for the most part been a religious ceremony for much of the last few hundred years. Prior to that it was a property/chattel institution but it developed into a religious based ceremony. By legalizing any non man/woman unions as marriage I anticipate that like the abortion situation it will develop into a MUST do situation as the pro-abortionists are trying now and all clergy would be required to perform a ceremony or be sued. I most firmly believe that my right to religious freedom is being continually reduced and ridiculed.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 10, 2012 at 1:57 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Your closing statement is absolutely true. But I would extend that to sexuality in general, at least here in the US and other countries where the US "pop culture" is absorbed.

Maybe I should go hang out at the next Mardi Gras if it isn't too cold! lol But seriously, consider the comments I read about Folsom Street in San Fran--do you think it is no worse than San Diego or that it is simply a "young minority"? A few drinks any a lot of things can happen, right?

They are both examples of stupid, crass behavior, but one of my chief complaints is when gay militants claim "it's not about sex." They couldn't be more insincere.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 10, 2012 at 3 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

The Duck says "Most New Yorkers were fine with it, but radical zealots from backwoods evangelical belts took up the issue and once again New York's future was being dictated by rural bigots."

I wasn't aware that Orthodox rabbis (i.e., the unstable Yahuda Levin) were from "backwoods evangelical belts."

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 10, 2012 at 4:19 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Mission, it's really specific on the individual. Some people do look at gay pride as being all about sex, and they indulge in the sexual behavior, no doubt. But others look at it as a celebration of acceptance, tolerance and a fun event to go to where by don't engage in ny type of sexual behavior at all. The media likes to focus on the half naked trannie gyrating to techno music on a float decorated with condoms, but they seem to ignore other floats from local business owners that have nothing to do with sex.

But none of this is justification to prevent a minority of law-abiding individuals from having the same rights in terms of marriage.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 10, 2012 at 4:39 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Mccoolgan, several points in your comment are troubling.

First, Marriage is well beyond a religious ceremony. It is in fact, a **government issued license** that is tied to a bundle of government rights and benefits from taxes to decisions when someone is incapacitated.

It is so blatantly unconstitutional to deny law-abiding citizens these rights that I even think our right-leaning supreme court would uphold this decision as not doing so could have pretty dangerous implications for our nation.

And as far as tying polygamy or anything else to it, that is a cop-out argument.

Obviously a line has to drawn somewhere. Maybe the line should be drawn with not letting anyone who has ever been divorced marry. Maybe the line should be drawn with only 2 people who love eah other regardless of gender. Maybe the line should be drawn at any consenting adults can marry as many people as they want.

It's up to society to determine, and right now American society is clearly leaning at thinking two consenting adults who love each other should be able to marry regardless of gender.

This is not a package deal. Gay marriage does not mean polygamy or marrying dogs or any of the other obnoxious and intellectually void arguments irrationals like to make.

If polygamists feel strongly, they can begin the uphill battle for equality for marriage by demonstrating, campaigning, and filing lawsuits the way gays have for the last 20+ years. But don't hitch these issues to the gay marriage wagon, polygamists can form their own activism and bring their case to the American public if they are so inclined.

Finally, I have to say your comments on abortion are a bit hard to understand, it seems as if you are implying abortions are forced on people which is hardly the case.

The reason we call ourselves pro-choice on not "pro-abortionists" as you vulgarly wrote is because we favor a woman being able to make decisions concerning her own body, not the government.

Pro-choice means just that - CHOICE. Those of us who are pro choice favor giving a woman all options available to her from adoption, to assistance raising her baby, to abortion, and letting her decide which is the most viable thing to do in her specific circumstance.

And the majority of Americans support this choice.

Nobody likes abortions, but sometimes it's the lesser of two evils when it comes to bringing an unwanted baby into the world.

But that's my opinion, obviously someone who thinks abortion is "murder" doesn't have to have one, do they?

So my advice to you is get your hand off women's bodies and your mind off of a coup,e of guy guys who want to tie the knot and focus on your own life. Enjoy it. Nobody is trying to take *your* rights away from out under you.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'mccolgan55'

mccolgan55 | February 10, 2012 at 5:47 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Peking-if marriage were just a "government issued license" then there shouldn't be any problem with the civil union law in California which has been in place for over 10 years. Therefore, no rights denied.

The main point I was making was that my religious rights are being worn down over and over by the supposed "civil rights" groups. Look at Obama's stand on supplying "reproductive rights" whether or not a Catholic institution wants to cover it or not. As for abortion, birth control, morning after pill, etc., they are continually trying to force providers to provide whether they want to or not because it is the "woman's right" no matter the beliefs of the provider.

As for allowing "society" to determine what is right all I can say is slavery, internment, child labor and adultery. All of which have been condoned by society at some point in our history.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 10, 2012 at 10:21 p.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Pro choice, Duck? Another one of our many euphamisms. Like Dr. Jennifer Morse said on the La Dona Harpy show, "it's a world view" and if you disagree you're in the way.

Just answer me this, Duck, I go into a Jewish or Muslim Deli and order pork or shrimp. Then sue them complaining my "civil rights" were violated? I don't think so.

Like I said, Harpy, a self-described athiest, opposed the original Obama policy. So stop using "religion" as a scapegoat. It was a discriminatory policy. Period. Obama, seeing he would stand to lose votes, was pragmatic enough to reverse. I am coming to think you would not be as "flexible."

That said, since you brought up "hypocrisy" on an earlier post, it is the hypocrisy of the behavior of people like Newt "he's waging war against the Catholic Church" Gringrinch, which does more damage to the Church than a Federal policy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 11, 2012 at 12:41 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

mccolgan wrote:
*"As for allowing "society" to determine what is right all I can say is slavery, internment, child labor and adultery. All of which have been condoned by society at some point in our history."*

I agree with you, public opinion should not override constitutional protections and civil liberties.

That's precisely why Prop 8 should not have been up for vote in the first place.

When California repealed the ban on interracial marriages, most people were against the court doing so. Can you imagine if the Mormon and Catholic churches had decided to pour money into a ballot initiative making interracial marriage illegal again after the court had repealed it?

Or, what if they said interracial couples can have a civil union with "all the benefits" but we won't call it marriage.

And look back at the arguments those opposed to interracial marriage used. They are the **same arguments** anti-gay marriage people use today - slippery slopes, what's next people marrying dogs, etc. etc.

I'm not saying homophobia and racism are the same thing, but they are two *different types* of the **same thing** - discrimination and bigotry. They may be different, but they both fall under the umbrella of discriminating against a minority group.

I am quite confident that in the future people will look back at the arguments people have about why they don't think gays should marry and be just as disgusted as people today are looking back at the comments of those who were opposed to interracial marriage.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 11, 2012 at 12:48 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Mission, if you think "pro-choice" is not a proper term, then what exactly do you think people who support a woman's right to choose should be called?

Maybe pro-abortion like the other poster?

You are being just as short-sighted as the people you complain about.

You do realize there are people who are against abortion but they are pro-choice because they feel it's a moral decision each individual needs to make.

You like to point out intolerance, but you are taking the most intolerant position here. Pro-choice means people make up their own mind on a controversial issue. Pro-life means everybody gets their mind made up for them by one side who is against it.

And as far as gays getting married, nobody is forcing you or anyone else to go to a gay wedding or participate in any gay ceremonies.

Trust me mission and mccolgan, there are straight people whom lead lifestyles you would totally disagree with who get married everyday - and many in a church.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | February 13, 2012 at 10:31 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

"You are being just as short-sighted as the people you complain about"

No, Duck, like I said in an earlier post, you are making generalizations about people which by the way, we both often oppose politically.

Let me explain. I am NOT in favor of banning abortions because short of a police state, it would be impossible to enforce 100%, but I certainly oppose the fringe "on-demand" crowd (PP, elements of NOW, NARAL--are they still aroung?) I certainly favor that parents be informed when their minor children are subjected to them or seek them out. The important thing here, is for it not to be abused, (how do we prevent that?), in other words, women using abortion not as a last resort or viable option due to complex circumstances, but as a method of birth control in and of itself. In other words, a casual approach akin to having an eye exam. This view is abhorrent.

Do you even now who Nat Hentoff is? Or I'm sure you know of Chris Hitchens? Both opposed On Demand abortion. Maybe for different reasons but both opposed the On Demand view as I. Hentoff of the Village Voice was of the Left. Hitchens, I'm sure you know his political trajectory, was nevertheless, a staunch athiest-- so more proog that you simply use religion as a scapegoat.

You like movies, I see by your posts. I highly recommend you rent or pruchase the 2007 Rumanian film 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS, 2 DAYS. The movie takes a stance in favor of legalizing abortion, BUT BUT BUT it does it in an intelligent, sober, manner, w/o the usual post-New Left propaganda. In other words, you came out of the theater with the idea that this is NOT to be taken lightly or trivialized, which many many Americans most certainly do.

As to your last statement directed at me and McConklin, yes they're called "swingers." lol But seriously, no doubt they do, but they are not attempting to legislate it or yell it to the Four Winds in their "woe is me" neurosis.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'tkterry'

tkterry | February 20, 2012 at 11:49 a.m. ― 2 years, 8 months ago

Why do you care if your neighbor wants to marry a hippopotamus as long as he doesn’t make you do it he and respects your right to marry the partner of your choice.
If Americans spent more time taking good care of themselves and less time worrying about what their neighbors are up to we would all be a lot better off. America the selfish should be our national slogan. Rich Americans like Mitt Romney and our own Doug Manchester who donate big dollars for H8 campaigns care more about having it their way than allowing people to choose their own way.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | February 24, 2012 at 7:49 a.m. ― 2 years, 7 months ago

I've got to agree. Once government money is tied to the married/single/other status distinction it has to be made equally available to everyone. The easy answer? Sever that tie. Once there is no officially recognized "marriage" from a government perspective the whole brouhaha evaporates. If there is no recognition then there can be no discrimination. The people who hate gays or polygamists or bestialitists or shoe fetishists or whatever will continue to do so but fix the money and all the rest of the noise will die down to that background chatter that a certain flavor of pundit and preacher make their living by producing.

( | suggest removal )