NOM BLOG

BREAKING NEWS! Prop 8 Proponents Have Standing To Defend Initiative in Federal Court

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In a huge victory for NOM and supporters of Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the proponents of the initiative have the legal right to defend the initiative in court.

This is a major victory for the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund and the lead Prop 8 attorney, Chuck Cooper.

Had the Supreme Court not agreed with the backers of Prop 8 that the Proponents have the legal standing to defend the initiative, it is very likely that the ruling of a rogue judge that overturned Prop 8 would have gone unchallenged. This is because Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris have shamefully refused to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to defend the marriage initiative in court, despite it being passed with the support of over 7 million California voters.

NOM was the largest contributor to putting Prop 8 on the ballot and has given $300,000 to help defend it in court.

Now the hard work begins. The constitutionality of Prop 8 has already been argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which requested the California Supreme Court to determine if state law gave the proponents the right to defend the measure on appeal. Presuming the Ninth Circuit accepts the answer it got today that the proponents DO have standing, they will issue their ruling determining whether the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman violates the US Constitution.

It's almost crazy to say this out loud — that somehow the core institution of society, marriage as the union of a man and a woman, violates our federal constitution. Yet that is what the lower court judge, Vaughn Walker, determined. Walker is the rogue San Francisco federal justice who has been in a long term homosexual relationship.

We'll be candid — we don't hold out a lot of hope of upholding Prop 8 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Remember, this court is noted for their extreme liberalism and is the most overturned court in America. But whatever ruling the Ninth Circuit issues will speed this case to the US Supreme Court, where we can finally get a ruling on the merits.

NOM is confident that we will win this case when it gets to the United States Supreme Court. But there is a huge challenge we must help meet first – money.

The good news is that supporters of Proposition 8 have secured the right to defend the intiative. The bad news is that this will cost millions of dollars—money that we don't have. We urgently need your help.

Contribute

We are already fighting on so many fronts—trying to defeat efforts in Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, fighting to get the people of Iowa and New York the right to vote on an amendment, and working in countless state legislatures, like New Hampshire, Maryland, Rhode Island and New Jersey.

But defending one of our greatest accomplishments, the passage of Proposition 8 in California, cannot take a back seat to our current challenges. Somehow, we must do both.

This is the case that could become the Roe v. Wade of marriage. Imagine the damage to the gay marriage movement when the US Supreme Court rules definitively that the US Constitution does NOT contain a right to same-sex marriage! This case could become the pivotal moment in the entire battle.

NOM is only one part of the coalition working to fund the legal defense of the initiative in court. But we have an important part to play. We've already given $300,000 to the defense effort, but that is just a small fraction of the overall cost. Our opponents have unlimited resources from billionaires in Hollywood and on Wall Street. We must rely on the generosity of donors like you.

Would you please make a sacrificial gift today to help defend Proposition 8 in court? Everything you give will be used to support the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund. Every penny. We hope to be able to free up other resources to add to what you can give.

Chuck Cooper and his legal team have won a major victory for marriage. Now it is up to us to make sure that we take advantage of the opportunity we've won. Please, help us preserve marriage by contributing today.

Contribute

Faithfully,

Brian Brown

Brian S Brown

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund

68 Comments

  1. Cathy Munson
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    Thank God for you and your efforts! Prayers for the finance you need. All things are possible when in line with the Father and I believe this is!

  2. John
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    This is the reason why gay marriage activists resort to bullying, intimidation, and screaming obsecenties at the top of their lungs. They have no leg to stand on.

  3. Molly
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    I'm sorry to put a damper on what must be an exciting time for the anti-gay marriage movement, but I feel I must leave a comment for fear of leaving everyone at the mercy of group-polarization.

    I am a supporter of gay rights. As a high school student, as well as a member of the theatrical community, I have many homosexual friends, classmates, and coworkers, all of whom I strongly support (I myself am heterosexual). But putting my own personal feelings and alliances aside, from a neutral stand-point I still cannot see the logicality of this battle against gay-marriage. Marriage is a private matter between two individuals and their families, not one of society or politics. With and despite the right to freedom of expression, personal beliefs do not and should not have power over an individuals sexual or spousal choices. This same principle applied decades ago, despite mass belief that interracial marriage was an abomination.

    This article itself has holes in it that embarrassingly suggest a lack of basic understanding of American foundation. "Governor Jerry Brown, his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Kamala Harris have shamefully refused to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to defend the marriage initiative in court, despite it being passed with the support of over 7 million California voters." The United States government was designed (through the design of the Senate and the U.S.'s formation as a representative democracy) to protect against rule of the majority, in this case the 7 million California voters- the popular opinion of the majority does not overrule the rights of the minority.

    Furthermore, how is the "core institution of society" marriage between a man and a woman? What proof does this article, much less any reliable expert, supply? A belief cannot accepted simply because it is stated as true. And here I was under the misconception that language, government, and law played a role in the founding of society!

    Everyone has the absolute right to believe (through freedom of expression) that homosexuality is wrong. It is your constitutional right. But does any section of government, state or federal, have the right to put restrictions on the private lives of it's citizens? Is that not a gross violation of basic human rights, much less constitutional ones? Being married to a person of the same sex has never been proven to cause harm to oneself or others, nor interfere with the constitutional rights of any outside parties. If you don't approve of gay marriage, the logical solution would be to not marry someone of the same gender. Simply put- don't stick your nose in someone else's private business.

    Prove me wrong if you can, but at this point I have come to the personal conclusion that this opposition to gay marriage is not only morally wrong, it's very foundation is unstable.

  4. TC Matthews
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:26 am | Permalink

    "from a neutral stand-point I still cannot see the logicality of this battle against gay-marriage. "

    Molly, have you read about the arguments on both sides? There is a lot of information on this site, one of many dedicated to upholding marriage and families. Have you read it? I wonder, because you seem to have gathered information and opinions diligently from those you agree with.

  5. TC Matthews
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    "The United States government was designed (through the design of the Senate and the U.S.'s formation as a representative democracy) to protect against rule of the majority,"

    Actually, the United States government was designed to REPRESENT the majority against the corrupt rule of the minority. The King of England was a tyrant, not a majority.

  6. Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    An effort by the states to call for a Marriage Amendment Convention might make the US Supreme Court think twice about declaring SSM a constitutional right. Past rulings look like that is where they are headed. A movement at the state level might even nudge Congress to pass the Marriage Amendment and send it to the states for ratification. We have the public on our side, but we need to do something besides simply trust the"wisdom" of one man, Justice Anthony Kennedy (the swing vote) to determine the future of Western Civilization.

  7. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    "Marriage is a private matter between two individuals and their families, not one of society or politics."

    With all due respect, because I think you mean well, that statement is not accurate.

    When two people enter into a state licensed marriage, it's a public union, and it's the public's business. If folks want to keep their relationships private, like siblings, parents and their kids, or friendships, "friendships with benefits," or private romantic relationships, etc., they don't get a license and their relationship isn't regulated by "we-the-people." But once they get a license, it's every other citizen's business.

    We don't license and regulate every loving relationship, and we don't make it our business what others' sexual orientation is, because it's none of our concern. We don't give out licenses to marry to siblings, or parents and kids, and even in states where people can get a neutered marriage license, same-sex siblings are still prohibited from getting married to each other. None of that has anything to do with gayness or straightness.

    IF you don't want us sticking our noses into someone else's private business, don't suggest that same-sex persons get a license to enter into a public institution.

  8. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:41 am | Permalink

    "how is the "core institution of society" marriage between a man and a woman? What proof does this article, much less any reliable expert, supply?"

    I would have thought this was obvious. Of what is society made? Individual males and females. When a man and a woman unite, and have children, that family represents a microcosm of society: both genders represented, and their offspring, the natural fruit of the union of the sexes. We don't live in a sex segregated society. Babies don't magically appear under cabbage leaves.

    Govt. takes an interest in marriage, which existed long before our govt. formed, for the simple fact that when the sexes unite, children are frequently the product. Govt. recognizes the inherent duty a man and a woman have, not only to each other, but to their offspring. This creates stability in society, reduces irresponsible procreation, and saves "we-the-people" the burden of picking up the slack of irresponsible procreators.

    "We-the-people" have absolutely no interest in promoting non-fertile (notice I didn't say "infertile") unions. Though individuals are free to associate with whom they want, for however long they want, we simply don't need to regulate every voluntary relationship, nor is it accurate to designate a gender neutral relationship with the same title as an opposite-sexed one, especially considering the very real practical differences between the two. And there's nothing unjust about that.

  9. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    FYI, From The United Families International blog,
    "Here’s a timeline for California’s Prop 8:

    February 12, 2004, Mayor of San Francisco illegally begins issuing “same-sex” marriages licenses. On March 11, 2004, the California Supreme Court ordered officials of San Francisco to stop.
    May 15, 2008, California Court strikes down two statutory laws that banned same-sex marriage – one from 1977 and California’s DOMA law know as Proposition 22 – passed in the year 2000.
    On June 19, 2008, the California Superior Court ordered magistrates and country clerks to begin allowing same-sex marriage.
    November 5, 2008, the citizens of California pass a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
    On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturns Prop 8 in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling that Prop 8 violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
    August 12, 2010, Judge Walker announces his decision to “lift the stay” and allow same-sex marriages to begin again. August 16, 2010, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit indefinitely extended the stay pending appeal of the decision of Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
    January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the California Supreme Court, asking the state court to decide if the proponents of Prop 8 had “standing” to appeal the case.
    September, 2011, the California Supreme Court heard Oral arguments on the question of “standing.”
    November 17, 2011, the State Court issues opinion that proponents of Prop 8 do have “standing” to defend the measure in federal court."

  10. CW
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 2:07 am | Permalink

    "Being married to a person of the same sex has never been proven to cause harm to oneself or others, nor interfere with the constitutional rights of any outside parties."

    Actually same-sex marriage does interfere with the rights of others - namely people's rights to religious freedom. In areas where SSM has been legalised we are now seeing many people losing their jobs, and being threatened with legal action if they hold views that oppose SSM.

  11. M. Jones
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 3:44 am | Permalink

    I am so delighted that judicial activism will get the smack down needed to sustain traditional marriage. This awesome ruling made my day!

  12. Anne
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    Well done DOE!

    I had a similar conversation with a friend the other day. She said she had a good friend who with his gay partner were raising 3 girls and that the girls were doing very well and so she personally had no problem with "gay marriage". I mentioned to her the benefits to her own children that each her and her husband brought to them as parents. She admitted that she had not really considered the idea or potential impact of neutralizing gender in parenthood. I feel certain that when people begin to realize that this is not about hate or prejudice, but the long term negative effects of neutralizing gender within families, they will choose to protect the natural order for the sake of children.

    God bless NOM and DOE for all your efforts.

  13. Marty
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Molly doesn't even believe what she says.

    "Marriage is a private matter between two individuals and their families, not one of society or politics. "

    If you really believed that, you wouldn't be here, reading about the political and societal parts of marriage, and you certainly wouldn't be asking the state to intervene in any way.

    Nothing is stopping you or any of your gay friends from "[any] private matter between two individuals and their families" if that's your idea of marriage.

    Can't have it both ways hun.

  14. Posted November 18, 2011 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    This is a kids rights issue. Redundant studies show that kids do best when raised in a home with a mom and a dad. SSM (and marriage means adoption) eliminates even the possibility of approximating the ideal . Stand up for the kids.

  15. Molly
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    To Les Coomer,

    Could you point me to a legitimate study, possibly one done by the American Medical Association or American Psychological Association?

  16. Molly
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    To Marty,

    If I mistyped, I apologize. To clarify, my personal belief is that the government should not intervene in anyway with the marriage choices of two (unrelated people). And why am I here? School assignment to research views opposing your own.

  17. Molly
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    To CW (I apologize for so many messages clogging the comments section),

    "Actually same-sex marriage does interfere with the rights of others - namely people's rights to religious freedom. In areas where SSM has been legalised we are now seeing many people losing their jobs, and being threatened with legal action if they hold views that oppose SSM."

    But how does same-sex marriage interfere with religious freedom?

    I agree, it is unconstitutional for people to lose their jobs for ant-gay marriage beliefs. I have seen a few of those cases on the news that were infuriating However, a few others suggested to me a dismissal for discriminatory remarks against students under that person's care.

  18. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Thank you, Anne. You are very kind.

    Molly brought up some good points for discussion. I sometimes lament the fact that we can't speak face to face in these debates, because I think we'd all probably agree that even though we support different sides of the debate, everyone involved usually has good motives, even though we might not agree on the value of the outcomes.

  19. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    A half-informed person will be more likely to support SSM b/c they wear their opinion as a badge of friendship with their gay acquaintances. They won't look at the whole picture b/c they won't want to rock the boat with their gay friends. Molly's comments were cut and pasted from SSM talking points. But try questioning one of those talking points and find out how quickly some of these so-called gay friends will turn on you.

    Spend 5 minutes perusing this site and learn about the real consequences of SSM.

  20. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    The public aspect of marriage is such that once the relationship is licensed, it is then regulated by "we-the-people." That means that even the most private, intimate aspects of a relationship become the business of every other citizen. As members of the society, we have an interest in a married couple's fidelity, in how they parent, discipline, bequeath property, etc. There's very little private about it. Especially when you're talking about a same-sex couple raising a child--clearly there's a third party involved in the making of that child, and that cannot be ignored, requiring the involvement of the public in determining custody of that child, the rights of the absent parent, etc. SSM requires bigger govt. involvement, and we, the public, are the govt.

  21. ResistSSA
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    Such great comments in support of marriage here. If Molly doesn't figure it out from just this series of posts, she's beyond help.

  22. Molly
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Welp, if you want to attack someone (a 16 year old, no less) and try to derail their legitimate argument with sideline statements that have absolutely no standing with the core debate "A half-informed person will be more likely to support SSM b/c they wear their opinion as a badge of friendship with their gay acquaintances. They won't look at the whole picture b/c they won't want to rock the boat with their gay friends" instead of simply, respectfully, responding with your own legitimate arguments...thats just rude.

  23. Kelle T.
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    Barb Chamberlan and ResistSSA, I'm all for traditional marriage, but Molly, a member of America's youth, has come to the table with real questions and thoughtful considerations while making an attempt to be civil. Why are you attacking and dismissing her?

  24. Louis E.
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Molly,
    I realize you feel you are looking at things "from a neutral stand-point",but I think you are still relying on presumptions that frame the debate in the terms the same-sex-marriage supporters prefer rather than looking at the fundamental issues actually at stake.

    Civil marriage is a public institution.It confers certain social benefits in return for benefits society receives from those on whom the benefits are conferred.It is not the relationship between the two people,but a governmentally conferred status of that relationship...just as religious marriage represents what status the people's religion confers upon them (I am not religious myself).

    There is a public interest in promoting the practice of male-female relationships,as if these did not exist the species would not continue.There is no comparable,let alone "equal",public interest in there being same-sex sexual relationships.It is the furtherance of the public interest in opposite-sex relationships that gives rise to the institution of civil marriage,as a means of securing a particular status to them.Laws that interfere with the specifically opposite-sex status of relationships (such as those imposing racial barriers) are rightly rejected.

    The private internals of the relationship(such as whether the particular couple have any reproductive intent or capacity,or what sexual acts they may care to engage in with one another) are not a public matter.The public interest is served by their being of opposite sexes and this being seen as a norm to be adhered to,a norm created by the simple fact of the species having evolved two sexes.

    To turn this institution into something that sees defiance of that norm as a matter of indifference is to rob it of its entire useful purpose.Whether or not one does what one asks for the reward for doing is not a matter of personal choice.

    It is not "hatred" or "bigotry" or "discrimination" against a class of people defined by desire to violate a standard of conduct to reward adherence to that standard of conduct.All courses of action are not equally wise or equally worthy of public benefit and a responsible government will grant preference where the public interest is served by its being granted.

  25. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    "how does same-sex marriage interfere with religious freedom?"

    Excellent question. Let's take a look at what has happened with Catholic adoption agencies who depend on support from Federal funding to run their programs.

    For converted Catholics (by which I mean those who walk the walk, not just talk the talk) religion isn't reserved for an hour of church on a Sunday. It is a part of every choice you make every day of your life. That includes affirming Catholic doctrine on issues like marriage and family and parenting. Catholics believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that children, the natural fruit of that union, have a mutual responsibility to care for those children. When children in their adoption services have lost that chance to a mom and a dad, Catholics feel compelled, by virtue of their religious beliefs, to give kids a second chance at a married mom and dad.

    When SSM becomes the law of the land, the state no longer supports the idea that children, who are the natural product of a man and a woman, have the right to be raised by their mom and dad. The state decrees that any adults, of either gender will do. And since the marriages no longer must include one of each sex, then the state no longer sees itself obligated to support that paradigm in adoptions. In fact, the state becomes legally opposed to those with religious convictions that believe otherwise.

    Catholics won't change their religious beliefs to fit the marriage fad of the day, and the state doesn't have to honor their beliefs because it's changed the rules of marriage. So the state pulls their funding, and the Catholic charities don't have the funding on their own.

    You'll recall that phrase from the scriptures, "Ye cannot serve God AND mammon." When "mammon" dictates in opposition to God, Catholics have to make a decision. It wasn't a choice they wanted to make, but they had to make a decision between God and mammon. You know who they chose. So, when it comes to state licensed adoptions, Catholics cannot practice their religion, which requires them to honor marriage as between a man and a woman, and place children in homes that meet that standard.

    Sure, Catholics can still go to church and worship, etc., but they cannot freely exercise their religion in the area of adoption.

    There are other areas, too, where SSM has bumped up against religion: in speech, where expressing belief that homosexual practice is immoral is considered hate speech; in school curriculum, where mothers and fathers believe sex is the sacred domain between a married man and woman must fight against a state which supports SSM, and supposes that some in an SSM are going to be homosexual, and consenting to sodomy. And that SSM, with its tacit nod to homosexual behavior will be taught to school children as acceptable.

    See, we aren't guaranteed freedom of worship in this country, we're guaranteed freedom of religion, which means our religious worship is part of our daily lives, not just something we do once a week.

    The Constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from offense. But the more militant proponents of so-called "gay rights" and/or SSM seem to think so. And they are deeply offended by those whose religious beliefs differ from their personal agendas.

  26. Louis E.
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    Molly,
    a longer response of mine is in moderation.
    It is not government interference in personal choices to reward only those choices that have a beneficial effect on society.

  27. ResistSSA
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    @Kellie, you're right. I missed Molly's previous post where she explained her reason for posting here. Knee-jerk response on my part to attack those with opposing viewpoints who post here to disrupt and accuse NOM supporters of bigotry and religious zealotry.

    Molly, I apologize; you're getting some good info here.

    I should mention, Molly, that I am a theater person too, so I know how easy it is to look at marriage protectors as people unreasonable, judgmental people who are attacking some of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. Unfortunately, just because people are friendly does not mean that their behaviors are not damaging to society and to children.

    One needs to separate the personal and the emotional from the factual and the societal. Its akin to permissive parenting: it's hard to tell our kids when they're making bad decisions that they genuinely believe to be right when we love them so much. But if all parents were permissive and didn't correct their children, what kind of world would be living in years from now?

  28. M. Jones
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Molly, can you imagine a world where by deliberate action we design a mother and father out of a child's life?

  29. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Molly is no high school student.

    For those commenters claiming to be sociologists, counselors or what-have-you, please follow basic research protocol.

    Spend some time reading the blog first. Ask questions once you've done that to fill in any gaps you might find. Refrain from beginning your "questions" with SSM talking points. Then I might be more apt to believe you.

  30. Louis E.
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Barb,I wouldn't be surprised if Molly was a real 16-year-old brought up to take the homosexual lobby's assertions at face value.

  31. Molly
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Ha, thats funny. I most certainly am a high school student, thank you very much. Would you like me to say that in Facebook speak? Like totally. Lolz :)
    Don't insult my upbringing or my intelliegence, it's very rude.

  32. Jack Galvin
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 2:00 am | Permalink

    Molly - you will find rudeness rules at NOM. It goes along with the hatred and bigotry.

  33. bman
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    Molly,

    Based on the replies you received above, it seems you have enough information to at least modify your initial position, "Marriage is a private matter between two individuals and their families, not one of society or politics."

    I think you would find it very difficult to refute DOE's reply in post 7, Marty's reply, and Louis E's comment on that.

    At the very least, you must now say, "Marriage is a private matter between two individuals... AND its a matter of public interest."

    An even clearer statement would be, "Marriage is a public institution which private individuals may enter according to the conditions society has set forth based on its values."

    Consider, also, there are different forms of marriage in different cultures, but there is no civil right for private individuals to have those forms of marriage publicly recognized here.

    Here is a simple syllogism argument derived from that fact:

    Premise: There is no civil right to have an alternative form of marriage publicly recognized .

    Premise: Same sex marriage is an alternative form of marriage
    ------------
    Conclusion: There is no civil right to have same sex marriage publicly recognized

    The argument seems to be rock solid.

    You seemingly raised an objection to it, though, when you said, "...despite mass belief ...interracial marriage" was publicly recognized.

    There are various reasons why that objection does not hold.

    The main reason is that existing marriage law was unequally applied based on race, and so it unnecessarily interfered with a fundamental right to marry.

    Majority rule applies up to the point where it interferes with a fundamental right unnecessarily, which is what the racial restriction did.

    There is no fundamental right, however, to have an alternative form of marriage publicly recognized that was not previously recognized at law, which is what same sex marriage amounts to.

    To further confirm that this distinction exists, the U.S Supreme Court considered the interracial marriage argument and rejected it, under Baker v. Nelson in 1972, and the the majority of high courts to consider the issue since 2003, have also rejected a right to same-sex marriage. (see link)

    In conclusion, you need to modify your statement to show (a) that marriage is primarily a public institution, (b) the courts have largely rejected your racial marriage argument, and (c) there is no civil right to have an alternative form marriage publicly recognized.

  34. Bryce K.
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    Hi Molly, I'm another high school student who comments on the NOM blog. The people here are... different. It's hard to converse with them, because they operate on a different realm of logic. Or so it seems. :\

  35. bman
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    Molly->.... but I feel I must leave a comment for fear of leaving everyone at the mercy of group-polarization.

    Hopefully, you will also consider comments by others here that disagree with the "group polarization" from your homosexual friends and the ultra-liberal theater environment.

    I am a supporter of gay rights....I myself am heterosexual.

    In the case, "Lawrence v. Texas, the court made a distinction between the private right of gays to enter a same sex sexual relationship, and the right to formal government recognition of such relationships.

    "... a personal [same sex sexual] relationship...is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals .... The present case.. [however]...does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

    That is where most on this blog would draw the line on gay rights, and possibly where you should re-consider drawing the line as well.

    Start with the question, "Would a public same sex marriage law eventually harm society?," and try to give that a yes or no answer.

    I think you will find it rationally requires a yes answer.

    I am not a libertarian but Jane Galt has an insightful article about the unintended consequences of same sex marriage.

    Its at: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

    I still cannot see the logicality of this battle against gay-marriage. Marriage is a private matter between two individuals and their families, not one of society or politics....

    Possibly, the reason you can not see it is because you hold to the premise that marriage is a private matter, which is false.

    Indeed, your comment actually suggests, "the logicality of this battle against gay-marriage" would make perfect sense if marriage is a public matter.

    In other words, if marriage is primarily a public matter, your argument above grants the basis for opposing same sex marriage.

    But, marriage is primarily a public matter.

    I refer you again to the replies from DOE,Marty, and Louis E on the public nature of marriage.

    The Funk and Wagnalls 1955 edition also says,

    “Marriage is essentially a social practice, entered into through a public act, and reflecting the purposes and character of the society in which it is found.”

    That last part is key, that marriage "reflects the purposes and the character of the society."

    Alternative forms of marriage, which includes same sex marriage, are not recognized here because they do not reflect the purposes and the character of our society.

    Furthermore, if you vote for same sex marriage, you vote to align the character of the society to the character of the gay community, and most people would not want that for their children.

    Ask yourself, "What harm could it be to bias the majority of children with the counter-moral sexual values held by the gay community instead of traditional sexual moral values?"

    That scenario would naturally tend toward an epidemic increase in high risk heterosexual and homosexual sexual behavior around children, by children, and at children, in addition to less marriage between men and women, or less enduring marriages.

    And what harm could that cause?

    ...personal beliefs do not and should not have power over an individuals sexual or spousal choices. This same principle applied decades ago, despite mass belief that interracial marriage was an abomination.

    I addressed the racial marriage argument previously. See Baker v. Nelson.

    Since the public form of marriage is primarily a public matter, that would also dispose of your "personal beliefs" argument.

    When the people agree on the public form of marriage that is not called "personal beliefs" but its called, "the will of the people."

    Who do you think should determine the public form of marriage that society recognizes?

    Only people with no personal beliefs? The gays?

    Your "no personal beliefs argument" also suggests the public should officially recognize trio marriages, sibling marriages, polygamy, open marriages, rotating marriages, bride for a day marriages, and just ignore how it would alter the future character and security of the society.

    That sounds like a formula for long term social harm.

    Our Constitution depends on the concept of ordered liberty, which depends on a society whose people respect Judeo-Christian values

    What do you expect to replace Judeo-Christian values with?

    If you replace them with "I say so" do you end up with the better society?

    Most likely that would create a a vacuum in moral authority that would call for despotic government to fill the vacuum.

    The United States government was designed...to protect against rule of the majority, in this case the 7 million California voters- the popular opinion of the majority does not overrule the rights of the minority.

    You have overstated the case.

    We practice majority rule unless the majority interferes unnecessarily with a fundamental right.

    There is no fundamental right to have an alternative form of marriage publicly recognized

    Hence, majority rule properly applies in this case.

  36. Louis E.
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Bryce,thanks for clarifying that your irrationality can be ascribed to youth!

  37. Louis E.
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Jack,the charges of "hatred" and "bigotry" are as baseless as ever...calling wrongdoing wrongdoing may annoy those who don't like being corrected,but it's done out of concern for them and belief that their inclination toward it is not as incurable as they are desperate to pretend.

  38. Rover Serton
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    I enjoy the fresh opinion of youth. Beats the same tired Constituional Amendment talk I often hear here. I'm banned here so I'm just talking to myself.

  39. Jack Galvin
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Louis E. Hatred and bigotry is what comes to mind whenever I see one of your tired posts.So you don't like gay people - fine, that is your right . But government does not have to accept your narrow way of thinking in making public policy. People are born gay and what to have the same happiness people born heterosexual can have. Accept it - get on with your life.

  40. Little man
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    There is something missing in all the responses to Molly's challenge. First, not all responses are from NOM staff. Second, the age of the commentator doesn't matter. Third, some people (like Molly) look at the issue as a matter or sympathy or unselfishness. But sympathy does not override the legal process. I don't always get sympathy from a police officer, when i forget to put my seat belt on, for instance.

    This is an amazing comment thread, allowed by the moderator, though there are many departures from the main post - That Prop.8 proponents indeed have standing (as well as all other proponents of a Calif. Proposition.) The elected officials in Calif. who denied the (now evident and proven) rights of the Prop.8 proponents, argue and defy the Calif. law from a similar perspective, as Molly does: "My friends who are of homosexual persuasion (so-called 'gays') are nice and they want to get married by the State. So the law is obviously wrong (a moral judgement), because being 'gay' is like a different race (genetic or immutable). Therefore, we must stand beside these second class citizens and donate or support (as heroes or heroines) to lobbying efforts to legislate marriage for 'gays'. Anyone who disagrees is obviously behind the times, because i actually care for my gay friends."

    Ultimately, Molly can keep her opinion: 'If you don't approve of gay marriage, the logical solution would be to not marry someone of the same gender. Simply put- don't stick your nose in someone else's private business.' In a free society, when she is 18, she can vote whichever way she chooses. But, then, so can the opposition. Reason does not force anyone to agree with the law. They just have to follow the law. If they believe a minority rules, think again - a minority rules on an issue only when the ruling majority agrees to it, such as per slavery, even if it takes a war. Molly doesn't realize that white and black people could marry before the Virginia law was passed, later to be voided by the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia. Also, blacks and Asians were not prohibited from marrying each other.

    Molly challenges to be proven wrong (easily done, in legal terms): "I have come to the personal conclusion that this opposition to gay marriage is not only morally wrong...", but for her, you see, it is a matter of morality, and yet accuses NOM for having religious motivations. Even if the US Supreme Court were to clarify civil marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, Molly would still hold to her personal conclusion. It is not really a matter of reason for her. It is a matter of sympathy for her friends on this matter. She is brain washed already, because in her mind 'some people are gay'. I have so-called 'gay' friends too, but like all friendships, they must abide by the law. And the laws regarding civil marriage are made, directly or indirectly, by the majority, whether reasonable or not.

    Bryce K. puts it mildly: 'The people here are... different. It's hard to converse with them, because they operate on a different realm of logic.' It is not the logic that is different. It is the premises, like: Are people born 'gay'? Should we take their word for it? Even, so, would we vote to adopt their value system regarding civil marriage? Civil marriage a right of partnerships, not of individuals.

    But, for the present, we know Prop.8 proponents have legal standing. And we must be attentive to efforts trying to disguise sympathy as a legal reason.

  41. M. Jones
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    I worry that our youth will be unable to differentiate between right and wrong behaviors because of SS"m" extremism.

  42. Molly
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    All I will say is this-
    In a society where marriage is not needed to raise children (think Angelina Joli and Brad Pitt, an unmarried couple with something like 8 kids), the argument that gay-marriage is a danger to children does not seem to apply. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal for a gay person to adopt children and raise them with their partner, married or not.

    Marriage can't be just about procreation; it's about establishing lifelong partnership and all the benefits that come with it, about a higher level of commitment, about creating a family, whether it be just those two people or more. No where in the marriage vows does it talk about having to procreate. Its "I _____, take you ______, to be my lawfully wedded _____. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness."

    Just to be clear, I still do not see how it could possibly harm a child to be raised by a gay couple, but regardless, the issue of gay adoption, surrogate, and parenting does not actually fall under the issue of marriage.

  43. Louis E.
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    That the young overwhelmingly assume the homosexual lobby's mischaracterizations of the issues surrounding homosexual behavior are correct is a triumph of their deception exercised through the institutions homosexuals have infiltrated precisely because they have NOT been discriminated against over the incidental irrelevance of their orientation.

  44. Molly
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    "Extremism?"

  45. Molly
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Wow, I can't believe there has been this much response to a half page essay I wrote!

  46. Rob
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    "There is no fundamental right to have an alternative form of marriage publicly recognized"

    There is, however, a constitutional right to due process and equal treatment under the law. Those two key constitutional principles undermine giving straight, but not gay, people special rights.

  47. Little man
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    Yes, Molly: There's a lot of opposition to same-sex civil marriage, and it is reasonable, and not necessarily motivated by religious bigotry. You now have much material for your High School write-up.

    But take same-sex marriage; it can be a religious ceremony, or it can be by the State, if licensed. If same-sex marriage were allowed by a State (and some States have allowed it), it provides regulation (not just benefits, but also legal responsibilities) for any two same-sex roommates in college who need a tax deduction, yet would leave blood-related partnerships unable to marry. Same-sex civil marriage goes overboard, and extends the benefits previously reserved for parenthood, to almost any partnership, not just couples of homosexual persuasion. It doesn't make sense. Government supported opposite-sex couples in order to guide their behavior, so children would be more likely to have their genetic father and mother to care for them, as a couple, and to diminish the number of children raised by a single father or mother, statistically speaking. Same-sex partnerships regulate themselves, and the government would waste precious resources in regulating same-sex partnerships. Plus, it is only a small number of 'gay' couples (relatively speaking) who want to get married and adopt children. Children are protected on-average by having their government support the optimal environment for engendering children. Even in the case of Angelina and Brad, which i wouldn't consider standard (and rich people have financial reasons why not to marry, or why Angelina cannot engender a baby - her bodily figure would change, or she has movies to make), the government has to regulate their individual relationship with their adopted children, if it goes astray. That doesn't mean the government should support same-sex marriage. Couples of homosexual persuasion start by saying they are 'different' and then claim they should be treated 'equally'. They cannot extend the marriage definition to include their partnerships, without including ALL same-sex couples. And in so doing, they would be replacing society's value system about marriage, with their own. We cannot allow that, and it doesn't take people too long to see that this issue is secular, and not about promoting a particular religion's perspective or morality. Actually, in the end, it shows that government needs to support opposite-sex marriage even more that it does now. That is why i think we should strive for.

  48. Louis E.
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    Jack,there is NO not liking of people involved,thus no hatred or bigotry.It's ideas and actions that merit and must receive criticism and penalty.You must accept that identifying as "gay" does not entitle anyone to exemption from standards of conduct that benefit everyone.

    Molly,some of us believe that being in a same-sex sexual relationship (not identifying oneself as "gay") should serve as a disqualification from adopting a child because of the bad example it sets,whether or not that is the law at present.It is not that commitment takes place that merits recognition as a marriage,nor whether there is intent to procreate,but what the commitment is to...and if the partners are not of opposite sexes the purpose for which marriage exists is not served and recognition is not merited.

    Rob,participation in an institution that serves the compelling state interest in guaranteeing preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships is open to all persons equally.No "special rights" are involved,nor are people asked their sexual orientation.

  49. Rob
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Louis, there is no public purpose in granting special rights, like marriage, for straight people. There is no compelling interest in favoring straight couples' relationships over gay couples' relationships. If you know of one, let us know, ok?

  50. Little man
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Rob: Check out due process, because obviously you don't know how it is about. Neither due process nor the so-called equal treatment you superficially describe are grounds to extend marriage to include so-called 'gays'. Lower courts are bound to conclude otherwise, but higher courts know the guidelines for substantive due process. How can due process compare two partnerships that are not the same type, and call them equal? There's not even grounds for comparison. Look up O`Scannlain's concurrence in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. Don't try to spread your confusion in this comment thread.

  51. Louis E.
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Rob,your denial doesn't change the facts.Couples being of opposite sexes (regardless of whether they happen to call themselves "straight" or "gay") is something the good of the human race requires everyone be taught to see as the only kind that makes sense.Dissent from this offers no exemption from it whatsoever.

  52. Rob
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

    Well, ok, Louis, your "because I said so!" reasoning is persuasive! Again, how does the state benefit by denying marriage rights to gay couples but not to straight couples?

  53. Rob
    Posted November 19, 2011 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    Little man, I highly recommend the transcripts of the Prop 8 trial, as well as the amicus briefs. I think you'll understand better the faulty constitutional footing the discriminatory marriage statutes are on.

    "How can due process compare two partnerships that are not the same type, and call them equal?"

    But they are the same type, that's the point: committed relationships, shared resources, often raising children, etc. How can the state favor straight couples in a committed relationship, sharing resources and raising children but not gay couples in a committed relationship, sharing resources and raising children, especially when it offers both the exact same rights? Why call the same thing by different names?

  54. Louis E.
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    Rob,your "it's not true!" reasoning gets you nowhere.
    Once more,the issue is OPPOSITE-SEX,versus SAME-SEX,not "straight" or "gay" which have no relevance at all.
    The state benefits when persons of opposite sexes commit to each other and is hurt by persons of the same sex committing to each other.Thus,it needs to make it easier to share resources and obtain/retain custody of children if one commits to an opposite rather than a same-sex partner.

  55. j. fox
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    You want to read something really illogical and nutty, go read prop 8 by activist judge Walker or in iowa, varnum versus Iowa.

  56. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    "there is no public purpose in granting special rights, like marriage, for straight people. There is no compelling interest in favoring straight couples' relationships over gay couples' relationships."

    How is the state supposed to clearly define "straight couple" vs. "gay couple?"

    For instance, if a gay man marries a gay woman, are they a gay couple? If two straight men get married, are they a straight couple? Sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic. Couples don't have rights--people do.

    The state has an interest in opposite-sexed couples for the very fact that only they can naturally procreate. You'll notice that states don't give marriage licenses to a brother and sister, even though they love each other, and share similar characteristics to other couples. The state doesn't want them to procreate, so it doesn't license them to marry and do so. Marriage is a sexual relationship, but the state (which means your fellow citizens) doesn't have any need to regulate non-fertile relationships because they can't procreate, ever. And the state doesn't have an interest in incentivizing the creation of children that will automatically be denied a mother or father, because their mom or dad has a same-sex partner.

  57. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 2:25 am | Permalink

    bman->There is no fundamental right to have an alternative form of marriage publicly recognized

    Rob->There is, however, a constitutional right to due process and equal treatment under the law.

    Of course there is a constitutional right to due process and equal treatment under the law.

    However, the Supreme Court has already examined if that applies to same sex marriage and it rejected the argument in Baker v. Nelson.

    The majority of high courts to consider the issue since 2003 have also rejected it.

    There is no Constitutional right to have same sex marriage publicly recognized or any alternative form of marriage.

  58. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 2:37 am | Permalink

    Molly->All I will say is this....

    If that is all you will say then you are simply asserting your viewpoint.

    What about your statement that marriage is a private and not social matter?

    Are you still asserting that, or do you accept you need to modify that?

    Did you come here to simply assert your view or to challenge your view by engaging the arguments?

  59. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 3:23 am | Permalink

    Jack Galvin->People are born gay...."

    Why, then, does the APA say differently?

    There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...

    from the APA brochure, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."

    The fact is various theories exist about orientation.

    Your comment tries to define law based on an unproved theory.

  60. Bruce
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    I'm glad you see that the APA as a reliable source of information, bman, but I wonder why do you stop the quote at that particular point?

    "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; MOST PEOPLE EXPERIENCE LITTLE OR NO SENSE OF CHOICE ABOUT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION." (emphasis mine)

  61. Louis E.
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Bruce,that's really unimportant,because actually engaging in same-sex sexual activity IS a choice,an intrinsically WRONG choice,and sexual orientation can not absolve anyone of blame for it any more than a drunk driver can get off for being an alcoholic.

  62. ResistSSA
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    I think it's funny that people who have given up their right to form a procreative relationship in exchange for a self-gratifying, non-procreative one think that that the rest of the world should share in their conclusion that procreation is unimportant. Maybe they wish that they were never born.

    So, instead of promoting relationships that lead to happy, healthy, stable environments for children, the government should instead throw thousands of taxpayers' dollars toward research for HIV/AIDS, the hallmark of the homosexual community's preferred form of "sexual" behavior. http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/.../fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf.

  63. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Bruce->...I wonder why do you stop the quote at that particular point? "Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; MOST PEOPLE EXPERIENCE LITTLE OR NO SENSE OF CHOICE ABOUT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION." (emphasis mine)

    My purpose was to show Jack Galvin was only offering a theory.

    As for, "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation" why did you stop there?

    If you think its important you should draw some conclusion from it, such as, "Therefore this means [fill in the blank]..."

    As it stands, your post offers a premise but no conclusion.

  64. Bruce
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    You're right, bman, I didn't offer a conclusion based on the premises that had been presented. And congratulations for understanding a proper argument includes at least one premise and a conclusion. I didn't offer my conclusion because I thought it was obvious.

    But you avoided my question. Why end the quote in mid-sentence? It's true that there's good evidence that genetics plays a role but doesn't completely deteremine sexual orientation, but it's also true that it isn't chosen. I can't speak for Jack Galvin, but I think "born gay" is often used metaphorically to mean not chosen. I have a hunch that you truncated the quote because doing so better served your purpose; hence, my still unanswered question to you.

  65. Little man
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Hey Rob: No you can't. If same-sex civil marriage activists want their partnerships recognized, they must start by declaring themselves without that right, and seeks that right through their State Legislature, and or US Congress. I would accept that process (and its result) as rational. Piggy-back on the Institution of Marriage (still extant in most States, and growing) isn't rational. I will let the Supreme Court decide about Prop8, because neither you nor i are the experts in charge. But you writing that same-sex committed partnerships (which i assume you mean are of homosexual persuasion) are of the same type (just for being committed and raising children) belies your skills of observation - first, most same-sex partnerships are not of homosexual persuasion (most are blood-related) - second, most partnerships of homosexual persuasion don't want committed relationships - third, no same-sex partnerships can reproduce on their own, - fourth, they are self-regulating (the governments have little public interest in supporting same-sex partnerships of homosexual persuasion, compared to the public interest related to opposite-sex couples to be regulated). Most important, same-sex partnerships do not engender children, they only adopt. Oh! You must have forgotten to mention that.... what a little oversight. Genetic mothers and fathers spend 9 months toiling and worrying about a fetus, providing for its health, the woman coming as close to death perhaps as any other time in her life, her body changes into that of a woman forever, then they pay the hospital bills perhaps through insurance, and then rear their own genetic son or daughter. And you have the nerve to equate it to a 'committed' same sex partnership. There is no equality. Your argument is based on a false premise.

  66. bman
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Bruce->You're right, bman, I didn't offer a conclusion based on the premises that had been presented. ...because I thought it was obvious.

    You still need to apply it to something to have a conclusion.

    Since you can't say it proves they were born that way, as that contradicts the previous section, what conclusion are you driving at?

    But you avoided my question. Why end the quote in mid-sentence?

    I answered it implicitly when I stated my purpose was to show "born that way" is only a theory.

    To be more specific,

    (1) the previous section established the key point, (2) the last section was logically different from the first section and did not contradict the first section.
    (3) I expected Jack would be distracted from the first section if I included the last section
    (4) the last section is not about what causes SSA. (5) the last section describes "a perception" which may be explained by the development of a "second nature," distinct from the primary nature one is born with.
    (6) the "no choice" language has connotations that need to avoided. Instead of saying "no choice" it should be said that SSA is perceived as being spontaneous. This avoids the suggestion that the person has "no choice" in how they respond to it. The average man will perceive a spontaneous attraction to multiple women, for example, but that is no excuse for promiscuity.

    As to why SSA is perceived to be spontaneous, new research is emerging on Neuroplasticity that may hold the answer.

    It seems brain anatomy changes based on how the brain is trained to respond to environmental conditions.

    Dr.Neil Whitehead has a chapter in his online book that explains neuroplasticity titled, " Are brains gay?"

    You can download it from at http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm.

  67. bman
    Posted November 21, 2011 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    Bruce->I'm glad you see that the APA as a reliable source of information...

    By default, I don't view it as such.

    But when it posts something contrary to its political interests then its probably true.

  68. leehawks
    Posted November 21, 2011 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    Bman: That Jane Galt blog posting was wonderful. Thanks for sharing. Everyone should read it.

    http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html