Well, that is if we remove from SSM argumentation its hyper emphasis on gay identity politcs. That is a socio-political construct and to press it into marriage law would be closely analogous to pressing racialist identity politics into marrige law.

That sort of thing has been long repudiated in our constitutional order.

The only social relationship with a “biological foundation” found in the complementary nature of man and woman and their ability to procreate. Across all cultures and times, no other human relationship has been more closely connected to the ultimate goal of uniting the biological, social and legal dimensions of parenthood for the raising of children.

Gay marriage redefines marriage to be not biological and contractual, but just contractual. Simply a piece of paper for the benifits of marriage.
Leave all the difficult things like childbearing to the heterosexuals. Breastfeeding? Sheesh people still do that? Wait a second who said that gay marriage is unatural? The are just bigots!

Homosexuality is not a disease or a learned behavior. I believe that christian's truly do try to love the sinner and hate the sin, but in the case of sexuality, the majority of christian's fall flat on their faces.

Love is trust, trust beyond what you may be able to comprehend at any given point; trust that the one you love knows themselves more than you ever could, and trust that they can count on you and vice versa no matter what ideological differences you may have at any certain point.

That is it. Simple. Give everyone the opportunity to love like christian's are supposed to.

I contacted the committee and told them this needed to go back and placed on the ballot as the people of DC have demanded. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. SSMers have called this as their victory, let's make sure the people of DC have the final say.

I also learned that if Congress does nothing on this matter, this law will go into effect the day the 30 legislative day review period runs out, whether or not the case is under appeal.

I am appalled at the possibility that gay marriage would be allowed for a short time and then be taken away once the court rightfully decides that silencing the voters on this issue violated the DC Charter, and then the voters decide to support traditional marriage instead.

Please tell Congress that they must not let this happen. There was absolute chaos in California because of the rash decision on the part of the State Supreme Court to allow gay marriage for a short time knowing full well that the question was up for a vote in a few months. Their lack of common sense and judicial responsibility was reprehensible, and I’m seeing the same situation with Congress right now in that they think that doing nothing to stop this from happening is acceptable.

Assuming ADF files its appeal in a timely manner, Congress has to stop this law from going into effect until the court has made its decision. I’d hate for ADF to have to file an injunction to stop it from going into effect while it’s under litigation, I’d prefer that Congress did its job and told the DC Council they just don’t get to silence the voters like that. But if an injunction is what it takes, I hope the ADF attorneys will do that.

In the meantime, please call Congress - in partidular the House Oversight Committee and the Federal Workforce and DC Subcommittee - and tell them to boot this law back to Mayor Fenty and the Council because the way the voters request to put this on the ballot was rejected violated the DC Charter.

To show that homosexuals are not politically powerless, Dr. Miller provided “striking” examples of the many ways in which they have won support for their political agenda in California, claiming allies such as federal officeholders (both US Senators and President Obama) , local and statewide elected officials (more than 30 local officials, mayors of the top three cities, and every single Constitutional officer); organized labor (more than 54 such groups opposed Prop 8); major newspapers (21 of 23 opposed Prop 8 while the other two took no editorial position); major corporations (including a consortium of Silicon Valley businesses), and the fact that the “No on 8” campaign actually raised more money than the “Yes” side.

Hardly powerless, you practically had the entire state government on your side. And the governor and elected official have turned their back on the people not even fulfilling their obligations to the state. Shameful.

If the key is the beliefs of those who 'tilted the win' for the marriage amendment in California, then, SSMers can blame that portion of the openy gay electorate which delivered the margin of victory.

Do the anti-8 litigators want to drag those voters into court and accuse them of anti-gay animus? No, they do not, for some unstated reason.

You can always vote your faith. Thanks you should stop right there. I'd like to see Ted and gang prove each and everyone one of those votes that "tipped" the scale to the prop 8 side. You said yourself you think most voted not based on religious beliefs. I'd like to also see Ted and gang prove in court that the ads were misleading. I;d like to see him prove each person's conscience that watched a "misleading" ad. Its called hearsay. One person's opinion. People can vote for whatever reason they want and are not accountable to government at the ballot box.

Its Ironic you believe that Religion holds animosity towards homosexuals. Christian religions including Mormons,, Catholics, Lutheran, whatever all teach people to love their neighbor, help the sick and afflicted. Christians base their religion off the Bible. A book that is believed by many people including gays. Some gays are Christian and receive a feeling of comfort from pastors and bishops. They are not cast out. They are welcomed in our churches. We love the individual and hate the sin. I'd like to know how Ted and gang can have any chance of a case pointing to animosity of gays, when quite the opposite is happening.

Sure they can prove that religion doesn't agree with homosexual behavior, that's no secret. Christian religion teaches us to love the sinner and not the sin. Good luck proving animosity or hate in court. Its the opposite of what we teach.

I don’t think most voters in California voted for Prop 8 because of religious beliefs, but since the vote was nearly 50/50, with almost as many voting against the measure, there is a sense that the “faith” vote, and all the money that the Mormons and Catholics spent on misleading ads, tilted the win to the marriage discrimination side.

You can always vote your faith but if the outcome undermines the US Constitution, the law cannot stand. Laws always supersede faith beliefs, if the two are in conflict. That’s why pre-marital sex, adultery and divorce are all legal, even though the Bible prohibits them. If the courts determine that marriage discrimination is too closely aligned with religious belief and personal animosity toward homosexuals, marriage discrimination will fail..