Fighting H8. Nationwide Protest due to Prop. 8 passing

[adamh0903]

about 2 weeks ago their was a post on this board about a church having a series of messages on marriage, some of you people went nuts, talking about the hate that spewed from walls of the church. Now in this thread there is one person what quietly said she didn't think she was going to go, 1/2 a paragraph was devoted to insulting her. The hypocrisy of gay activist is amusing really. Which I also pointed out in the other thread, but some coward on this board deleted it, and wont own up to it. The bottom line is this, the people spoke in both california and florida, marriage is between a man and a woman, deal with it.

[reednavy]

Granted, marriage is not what it used to be, so I frankly could care less about the marraige aspect. I'm just for the equal rights, everyone deserves to be treated equally, whether you like their sexual orientation or not.

My command doesn't know, plus I'm just getting the word out anyways. I'm still debating if I should do anything on Saturday.

I am not the biggest fan of these crazy protesters and such, make your voices be heard, but violence isn't needed. We don't need a Stonewall #2.

[The Compound]

I dont know how to post a youtube video, but Keith Olbermann pretty much sums up this topic very well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

[JeffreyS]

I am not a big protester but prop 8 and amendment 2 have proven on this subject you can't be activist enough. The people who complain that gays are too much in your face are so off base.  Society has proven if you want to be treated equal you need to be loud and make the hate mongers uncomfortable by shinning the light of truth on them even if it gives them the willys.  The government or society have no business saying who anyone can or can't marry.  I really am convinced that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate.  I mean it is just laughable that they are this bent out of shape over the definition of a word. This just in they have to update the dictionary every year.

[BridgeTroll]

I really am convinced that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate.

Wow...

[Tripoli1711]

Say it with me boys and girls...

"Marriage is not a civil right."

From the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia (the case that overturned state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.):

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.... Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Full opinion at http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/1/case.html

I am afraid this misses the point.  The decision is predicated on the designation of "race" as a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause of Article 14 the US Constitution.  Homosexuality is not noted in our jurisprudence as being a protected class.  The decision rests on the fact that people were being denied the opportunity to marry because of race and therefore the statute did not afford citizens equal protection of the law.  This is because anything that infringes upon the rights of a protected class must be shown to be an issue of compelling importance such that the State must act, and the actions must be done in a way that is as narrow as possible in its impact on the rights of the citizens.  Clearly there was no compelling interest other than the desire to keep blacks and white from marrying, which the Court rightfully decided does not pass the test.  Thus, the law was struck down.
In the realm of gay marriage, there is no equal protection violation.  All citizens are treated equally.  As a married heterosexual male, I have the same rights as a gay male or a gay female.  I cannot marry another man.  A homosexual male cannot marry another man.  The rights are the same.  I can marry a woman, regardless of her race or national origin, a homosexual male can marry a woman regardless of her race or national origin.  I understand the reply will be that it is unequal because homosexuals cannot marry who they want.  That is certainly relevant, but the fact remains that legally there is no equal protection violation here, and nobody's recognized constitutional right to marry is violated.  Given that homosexuals have not been held to be a protected class, any laws that could have an impact on their rights needs to merely have a rational basis for its passing.  A rational argument can be made that the institution of marriage as being "fundamental to our very existence and survival" is based upon the view that the union of a man and a woman to produce offspring and raise them.  In fact, the Loving Court had that view in mind when writing the decision.  As I mentioned earlier, there is no equal protection violation.  Thus, the compelling interest vs. rational interest, protected class v. non protected class analysis is moot.  Even if homosexuals were considered a protected class the result would not change.  None of the gay marriage bans of which I am aware are in violation of our federal constitutional rights.

[reednavy]

It may not be under the Constitution, but it is violating discrimination laws in the eyes of many. THAT is a key point.

[stephElf]

I really am convinced that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate.

Wow...

What is "wow" about that exactly?

If it isn't out of hatred than it is out of some moral/religious obligation or opinion and I am sorry that is just hogwash.

Gay people should be able to marry who they want, when they want, where they want.

Who cares, seriously?

I can't believe how old-fashioned people can be.

I got in a huge argument with some of my friends pre-election and some of them were saying the craziest stuff.  They choose to be "that way". They can be "normal" if they want. "It's just not right, God wants a man and a woman together so they can pro-create".

Sure maybe some people choose to be gay, but most people just ARE that way. It isn't in their control.
If it was a choice like choosing two paths then how come when I hit puberty I didn't take a day off from school and say hmmmm? Do I like boys or girls? I have a choice.  Baloney, it is an inate feeling.

I hope that anyone who is against gay marriage or thinks that being gay is a choice, has gay children. Then maybe they will sing another tune.

Sorry if anyone here finds my opinion offensive but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[mandy6488]

I really am convinced that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate.

Wow...

What is "wow" about that exactly?

If it isn't out of hatred than it is out of some moral/religious obligation or opinion and I am sorry that is just hogwash.

Gay people should be able to marry who they want, when they want, where they want.

Who cares, seriously?

I can't believe how old-fashioned people can be.

I got in a huge argument with some of my friends pre-election and some of them were saying the craziest stuff.  They choose to be "that way". They can be "normal" if they want. "It's just not right, God wants a man and a woman together so they can pro-create".

Sure maybe some people choose to be gay, but most people just ARE that way. It isn't in their control.
If it was a choice like choosing two paths then how come when I hit puberty I didn't take a day off from school and say hmmmm? Do I like boys or girls? I have a choice.  Baloney, it is an inate feeling.

I hope that anyone who is against gay marriage or thinks that being gay is a choice, has gay children. Then maybe they will sing another tune.

Sorry if anyone here finds my opinion offensive but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

That's what I don't get. Why are people so against it?  I want to know HOW exactly it hurt marriage.  Doesn't divorce hurt marriage? And please, people who bring in the 'marriage is holy' crap, just stop it. It shouldn't be about religion at all. Is it a problem if two atheists get married? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't view their marriage as a "holy union."  I really just cannot comprehend what the issue is. Just let people live their lives!  Does it REALLY hurt you for gay people to be allowed the right to marry? If so, how exactly?  And I don't give a flip if it goes against your beliefs. If you don't believe in it, don't enter into a gay marriage yourself. Seems reasonable to me.

Oh yeah, I hear this.. you don't want to explain it to your children? Hmm, okay, well gay couples are a fact of society so they are going to learn eventually anyway. How about just explaining that two people love each other and want to spend their lives together.

I'd just love someone to attempt a rational explanation on HOW exactly it "hurts families" and marriage.

[uptowngirl]

I am not a big protester but prop 8 and amendment 2 have proven on this subject you can't be activist enough. The people who complain that gays are too much in your face are so off base.  Society has proven if you want to be treated equal you need to be loud and make the hate mongers uncomfortable by shinning the light of truth on them even if it gives them the willys.  The government or society have no business saying who anyone can or can't marry.  I really am convinced that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate.  I mean it is just laughable that they are this bent out of shape over the definition of a word. This just in they have to update the dictionary every year.

While I support the right to marry who you choose, I can not agree with you on the "in your face" portion of your post. Going into a church and shouting down the sermon, tearing up the alter is not acceptable. Beating up little old ladies is not acceptable. Calling everyone haters, ignorant, selfish, and redneck just because they do not agree with your individual view point is not acceptable. I have stated before, the majority of people would be more willing to support "the same legal rights for committed couples, regardless of their sexual preference" than attacking marriage. I mean it seems this is the end result everyone is looking for, so leave the religion out of it and let's get it done. Bullying people never gets anything accomplished.

I have no problem with children understanding gay marriage; my children have always been around both straight and gay couples. I do have a problem with my child seeing some of the antics being portrayed on TV and in the newspapers/magazines as outlined above. It is hard for children to equate a loving person with someone who beats up old ladies and scares the bejesus out of them in church!

[JaxByDefault]

Say it with me boys and girls...

"Marriage is not a civil right."

From the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia (the case that overturned state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.):

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.... Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Full opinion at http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/1/case.html

I am afraid this misses the point.  The decision is predicated on the designation of "race" as a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause of Article 14 the US Constitution.  Homosexuality is not noted in our jurisprudence as being a protected class.  The decision rests on the fact that people were being denied the opportunity to marry because of race and therefore the statute did not afford citizens equal protection of the law.  This is because anything that infringes upon the rights of a protected class must be shown to be an issue of compelling importance such that the State must act, and the actions must be done in a way that is as narrow as possible in its impact on the rights of the citizens.  Clearly there was no compelling interest other than the desire to keep blacks and white from marrying, which the Court rightfully decided does not pass the test.  Thus, the law was struck down.
In the realm of gay marriage, there is no equal protection violation.  All citizens are treated equally.  As a married heterosexual male, I have the same rights as a gay male or a gay female.  I cannot marry another man.  A homosexual male cannot marry another man.  The rights are the same.  I can marry a woman, regardless of her race or national origin, a homosexual male can marry a woman regardless of her race or national origin.  I understand the reply will be that it is unequal because homosexuals cannot marry who they want.  That is certainly relevant, but the fact remains that legally there is no equal protection violation here, and nobody's recognized constitutional right to marry is violated.  Given that homosexuals have not been held to be a protected class, any laws that could have an impact on their rights needs to merely have a rational basis for its passing.  A rational argument can be made that the institution of marriage as being "fundamental to our very existence and survival" is based upon the view that the union of a man and a woman to produce offspring and raise them.  In fact, the Loving Court had that view in mind when writing the decision.  As I mentioned earlier, there is no equal protection violation.  Thus, the compelling interest vs. rational interest, protected class v. non protected class analysis is moot.  Even if homosexuals were considered a protected class the result would not change.  None of the gay marriage bans of which I am aware are in violation of our federal constitutional rights.

I'm not going to argue that the Court has exteded the protections of the Equal Protection Clause to homosexuals. They have not done so to this point, although it is possible (and logical) that they may do so in the future, just as they have extended the EPC's protection to cover classes of people well beyond it's original purpose as one of the "slave amendements." The Court has never ruled whether or not sexual orientation is a protected class entitled to strict scrutiny under the EPC. I believe that a decision on this issue is coming, although which way the Court goes depends, of course, on the makeup of the Court. (Justice Kennedy, however, the current swing vote on the Court, has been a rather staunch support of gay rights issues that have come before the Court.)

That is why I chose a quote from Loving from the Court's discussion of the Virginia statute as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment--not from the Court's analysis under the EPC. The Court has already extended some protection to homosexuals under the DPC in Lawrence v. Texas, albeit under the right to privacy in one's sexual relations. (Although, Justice O'Connor, in dicta, did assert that the Texas sodomy law in question in Lawrence was an EPC violation.) The Court did note, however, that sex conduct "can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice."

BTW, I would also note that your analogy about whom a person may marry makes that exact argument that Virginia made in Loving. As a man, you are not free to marry whomever you want, just as blacks and whites were not free to marry whomever they wanted. You must marry a woman. You may not marry someone of the same sex, just blacks and whites could not marry someone of the opposite race under the Virginia law at issue in Loving.

Just as a non-legal sidenote, we, as a society, do allow homosexuals to marry. They just have to marry some of the opposite sex to whom they are not attracted. That probably doesn't support the "traditional values" that many who oppose same-sex marriage claim to support. Some states do permit same-sex marriage, though these contracts are not recognized in states that have enacted DOMAs. It is very difficult to look at the plain language of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and not see these acts as a violation.

I hope for a more civil debate on these boards and a calm rally on Saturday. For those going, best wishes. My wife and I will try to be there.

[The Compound]

I am not a big protester but prop 8 and amendment 2 have proven on this subject you can't be activist enough. The people who complain that gays are too much in your face are so off base.  Society has proven if you want to be treated equal you need to be loud and make the hate mongers uncomfortable by shinning the light of truth on them even if it gives them the willys.  The government or society have no business saying who anyone can or can't marry.  I really am convinced that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate.  I mean it is just laughable that they are this bent out of shape over the definition of a word. This just in they have to update the dictionary every year.

While I support the right to marry who you choose, I can not agree with you on the "in your face" portion of your post. Going into a church and shouting down the sermon, tearing up the alter is not acceptable. Beating up little old ladies is not acceptable. Calling everyone haters, ignorant, selfish, and redneck just because they do not agree with your individual view point is not acceptable. I have stated before, the majority of people would be more willing to support "the same legal rights for committed couples, regardless of their sexual preference" than attacking marriage. I mean it seems this is the end result everyone is looking for, so leave the religion out of it and let's get it done. Bullying people never gets anything accomplished.

I have no problem with children understanding gay marriage; my children have always been around both straight and gay couples. I do have a problem with my child seeing some of the antics being portrayed on TV and in the newspapers/magazines as outlined above. It is hard for children to equate a loving person with someone who beats up old ladies and scares the bejesus out of them in church!

I dont know anyone gay or straight that beats up old ladies.   

[uptowngirl]

I am not a big protester but prop 8 and amendment 2 have proven on this subject you can't be activist enough. The people who complain that gays are too much in your face are so off base.  Society has proven if you want to be treated equal you need to be loud and make the hate mongers uncomfortable by shinning the light of truth on them even if it gives them the willys.  The government or society have no business saying who anyone can or can't marry.  I really am convinced that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate.  I mean it is just laughable that they are this bent out of shape over the definition of a word. This just in they have to update the dictionary every year.

While I support the right to marry who you choose, I can not agree with you on the "in your face" portion of your post. Going into a church and shouting down the sermon, tearing up the alter is not acceptable. Beating up little old ladies is not acceptable. Calling everyone haters, ignorant, selfish, and redneck just because they do not agree with your individual view point is not acceptable. I have stated before, the majority of people would be more willing to support "the same legal rights for committed couples, regardless of their sexual preference" than attacking marriage. I mean it seems this is the end result everyone is looking for, so leave the religion out of it and let's get it done. Bullying people never gets anything accomplished.

I have no problem with children understanding gay marriage; my children have always been around both straight and gay couples. I do have a problem with my child seeing some of the antics being portrayed on TV and in the newspapers/magazines as outlined above. It is hard for children to equate a loving person with someone who beats up old ladies and scares the bejesus out of them in church!

I dont know anyone gay or straight that beats up old ladies.   

I don't personally either, but saw this on the news last night and was shocked; it was part of a protest in CA.

I support protest, as long as it is peaceful and as respectful as possible (protesting in and of itself limits the respectfulness factor at times) and should not include tearing up churches, disrupting services (inside the church), getting people fired from their jobs, or physically attacking people. These types of actions could just as easily be considered "ignorant".

I also personally support gay marriage, I mean I don't care either way who you want to marry, but I would like to see equal rights applied to committed couples who choose NOT to marry, this would cover more people legally, and would take the religious aspects out of the debate.

[RiversideGator]

Say it with me boys and girls...

"Marriage is not a civil right."

From the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia (the case that overturned state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.):

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.... Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Full opinion at http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/1/case.html

I am familiar with that case.  The difference is marriage in that case refers to the institution involving the union of a man and a woman.  To claim Loving v. VA supports gay marriage is to either misread the case or to not be honest. 

Also, race is not behavior while sex is.  One is an immutable characteristic and one is basically a fetish.

[RiversideGator]

I really am convinced that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate.

Wow...

Is there no way another motivation might be at work (like preserving traditional marriage)?