Thursday, November 13, 2008

My Manifesto

The debate rages on regarding Proposition 8 and gay rights. This Saturday, there are protests all over the nation, meant to begin simultaneously. In Los Angeles, I will be part of the group gathering in front of city hall for a peaceful protest. If you would like to join us in L.A., please click the "Fight the H8" link to the right. If you're interested in stopping by a rally in your own town, click here and get the details for every state.

There are currently three lawsuits going on with regard to the passage of Prop 8. The gist of these lawsuits seems to be that the amendment now written into the state constitution is so far-reaching, and takes away rights from a minority group, that it is actually a revision, and not an amendment. A revision requires approval from two-thirds of the state legislature, and then a majority of votes from citizens.

I appreciate that these lawsuits are out there, and I realize that this is the battle that the groups filing the suits think they will win. Think about the constitutional amendments you can remember learning in school (they're federal, but the point still applies). Do you recall any of them involving the idea of taking away the rights of the citizens? The only one I can think of is Amendment 18, which made it illegal to manufacture, sell or transport liquor (so drinking it was technically still legal, strangely enough). But that amendment was reversed with Amendment 21.

Amendment 1 gave us freedom of religion and press. Amendment 5 gave us the right to not incriminate ourselves in court. Amendment 13 abolished slavery, thereby giving black people more rights. Amendment 19 gave women the right to vote. And so on.

But Proposition 8, albeit a state constitutional amendment, takes away the rights of a large sect of the community. And the Republican Party's platform calls for a federal amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Luckily, they won't have the power to do that anytime soon, but just the fact that they want to should be cause for concern.

Obviously, you know I'm against Proposition 8, and maybe you know the reasons why. But I feel like I need to take this opportunity to write about what the other side thinks, and why all their arguments are completely illogical and illegal. Let's see what I can do (it's long, so I added something that will have it open in a new window for you, if you're reading this on the front page of the blog).


Okay, so many of the Christian right want us to believe that the bible expressly forbids homosexuality, so we therefore shouldn't embrace it with our laws. The argument against this one should be pretty obvious, but let's do it anyway, because it's the biggest one out there.

First, there is a debate as to what the bible actually says regarding homosexuality. But let's say they're right, and that one passage in Leviticus does say that homosexuality is a sin. The question then becomes, why is this the only part taken from that section of the bible that hardcore Christians still want to apply to life today? What I mean is, the homosexuality thing is one part of a large section in the Old Testament that forbids (or condones) many different actions. Leviticus says we can keep slaves, that eating shellfish is an abomination, that touching dead pig skin is prohibited, and even that farmers can't plant two different crops in the same field.

Now, I think we can all admit that those are pretty crazy rules for today's society. And I'm sure that most of those Christians who oppose homosexuality are busing owning slaves and avoiding lobster. So why is this one so important to them?

It can't be that they're so for "traditional" marriage. Marriage isn't explicitly a Christian rite, since the rite has been around since longer before Christ ever walked the earth. Christians certainly don't have the monopoly on marriage as a sacrament.

And, it's been said a million times, but it bears repeating--if the Christian right is so concerned with "protecting" marriage, why are they not as concerned with divorce rates? I read somewhere that the Bible Belt and traditionally Christian areas of the country have higher divorce rates than the rest of the nation. So where is the focus on that? Gay marriage doesn't actually affect their lives, but the divorce of family members and parishioners certainly does. So where is the outrage there?

But forget all that, because I don't care what the bible says. Not when it comes to the establishment of laws that apply to the entire society. The principle of separation of church and state is supposed to be paramount in this nation, even if many of the founding fathers happened to be Christian. Those who will use the bible in this argument claim that we were founded as a Christian nation, though, and point to "In God We Trust" on the money, or "one nation under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance as a prime example of this Christian foundation.

"In God We Trust" wasn't on money until 1861, "because of the increased religious sentiment" during the Civil War. For those lacking a knowledge of history, 1861 was almost 100 years after the establishment of the United States of America. And even then, it was only placed on the coin money. The paper money didn't get the motto until 1957, during the McCarthy era. So, war, religious fanaticism and/or fear of Communism made it necessary for the nation to add this phrase to the money. Something to be proud of, for sure.

"One nation under god" was added in 1954, also due to McCarthyism. This was an effort to make sure we appeared morally superior to the Communists in Russia. Once again, this supposed proof of our nation's Christian foundation was really just a reactionary response to an irrational fear.

Despite those two instances, and despite the fact that our current (but not for long) president, and others in control, invoke god often, this country was meant to follow the principle of separation of church and state. This is why we do not (technically, anyway) have a state religion, and why we don't require people to attend a specific church, or any church at all, if they so choose.

In fact, we all know the general reason people fled England for the American colonies--freedom of religion. That's why it's the first amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't specify a sole religion that is allowed such freedoms; it merely states that that government will not make a law imposing on religion. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among many others, are on record time and again, talking about how this nation was not founded to follow a particular religious creed, but rather to allow everyone to worship as he/she saw fit.

For that reason, you are allowed to believe that your god thinks homosexuals will burn in hell. But the government is not allowed to take those beliefs and make them into law. Conversely, homosexuals being granted the right to marry does not impose our beliefs on to others, despite what the supporters of Prop 8 want us to believe. It simply ensures that we have the same rights granted to other citizens in this country.

Gay marriage being legal doesn't mean you have to accept gay marriages. It doesn't mean you have to believe that homosexuals are anything other than heathens. It doesn't mean your church will lose tax exempt status if it doesn't want to perform gay marriages. That was a lie put out by the supporters of Prop 8, which didn't take into account the fact that churches currently have the right to deny marriage services to any couples (generally those who aren't members of the congregation) without fear of losing that tax exempt status. It is civil rights issue, plain and simple.

Which brings us to...


"Homosexuality, unlike race, is a choice, and therefore isn't subject to civil rights legislation."

This is the one used when gay rights activists compare our struggles to those of the African-Americans in this nation for the last several hundred years. The reasoning is that being black is something one can easily identify with one's eyes, so it is an inherent trait that should be protected (though think about how long it took before the government recognized the need for that protection).

Homosexuality, according to this argument, is something one chooses. Therefore, granting rights to practicing homosexuals is akin to giving "special rights" to one group of people. After all, homosexuals can still marry members of the opposite sex, so they have the same rights as everyone else, right? Allowing gay marriage would give special treatment to homosexuals, and we can't have that.

There are several flaws in this one. First, allowing gay marriage means that any one person can marry any other person. That means that if an avowed heterosexual wants to marry someone of the same sex, he/she can. Thus, the right is not "special" to homosexuals. It is simply covering all consenting adults under the same law.

Second, and this is the big one, is this idea of "choice." I don't believe for a second that being gay is a choice, because I know that many of us would not make this particular choice if it were. Why would we, when we are subject to torment and hate from a large part of the population? Who would choose that?

Yeah, okay, so they haven't identified the "gay gene." But, let's look at who fights gay rights the most vehemently--the Christian right. They are Christian. They go to church, they donate money to the cause, they raise their children in that faith. They believe in the death penalty, but not abortion. They believe in loving their neighbors, unless those neighbors happen to be gay. I'm not speaking of all Christians here, so please don't send me emails; I'm talking about the ones going out of their way to join this debate, despite the fact that nothing about gay marriage affects their lives. But I digress.

Anyway, Christians. Their religion is protected under the first amendment of the Constitution. They are allowed to assemble, to preach their beliefs, all because the government sees fit to protect their right to do so. Now, here's a question for you--were these Christians born this way? Sure, many of them believe in original sin, and most were raised by Christian parents who taught them these "values." But were they, biologically, born this way? Did science identify a Christian gene when I wasn't looking?

No? Okay, well, that certainly seems like a choice, then, doesn't it? The evangelical right has made a choice to believe in certain aspects of the bible while disavowing others, and guess what? The government says, "We respect your right to those choices, and no law shall be made to infringe upon that right."

Let's just ignore for a minute that many gay people identify as Christians. Instead, maybe we should just start referring to homosexuality as a religion. Do that, and there is no way in hell (pun intended) that the Christian right can attempt to put laws on the books that remove rights for us, because we would be unequivocally protected under the first amendment. No questions asked.

The supporters of Prop 8 keep telling us how the people have spoken, and that "activist judges" shouldn't go against the will of the people. Well, here's the thing. "Activist judges" didn't write the constitution. They didn't establish the doctrine of "all men are created equal." But when that principle is being compromised, it is up to judges to reaffirm the laws of the land. This matter should never have been brought to a vote in the first place. It is not a law about bond measures or animal rights or anything that involves taxpayers' money. We're talking about two consenting adults, and the five million voters who got a say in the decisions those adults make in their own lives.

I keep going back to this case, Loving v. Virginia, which said that the laws on marriage couldn't discriminate based on race. Keep in mind that this case was decided upon in 1967. 1967! 42 years ago, in many states, a minority couldn't marry a white person, and many people were okay with it because that was the way it had always been. And what stopped this was not a vote from the people, but a unanimous decision from the United States Supreme Court. If the people had been allowed to vote on it instead, how long would it have been before these anti-miscegenation laws were overturned? Would we still have them in some states?

Here's what the court wrote in the decision:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


It's pretty easy to see that, though this case was specifically related to race, it can easily be translated to the gay rights cause. Perhaps more important is this part:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [emphasis added]

Now, what about the fact that California (and Arizona, Florida, Tennessee, among others) prohibits only marriage involving gay persons? Doesn't that say something about what kind of supremacy the Christian right is attempting to maintain?


31 comments:

Michael Ejercito said...

Having read up on this issue extensively, as well as the relevant case law, I would have to conclude that Proposition 8 is indeed a legitimate amendment.

Initiative constitutional amendments have been used to legalize Indian gaming, impose legislative term limits, forbid the state from engaging in racial or gender discrimination in employment, and even reinstate the death penalty.

The last two are especially relevant. An initiative amendment added Section 31 to the Declaration of Rights, forbidding the state from discriminating against "any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting." In effect, it was an expansion of the scope of the equal protection clause. If revisions were necessary to affect the equal protection clause, then this section would be invalid and there would be no basis in the state constitution for equal protection in public employment, public education, or public housing.

An initiative amendment added Section 27 to the Declaration of Rights, which constitutionalized the death penalty. It was added after the Supreme Court had ruled "that capital punishment is both cruel and unusual as those terms are defined under article I, section 6, of the California Constitution, and that therefore death may not be exacted as punishment for crime in this state." In that same decision, it reiterated that "The cruel or unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution, like other provisions of the Declaration of Rights, operates to restrain legislative and executive action and to protect fundamental individual and minority rights against encroachment by the majority." It is noted that the cruel and unusual punishment clause applies to all persons subject to California law; the only dispute in questions over cruel and unusual punishment is whether the punishment is cruel or unusual. Section 27 was challenged as an illegitimate revision in People v. Frierson , the Court rejected that challenge. Thus, a fundamental right found in the state constitution's Declaration of Rights was affected by an initiative amendment.

The decision Raven v. Deukmejian did invalidate an initiative amendment- but the amendment placed drastic limits on state courts' ability to interpret the rights of criminal defendants, limiting state interpretation of state constitutional protections to the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of analogous U.S. constitutional protections. By contrast, Prop. 8 is extremely limited in scope- it only defines one word. State courts continue to have the power to apply equal protection on the basis of sexual preference and orientation. Indeed, they may rule that same-sex couples, including those who got "married" before Prop. 8's passing, are entitled to tax, inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, and other benefits married couples enjoy. They could even rule divorce laws apply to same-sex couples- Prop. 8 did not define divorce.

To rule Prop. 8 as a revision would effectively state that a revision is required to define a single word, but an amendment is sufficient to redefine cruel and unusual punishment- a life and death issue for death row inmates.

Erin said...

I don't know anything about case law, though I intend to read more in the coming days, so it's hard for me to argue with you. If I were filing a lawsuit on this matter, it would likely be more about the issue of civil rights than the semantics of revision versus amendment.

The point is, Prop 8 takes away rights that people already had. I do not understand why the people are allowed to vote on such an issue anyway, but there is no question in my mind that this is an issue of discrimination, plain and simple.

This would never stand if it were against any other group of people, whether it was based on race, religion, sex, nationality, whatever. But discrimination against gays is the last protected act of bigotry. Hiding behind religion to enact laws that hold down a minority can only last for so long before society changes. Hopefully we're getting closer.

Michael Ejercito said...

I don't know anything about case law, though I intend to read more in the coming days, so it's hard for me to argue with you. If I were filing a lawsuit on this matter, it would likely be more about the issue of civil rights than the semantics of revision versus amendment.
The constitution defines the scope of our civil rights.

And amendments have been used to limit the scope of civil rights protections, as I have pointed out in my above post. Unless you think that freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is not a civil right...

Cobra said...

I'll be honest with you, I only read your site for information on this issue. So, I don't know much about it so please bear with me during my question. That being said, my understanding is that homosexual couples would like to have the same rights as married couples, correct? Not necessarily the right to get married but the right to be recognized as a couple when it comes to taxes, voting, ability to adopt, health care, etc. In other words, you don't want the marriage certificate that comes with being married, you want the other stuff.Is that correct?

What are the people who are for Prop 8 afraid of if homosexual couples were given these rights?

Michael Ejercito said...

What are the people who are for Prop 8 afraid of if homosexual couples were given these rights?
I voted for Prop. 8 because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, a belief that I have held all my life.

I do not give jack shit if homosexual couples are recognized as such when it comes to taxes and voting and health care.

Given the fact that Prop. 8 is very narrow in scope (it only defines one word), state courts are likely, given stare decisis , to rule that same-sex couples have a constitutional entitlement to tax, inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, and other privileges that married couples currently enjoy under the law.

Christine Cantella said...

"Given the fact that Prop. 8 is very narrow in scope (it only defines one word), state courts are likely, given stare decisis , to rule that same-sex couples have a constitutional entitlement to tax, inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, and other privileges that married couples currently enjoy under the law."

I do not want my relationship to be defined as anything but marriage. It is what I deserve as a human being who is in love with another human being. As a person educated in law, knowing that the only way that the state of California is going to give us full benefits, hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc... is by allowing us to use the beloved word marriage in a prop with a narrow scope, it is appalling that one could EVER vote yes on 8.

Try voting with an open mind and some heart.

Erin said...

I agree with Christine, actually. Michael keeps mentioning what a narrow scope Prop 8 is, and how it only defines one word. But somehow, that one word is so damn important to people who are not affected by the broader scope of its definition.

Prop 8's passage did not change your life in the least, Michael. And if it hadn't passed, your life would not have changed at all either. Meanwhile, 18,000 couples are in a bit of a legal limbo at the moment because of your vote, and countless more (including me) have lost the legal right to marriage. That changed our lives. And you're just spewing rhetoric about why that was okay for you to have that sort of imposition in our lives.

"Marriage" is such an important word to you that you're willing to vote to take away words that are kind of important to the rest of us. You know, like "freedom, equality, civil rights."

I could go on, but, really, marriage? I will never understand why this crap is so important to people like you. I guess you'll never really get it until someone tries to take away your rights based on something you can't change (like, say, your religious beliefs, for instance).

Cobra said...

"I voted for Prop. 8 because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, a belief that I have held all my life."

I guess I would then ask you is.....why can only a man and a woman have a marriage? What does a marriage entail that only a man and a woman provide that would seperate it from any other union?

Erin said...

I would like to know what Michael has to say about that, because I hear a lot from people who voted "yes" about how marriage was meant to create children, and gay couples can't do that. There are obvious fallacies there, not the least of which is that plenty of heterosexual couples are unable to naturally conceive children. I guess, by the logic of some "yes on 8" voters, those marriages shouldn't be recognized either.

Not to mention the fact that there are many ways for gay couples to produce children in a relationship. But that opens up a whole other can of worms, since many anti-homosexual people think we're all only interested in having children so that we can rape them ceaselessly and/or corrupt their minds.

Anyway, that's just what I've heard from others. Michael is welcome to speak for himself, obviously.

Michael Ejercito said...

I do not want my relationship to be defined as anything but marriage.
Defined by whom ? The state? That is not allowed under the constitution.
As a person educated in law, knowing that the only way that the state of California is going to give us full benefits, hospital visitation, power of attorney, etc.
There is another way. If you are denied full benefits, file a lawsuit with the court, and cite the provision in In Re Marriage Cases that holds laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation must be subject to strict scrutiny.

The state is only forbidden from defining marriage as anything other than a man and a woman; existing case law will probably require them to recognize tax, inheritance, estate, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, and other benefits.

Erin said...

Michael, thanks for the legal help, but I'm pretty sure Christine is aware that Prop 8 made a disgrace of the state constitution. I think her point is that it would be nice if the state could have avoided writing discrimination into that document. It would have been even better if something other than a simple majority were required to amend the constitution, or, better yet, if the majority was not allowed to decide the civil rights of a minority.

You can keep defending that discrimination all you want, even though I'm sure you know that, legally, it has no justification.

The bottom line is that Christine will, like me, keep fighting for equal rights for every citizen of this nation. And we will win. Sorry if that scares you.

Michael Ejercito said...

But somehow, that one word is so damn important to people who are not affected by the broader scope of its definition.
Given existing state case law on the equal protection clause, state courts are likely to narrowly define marriage, and will not rule that the constitutional definition of marriage denies same-sex couples tax, inheritance, estate, hospital visitation, or other benefits.

To put it simply, the legal distinction between marriages and same-sex unions is a distinction with a difference the width of a Planck length.
I would like to know what Michael has to say about that, because I hear a lot from people who voted "yes" about how marriage was meant to create children, and gay couples can't do that. There are obvious fallacies there, not the least of which is that plenty of heterosexual couples are unable to naturally conceive children. I guess, by the logic of some "yes on 8" voters, those marriages shouldn't be recognized either.

Feel free to ask them. That was not my rationale.

Cobra said...

Michael...I'll ask again, what is your rationale?

Michael Ejercito said...

It would have been even better if something other than a simple majority were required to amend the constitution, or, better yet, if the majority was not allowed to decide the civil rights of a minority.
That will probably require a state constitutional convention.

Erin said...

Like Jack said, we said we wanted to know your rationale. I didn't say I wanted to know the rationale of others from whom I had already received opinions.

Regardless, the idea that the difference between same sex civil unions and marriage is so slim makes it all the more disconcerting that you care so much to make sure the distinction exists. If it's the same damn thing anyway, what is the harm in giving us the word, too?

It's lovely that you took the time to search "prop 8 revision" and come give a legal lesson to those of us who are actually affected by this amendment. I'm sure I can speak for everyone when I say we appreciate it, despite the fact that you have answered none of the important questions. You've blabbed on about how you don't care if we get the same rights (thanks for the approval, by the way), as long as it's not called marriage.

But you haven't explained why it is so necessary to hurt so many people by specifically defining their relationship as something different from the majority. It doesn't affect you if it's called marriage, so why bother fighting it? Because god told you to? Well, god doesn't get to tell everyone what to do in this country, because we have the freedom to believe in whatever god we choose. You are not allowed to make laws that impose your religion on others. Is that not pretty obvious to anyone who completes third grade in this country?

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is purely the implementation of an alleged religious doctrine. If you can explain it to me as anything other than that, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, quit trying to legislate my morality.

Christians defended slavery for quite a while, using the bible as the cover, and saying they'd held that belief their entire lives. Same goes for interracial marriage. Sounds kind of like what you said about your belief of the definition of marriage. But history has proven that just because something has always been done one way, doesn't make it right.

You can be cool and calculated and quote case law and make it seem like this is a methodical, cut and dry issue for the courts. But that's easy for you to do because this doesn't affect your life. Try stepping outside your box and thinking about it from someone else's perspective.

I've thought about it from your perspective, and guess what? You don't actually have a perspective because it's none of your damn business. It doesn't affect your life, and it never will. And that's pretty much the bottom line here.

Cobra said...

I'm just curious what the thought process is for the other side.

Erin said...

I'm with you, Cobra. I've been trying to figure it out for years.

Michael Ejercito said...

There are four reason, none of them mutually exclusive:

1. personal belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

2. belief that recognition of same-sex "marriage" is harmful to society.

3. belief that homosexual behavior is immoral.

4. belief that homosexuals are inferior.

Only reason 4 can be construed as bigoted. The Catholic church teaches Reason 3, and also teaches that homosexuals are to be treated with dignity, respect, and compassion.

I will now list the reasons that people support legal recognition of same-sex "marriage", none of them mutually exclusive:

1. personal belief that marriage is defined as a union of two (or more) persons regardless of gender.

2. belief that legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is beneficial to society.

3. belief that failure to recognize same-sex "marriage" is wrongful gender discrimination.

4. belief that failure to recognize same-sex "marriage" is wrongful sexual orientation or preference discrimination.

5. belief that people should be free to consensually organize families and partnerships however they wish.

Only reason 4 has to do with equal treatment of homosexuals.

Erin said...

"4. belief that homosexuals are inferior. "

Oh, for pete's sake.

Why did I even bother?

Cobra said...

Wow. Really? Now i'm dying to see a list of who else is inferior.

I'm also curious about how it's harmful to society? I mean, hetero couples are divorcing at a 50% rate, that would seem to be very harmful but we are still allowing that, no? I guess I'm wondering harmful in what way then?

I'm also Catholic...you know that everything they say isn't correct, right?

I don't want to scare you off here because I find it interesting to hear different views. I appreciate the honesty.

Erin said...

For the record, I was baptized, raised and confirmed Catholic. But it's hard to go to church and receive communion from an organization that believes I'm going to hell.

Also for the record, telling homosexuals that their behavior is immoral, or that they are inferior, is not exactly what I would consider treating them with "dignity, respect, and compassion." But I guess it's pretty clear at this point that we have different definitions of those words.

piper said...

i admit that i haven't read many many of the words here. i just want to add that it's a very bad sign when you share the same language and the same argument as people whose views you'd oppose. most of the words i've heard against same-sex marriage were the same words used against interracial marriage. (anyone who thinks this issue is different b/c homosexuality is wrong, might want to remember that back in the day normal good people knew in their hearts that blacks just weren't quite people. they were animals, but more useful, if you could break them, or train them from birth. imagine that.)

i also think that people have to learn to separate their personal beliefs from their view of the law. i believe that almost all abortions are bad and that some are just wrong, but i know how cruel it would be to ban abortions in a world where we don't take care of those in need. i believe adultery is WRONG, but i don't think that its being legal implies that the government supports and promotes adultery.

i understand (in theory) how hard it is for some to deal with homosexuality when they've been raised to believe it's immoral, but that really can't have anything to do with what's legal. you can be guided by your own morals, but we have to share a common rationale that doesn't rely on such beliefs when it comes to the law.

word. (wow, even more comments since i started writing. sorry for the irrelevance of this post!)

Why said...

My personal belief of granting the right to marry is like that of granting any other right. You grant someone the right to do what they want, then you cut down on the right based on sound reasons. The process of granting the right to marriage starts off by granting everyone the right to marry anyone else. Then you illegalize incest, and marrying someone who refuses to marry you because there are good reasons to do this, etc. Michael, your reasons 2,3 and 4 would be applicable to this if they were correct, but they are not. They are simply made up.

As someone who was baptised and raised catholic, I learned that marriage was the eternal bond between loving people and that adultery was a mortal sin (as a kid, I never considered the possibility of the two people being of the same gender). In view of what I was taught as a good catholic boy, I have this suggestion to you Michael, come back and talk about the "immorality" and "inferiority" of homosexuals and how this affects their rights after the government criminalises adultery (clearly immoral) and divorce (certainly selfish as it is bad for the kids). There are tonnes of things going on out there that are *actually* immoral and destroying society and committed by people who are *actually* inferior that are perfectly legal. Get over your lame rationalisations and come to grip with the fact that you hold a bigoted belief.

Michael Ejercito said...


Oh, for pete's sake.

Why did I even bother?

The belief that homosexuals are inferior was a reason for some. I did not comment on whether or not it was a good reason.

Erin said...

Michael, we asked for your rationale. We know what other people think. I thought we stressed that pretty clearly more than once, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

So, everyone reading this assumed that list was a list of your personal reasons. We can hardly be blamed for that assumption.

Michael Ejercito said...


Michael, we asked for your rationale. We know what other people think. I thought we stressed that pretty clearly more than once, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

Fair enough.

My reasons were 1. and 3.

Cobra said...

Michael, What can a man and woman have in a marriage that a homosexual couple can't?

Michael Ejercito said...

Michael, What can a man and woman have in a marriage that a homosexual couple can't?
Pregnancy.

Bruce Paine said...

That is not true, Michael. What they can't have in common is heterosexual intercourse. They can certainly share participation in pregnancy. If you are going to be trite, try to be accurate.

Bruce Paine said...

And where has Bruce Paine been…


It is easy for this gentleman to flaunt the law, as it happens to have recently organized to support his beliefs, but that is not what this is about. It is about his beliefs. I would not call them morals, as that implies a connotation of its absolute authority. I would not cloud my argument by calling them that. After filtering it down to the lowest common denominator, it is simply his beliefs. Call them what you will, Petunia is just Porky with pigtails and a skirt.

He has determined that it is right for him to remove the allowance of marriage from some people and reserve it for others. His basis for his belief is the Catholic Church. In the course of his argument he essentially substantiated his support of a legal action with a Catholic-based belief.

He has determined that his belief in Catholic doctrine has justified him to take from people and prevent others from having a thing which does not physically harm him or prevent him from living his life. He wants to take something that is not his. No matter how he justifies it, he wants to take something from people he has no relationship with. Beyond that, he does not merely want to take a thing, an object that was built or purchased; he wants to take a chance at happiness. He wants to take away the happiness that people find in the symbiotic relationship that can only be found in marriage. From people he does not know, who do not cater to his brand and do not affect him directly, he would take something that DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. I would say to anyone who would so ignominiously support the desire to steal happiness from behind the blind of California law and the Catholic Church, “You, sir, are a God damned coward.”

christine cantella said...

I love you, Bruce Paine.