Know Your Rights

On August 4, 2010 Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco declared that California’s Proposition 8, called by some the “Protect Marriage Act,” was unconstitutional. Prop 8 was approved by California voters in 2008 and it made same-sex marriage illegal in the state of California.

You can read the entire ruling here, and it’s absolutely fascinating reading. What I find most mind-boggling is the case the defense put up in support of Proposition 8. One of their witnesses, David Blankenhorn, is the founder of The Institute for American Values, a “think tank” committed to “contributing intellectually to the renewal of marriage and family life and the sources of competence, character, and citizenship in the United States.” Mr. Blankenhorn testified to his opinion that marriage is “a socially-approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman” with a primary purpose to “regulate filiation.”  If you’re like me, you read that and said “huh?” Well, filiation is “the condition or fact of being the child of a certain parent.” Oh. So what Blankenhorn basically testified to is that marriage is about being parents. The Judge spent many pages of his ruling reviewing Mr. Blankenhorn’s credentials, his education, the books he’s written and the cases he cited for evidence. Ultimately, the judge gave him the credibility he deserves by saying in part:

“Blankenhorn lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponents’ factual assertions.”

Ouch. The Judge also went on to say about Mr. Blankenhorn:

“The court now determines that Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight.”

Another of the defense witnesses in this case, Mr. Hak-Shing William Tam, is the Secretary of the America Return to God Prayer Movement. Mr. Tam’s shockingly ridiculous testimony includes these tidbits:

  • homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest children;

and that gay marriage will

  • cause states one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands.

When the Judge asked Mr. Tam for his sources, he provided the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, whose  position is that  their “clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential. The right to seek therapy to change one’s sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.” When the judge asked why Mr. Tam used this particular source Mr. Tam stated because “he believes what they say.” With regards to his source for connecting same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest, Mr. Tam says his source was “the internet.” Yes folks, the internet told him.

There was lots of testimony in this case and the Judge went to great lengths to lay out the legal rationale for his ruling. It addresses every point you can think of regarding marriage, parenting, discrimination and sexuality. But most importantly to me, and hopefully to you Faithful Reader, is this:

“Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

The Constitution of the United States give us our rights as Americans, and the 14th Amendment rings loud and clear:

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Constitution gives us the right of life, liberty and property and says no state can take it from us without due process of law. It also tells us no state can deny to any person equal protection! This is incredibly powerful stuff, designed to protect us as individual humans from a government that would seek to restrict our freedom. Such a thing can and should never be taken lightly. Our freedom is everything; it is what men and women have fought and died for since our country was founded. Yet the proponents of Proposition 8 sought to take those freedoms away from a certain group of people based on opinions, innuendo, fear and prejudice. The proponents of Prop 8 spent millions of dollars in their campaign to get California voters to willingly give up their freedoms and the fact that they succeeded in getting 52% of the state’s residents to agree to it is a sad commentary on our society.

In conclusion, the judge ruled on the side of freedom. Individual freedom, without prejudice, without discrimination and if you’re a romantic at heart, you could argue he ruled in favor of love.

CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex
couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Update:

I’ve added this link where Ted Olson, one of the attorneys who successfully argued the case, explains clearly and concisely why the ruling was the correct one. It is a quick, but thorough, legal education.

In case you haven’t read them in a while my friends, here are Our Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



82 comments

  1. Kenneth Kimball · ·

    Great summary.

    1. Excellent. I was unaware of Mr. Tam’s testimony: Both chuckle- and rage-inducing.

    2. N colridge · ·

      Everyone on earth misses the issue. . . . marriage is by Definition an incorporation for the biological procreation and nurture to maturity the produced children.

      The judge in this case, the dupe as he, is approached the erroneously in that the State which grangs licences for various entities and will also not disregard contracts between homosexuals to for some type of self serving contract outside the definition of marriage. This is not unequal protection under the law…. Trying to extend the argument to for example truly married couples; it would be similar if a man and woman would appeal the court that they are being discriminated against because the State would not grant them an “Artical of Incorporation” or that their union may be considered an “Irrevocable Trust”….

      Allway homosexuals have be able to form a civil contrac amougnst themselves and states by definition must honor all legal contracts of the substance of the homosexueal argument is really a red herring.

      It is viewd seriously and truly for what it is . . . a continuing shrill and desparatee attempt to moraly legitimize and seek affirmation of an insidious lystyle as “normal” when only 1% of any society’s population follow this avenue of living. What has really come out of the closet in the past 10 years is quite clear…..The Homosexual Desparation for Moral Legitmacy . . . .

      1. marriage is by Definition an incorporation for the biological procreation and nurture to maturity the produced children.

        What a load of crap! Marriage is and always has been a contract, and in this day and age, contracts are regulated by the law, your vicious homophobia notwithstanding.

  2. I’m not a lawyer, but I think this is a basic issue of separation of church and state. Let churches (or religious organizations) perform or refuse to perform marriages. Let the government perform civil unions. And if I want a civil union with my sister so that we can be on each other’s insurance, will whatever let it be. Of course it wouldn’t be a romantic union if I had a civil union with my sister, but so what?

    Thanks for your research and for brining the topic up.

    Crystal
    http://www.crystalspins.com

    1. The handful of socialist gays that work for the New World Order driving this truck off the cliff, after they finish off with forcing this thing down our throats and robbing us of any meaningful vote, they will continue their attack with the churches. As we saw with the riots in California after the voters expressed themselves, they will go on the attack against anybody who thinks differently.

      That’s why they are most rabid when Exodus International comes to town, because here we have tens of thousands of former homosexuals who wanted out.

      That’s why they sue to try to shut down Love Won Out. Oh, listen to the hate. Here in Miami I know several homosexuals and have rubbed shoulders with dozens, and they are not the few mouth-foaming attack dogs that have been trained and gathered together in California.

      And it sounds from these selected excerpts that the defense was stupid. Can you believe it, the state sabotaging the thing. Nobody called anybody from Exodus International, I’m sure of it without even having to check.

      Not for nothing the economy is sliding into the pits along with our dictators and rulers. The tyrants that are “granting” you rights that were never there in the Constitution, they will turn on you as soon as you lose your usefulness as cannon fodder and stomping stones to total rule, they will slaughter you like Hitler did the sodomite Brownshirts. ‘Nuff said.

      Remember though, when you’re down an out the verse below my signoff.

      –trutherator

      1. Isaiah 1:18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

      2. A lot of people in the US do not practice your religion. What is your argument to them, besides “God says so?”

    2. I don’t think that’s the point of civil union, even if it is state regulated. Its for two unrelated people to be bound legally together. The church and state is already separated in this issue. Its just being brought up in this case because many of those opposing Prop 8 believe homosexuality to be against God’s law. I’m sure you and your sister could get a family insurance plan if necessary.

    3. sheikhjahbooty · ·

      Ignore the Trutherator.

      His reasoning is as made up as his name. It has nothing to do with truth, the Bible, or the Constitution.

      You are right CrystalSpins. You are the one protecting our right to worship freely. Anyone against you is only fighting for oppression and forcing churches to fit a government fascist mold.

      Keep on keeping on.

  3. Thank you for reminding people of what the Constitution says, by actually using the text of it.

    Marriage does have a child component–for those who are planning to have children. Marriage also socially sanctions sex–if one wants to follow the entirely personal view that sex needs a stamp of approval, from an institution.

    But what do those personal things have to do with those that do not subscribe to those particular and narrow interpretations? Nothing at all.

    Happily, we who are of a broad mind and encompassing view of the world have a piece of paper–The Constitution-which we too, can wield, in defense of our rights and humanity.

    I am heterosexual but I do not ever wish to see others persecuted and denied their rights, only because they are homosexual.

    And we call ourselves a loving and rational species, yet we try to make others feel unloved and irrational, for being themselves. Hmmm.

    1. How refreshing; someone that has actually heard of the Constitution 🙂 Now, if we can get the lawmakers, and a few other select individuals, to get familiar with it we’ll be on the road to a true democracy.

      Looking4trth

  4. Good post, that woman and her stupid baseless “facts” about how homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest is the reason I stay away from church people and these Bible thumping bigots. People should just let people be free and live their lives instead of trying to impose their will and views on others.

  5. Parth Sarthi Srivastava · ·

    Dat’s an achievement… u ppl r nw relieved of old and tyrannical law. We are facing similar prblm in r country 2 (INDIA). The Constitution guarantees us all the things mentioned in ur 14th amendment (including rt 2 life, peronal liberty), but still our penal code punishes same sex marriages. The Delhi High Court has however declared it ultra vires in a Social (Public) action litigation, but the state has appealed to Supreme Court. Lets c wt comes out. Thanx for providing the information.

  6. lindseytinsey · ·

    This is a very good article. I am so happy for the people of California!

  7. Outstanding post! As an ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I agree fully with Judge Walker’s ruling on Proposition 8. With the defense planning to appeal, it is almost certain that this case will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. One can only hope the High Court will mirror Judge Walker’s reasoning and support of all American’s Constitutional rights, regardless of gender, color, creed or sexual preference.

  8. Once again, the VOTERS of CA are thrown under the bus, glad I left–forever

    1. wearelittlespinozas · ·

      Hahah. I left Wisconsin.

  9. Excellent post. I was overjoyed to hear about the latest ruling on Prop 8. Actually, i am not a proponent of marriage and prefer the system commonly used in France where people live together instead of getting married but the rights of all parties involved, particularly their offspring, are clearly defined by law. However, if heterosexuals have the right to marriage then homosexuals should have the same right.

    It’s appalling to hear “religious” people saying hogwash such as, “homosexuals are twelve times more likely to molest children.”

    Subscribed to your blog.

    http://www.wordsfromawoman.wordpress.com

    1. I think thier confusinh homosexuals with catholic priests

  10. Definitely an interesting read. I’m a heterosexual male and though I do not support gay marriage, I also don’t disapprove of it. I don’t think a person’s romantic/love life should be issues displayed in public domains. The only reason this is displayed in a public domain is due to the lagalities involved.

    Either way, I find it absolutely ridiculous that religion is brought into this. And worse, Mr. Tam’s testimony is deservant of a punch in the fucking mouth. I don’t care that he’s an “authority” or a man of the church or God or whatever…his opinion in this matter is ridiculous and non-empirical. If he’s going to try to negate the possibility of gay marriage, he should do so intelligently and with a defense that merits validity.

  11. Awesome post. I was following this via Twitter yesterday and it just EXPLODED when the verdict was announced. I’m so glad that someone is using their head and not letting rhetoric and propaganda cloud their judgment. It makes me hopeful that eventually, everyone who wants to marry will be able to do so. Thank you for posting the text of the Bill of Rights too. It’s hard to argue with something that’s right there in black and white.

  12. 40ozLiz · ·

    Great post! The definition of our government is the Constitution, not religious texts. Your example clearly explains our rights. I am glad for the people of California.

  13. lunargirl · ·

    I clicked “like” on this because there was not a “love” button! Very well said, and thank you for a great post. There need to be more rational voices such as yours out there!

  14. I am in love with this judge. I want to be in a civil union with him. The idea that people can’t marry whom they want is absurd. Great article.

  15. bystander · ·

    Your stating of the 14th Amendment as a foundation for ‘equal protection’ for everybody is absurd! To use this premise, would allow a ‘civil union’ between anybody – relatives, polygamists, man or woman and child, etc. Where does it end? When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, I’m sure they had no intention of addressing the same issues we are faced with today. Marriage is not a privilege or immunity of citizenship, or is it a matter of life, liberty, or property. So quoting the Constitution may sound good, but it makes no sense in this situation.

    1. wearelittlespinozas · ·

      Hi Bystander,
      Why do you equate two men or two women joined in a civil union with a 50-year-old man marrying a child or a brother marrying a sister? This is what does not make sense. Civil unions are tricky. Only a handful of states offer civil unions of which same-sex OR opposite-sex couples may be joined, so yes, in effect, ANYBODY can have join in one lest they break the law based on putting another human being in danger. This is the problem when a 50-year-old or even an 18-year-old wants to marry a 10-year-old girl; this could be a problem when a brother and a sister purposefully bring a child into the world with mutations and deformations.
      However, to make matters more complicated, should they ban dwarves or people with hemophilia from having children because they have full knowledge that their conditions would be passed to their children? Absolutely not. Humans are not stupid so they will make informed decisions about the births of their children. The government should reprimand women (in heterosexual relationships, mind you) who live off social benefits and ill-treat their numerous children because they were not educated or prepared. Brothers and sisters therefore do not even belong in your list of obstacles in question.

      Polygamy is recognized by the largest religion on the face of the earth – Islam. And they are no dummies either. That is how they choose to live their lives, with 2, or 3, or 4, wives which they must treat equally with a marriage based on love and consent protected by the their holy book. It is not the cult of Salt Lake City and does not promote abuse, but steers men away from this. Sura 4:3 – “And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession.” Ask what other protections this verse provides and I will gladly answer.

      Would you like to protect your “country” or human beings? What protection do homosexuals need from each other? If we could publish a new constitution or set of laws and values according to YOU, what would they be? With regards to your comment, you couldn’t have one!

      1. wearelittlespinozas · ·

        By the way, “the same issues we are faced with today” are the fundamental issues the ancient Greeks and Romans struggled with. I’m sure the inception of homosexuality was born with the birth of humanity.

  16. Ahna Rebekah Hendrix · ·

    I am not gay and I am not a lesbian. I am a conservative yet open-minded woman who believes in God and does her best to be a good person.

    Homosexuals should be given the same rights as anyone else.

    One of my ex-boyfriends was raised by two mothers and my landlord is raising her daughter with the help of her girlfriend. I have actually read that children who are raised by gay or lesbian parents do better in school and are emotionally stronger and more fulfilled.

    But who cares about statistics and numbers ~ the point is that we are all created equal and should be treated as such. Just because I don’t understand what is means to be homosexual doesn’t mean that it’s inferior or weird ~ I am just different.

    And thank God we are all different. It would be awfully dull around here if we were all the same.

  17. I like how you see things, Joe, you are right on with your observations.

    Good to see a rational voice out there now and then.

  18. If you’ll notice that last Bill of Rights — The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    This means that States and local governments have broad powers in defining and regulating such public acts and institutions as marraige. The Federal Government, on the other hand, has no role whatsoever in determining such things. This is an issue for the residents of California. What was that judge? Federal, right? What’s he doing meddling in California’s business?

  19. Very well said and thank you! Hopefully this is only the beginning.

  20. Excellent post. I didn’t realize what ridiculous testimony was given. There is a reason its called separation of church and state. If the church tries to mandate to a state what it’s laws ought to be this ceases to be a republic, it becomes a theocracy. This isn’t the Middle Ages anymore. Our government is secular by creation with principles and created under Enlightened ideals that we are human. I am beginning to believe love is blind to gender.
    I think it is ridiculous to throw our inherit rights under the bus just for some fanatical branch of unchristian thinking. If Christianity is one thing, it isn’t fire and brim stone, its about turning the other cheek, and learning to be tolerant and forgiving. I believe that to make a mistake is human and forgiveness divine. But society is as society does, mindless sheep following blindly because someone has an opinion that this or that is wrong. We all have perception of right and wrong, and the right to disagree and to get along. I am a heterosexual and don’t have any friends in the LGBT community but they deserve respect just like any other human on the planet, because our differences makes us whole and gives a new point of view on life.

    you can find more about me @http://mysticruinscitadel.wordpress.com

  21. whoismrbrown · ·

    Rights don’t matter in this country; only wealth.

  22. Great post. You beat me to this topic, but you covered it so well.

    And with this also comes the debate to amend/repeal the 14th amendment to deny those born in the US automatic US citizenship.

    Protect your rights people.

  23. Very interesting 🙂 especially this part:
    “a socially-approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman”

    Do we really need or want society to approve who we can have sex with? In *ANY* context? homo, hetero, etc and etc??? The thought of this is truly frightening to me!

    Also this part:
    Blankenhorn basically testified to is that marriage is about being parents.

    hmmmmm. I wonder if anyone told that to the thousands of married people who have chosen (for many reasons) not to have children, or who can’t have children.

    It never fails to amaze and anger me when people think they can define things for other people – in America no less!

    It’s just more christian-religious-right bull pucky! What are they so afraid of, really???

  24. To the extent that state sanction is required for a marriage to take place, it cannot be regarded as a fundamental right. The state’s sole interest in marriage, the only reason to grant a certain tax status to married couples, has to do with offspring. Otherwise, government has no business with marriage whatsoever.
    That being so, we have two choices: let people exchange rings and vows and call themselves married without any state interference whatever (the equivalent of “going steady”), or allow the legal institution of marriage to change gradually with prevailing mores, which form the bases for all constructs of law. But you cannot have it both ways: if marriage is a right, get government out of it; if it is regulated, the people have a right then to determine what form the regulation should take. Inventing a constitutional right to marriage is unnecessary and entirely unwarranted.

  25. Because I honestly can’t understand, could someone tell me what “right” is being withheld from homosexuals in that they too have the right to marry in historical definition of marriage? Maybe it’s just me, but I think redefining a word to suit a people’s lifestyle is a little drastic to justify that lifestyle. My main point is that homosexuals have the same “right” to marry as heterosexuals, if they choose not to employ that “right” to marry, so be it, but they still have it.

    The fight for “rights” is simply a cover, consciously or unconsciously. The fight is about changing the definition of marriage.

    1. But the whole point of the evolution of man is that the legal definition of words changes all the time. 100 years ago, “communication” meant oral or the written (by pen) word. Today, it means e-mail, IM, facebook, blogs, cell phones, telepones, etc. When we updated laws to encompass the new meanings of “communication” we weren’t fighting to change the definition of the word, we were fighting to keep our laws modern and relevant.

      To believe that the definition of a word is stagnant is silly.

  26. You are a clear, concise, accurate writer! Consider me hooked on your blog!

  27. As a future lawyer (pending bar exam results), I understand that basically any position can be argued, whenever, however. BUT, it still boggles my mind how anti-gay marriage activists advance their point. There is absolutely no argument that they can come up with (other than their religious crap) that advances their side. Usually, the stuff they come up with, I think, hurt their position. It’s 2010, you’d think we’d be past this kind of stuff by now.

  28. Wonderful, wonderful post! I’ve been articulating this very point since yesterday to my anti-8 friends. I’ll be following your blog with interest!

  29. The voters of California have now been dumped on again by the judicial system. It appears the vote of the people (twice on this issue) – has no meaning any longer.

  30. Landmark! Thanks for reporting!

  31. The “State” issues licenses for revenue, whether they are for liquor, marriage, certain occupations, or whatnot. The license is already a civil contract. The religious contract is totally separate and should rightfully come from a church. There are plenty of churches which welcome the LGBT community. The ones that don’t are the ones that are raising such a fuss about the whole issue of “gay marriage.”

    What would happen if the State told us that for the next ten years, only people who have brown eyes could renew their car registrations? Or that only blue-eyed, female plumbers could get licensed? Or that four-year-old boys were not allowed to ride along when Daddy gasses up the car (fuel taxes)?

    Marriage doesn’t need to be “redefined.” It is a religious institution. It is also a commonly used word, somewhat easier to say than “civil union” or whatever other phrase could be substituted. Whether a church wishes to perform religious blessings or the sacrament of marriage is not a state matter. Whether a state issues a contract to a LGB or T couple is not a church matter. Churches are allowed to discriminate, sadly (and legally. If you don’t agree with one denomination, you can go to another.) The state is not allowed to discriminate.

    This is a terrific post. Congrats on making Freshly Pressed!

    1. wearelittlespinozas · ·

      Very, very, well said, Julie. I have never quite articulated it the way that you did when you said that churches are allowed to discriminate, but the state is not; those who want to keep homosexuals away from marriage ARE truly religious zealots who turn a blind eye to the concept of fairness or oneness.

      Our founding laws try to protect us from zealots, but whether or not these people practice religion or not, they often slip through the cracks to skew what we had been given with our nation’s inception in the first place. Some judges are duped. This one was not.

      Let’s focus on improving our anti-discrimination laws in all our states before running the Bigot-Race.

  32. People do not argue on principle or legal standing. If the situation were reversed – and it may well be someday – that the referendum supports gay marraige and the judge opposes it, then the pro-gay lobby would be lathered up over the denial of the will of the people, and pure democracy would suddenly be in vogue.

    Tom said it right: you can’t have it both ways. Marraige is a PUBLIC institution, not private. Therefore, the PUBLIC has a say in it’s definition and regulation. And under the constitution, the governmental powers of “the people” are vested in STATE bodies, not the central Federal Government.

  33. Mexico just legalized gay marrige. It is sad to think that even mexico is ahead of us when it comes to civil rights. It is probably because thier value system didn’t come from crazy ass puritans

  34. Great article. Equality took a tremendous step forward in California on 8/4/2010

  35. I just want to say I’m honored to have been selected for Freshly Pressed! I almost didn’t write this post last night; I’d had a long day and a tough workout and was just beat. But once I started reading the case I couldn’t stop.

    I’m no constitutional lawyer certainly so I can only look at this as an American and as a human being. I will follow the story as I’m sure we all will, all the way to the Supreme Court.

    Thank you all so much for commenting. I’m a pretty proud blogger today!

  36. Aidan Watson-Morris · ·

    This is the best thing I’ve read all day

  37. An excellent, well written, summary on a very important topic. Thank you.

    And, as someone who was also recently Freshly Pressed, congratulations! It is a great feeling.

  38. Excellent summary of an outstanding decision. Though most of your comments are positive, it is unfortunate to see that some people are still closed to the idea of equality for all people.

  39. cleverlittlemiss · ·

    BRAVO!!!

    I hate the fact that Proposition 8 was ever created, let alone got the vote. I love that it was seen for what it really is, an unconstitutional, discriminatory injustice to the gay community. People say the purpose of marriage is to procreate…oh please. I’m a female getting married soon to a male and I don’t want to have children so should I not be allowed to get married?

    Discrimination is an evil that will ruin us. It needs to stop. Great post.

  40. Thank you for this wonderful summery, I am saddened that so many in this country are spewing forth such hatred out of nothing but their own fear. If you do not believe in Gay Marriage – don’t marry someone of the same sex, but don’t try and stop every one who does from having a chance at happiness. What ever happened to separation of Church and State?
    Judge Vaughn Walker is my hero!!

  41. jscottg · ·

    Excellent post, and yes, everyone should Read. The. Ruling. (Start on pg. 60 if you don’t want to go through all 138.)

  42. Great post about a great decision from a great judge. I settled for a quick thumbs up on my blog. You, on the other hand, put the meat on the bones and gave the story the thought it truly deserves. Thank you!

  43. freedomactionnow · ·

    Everyone has exactly the same rights, namely, the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex who’ll put up with them.

    The “rights” argument goes nowhere.

  44. ………………Amen.

    Stick that in your pipe, Blankenhorn

  45. We do need to know our rights.

    But more importantly, we need to know our responsibilities.

  46. Excellent post, a pleasure to read and yay a tiny step forward
    for human rights!

  47. wearelittlespinozas · ·

    Funny you mention the word “dwarfs” as I did, but also funny that you use it in such a vulgar way. See my above comment.

    See also my short synopsis of “the same issues we are faced with today” featured as a short comment under my long comment. World history is not as you know it, my friend, and neither are we turning into pixie dust and ice cream.

  48. What the Constitution and laws mean are whatever a Judge say it means that day. Not exactly what the Founding Fathers intended, of course, but Americans have difficulty thinking for themselves as a people anymore.

%d bloggers like this: