GOP Obama Supporter Proposes Prop 8 Compromise: Civil Unions for All, Leave ‘Marriage’ to Churches

The California Supreme court announced yesterday that it will hear arguments challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the anti-gay amendment that overturned the right of gay people to marry in the state.
The Prop 8 debacle could be resolved by limiting the state of California prospectively to the issuance of civil unions for all couples, rather than marriage licenses, leaving marriage to the churches.
– Kmeic

In May, the same court, which is composed of seven Republicans and one Democrat — who are all elected for 12-year terms — decided 4-3 to strike down a law banning same-sex marriage.

The judges are being asked now to decide whether the constitution can be amended to make discrimination against a minority group legal, a move that directly violates the constitution’s foundational principle of providing protection of rights equally to all residents — or whether a change of that magnitude should have been made through the constitutional “revision” process instead. A revision to the constitution would have required a two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature before going before the electorate as a ballot initiative.

In a recent San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmeic, who served as a high official in the Reagan and Bush I Justice departments but who supported Barack Obama this year, laid out a compromise to the constitutional debacle brought on by the passage of Proposition 8 that puts the solution in the hands of California’s governor:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may well be a proximate cause of this breakdown … the Prop. 8 case should be settled, and there’s no one better to do it than our governor.

After all, the governor has been on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue. Twice the governor was against gay marriage and twice the governor was for it.

The governor told CNN that he hoped the state Supreme Court would overturn the people and Prop. 8. While there are some respectable legal arguments that the initiative does not meet the requirements of Article 18 of the state constitution, asking the court to invalidate Prop. 8 is a tall order. Properly, judges look for ways to avoid holding laws unconstitutional, and that is especially so when the law comes directly from the people.

All that said, the case is too close to call because Prop. 8 did not directly address the portion of the state Supreme Court decision that declared sexual orientation to be a suspect classification requiring compelling justification and because there is federal precedent that decries singling out any vulnerable group for legal disadvantage. In short, neither side can be confident of victory, and that is the best kind of case for settlement.

The governor should break the tie and free the judges from having to either set aside democracy or to uphold the decision of the people in a way that the governor and others would perceive as unequal treatment among his fellow Californians.

The governor has administrative authority to have regulations issued interpreting family law, and nothing in Prop. 8 precludes him from ensuring that homosexual and heterosexual couples are treated equally under state law so long as he stays clear of “marriage.” This could be accomplished by limiting the state of California prospectively to the issuance of civil unions for all couples, rather than marriage licenses, leaving marriage, which in origin is predominantly a religious concept and not the real business of the state, to religion.

To convince both sides to come to the table, the governor’s ruling should:

— Eliminate any doubt as to the validity of same-sex marriages undertaken between the time of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the effective date of Prop. 8. This is only fair because the proposition did not clearly state that it would be retroactive. People are entitled to have confidence in the law as it exists today without having to anticipate how it might change.

— Reaffirm the unfettered freedom of religions (not the state) to be either in favor or opposition to same-sex marriage as their doctrine teaches.

Is this perfect? No. Better than waiting for the outcome of an uncertain case? Yes.

Respectful of the dignity and equality of gay and straight citizen alike? It is intended to be so.

Mindful of the tradition of religious freedom? I think it is.

As Kmeic noted, Schwarzenegger could have prevented this entire debacle by not vetoing the legislation passed twice by both houses of the legislature that made gay marriage legal.

So what are the chances Schwarzenegger would act on Kmeic’s proposal? His approval ratings are down into George Bush territory, around 34 percent. He is term-limited out of running for re-election, and it is doubtful he’ll run against Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2010, if for no other reason than the fact that he is temperamentally unsuited for the U.S. Senate. In short, Gov. Schwarzenegger’s political career is coming to an end, and he has very little to show for it, so swooping in to save the day would appear to be a good career move. On the other hand, he has already whiffed on two chances to go down in history as the man who resolved this landmark civil rights case, so there’s no reason to think he’ll take this back-door approach.

And there is the additional issue of whether he should. Is converting all marriages in California to civil unions fair? Would these new universal civil unions be a separate but equal class from existing “traditional” marriages?

Beyond fairness, is the Kmeic compromise even necessary? Prop 8 clearly violates the equal protection clause by amending the Constitution to restrict the rights of a minority group. As such, it should have started its path into law in the legislature as a constitutional revision, not as an initiative before voters. The chances are arguably better than even that the California Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8, if not on the merits then on procedural grounds.

Meanwhile, anti-gay activists are threatening to recall California Supremes who vote to overturn Proposition 8. As noted, the court is dominated seven-to-one by Republicans, so a recall could target at least three GOP judges. Given the decidedly leftward trend among the California electorate since 1992, it is unlikely the recall would pass, but if it did, the vacancies could well be filled by Democrats.

56 Responses »

  1. Tim November 20, 2008 @ 10:10 am

    I’ve been saying this for years…..separation of church and state. If a church doesn’t like gay people getting “married” then don’t “marry” them but in the eye of the state everyone should be in a “civil union” I’m not religous so I myself would rather have a “civil union” and I will be getting married to a member of the opposite sex come Jan.

  2. garrick November 20, 2008 @ 10:50 am

    This makes perfect sense. If marriage is a religious term, then it should not be regulated by the government.

    The conservatives that preach smaller, less intrusive government *should* support this compromise. The liberals that preach equality should agree.

    But somehow I don’t think it will work out so easily. Neither side, the hating Christians, or the far-left, will give an inch.

    Sorry Arnie, I know it sucks to be in this position.

  3. Jude November 20, 2008 @ 11:03 am

    I still don’t get how people keep on believing that marriage is a religious institution. When ever they say that the undertone is that marriage is a christian institution. I get that marriage is a part of christian beliefs, but that doesn’t invalidate countless marriages around the world who might not might not be religious in nature. But in terms of the plan to grant everyone civil unions I think it’s at least a step in the right direction.

  4. james November 20, 2008 @ 11:12 am

    Marriage is NOT a strictly religious institution. My wife and I, both atheists, are happily married and we didn’t need any imaginary fairy tale to make that happen. That said, I’m fine with the idea of states only handing out civil unions, as long as ANY organization can “marry” two people. Thus, if two christians want to get married, they can go to a church to get married and have the state give them a civil union certificate. If two lesbians want to get married, they can go to either a church that supports gay marriage, or an irreligious entity that performs marriages. Hell, we can let anyone marry anyone. You can have your favorite bartender, or your mailman, or your dog perform you marriage.

  5. Steve November 20, 2008 @ 11:25 am

    I see now. Marriage has gone through many many changes in the history of this country. Women have gone from property, to owning property. Marriage has changed from separation of the races to integration of the races.

    But, because some people object to this change, exactly as people objected to all those other changes, we must throw the whole institution out?

    Why didn’t we throw marriage out when we allowed women the right to own property? That was a similarly contentious change that was opposed on equally violent biblical readings.

    It seems your ‘solution’ has no respect for our most important liberal traditions.

  6. nemo November 20, 2008 @ 12:38 pm

    This sounds fair. Naturally anyone from the far left or right wont like it. It would be like having to admit they were wrong. To them its about principle.
    Prop 8 passed because there was no option that protected both side.

  7. mexretroshore November 20, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

    This is an issue of semantics. The religious term “marriage” should never have been used in secular law.

  8. Max November 20, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

    Before the 1900’s does anyone know if there were countries that ever recognized gay marriage? Even the man who is athiest said he had a wife. To me it seems like the term “marriage” has always meant to be between a man and a woman.

  9. Ron November 20, 2008 @ 1:04 pm

    Well, it may not be exactly what we want, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. I don’t understand why Proposition 8 passed in the first place, but if we are to follow Obama’s examples and try seeing things in a way that would be fair for both sides of the spectrum, this is the way to go. At least for now.

    In the future, people will likely be more tolerant to the idea, and then we can right it. If you actually look at the poll numbers from I think it was the 2004 elections, compared to the ’08 ones, the numbers for those who approve of same-sex marriage actually increased a good amount, so the next time something like this comes up, we can make it right. Just gotta keep getting the word out to our friends, expanding the base, and what have you.

  10. Lawl'sville November 20, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

    “The governor should break the tie and free the judges from having to either set aside democracy or to uphold the decision of the people in a way that the governor and others would perceive as unequal treatment among his fellow Californians.”

    Set aside democracy my butt. Democracy is to uphold the will of the people. And in this case, the will of the people is to ban homosexuals getting married.

  11. Ann November 20, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

    It’s simply wrong to say that marriage “in origin is predominantly a religious concept.” Kmeic is obviously not familiar with the history of marriage, either in Western society or elsewhere. Marriage is a social concept that serves primarily to determine property rights and family relationships and obligations. As such, it’s much more closely related to state concerns than to church concerns. Obviously, that’s why the state licenses it! If it were primarily religious, like, say, baptism or bar mitzvah, the state would have no interest.
    Extending marriage rights to gay couples would further the state’s interest in clear management of property and family rights and obligations (assumptions of community property, next-of-kin rights and obligations, etc.), and would have absolutely no effect on anyone’s religious practice.

  12. Lawl'sville November 20, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

    democratic governmental system: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making
    Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

  13. Kevin Camp November 20, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

    Comment by Lawl’sville | Nov. 20, 2008, 1:11 pm :
    “The governor should break the tie and free the judges from having to either set aside democracy or to uphold the decision of the people in a way that the governor and others would perceive as unequal treatment among his fellow Californians.”

    Set aside democracy my butt. Democracy is to uphold the will of the people. And in this case, the will of the people is to ban homosexuals getting married.

    Good thing we live in a Republic and not a Democracy. If two adults want to enter into a legally binding contract, whether it is a business partnership or a “civil union”, then that should be up to them. If they want to get married in a church, that should be up to them and the church. If they want to get married by their bartender at their local bar, that should be between them and the bartender. I’m a Christian and I want the government telling me who can get married about as much as I want them telling me who can get baptized or receive communion.

  14. Keith November 20, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

    Before Canada extended full equality to gays and lesbians, most of Canada had civil unions for a while too but this did not them and nor should it. Gays and lesbians are not second class citizens and if they want to get married in a church that will accept them, then it is preposterous not to allow it. There is no justification for compromising on civil rights to any degree.

    As of now there are 6 countries that grant gays and lesbians full quality and obviously it is just a matter of time before the rest of the world’s free countries do the same. This fight will not fizzle out any more than the fights for full equality for women and ethnic minorities did.

  15. Max November 20, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

    I agree with you Ron, it is time for some unity. Both sides can do it.

  16. Max November 20, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

    Acctually marriage is more than a government issue. People were married before this government was established.
    Also in this country churches have the right to practice and belive what they may. None of them are forced to preform gay marriages but if the government makes it possible for people to file lawsuits against religions who wont let gays marry in there church, where is the freedom in that.Don’t ask people to give up their standards to accomidate yours.

  17. Jon November 20, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

    MaxDot, don’t let Rush and Hannity do all your thinking for you. Check out the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

    Amendment I: 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.

    Before “the government [could make] it possible for people to file lawsuits against religions who wont let gays marry in there church,” the First Amendment would have to be revoked so that the “free exercise of religion” could be abridged.

    So don’t worry. The Constitution is safe as long as the Dems are in charge. It’s your guys like Bush who try to run it through the shredder.

    Besides, trust me, gay people don’t want to get married in skanky homophobic churches.

  18. Max November 20, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

    I didn’t vote for bush. In fact I am a democrat who voted for Obama so before you prejudge you should get your facts straight. The government says they follow the constitution but is that really the case? Isn’t that why there is an issue of whether or not prop 8 is constitutional?

  19. Max November 20, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

    And what is the whole max dot issue you have?

    We can see your email and IP addresses.

  20. Andrew November 20, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

    Even though I prefer full marriage equality and protection of minority rights over this “compromise,” I don’t think that this solution will ever pass, and here’s why:

    Many people cannot or will not disentangle the idea of civil and religious marriage. We may say that we have separation of church and state, but the fact remains that many groups do NOT believe that the two are separate. These are the same groups that helped to pass prop 8 in the first place. Many feel that the two SHOULD be intertwined.

    So, while I agree that this proposal might be fine, is it really more than just a name change? And, won’t the groups that oppose same-sex marriage see it as such? If you think about it, marriage is ALREADY a civil contract. I can go get married in a church, but at some point I still need to go apply for a marriage license down at the courthouse. The church’s blessing means nothing to the state. Changing the name of marriage to “civil union” for all, changes nothing — the “civil union” still must be recognized by the state. I could then go to a church and have them perform a “marriage” OR a “civil union” ceremony, and it would still mean nothing to the state. I think that the conservative right will see right through this.

    Unless you keep their “marriage” and our “civil unions” seperate, they will see it for what it is.

    I hope some of this makes sense.

    — Andrew

  21. Jon November 20, 2008 @ 4:00 pm

    Max: Prop 8 is an amendment to the state Constitution of California. It is unconstitutional because one of the central concepts of the California Constitution is that the rights of all citizens must be protected equally by the government. This is called the “equal protection clause.”

    Prop 8 says that from now on the government can only make the right to marriage available to straight people — that gays and only gays are now specifically excluded from enjoying the right to marriage. This means that Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause.

    In addition, some aspects of the Constitution — like the the equal protection clause — are so important that they can only be changed by the legislature, not by voters in an amendment like Prop 8. Because Prop 8 became law improperly, the justices will likely overturn it.

  22. Jon November 20, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

    Andrew – First, when you decide to get married, here’s something important to know: You have to get the license before you go to the church.

    You may be right about the politics, but the proposal in this compromise would not have to “pass.” It would be accomplished through an executive order by the governor. All he’d have to do is is sign the order and it would become law.

  23. Max November 20, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

    has it ever occured to you jon that other people might be using my computer? That’s fine.

  24. Doan November 20, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

    Jon’s absolutely right.

  25. Max November 20, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

    You know, the no on 8 could have helped to educate the yes on 8 people if that is really the case. But the ads were not to educate, they just told yes how wrong they were. That would have sent out a completely different tone and probably would have helped borderline voters

  26. Jon November 20, 2008 @ 6:14 pm

    Well, Max, there’s a lot of blame to go around, but most of it has to go to the Christian operatives behind Yes on 8 who built their entire campaign on the lies that if Prop 8 failed, school children would somehow be recruited by gays, churches would lose their tax exemptions if they refused to perform gay marriage and the rest.

    Next would be the people who funded the Yes on 8 campaign, including the Mormons. And then probably we should blame the people who voted for Prop 8 without caring enough about the fact that they were revoking the civil rights of their neighbors to check to see if they were being duped.

    Checking the facts would have been very easy to do. The wording of the prop was “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” How would anything in that sentence prevent gay marriage from being taught in schools or stop a church from losing its tax exempt status? How would voting against that law change a school curriculum or force churches to perform gay marriages?

    I’m not sure which is more disheartening — how aggressively and blatantly the Yes on 8 campaign lied, or the fact that so many people have been so willing to believe them.

    The No on 8 side deserves blame, too — for not reaching out to minority communities and not hitting back against Yes on 8’s lies aggressively enough. We should have been prepared for the sleaziness of the campaign.

    Personally, if the fight had been fair and we had lost by 10 points, I would have chalked it up to California not being ready for gay marriage. But that’s not what happened. California is more than ready.

  27. Jonathan November 20, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

    Hmm, Chief Justice said that marriage is a fundemental right for Californians. So, if prop 8 turns out not to be a revision, let’s make this a proposed amendment, and find out how the “Yes on 8″ers start making the same legal arguments that we have done. (“It’s a revision!” “It’s an injustice to take away a fundemental right!”)

  28. david November 20, 2008 @ 10:39 pm

    Obama wins majority vote, christians disappointed but accept democracy.

    Prop 8 gets voted in and the other side wants court orders to block the majority votes of California: militia style freedom. when things
    go your way , celebrate. When it goes in favor of the other view: fight tooth and nail, be bigotted and hostile.

    Those who hate prop 8 getting passed can tell God that they dont care about HIs morals in the Bible. While you are at it tell Him that you will be so stubborn on it that you will forfeit any blessings from Him if He really is on the Christians side.

  29. Anna November 21, 2008 @ 12:11 am

    I do not care about God’s morals in the Bible, because I believe in no such God, and He has no business influencing our constitutiton.

    What I did believe in was that the law would uphold my fundamental rights as a human being and as a tax payer. This is not a simple election race, this is a fight to keep mob rule out of our government. Can I vote Your rights away now?

  30. Max November 21, 2008 @ 12:41 am

    I am sorry Anna. That must be hard.

  31. Chris November 21, 2008 @ 2:51 am

    Prop 8 along with all other legislation in regards to preventing same-sex marriages are not only in violation of California’s equal protection clause, they are alos in clear violation of Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution.

    “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.”

    When this proposition is hopefully over-ruled it will be in adherence to both state and federal law…

    Whether or not you agree with gay marriage or not, Prop 8 is discriminatory and violates the core principles that our country was founded upon.

  32. Madison November 21, 2008 @ 6:33 am

    It is not unusual for propositions to be overturned, David. The infamous Prop 187, the Republicans’ anti-immigrant initiative that would have expelled school children from schools and prevented sick people from receiving medical treatment, won by 68 percent but was then overturned in court.

    Christians who put their religion above the rule of law may think of themselves as good Christians but they are fundamentally un-American.

    Personally, I think God is on the side of gays in this fight. Prop 8 won because of hate, and God hates hate.

  33. Max November 21, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

    what no on 8 has been doing after the election is hate some people call it hating.

  34. Jon November 21, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

    Yeah, the same kind of hating blacks did when whites stood in the way of their equality, that women did when they were prevented from voting, and that young people did in the sixties to try to stop the war. Being nice to your oppressors hardly ever works, Max.

    Honestly, don’t Prop 8 supporters feel any responsibility for their own failing here? You guys should have seen this coming. It’s obvious you had no clue what Prop 8 actually said, and didn’t bother to look it up, so you were duped by the Yes on 8 people who used you as a weapon in their hate campaign against gays. Voting is a right and a responsibility. It’s not a game.

    The only real surprise to me is the gall of the Mormons who apparently think they can spend $20 million to squash other people’s rights — not to mention their dreams and chances for happiness — but then are somehow immune from repercussions or even criticism.

    Welcome to the real world.

  35. Max November 21, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

    The real world, a shameful world. Blacks are born black, women are born women. I know many many many gay people who didn’t know they were gay until later on in their life. I have known many of those gay people later on turn around and say, well I am not gay after all. You can live your life without sex from another person, yeah it stinks but it is possible. You can live without intimacy or even an emotional relationship with others, yeah that would really stink but it is possible. But your skin color, or your gender, that is something that you are true blue born with and cannot change. Sure there is now scientific intervention that can do whatever in the world you want it to, but blacks and women and even men, are born with an identity. Most people do not know any kind of sexual preferance untill they are older. That is the real world Jon. That is why they fought and pushed. All people should have rights, but not at the expense of other. You are not comparable to blacks or womens rights. You may have rights but stop comparing yourself with those who suffered because they couldn’t keep their race or gender. Persecution is real, yes the gay community faces persecution too but this is different.

  36. Kira November 22, 2008 @ 1:13 am

    Max says:
    All people should have rights, but not at the expense of other.

    That’s just nutty. Just what are you trying to say? Allowing same sex marriage will cause zero expense to others.

    The government should STAY OUT of peoples’ bedrooms [that includes yours, Max.]

    If we allow the gov’t to make laws restricting the rights of minorities based on the Bible – we are no different from the fundamentalist Taliban. That’s what a Theocracy is. You should think about it.

  37. Kira November 22, 2008 @ 1:23 am

    Does common law marriage not apply to same sex partners?

    If not, why not?

  38. Kira November 22, 2008 @ 1:37 am

    That’s probably a stupid comment re: common law marriage. It’s late & I’m tired.

    Just thought I’d say that I am a Christian, hetero, married woman in my 50s and have had many gay friends I adored. Most of them have died now and I miss them terribly. I was fortunate because I learned a lot from each of them – those friendships made me a much better person.

    Just FYI – not one ever tried to convert me or anyone else I ever saw them interact with. They were private about their intimacy – just as most of my straight friends are.

  39. Kira November 22, 2008 @ 2:16 am

    And one more thing … I never used to think of my gay friends as “gay friends.” They were in my collection of FRIENDS. If people would stop labeling other people as Gay or Black etc. and just see the person – oh what a wonderful world it would be.

  40. Max November 22, 2008 @ 3:47 am

    yeah it would be a nice world if there were no labels like gay or black or mormon or homophobic.

  41. Jon November 22, 2008 @ 7:13 am

    Max, people do not, and cannot, choose their sexuality. Did you?? If so, tell us about making that choice. If you did not — could not — choose your sexuality, why would you think others can?

    People are born with their sexuality innate. Later they grow up to be straight, gay or bisexual. (And, yes, some people mature later than others, but so what?) Alfred Kinsey, the pioneering sex researcher, believed that most people are sexually attracted, to a great degree or small, to members of both sexes. If you know people whose sexuality appeared to change over time, they are bisexual. Straight people can’t become gay, gay people can’t become straight, and bisexuals can’t change their bisexuality.

    But people choose to be Mormons. When Mormons or Christians look at a world full of sinners and single out one group for judgment and persecution — gay people — over other equally or more hellbound sinners like adulterers and fornicators, that is bigotry. When Mormons choose to act like bigots, they open themselves up to be labeled as such.

    Mormons and Christians don’t object to the fact that adulterers enjoy the full range of civil rights, even though adultery, unlike gay marriage, really does destroy “traditional” marriages and families. Adulterers are free to be preachers, teachers and politicians, and to serve in the military. These homewreckers are also free to remarry. And yet we don’t see Christians putting up ballot measures to revoke their civil rights, nor do we see Mormons donating millions of dollars against adulterers’ rights.

    The persecution of gays by Mormons and Christians is not really about morality. It’s about bigotry and a healthy dollop or two internalized homophobia. Using the Bible as a rationale for this is hypocritical and phony. It just doesn’t wash in rational society.

    And finally — how dare you say our struggle for civil rights is not valid. My rights are as precious as yours or anyone’s. What this says is you view gay people as second-class citizens, as unworthy and less than you. There’s a word for that.

  42. Max November 22, 2008 @ 4:42 pm

    Jon, I understand how sensative a subject this is for you so I hope my words do not come across as offensive.
    There actually has been no scientific proof that homosexuality is something you are born with. There has been a lot of great research done and a lot of walls that have been climbed but there has been no actual proof. I in fact do know many people who have changed their sexuality because of choice. My friends who were gay who changed their sexuality (and by the way, were not christian) have changed their sexuality when they realized they had a choice. For many it was hard, for some it was easy. A lot of them changed their mind when they decided that they wanted to create a child with their spouse. They of course loved sex but for them having sex without ever having the possibility of children was hard to swallow.
    There was also a psychologist on the oprah show a few years back who said he could help gay men become straight. 9 out of 10 men he helped became straight. He was also once gay and found that he had a choice.

  43. Max November 22, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

    Actually jon to correct you, I did not say that gay should not have rights, I said it is not comparable. Don’t put words in my mouth jon. You can dispute what I say I don’t care, but don’t twist my words.

  44. Jon November 23, 2008 @ 7:01 am

    The guy you’re talking about who went on Oprah was John Paulk. A couple of years after the show, he was going to gay bars again.

    Legitimate research into “reparative therapy” has found that not only does it not work, it is often harmful. It is sad that its victims are so tortured by needless guilt. Homosexuality is not a disease, so it can’t be “cured.” It is not immoral in the rational world. There is nothing wrong with being gay. It’s just a flavor of nature.

    Think about it from another angle. Why would anyone choose to be part of a hated minority? Every closeted person wishes he or she could flip a switch and become straight. If they could, they would.

    But Max, saying gay civil rights are not “comparable” to the rights of women or African-Americans or anyone is literally saying that gays are second class citizens — that even though we may have born here and we pay the same taxes as you, we don’t deserve what you’ve got. That is discrimination, and it is un-American.

  45. Myrisa Fuentes November 23, 2008 @ 10:21 am

    Dear editor: I ask you permission to translate this article into Spanish and post it in my blog: This information is of great interest to my visitors, many of which do not read English. Should you grant permission I will link the post to this page of yours.

    Thanks for your attention.

  46. Kira November 23, 2008 @ 1:15 pm

    Just thought I would post this here:

    Velvet Revolution Offers Reward For Info Re: Prop 8 Election Fraud

  47. Kira November 23, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

    I find it hard to believe someone knows so many homosexuals who have “changed.” If it’s true – they were probably people who were experimenting with their sexuality.

    And we can see there is a certain percentage of the population that masquerades as something they are not – for whatever reason.

    That phenomena will continue whether the LGBT community gains the right to marry or not.

    Truly, if Christ came back today, he would be horrified by those who are using HIS NAME to define their religion while going against HIS teachings.

    Bush [the religious right] Plays Christians for Suckers Yet Again

    …A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage…is not one of the pressing issues of our time. Prohibiting same-sex unions would have absolutely no effect on the state of traditional marriage. Britney Spears’, whose first marriage lasted less than a day has done much more to denigrate traditional marriage than gay couples have.

    Catholics worked this out a long time ago: If you wish to be married in the church, you must follow the teachings of the church. Otherwise, you can go to the courthouse, or you can find another church that suits your beliefs.

    What Dobson [focus on the family] and his followers are trying to impose is a Christian version of sharia religious law. That wouldn’t bode well for an Iraqi democracy, and it wouldn’t bode well for this democracy, either.

    “Wouldn’t bode well” indeed. It is deadly!

    That kind of political-religious power turns religious zeal into persecution and murder – as we have seen in American history, abundantly in European history, and in several Muslim countries in recent years.

    I am not over-reacting here; this IS in human nature, and it is very prevalent in human history. It is a good part of what the Founders and the Constitution were trying to protect us from.

  48. Max November 24, 2008 @ 8:09 am

    I wanted to say thank you for your responses and I hope someday we can all come to a peace about this. Take care, jon. It has been good for me to talk with you. Goodbye.

  49. Jon November 24, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

    No justice, no peace, Max.

  50. Max November 24, 2008 @ 3:20 pm

    jon you are really a weird guy. I will discourage my friends from getting onto this site. You are selfish and rude. I did leave with good feelings in my heart towards you but you just took those and smashed them into the ground. I feel sorry for you. Your joy is only temporary. Good grief.

  51. Jon November 24, 2008 @ 6:16 pm

    Let me get this straight, Max. You have said gay people are second-class citizens who don’t deserve rights straight people enjoy under our civil, non-theocratic government because God said says so, that homosexuality is a illness, that it is immoral, that the suffering of gays at the hands of others — including assumedly the thousands of gay men and women who were gassed in concentration camps by the Nazis, Mathew Shepherd who was tied to a fence and beaten to death in Wyoming, Ryan Skipper who was stabbed dozens of times and left to die on a dirt road in Florida, 13-year-old Larry King who was shot to death by a classmate in Oxnard, the Iranian teenagers who were beheaded on the public square last year or any of the thousands of men being raped in US prisons today, for example — that their persecution is not comparable with the persecution of blacks and women.

    But I hurt your feelings by saying that until there is justice on this issue there will be no peace between Americans who advocate for social justice and homophobic Mormons and Christians.

  52. Max November 24, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

    Do you know how to read jon? I don’t think you do or else you would have gotten my ideas straight but that’s ok. There is no offense I just feel sorry for you. I do think you are rude, and don’t really think of anyone but you. Please go into a black church and tell them how much you can relate to their ancestors going through slavery. Not just one or two but thousands. If they didn’t die from being slaves it was a lynching or being slaughtered or being whipped to death or something worse. You are a human jon and therefore do deserve rights. If you could actually read you would know that I never said gays are second class citizens or that they shouldn’t have rights. That is just what you want to see from your bitter selfish biased point of view. There are many others types of people in the world than gays. But at least if you needed to or wanted to you could hide that. Try hiding the color of your skin. It’s too bad you are not more open to other peoples views and opinions. All you have done is shot down my opinions and those of my friends and others. No wonder prop 8 was passed. Those who might have sat on the fence with the gay community have now been pushed over to the other side, the yes on 8 side, because of the actions of no on 8 protesters. I am out. You don’t want to talk, you want to shoot down bash and destroy peoples standards morals and beliefs. Good bye jon. Have a good life, you like everyone else deserve one.

  53. Jon November 24, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

    The idea that you think gay people would/should want to hide who they are says it all.

    There is nothing wrong with being gay.

  54. Max November 24, 2008 @ 8:25 pm

    Once again jon you have proven you can’t read. Or at least understand what I am really saying. This is ridiculous.

  55. Dan February 10, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

    I can see alot of religious people being mad if their heterosexual marriage is called a civil union by the state. There was a news article a while back before prop 8 passed and the marriage licence form said party A and party B and there where people mad that their marriage licence didn’t say bride and groom. Add to this the confusion and legal complications that such as change would make, all to protect the word marriage form homosexuals. However since religion keeps the term marriage under this compromise and since there are religious denominations that are willing to marry same sex couples there would be gays and lesbians who would be bestode the status of married under this duel system of Civil Unions from the Gov’t and Marriage from religion. I doubt religious minded people would like that very much.

    Rather than turn the whole system upside down to try to keep the word marriage away from homosexuals people need to grow up and realize the difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage. Civil marriage is what is at issue here is not religious marriage. In a secular society it is the civil marriage that bestows all rights, responsibilites, and benifits to the couple and this should be equal availabel to everyone gay or straight. Religious marriages are performed at the discrestion of the religious body in question, some of these groups will not marry gays because that is their belief, while some will. People do not need to fear that their church or priest will have to preform or bless same sex marriage. Even today certain religions will not marry people who are not a part of their religion or if one or both of the parties have had a previous marriage (ie. have had a devorce), despite the fact that it is perfectly legal for devorced people to marry or people with different religious backgrounds to marry. No one has forced these chruches to preform these ceremonies despite the fact that people seek a marriage where legal entitled to a civil marriage licence, the same will be true with same sex marriage.

  56. […] Source / Pensito Review […]

Leave a Reply