About us Login Get email updates
Karl Frisch
Print

Prop. 8 federal lawsuit begins; cue right-wing media hysteria

January 11, 2010 4:01 pm ET

This week in a San Francisco Federal District Court, a legal odd couple will be on display. Attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, and conservative attorney Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush, are joining forces to overturn California's Proposition 8. It will be their contention that the initiative passed by voters in 2008 banning same-sex marriage in the Golden State violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, and discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

Regardless of which side prevails, experts agree the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.

Cue right-wing media hysteria and homophobia.

Few other issues whip the conservative media chattering class into a frenzy like the equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. This unprecedented federal legal challenge is unlikely to be any different.

With hardly an exception, the folks at Fox News have been party to one homophobic attack on the gay community after another -- oddly hypocritical behavior for a network that sponsored the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association's annual conference just a few short months ago.

The network's highest-rated host, Bill O'Reilly, has repeatedly attacked marriage equality, claiming that the simple act of two people in love making it official could open the door to people to marry "a turtle," "a goat," "a duck," or "a dolphin." This coming from a man who once famously quacked, "I think everybody's got to relax on all this gay stuff." Relax, indeed -- O'Reilly has even baselessly fearmongered that legal protections for LGBT people could, in fact, protect pedophiles. A dated, demonstrably false, and hateful charge to be sure.

He's hardly alone at the conservative cable outlet.

Fox News' conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Glenn Beck, playing with dolls to make his point, inexplicably argued that marriage equality could lead to "triad" marriages, and the factually challenged morning crew at Fox & Friends hammered home the same erroneous point. They also claimed that increased support for marriage equality in public polls was due not to softening attitudes on gays and lesbians by the American people, but to "being politically correct."

Then there's Sean Hannity who once allowed right-wing pundit Ann Coulter to go unchallenged on his nationally syndicated radio program when she declared, "I don't think there's anything offensive about any variation of faggy, faggotry, faggot, fag."

Radio host Rush Limbaugh, despite having been married three times, is a steadfast defender of what the right calls "traditional marriage." El Rushbo once compared the Iowa Supreme Court decision granting marriage equality to "the Soviets," and while discussing President Obama and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, he has routinely littered his screeds with juvenile anti-LGBT innuendo.

There is perhaps no voice more homophobic in the media today than that of Michael Savage (née Weiner), the Number 3 radio host in America, who was fired by MSNBC in 2003 for describing a caller as a "sodomite" and telling him to "get AIDS and die." Savage also lost his contract with Creative Artists Agency (two days after the exclusive talent firm announced it had signed him) in the wake of a rant over singer Melissa Etheridge in which he declared, "I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse." For Savage, these comments are par for the course, all part of his almost-daily homophobic hate speech.

It's no better online, where writers for WorldNetDaily have endorsed a proposed Uganda law that would permit the death penalty simply for being gay and Townhall.com has led a perplexing anti-gay which hunt -- the later being a pet cause of a man who once called a judge a "crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race."

The list could go on ad infinitum, and perhaps that is the point. Without fail, conservatives in the media will savagely attack the LGBT community whenever given the opening, and this is just such an opening.

With this week's federal case to decide the constitutionality of Proposition 8 already garnering worldwide media attention, the mainstream press will have ample opportunity to counter the malicious, hateful rhetoric spewed by right-wing outlets and personalities big and small with a healthy dose of reality-based journalism.

Should they fail in that endeavor, it will not be forgotten.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog, research, and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the web as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by epkklk851 (January 11, 2010 4:42 pm ET)
      19 2
      I hope that Prop 8 is overturned. The LGBT community deserves to have the legal right to form marriages and families. And homosexuality is not the same as bestiality or pediphilia, and I resent every last person that implies that! To me, that is disgusting.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (January 11, 2010 7:05 pm ET)
        14 1
        Amen epkklk851

        The LGBT community have as much a right as those of us in the hetro community to be as happy or as miserable as everyone else!

        Besides, we allow people on death row to marry... so I don't get why religious fanatics are all upset about?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dave (January 11, 2010 10:26 pm ET)
        2 15
        How do they have the right? They don't as of now. But if the LGBT wants to redefine marriage from one of "between a man and a woman" to anything goes as long as they consent, you can expect those opposed to it to bring out the goat claim. Goats can't consent but they can't complain, either. I don't know why the topic of pedophilia/beatiality comes up...maybe its the kneejerk reaction that the left is the party of everything goes when it comes to sex and normalcy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Bongo Fury (January 11, 2010 11:24 pm ET)
          11 1
          Like you have a monopoly on normalcy.I'm straight and I could care less about others sexuality.Your idea comes from 2 millenia of what was believed or dictated all those years ago.The year is 2010 and your form of repression harkens to the likes of alQaida.The times they are a'changin'.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dave (January 11, 2010 11:32 pm ET)
            3 11
            Its not my idea of normalcy, its the country's, which has defined marriage between a man and woman. And I'm not repressing anybody, I'm just offering opinion of the situation but never chimed in on with personal beliefs.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by trelan1701 (January 12, 2010 12:29 am ET)
              7  
              Once upon a time, it was "normal" for a woman to be sold into a marriage. It was "normal" for 12 year old girls to be married to 50 year old men. It was "normal" that blacks weren't allowed to date whites, never mind marry one. Just because it's "normal" doesn't make it right.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by kalentros (January 12, 2010 10:54 am ET)
              7  
              And until not so long ago "normalcy" also excluded people with different levels of pigmentation from marrying.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 13, 2010 11:20 am ET)
              4 2
              Absurd. You are ABSOLUTELY oppressing people and ABSOLUTELY chiming in with your personal beliefs.

              What "we have always done" is irrelevant, they way YOU use it. Because WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE is EVOLVE. WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE is to correct the mistakes of the past. WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE is to re-write the laws that an ever changing society new deems unjust. And WHAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE is to fight for the freedom and the equality of all.

              You think it's icky. So you're making a weak-@$$ argument against it. Period. You provide no GOOD REASONS not to grant them a right that takes NOTHING away from ANYONE else, nor do you show how the currently policy is NOT discriminatory.

              Marriage is nothing more than a LEGAL CONTRACT. And I defy you to find any other examples of legal contracts that can eneter into with a woman, but not with a man. Name ONE that legal with one gender, but illegal with another.

              --------------------------------------------------
              BTW... At one point in the not too distant past, "WHAT WE HAD ALWAYS DONE" was to deny women the right to enter MOST legal contracts, vote, own land, start a business, etc... Marrying a woman is the only prohibition that now remains. Get over it.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 12:07 pm ET)
          2 4
          How do they have the right


          There is nothing in the constitution giving the right for anyone to get married. Just like there isn’t a right to an abortion anywhere in the constitution. That wont stop the courts for finding some way to say there is. There will never be another amendment to the constitution. It is much easier to get it amended through the courts.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ButteryPat (January 13, 2010 4:49 am ET)
          2  
          "But if the LGBT wants to redefine marriage from one of 'between a man and a woman' to anything goes as long as they consent, you can expect those opposed to it to bring out the goat claim."

          "Goats can't consent"

          Dave, could you reconcile these two quotes for me, unless you're attempting to make the point that the people who believe the "goat" thing are idiots who don't know anything about the laws of this country, which they pretend to believe in?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by kalentros (January 12, 2010 10:48 am ET)
        7  
        See, I don't think that marriage should be recognized at all for either same sex or "opposite marriage" (Thanks to the fake breasted solo porn star for that that lovely gem).

        Marriage is a religious institution and I feel that the government should be in the business of recognizing religious situations. I don't see governments basing right to vote on confirmation or bar and bat mitzvah.

        Same sex couples should receive the same civil and government equalities as heterosexual couples. This issue has been gone about the wrong way. Instead of legalizing same sex marriage we should be working to outlaw "opposite marriage". Let marriage be what it is, a religious institution that is should not be recognized by the government.

        No, I wasn't dumped by a fiancee...can you tell?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ButteryPat (January 13, 2010 4:43 am ET)
           
        To people who posit that ridiculous scenario, I always pose a solution, and I'd love to meet one of them in person to see what they say, and if maybe they'd agree with me:

        How about we pass a Constitutional amendment that allows same-sex marriage, re-affirms heterosexual couples' fundamental right to marriage on a federal level, and expressly prohibits pederast and bestial-based marriages? Hell, we can even throw polygamy in there if it's such a huge deal (personally I've never understood why it is). It will, in fact, close those holes off entirely and make them very difficult to overturn later, even in the face of the imagined post-apocalyptic scenario that will occur should gay folks get the right to settle down. So...no slippery slope, right?

        More on topic, I'm very excited about this case. It will set the stage for the next 20 or so years of the sexual liberation fight.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 13, 2010 11:14 am ET)
        5 2
        The issue of gay marriage is a no-brainer...

        ------------------------------------------------------
        ...If you're against it, you have NO BRAIN.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by whatIthink (January 11, 2010 4:57 pm ET)
      20 1
      I really don't understand all the fuss against gays wanting to marry. If 2 adults in love want to get married, let them. On the other hand, if conservatives REALLY want to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage, let's take it all the way and outlaw divorce. After all how sacred can something be if you're allowed to nulify it at will? But then there will be a big cry about this violating people's free will and their rights, which brings right back to the original point. If two people want to get married, whatever their sexual orienation, why not let them?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (January 11, 2010 5:49 pm ET)
        12 2
        Why not just get the government out of marriage altogether?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by edgewaterprog (January 11, 2010 6:29 pm ET)
          14  
          Or take the churches out of legal marriage?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (January 12, 2010 7:50 pm ET)
          2  
          You've been told this before lowliter, but for kicks I'll repeat it for ya -

          Government isn't involved in marriage. Government only becomes involved when a legal decision has to be made about the CONTRACT that marriage entails.

          Guess you've never been divorced.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (January 11, 2010 6:33 pm ET)
        10  
        You just don't get it. For every gay couple married, a straight couple will be ordered to divorce. It's right in the legislation.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by highliter (January 11, 2010 4:59 pm ET)
      2 11
      I don’t like the will of the people so let try and legislate through the courts! Will of the people be dammed!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ruby (January 11, 2010 5:27 pm ET)
        11 2
        Exactly. Because the will of the majority should always have the ability to stomp all over the rights of the minority. That's what democracy is all about. Or wait..is that mob rule?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (January 11, 2010 5:53 pm ET)
          2 10
          Actually that is what democracy is all about thats why the USA is a republic. I just was just poking fun of the fact that anytime the vote goes the liberal way it was the will of the people. If you oppose them your somehow against the American people. But if libs loose its bamm straight to the courts!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Ruby (January 11, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
            13 1
            The USA is a democratic republic.

            In some cases, in order to defend the rights of a minority, the courts must get involved. In 1958, 96% of white Americans opposed interracial marriage. But the ban still had to be overturned. Because it was wrong, even if the majority of the people supported that ban.

            I don't lose too much sleep over the same-sex marriage issue. It's frustrating sometimes when there's a setback, but no noble struggle is without obstacles. And I know it will happen one day, because that's how the universe works. It bends towards justice, as a smart guy once put it. Victory is inevitable. I have total confidence that one day my kids or grandkids are going to look back on this with the same befuddlement I have when I try to envision how things were when my parents were growing up--when blacks and whites couldn't marry, or even use the same water fountain. It always seems so incredibly bizarre to me; it's hard to imagine that America was ever like that, much less just a few decades ago. We will one day look back on this with the same sense of shame and confusion we have when we recall the days of a ban on interracial marriage.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by edgewaterprog (January 11, 2010 6:32 pm ET)
              9 1
              and Ruby....

              It gives me no small joy to think of all these bigoted right wingers marching arm-and-arm against the flow of history.

              One of these days our children and grandchildren will be able to look at them with the same sense of pity that we feel for the politicians who opposed racial integration in the last Century.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (January 11, 2010 6:39 pm ET)
              12 1
              I know a gay woman in California. She was telling me how the Morman Church used church funds and church phones to work to pass Prop 8. This is illegal interference in an election, and it should cost the offending churches their tax exempth status. This is the first bill to actually remove a right from a whole group of people.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by shaggles (January 11, 2010 7:26 pm ET)
                9  
                That was pretty widely known I think. And you're right. They should lose their tax exempt status.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by OOzinEvil (January 11, 2010 8:30 pm ET)
                  1 13
                  Kinda like this web site.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Frankeee (January 11, 2010 10:13 pm ET)
                    5  
                    ......Because MMFA is tax exempt.....
                    Riiiiiight.........
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by eweston8542983 (January 11, 2010 11:27 pm ET)
                    11  
                    A church throwing 20+ million into a political campaign is quite unlike this website.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (January 12, 2010 7:34 pm ET)
                    3 2
                    This website doesn't advocate for any propositions, laws, candidates or political parties.


                    So, no, it's not "kinda like" the Mormon Church using their own funds to lobby for the passage of Prop 8.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by OOzinEvil (January 12, 2010 11:53 pm ET)
                      1 3
                      This website doesn't advocate for any propositions, laws, candidates or political parties.


                      Stay tuned! This may be the best quote of 2010, but it's only Jan 12th.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (January 13, 2010 1:43 am ET)
                        2  
                        What are you talking about?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by OOzinEvil (January 13, 2010 11:16 am ET)
                          2 2
                          This site frequently advocates for liberal representatives, propositions and laws.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by DellDolly (January 13, 2010 5:56 pm ET)
                            2 1
                            It sure does not.

                            And I love how you provided examples of them doing what you accused them of - NOT.

                            Why didn't you provide a single example? Because there ARE no examples, that's why.

                            This site doesn't advocate for any political party or candidate or any laws or proposed laws. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're lying.
                            Report Abuse
              • Author by carlileb5935 (January 12, 2010 4:34 am ET)
                3  
                Even worse, they were robocalling people up until poll-closing time with tapes of Barack Obama, making it seem like he was in favor of 8, which he was not.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by kad0356 (January 13, 2010 5:14 pm ET)
                 
              I agree that it will happen ONE DAY. And I am definitely grateful about that. But what are those of us who want to get married now, (or have gotten married in states or countries where it is legal), supposed to do in the meantime as we are denied all the priviledges at the State and Federal level afforded to different sex couples who now marry? What happens if my wife gets hit by a bus tomorrow and dies, if her kids want to take the house that I helped pay for, but which is in HER name, because to have added MY name after we married would have meant my having to pay a gift tax? Or what happens when one of us dies and the survivor is not entitled to the other's social security benefits (as we would if we were a different sex couple) and then can't afford to live? I could name so many more examples. Patience is fine, but many people are and will suffer in the mean time.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 12, 2010 7:32 pm ET)
            3 1
            Our democracy is not all about the majority ruling over the minority with no consideration given to that minority. You're wrong for about the 150th time, highliter!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (January 11, 2010 7:25 pm ET)
        6  
        It's a constitutional challenge. The will of the people doesn't really matter if the law is deemed unconstitutional.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (January 11, 2010 11:26 pm ET)
        2  
        Who's will,yours?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by seahawks123 (January 11, 2010 5:01 pm ET)
      3 18
      Prop 8 was voted on BY the people of California. Now wether or not your for or against it is irrelavent. It's not the courts constitutional role to legislate from the bench. Although that does seem the only way liberals get their way is by imposition not by it being approved by the voters.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by edgewaterprog (January 11, 2010 6:36 pm ET)
        7 2
        I guess we should just leave everything up to the vote of the people....oh wait...that is done in California and look where that has gotten the state...60 billion in the red?

        Our system political system was created to provide several checks on mob rule, legislatures, executives, and judiciaries.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (January 11, 2010 6:38 pm ET)
        13  
        Do you even know what it means to find something unconstitutional?

        "Although that does seem the only way liberals get their way" -- yeah, liberals haven't had their way for a while. That's why we have the booming economy, the historic job creation, the balanced budget...

        ...or we used to have those things, until liberals stopped getting their way.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by CrashGordon (January 11, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
        8  
        It is the courts role to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Defining that as "legislating from the bench" whenever the law in question is one that's favored by the right is an all-to-common occurrence. Why do you think the Bush administration was pushing for a Constitutional amendment? To distract voters away from the disaster that was Iraq during his re-election campaign? Oh wait, that is why he was pushing for that and also why he promptly forgot about it after he was re-elected. But it still doesn't change the fact that they knew the Constitution would have to be amended in order to make these state laws stick.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (January 11, 2010 7:28 pm ET)
        8  
        It is the courts role to decide the constitutionality of laws.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (January 11, 2010 8:53 pm ET)
        14 1
        Supreme Ct. Chief Justice Marshall established the concept of judicial review in America in the case, Marbury vs. Madison. It is the power of courts to review judgments made in lower courts. You may not like it, but it is deeply ingrained in the American System of justice. The CA Supreme Ct. ruled that gay people could marry according to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law in its' 14th Amendment. The plaintiffs have a viable legal challenge. If the courts strictly interpreted the constitution, as republicans and conservatives insist that they do, the verdict would be moot. The plaintiffs would automatically win the case, but you have the Prop8ers who rail against judicial activism, but in this case, judicial activism is exactly what they are looking for in the courts. The hypocrisy is staggering. The average right-winger doesn't understand the constitution and has little use for it unless it is to deprive someone, besides themselves, of their rights.

        The fact that the people of CA voted against gay marriage is not the issue here. The issue is the constitutionality of the vote. Did the voters have the right to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights of a group of citizens is the question. The answer is no, if the constitution is properly interpreted. NO. To allow one group of citizens to take away the rights of another group of citizens opens the door to more abuses of power. It is my position that some people, given one mile, will then demand more. And besides, at this point in time, which of these people who are railing against LGBTQ persons have children who may grow up to become members of this group? Be very careful what you wish for.

        I know firsthand how difficult it is to live in a country that you love and be denied your constitutional rights because I grew up in America under segregation.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mescal (January 12, 2010 12:10 am ET)
          4 1
          Excellent post... direct and on point.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Justken (January 12, 2010 10:15 am ET)
          2 4
          "Did the voters have the right to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights of a group of citizens is the question."

          The voters did not take away a right from anyone. The voters were promoting a unique relationship that is vital to societies continuation. A man and a woman joining together to have and raise children. Everyone has the right to this institution. If you don't want to enter into it that fine. No other relationship matters to the continuation of people so it doesn't need a special legal status.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (January 12, 2010 7:56 pm ET)
            4 1
            The voters did not take away a right from anyone.

            You sure about that? Before prop 8 LBGT were allowed to marry. After prop 8 they weren't.

            Seems something was taken way.

            The voters were promoting a unique relationship that is vital to societies continuation

            OK, then all pregnancies out of wedlock must be aborted, using your warped logic.

            If your post was sarcasm (don't recognize your login name), then disregard this post. If not, then you have my pity.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by ButteryPat (January 13, 2010 5:07 am ET)
            2  
            A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.

            -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

            Just thought it might make ya think a little, Justken.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Maggie's Mom (January 13, 2010 3:04 pm ET)
          2 1
          Beautifully stated. It seems like even the most ignorant should be able to understand why what was done in California is unconstitutional.
          They should ask themselves which right could be taken from them, since some people can't relate unless it is all about them. Which right will be taken next, and by whom? This is not something that can be allowed to stand.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by ButteryPat (January 13, 2010 5:02 am ET)
        4 1
        Nobody's imposing anything. The people who are arguing for Prop 8 will receive just as much time and consideration of their arguments as those against. This is an issue of law, not public opinion. The public does not often have a great understanding of the law. It's why we don't convict people based on Gallup polls. Now, here's a couple of quotations which are particularly relevant, from people whom I'm sure you've told friends and acquaintances you've read before:

        "We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down." - William F. Buckley Jr.

        "Unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny." - Ayn Rand

        "[M]ajority rule is for the sake of securing rights possessed equally by the majority and the minority. Whether anyone’s rights to life, liberty, or property ought to be protected is not itself supposed to be subject to majority rule." - Timothy Sandefur

        See, even conservatives used to believe in the rule of law to set things straight when people are denied a fundamental right.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Jurgan (January 11, 2010 5:19 pm ET)
      2 6
      While the law should be repealed, is a court case the best way to do it? I know it sounds condescending to tell gays to sit down and shut up, but it might lead to better results if gay marriage is embraced legislatively on a state-by-state basis. Eric Alterman said in one of his books that, in hindsight, Roe v. Wade might have hurt abortion rights- before it, states were trending toward accepting abortion as legal, but there was a backlash when the Supreme Court made a universal ruling. Certainly, a value like equality of marriage is more likely to be real if it's accepted by people locally, as opposed to being mandated by a distant court. Are courts the best place to fight these "culture war" battles?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by peterda (January 11, 2010 5:51 pm ET)
        8 1
        While I understand the concern of a possible backlash, I think a more appropriate analogy would be to compare this case to Loving v. Virginia, as both involve prohibitions on certain marriages. There is a world of difference between allowing two people to marry and ending the life of an unborn child. That is why abortion today remains so controversial while interracial marriage, with extremely rare exceptions limited to a dwindling handful of unrepentant racists, is not. Granted I expect more resistance to same-sex marriage than interracial marriage due to the influence of many religious denominations, but I can't imagine efforts to overturn marriage equality taking place four decades from now, as is the case with abortion.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by edgewaterprog (January 11, 2010 6:43 pm ET)
        3 1
        Jurgan,

        A little condescending maybe, but if it were your life that was being afftected by this you might be a little more stridant in your demand for justice in this matter.

        I have been with my partner for six years now and there is little hope at this time that our state will ever permit us to marry (although I should add the chance of it voting an anti-same-sex-marriage amendment is also fairly remote).

        It is not just the legal obligations that marriage permits a couple it is the recognition by the state that you are equal to your neighbors.

        I will concede that I am not too sure this Bois-Olsen lawsuit will be effective or will help the process that much but the status quo must be constantly challenged in this case.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (January 11, 2010 6:45 pm ET)
        3  
        Actually, the California legislature had passed a law allowing Gay Marriage. Prop 8 recinded the law, and it was marked unfairly. Churches and church groups were spending a lot of money and energy to get it repealed. There is a case to be made that it was an unfair proposal. Also, a lot of people didn't read the propal on the ballot or in the petition stage. But yes, marriage has always been a State issue, and it should go state by state, but also all states will have to recognize it. This is why the Court had to make the Loving v. Virginia, because some states did not recognize interracial marriage.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (January 11, 2010 7:11 pm ET)
          8  
          That's not entirely accurate.

          The California legislature TWICE passed legislation that would legalize gay marriage. Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger vetoed both bills.

          It was the state courts that ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny equal protection under the law to everyone with regards to marriage. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot to change the constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It passed with about 52% of the vote.

          Same sex marriages obtained up until the point that Prop. 8 took effect were ruled to stand, however, creating kind of a double status for gay marriage in California.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by latichever (January 11, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
        6
      Actually, a reasonable case can be made for other types of marriage. For example, shouldn't siblings who live together, in some cases one working the other maintaining the household be granted the rights of marriage. Why should a sibling in such a situation not be eligible for family health care employer based benefits or Social Security survivor benefits. Why should a child receive survivor benefits from a parent, but not a parent from a child--if the child is supporting the parent?

      Point is, there are many types of households beyond straight or gay couples, and they deserve some recognition too--but not turtles.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by edgewaterprog (January 11, 2010 6:57 pm ET)
        4  
        That is something different than marriage wouldn't you say, latichever.

        I think if we use "consent" and the ability to get uncoerced consent from the parties involved we can see an outline of what kinds of relationships may be considered for marriage and kinds must be of a different kind of legal arrangement.

        1. Underage persons cannot give consent.
        2. Close relatives cannot give consent to marry each other because coersion is very likely in these relationships...even after the parties are adults.
        3. Animals and inanimate objects cannot give consent and therefore Bill-O will not see people wedding ducks.
        4. This criteria does not eliminate one of the Right's bogeymen against same sex marriage which is polygamy, though.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by only_myschly3567 (January 11, 2010 5:58 pm ET)
      7 1
      I don't know who I dislike more. The conservative media figures that are so offensive and proclaim that they don't understand what's so offensive, or, the ones who try to be clever and word their homophobia so that it's "on the fence" of homophobia according to other media-figures.

      Either way, I sure hope this will finally be the win we've been waiting for. The constitution is being ignored in so many cases, overturning Prop 8 isn't just a victory for the LGBT-community, equal rights, secularism etc, but for the Constitution as well.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Justken (January 11, 2010 6:05 pm ET)
      2 15
      I do not endorse hate speech of any kind and the invectives sited in this article are wrong and should be denounced but...

      The relationship between a man and a woman are unique. It is the only way for humans to procreate. It takes 20+ years to raise a child. There is a huge state interest in trying to have a special status for this one type of relationship for these reasons.

      The state should endorse and encourage this particular relationship because it is of paramount importance to society. No other arrangement comes close. No other bond damages us as much when it fail. The country needs a special legal institution for encouraging a man and woman to live together and raise children. It is called marriage.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ruby (January 11, 2010 7:00 pm ET)
        14  
        So a man and woman that are in love, but for whatever reason unable to reproduce, or are past the age of being able to reproduce, they shouldn't be encouraged or allowed to marry?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by edgewaterprog (January 11, 2010 7:00 pm ET)
        12 1
        Then all of the straight couples out there who refuse to or who cannot have children after a period of time should have the state benefits of marriage removed. No children=no marriage.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (January 11, 2010 7:16 pm ET)
        8  
        It's also called "marriage" when two people, one a woman who is well beyond the age of having children, enters into a marriage.

        It's also called a marriage when Britney Spears gets plastered in Vegas and marries her driver (or whomever that guy was.)

        And guess what: In a few states in this country, when two men or two women take vows to be married, that too is called a marriage.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Frankeee (January 11, 2010 10:50 pm ET)
        5 3
        Lay off just a litttttle bit here guys. I get where this guy is coming from and going at him like that isn't gonna change that. I don't necessarily agree with him on the finer points but I think I know what he means.
        It's not exactly a big deal when married couples can't reproduce to society considering that people have been worrying about overpopulation for a loooooong time. See Ebenzer Scrooge and the play Urinetown for examples. I don't exactly see the special status thing his way because I don't quite get it myself. How is marriage special if most adults get married and why would it need to be given a specialty status? And he says
        The country needs a special legal institution for encouraging a man and woman to live together and raise children. It is called marriage.
        I don't think that the state should be encouraging marriage. The [b]civil[b] institution of marriage should exist for all the nice goodies. And it should exist for the LGBT people as well.

        No other bond damages us as much when it fail

        But yes, it IS bad when marriage fails when there is a child involved, especially a young one and society, not the gov, has a vested interest in making sure that children have at least a stable familial setting. Any people of divorced or broken families ought to know this as I do. Which is why when a gay couple adopts and only one parent has recognized guardianship, problems are MORE likely to arise. Suppose the guardian develops a drinking/drug/vice etc problem? That kid gets put into the foster system if there is no grandparents or such. No legal benefits are reaped by the partner. And perhaps since gays CANNOT reproduce, intentionally or otherwise, seeking out children instead of having kids forced upon them may actually mean they will be better parents from the start BECAUSE they wanted kids
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Ruby (January 12, 2010 6:36 am ET)
          7  
          I don't think anyone was "going at him" in any kind of way. All we did was point out the obvious problems with what he said. None of us said anything disrespectful or rude or obnoxious.

          And, exactly, it's not a big deal when married couples don't reproduce. That's why the whole, "gay people can't make babies" argument doesn't hold water.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Justken (January 12, 2010 10:37 am ET)
          3 1
          Thanks for the support. Although I don't think people were being too harsh.

          "I don't think that the state should be encouraging marriage. The civil institution of marriage should exist for all the nice goodies. And it should exist for the LGBT people as well."

          Interesting. It is a strange but true fact that as countries get richer they have fewer children. Countries like France, Italy and Japan are below replacement birthrates. Do we want those countries to disappear?

          Even with all the benefits that marriage gives, it is still tremendously expensive to have kids. It helps but doesn't equal out the costs and for people who make the same amount of money there is even a tax penalty. Go figure.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (January 11, 2010 6:07 pm ET)
      14  
      If one person can tell me how 2 gay people getting married threatens my marriage, I'll go to the other side and support them.

      Just one person, is that to high of a bar to ask for?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Asemodeus (January 11, 2010 6:17 pm ET)
        13 2
        "Just one person, is that to high of a bar to ask for? "

        I asked a christian bigot in one of my other venues to present secular arguments against gay marriage. This is seriously what he came up with:
        1. Gays are icky according to the unwashed masses.
        2. Gays have more violent relationships.
        3. Marriage is not a civil right.

        1 and 2 are irrelevant. If we disbarred people from having marriage on the basis of a potential for abuse within the marriage, then 'traditional' marriage would take a huge hit in numbers as well. On this he refused to admit to this fact and how the law has to apply to everyone equally. If you disbar gays from having marriage on the potential for abuse, then you must do the same for heterosexual marriages.

        3 is even more funny since there is already plenty of precedent. In Loving V. Virginia it was established by the supreme court in a ruling 7-0 in favor that interracial marriage was legal and that marriage IS a civil right.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Justken (January 11, 2010 6:33 pm ET)
          14
        What is marriage? I guess it comes down to a definition of that word.

        A man and woman who live together to have and raise children. Society must reproduce to continue so this relationship gets special status.

        If it means two people who love each other and want to live together, why does that state care? There is no reason to promote it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by edgewaterprog (January 11, 2010 7:05 pm ET)
          11  
          Justken,

          Once again, you seem to forget that most straight marriages in this country do not result in children.

          So your argument does not make sense.

          Procreation IS NOT THE criteria for marriage in the United States.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Justken (January 12, 2010 10:59 am ET)
              5
            I don't know the actual statistics for how many marriages have children but that IS the reason for promoting it. The last I remember, in the US the birthrate was about 2.1 children/woman.
            Society wants these children raised by their parents, therefore marriage. Otherwise why have it.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 11:55 am ET)
            1 3
            Once again, you seem to forget that most straight marriages in this country do not result in children.


            Really care to provide anything to back this statement up because I dont know of ANY married people that do not have kids, besides the few who physically cant.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by edgewaterprog (January 12, 2010 2:02 pm ET)
              3  
              I apologize for exaggerating highliter.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
                  2
                NP and I agree that Procreation IS NOT THE criteria for marriage in the United States.

                I personally could give a Rodent Rectum who marries I think government should get out of marriage altogether.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (January 11, 2010 7:17 pm ET)
          5  
          Your definition of marriage. Not mine.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (January 11, 2010 7:31 pm ET)
          4 1
          According to the Bible if a man and woman have sex they're married. As far as I've found that's pretty much all the Bible says about marriage.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (January 11, 2010 10:41 pm ET)
            1 4
            There a bit more to it than that, Shaggles, you need to read a little more.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (January 11, 2010 11:23 pm ET)
              7  
              When the right-wingers decide to ban divorce, I'll start to believe their "Defense of Marriage" crapola is something more than their usual bigotry for short-term gains.

              I'm not holding my breath.
              ~
              Report Abuse
              • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 12:09 pm ET)
                1 3
                Most Churches dont recognize divorces its the Government that does.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by edgewaterprog (January 12, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  What do you mean most churches do not recognize divorce? Give your source for that statement....

                  The last I checked most denominations will marry divocees. I think that is recognition of divorce by the those denominations.

                  Maybe the civil portion of marriage, like divorce should be handled by the governments and let the churches do the religious stuff.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 3:21 pm ET)
                    1 4
                    Maybe the civil portion of marriage, like divorce should be handled by the governments and let the churches do the religious stuff.


                    The government doesn’t need to be in Marriage at all.
                    The Catholic Church will not marry divorcees.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by edgewaterprog (January 12, 2010 3:43 pm ET)
                      2  
                      Thanks for the clarification about the Catholic Church highliter.

                      Who should be be involved with Marriage if the goverment confers marriage based on marriage status? The churches? Elvis impersonators?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 3:51 pm ET)
                        1 2
                        Why do you have to go to the government for permission to marry? Why does it matter what your status is?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by edgewaterprog (January 12, 2010 4:51 pm ET)
                          2  
                          Sorry I meant the goverment confers benefits based on marriage status. Shouldn't the government have more to do with the civil portion of the license than churches and Elvis?
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by edgewaterprog (January 12, 2010 4:58 pm ET)
                          3  
                          If the government is going to confer benefits based on marital status than it matters a whole lot to me and it should to you, too.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by highliter (January 12, 2010 5:56 pm ET)
                            1 1
                            What government benefits do you get from being married?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by edgewaterprog (January 12, 2010 8:11 pm ET)
                                 
                              I don't, I am not permitted to get married under Federal Law.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by edgewaterprog (January 12, 2010 8:23 pm ET)
                              3  
                              I do not have any of the right's that are guaranteed married couples in my relationship without setting up eleborate legal structures any of which can be willfully ignored by ill-intentioned persons.

                              No automatic inheritance...
                              No hospital visitaion...
                              No end of life decision making...
                              No joint property...
                              No Social Security benefits...
                              etc....
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by highliter (January 13, 2010 10:08 am ET)
                                1 3
                                All of the above can be handled by contract law with the government having to sanctioned any kind of marriage.

                                All of the above can be handled by contract law without the government having to sanction any kind of marriage.

                                You don’t need to be married for any of this
                                No automatic inheritance...
                                No hospital visitaion...
                                No end of life decision making...
                                No joint property...

                                The only issue that would be difficult would be social security. This could be fixed by simply have people register who they want their social security benefactor to be. While the majority of American are against gay marriage they are for equal rights for gay couples. They just don’t want it called marriage. I just think a lot of this BS is simply over the word marriage. If you get equal rights why do you care what it’s called? Personally I don’t give a crap who gets married I think it’s a distraction for some of the more pressing issues facing us today.
                                Report Abuse
            • Author by shaggles (January 13, 2010 1:45 pm ET)
                 
              Can you point me too it? I've read all of the New Testement and about half of the Old and all I have found so far are a few references to making someone your wife (or husband) by having sex with them.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by whatIthink (January 11, 2010 8:25 pm ET)
          11  
          Then let's change the law. If procreation is the purpose of marriage, once married, it will be illegal for people to use contraception of any kind (yes, even the rythm method). It will also be illegal for people to have sex for any other reason except to procreate. And, if the married couple do not produce an offspring within 12 months of the marriage, the marriage will then be declared null and void and all rights, responsibilties, benefits, etc will also be vacated. And, finally, in order to get married, a couple must show that they are fertile and capable of having offspring, otherwise no marriage allowed.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Justken (January 12, 2010 10:25 am ET)
            1 5
            You guys are funny. I stated a very valid reason for marriage and as far as I see no one has said that I am wrong with my reasoning. Then you go all right wing on me with bizarro laws because you don't like the reason.

            Once again, does not the state have a valid purpose in encouraging a man and a woman to come together in a permanent relationship to have and raise children? If you believe the answer is no, fine. But I think the answer is yes it does.

            It does not matter to the state if boy friends and girl friends break up or boy and boy or girl and girl. I also agree that divorce is a bad thing. People have argued about it for years about how easy should it be or not be to get a divorce. But none of this negates my original point. If I am wrong, show me where.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by whatIthink (January 12, 2010 6:18 pm ET)
              5  
              If you changed

              "Once again, does not the state have a valid purpose in encouraging a man and a woman to come together in a permanent relationship to have and raise children?"

              to

              "...does not the state have a valid purpose in encouraging a committed couple to come together in a permanent relationship to have and raise children?"

              I'd agree with you 100%. But to try and reason that government should restrict it a definition of a man and a woman is ludicrous. That's giving tacit approval to the BS theories being thrown around about how homosexual couples make unfit parents. If a child is raised in a loving, respectful home, what does it matter if the parents are a man and a woman or two men or two women?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by MilitantMNMan (January 11, 2010 8:31 pm ET)
      7  
      I remember on youtube there was an old C-Span vid of Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens. A conservative caller told Sullivan that homosexuality can lead to beastiality. Sullivan told her that such a statement was beneath him and that he wouldn't even reply. He surely handled that caller better than I would have. I think I would have been in trouble with the FCC for what may have been said.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Billos (January 11, 2010 8:45 pm ET)
      7 1
      This is clearly a battle designed for GOP, so called, values. They believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and thats fine. But the understanding that we live by the constitution is all thats relevant in the matter and those rights protected by it, trump any core values one might have of what they believe is right for themselves. This is one for the lawmakers to battle out and it is done so by the basis of law and NOT individual belief. I don't support marriages of these types myself, yet I do support the framework of government to protect the rights of those who do. It is a matter of law, not opinion.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by richrdh (January 11, 2010 8:53 pm ET)
      7  
      Remembering the Prop 8 ads and news medias non responsiveness to insane advertisements doesn't leave me with much hope of a real dialogue. Being a card carrying member of the LGBT community I am sure that Fox will pull out every homophobic fear ever known to mankind. What is even more frightening is media's inability to have the guts to stand up to bigotry and fear. If the media cannot have an intelligent response to the health care debate, the raping of the economy by banks, how can they be expected to contribute to a debate on same sex marriage. There internalized fears shoot across the screens now. Can you imagine Fox & Friends having an intelligent conversation without a homophobic response?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Frankeee (January 11, 2010 11:00 pm ET)
        1 1
        Ah, consolidation and incorporation of media.

        (Corporations=maximize incoming money, decrease outgoing money) + (Corporate media=maximize markets for advertising dollars) + (Unbiased fact, critical analysis of issues, etc=loss of viewers with preconceived views and notions on subject matter) = loss of potential money. Until the truth and honest debate/facts become the most profitable thing on the newsroom floor, newstations cannot take things to a serious level without being biased. CNN is the only arguable exception to this.
        THIS is why your local news SUCKS. They pander to as wide an audience as they can. Anything which may alienate any viewers is off limits for seriousness and facts which support side A and diminish side B
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MB1952 (January 12, 2010 9:06 am ET)
          6
        Well spoken dogma that only a card carting LGBT could say. Oh ya that evil Fox News telling the truth! How dare they!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (January 12, 2010 5:27 pm ET)
          4  
          Oh ya that evil Fox News telling the truth! How dare they!!

          And I'm sure you can link to any instance of Fox telling the truth?...

          /sarcasm
          Report Abuse
    • Author by edgewaterprog (January 12, 2010 7:16 am ET)
      2  
      In case anyone is interested, Ted Olsen had a very interesting essay in the January 18 issue of Newsweek.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vhw28672478 (January 12, 2010 6:49 pm ET)
      4 1
      Pop 8 is a major joke It should be overturn
      Report Abuse

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube Reddit