The California Proposition 8 Case: Olson and Boies

[micatala]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/profile.html


Bill Moyers interviewed Theodore Olson and David Boies, the chief lawyers handling the suit against California's Proposition 8, this past Friday on PBS. Prop 8 was the ballot initiative banning gay marriage in CA that narrowly passed in the fall of 2008.

Olson is a prominent conservative, famous for handling the Republican case in Bush V. Gore.

Boies is on the opposite side of the political spectrum, and was on the opposite side of the Bush v. Gore case.

They are teaming up to represent one male and one female same-sex couples, a case that is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

I would certainly recommend the full interview if you have time.


One main point of their legal strategy is to hammer home that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is a fundamental individual right, and that extending this right to gays is not creating a new right, but simply treating gays equally with respect to an already firmly established right.

Conservatives, just like liberals, rely on the Supreme Court to protect the rule of law, to protect our liberties, to look at a law and decide whether or not it fits within the Constitution. And I think the point that's really important here, when you're thinking about judicial activism, is that this is not a new right. Nobody is saying, 'Go find in the Constitution the right to get married.' Everybody, unanimous Supreme Court, says there's a right to get married, a fundamental right to get married. The question is whether you can discriminate against certain people based on their sexual orientation. And the issue of prohibiting discrimination has never in my view been looked as a test of judicial activism. That's not liberal, that's not conservative. That's not Republican or Democrat. That's simply an American Constitutional civil right.

They noted that the Supreme Court has said that even prison inmates cannot be prevented from being married.


In the interview, they went on to pretty well demolish any legal justification for Proposition 8. Of course, they still have to win their case, and eventually in front of the SCOTUS.


Questions for debate:

1) Are Olson and Boies correct. Should the suit go forward regardless of the risk of losing?

2) How good is their case?

3) Are the likely to win?




The suit itself is entitled Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, even though neither the governor nor his attorney general are going to defend the proposition. The AG even noted he felt Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

See http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/ou ... rzenegger/
for more background.


See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... act_talbot
for a New Yorker article on the suit.

[cnorman18]

Not quite the same. You have trumpeted and promoted the most vicious kind of stereotyping and smears of gay people - and you have dismissed hate crimes against gays as insignificant. Obama has done neither.

Way to change the subject again. Obama has said he thinks marraige should be between a man and woman, the subject of this thread.

Hey, YOU brought up Obama and his "bigotry," not me. It's fair to compare what he's said to what YOU'VE said, right here. AND THEY AREN'T THE SAME.

Let me be clear; your opposition to gay marriage isn't what marks you as a bigot. It's the WAY you oppose it, with vicious stereotypes and myths about homosexuals which you get from anti-gay websites and "scholars" that don't care about accuracy, facts, or fairness, but only about promoting hatred and discrimination.

In your case, I don't think "bigot" is "name-calling." I'd say it's an objectively accurate description.

You are pathetic. See rule #1 on this forum.

And "pathetic" isn't namecalling?

I think I'll just let that one stand. If that isn't a fatuous and disingenuous dodge, I've never seen one.

Another dodge. I'm sure we could find someone support marriage of biological siblings. IS THAT OK OR ARE YOU A BIGOT?

Are you seriously equating gay marriage with incest?!? Why not bestiality, necrophilia, and forcible rape?

Like I asked before, and you deleted - how low will you stoop?

I OBVIOUSLY meant otherwise unrelated people. Are you trying to put support for unlawful incest in my mouth now?

Gay marriage is unlawful most places.

"Missing the point" again, I see. How very convenient for you. "Unlawful" wasn't the key word in that sentence, and you know it.

And what "lack of arguments for gay marriage"? Justice,

Your opinion.

Do you think that's actually an ARGUMENT? You use it often enough. See below.

constitutionality, equal protection under the law... Are those not "arguments"?

Not really, just more opinions. You aren't the SCOTUS.

Again, do you think that's a meaningful argument?

YOU haven't been able to give a single reason that ISN'T your own unsupported, hypocritical, and legally ludicrous "OPINION." If you haven't noticed, YOU aren't the SCOTUS either, so your remark is, once again, fatuous and meaningless.

My calling you a "hypocrite" isn't "name-calling,"

......and black is really white.

Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people.

There's no hurry. We've been waiting for an answer to that for a couple of days already. Take your time.

Everyone here sees the transparent hypocrisy of your phony arguments:

Argumentum ad populum. 52% of the people of CA and most other states think I'm right and you're wrong.

Sorry, but argumentum ad populum applies to what YOU just said, not me.

I said that everyone here sees the hypocrisy of your arguments, not that that makes me right about this issue. You, on the other hand, are here claiming YOU'RE right because more voters agree with you. THAT is the meaning of argumentum ad populum.

Not that that matters anyway. Like I said, it doesn't matter if 100% of the voters support an unjust and unconstitutional law. It still won't survive its first challenge.

Why do you suppose people want to amend the Constitution to specifically limit marriage to one man and one woman? Because they know that the Constitution won't support banning gay marriage as it reads now. There could be no other reason.

All your objections only apply if the couple is GAY, and you're not fooling anyone about that. A straight couple, or as noted below, even same-sex caregivers that are NOT gay, with PRECISELY the same problems and risks that you pretend to be so worried about, should still be legally able to marry or raise children, according to you. Their possible problems should only result in the outlawing of their marriages or right to raise children if the couple is GAY.

No matter how you try to distract and conceal and dodge it, you haven't been able to address that FACT about your "position" AT ALL, which makes the moral and logical hypocrisy of your "position" obvious.

No answer to that point at all, I see - as usual. The fatal and conclusive flaw in your whole argument, and you dodge it AGAIN. Imagine my surprise.

I was talking about two brothers or two sisters raising children. Do you think THAT ought to be legal, even though they don't provide a male and female role model?

Fine, but it would be a sub-optimal situation.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT YOUR HYPOCRISY IS NOW PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT.

You here ADMIT that your objection is not to unconventional parenting, AS YOU KEEP PRETENDING, but ONLY to GAY PARENTS.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What if the two sisters or brothers wanted to marry, is that OK or are you a bigot? I figure if I keep asking you may answer some day.

You're indulging in nothing but twisted polemic now; no one has said anything at all about legalizing incest but YOU. And you accuse ME of changing the subject?

So: You won't answer my objections, you can't give any coherent reasons that apply to both gays and straights, and you won't deal with your own vicious stereotyping and blatant hatred. You either won't or can't argue honestly and with integrity, so I don't know what else there is to say to you. I'll continue as long as necessary, for the benefit of our readers, but I have to wonder if you're ever going to actually respond to my arguments as opposed to just pretending to.

In particular: When you decide to get around to responding to my three (3) unanswered points, let me know.

Just for your convenience, here they are again:

(1) There is no significant opposition to gay marriage that isn't religion-based:

(2) There is no reason why Christians should have the right to dictate the beliefs and practices of Americans to the exclusion of those who believe otherwise; and

(3) Those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons would not have their rights to practice their own religion infringed to the least degree by its becoming legal.

Funny how you pretend to keep debating when you won't address any of those points.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 121:

>snipping to hit the most salient points<

Let me be clear; your opposition to gay marriage isn't what marks you as a bigot. It's the WAY you oppose it, with vicious stereotypes and myths about homosexuals which you get from anti-gay websites and "scholars" that don't care about accuracy, facts, or fairness, but only about promoting hatred and discrimination.

I can't see any other reasonable conclusion. We were offered a source that is / was suspect if only at one time, and we've yet to be shown outside corroborating data for the suspect source's claims. That these claims are reasonably considered inflammatory would indicate a bias could well be at play.

I OBVIOUSLY meant otherwise unrelated people. Are you trying to put support for unlawful incest in my mouth now?

Gay marriage is unlawful most places.

"Missing the point" again, I see. How very convenient for you. "Unlawful" wasn't the key word in that sentence, and you know it.

I'm going with incest being the key word. I've found when one creates strawmen - nefariously or not - they either seek to deceive in the case of 'nefarity', or they simply fail to understand.

Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people.

There's no hurry. We've been waiting for an answer to that for a couple of days already. Take your time.

I would press to hurry up, in that so many homosexuals are being denied rights and freedoms as I type.

Why do you suppose people want to amend the Constitution to specifically limit marriage to one man and one woman? Because they know that the Constitution won't support banning gay marriage as it reads now. There could be no other reason.

That's a big 10-4 right there.

All your objections only apply if the couple is GAY, and you're not fooling anyone about that. A straight couple, or as noted below, even same-sex caregivers that are NOT gay, with PRECISELY the same problems and risks that you pretend to be so worried about, should still be legally able to marry or raise children, according to you. Their possible problems should only result in the outlawing of their marriages or right to raise children if the couple is GAY.

No matter how you try to distract and conceal and dodge it, you haven't been able to address that FACT about your "position" AT ALL, which makes the moral and logical hypocrisy of your "position" obvious.

No answer to that point at all, I see - as usual. The fatal and conclusive flaw in your whole argument, and you dodge it AGAIN. Imagine my surprise.

The silence is deafening. I can't help thinking the average observer notices this has gone unaddressed.

We are forced to imagine cnorman18's non-surprise.

I was talking about two brothers or two sisters raising children. Do you think THAT ought to be legal, even though they don't provide a male and female role model?

Fine, but it would be a sub-optimal situation.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT YOUR HYPOCRISY IS NOW PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT.

You here ADMIT that your objection is not to unconventional parenting, AS YOU KEEP PRETENDING, but ONLY to GAY PARENTS.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What other conclusion can there be?

So: You won't answer my objections, you can't give any coherent reasons that apply to both gays and straights, and you won't deal with your own vicious stereotyping and blatant hatred. You either won't or can't argue honestly and with integrity, so I don't know what else there is to say to you. I'll continue as long as necessary, for the benefit of our readers, but I have to wonder if you're ever going to actually respond to my arguments as opposed to just pretending to.

I'd dare say the average observer will notice when folks won't respond to repeated challenges or questions, and make a reasonable conclusion someone can't support their own position / claims / implications.

In particular: When you decide to get around to responding to my three (3) unanswered points, let me know.

Just for your convenience, here they are again:

(1) There is no significant opposition to gay marriage that isn't religion-based:

I think it quite logical to conclude most folks who object to gay marriage do so on religious grounds. Evidence here is so many theists (usually Christian in this majority Christian nation) carrying on about how it would 'wreck the sanctity of marriage', their own sacred texts that can be read to condemn homosexuality, and such evidence as Christians beyond the state spending vast sums of money in another state to influence what that state's citizens think about the issue.

(2) There is no reason why Christians should have the right to dictate the beliefs and practices of Americans to the exclusion of those who believe otherwise; and

Would someone please tell this to the "moral majority" set of Christians. Just because your God doesn't like something doesn't mean my God ain't cool with it.

(3) Those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons would not have their rights to practice their own religion infringed to the least degree by its becoming legal.

What right gets infringed? The right to hate? That's a thought, one can do that at their leisure.

[East of Eden]

Hey, YOU brought up Obama and his "bigotry," not me.

Stop lying. Where did I call Obama a 'bigot'?

It's fair to compare what he's said to what YOU'VE said, right here. AND THEY AREN'T THE SAME.

Obama and I both believe marriage to be between a man and woman. Doesn't that make him a bigot?

Let me be clear; your opposition to gay marriage isn't what marks you as a bigot. It's the WAY you oppose it, with vicious stereotypes and myths about homosexuals which you get from anti-gay websites and "scholars" that don't care about accuracy, facts, or fairness, but only about promoting hatred and discrimination.

Again, stop lying. I suspect you're objecting to the article on the health risks of gay sex that I posted by an MD with 89 footnotes. You disniss it out of hand as it viloates your PC think, and begin the name-calling. That about sums up your MO.

And "pathetic" isn't namecalling?

Bad choice of words. Did you read rule #1 yet?

Are you seriously equating gay marriage with incest?!? Why not bestiality, necrophilia, and forcible rape?

What does the crime of rape have to do with marriage? How about the Mormons or Muslims who may want multiple wives? Is that OK or are you a bigot and a hater?

Like I asked before, and you deleted - how low will you stoop?

Back at you.

"Missing the point" again, I see. How very convenient for you. "Unlawful" wasn't the key word in that sentence, and you know it.

It certainly was the key word.

If you haven't noticed, YOU aren't the SCOTUS either, so your remark is, once again, fatuous and meaningless.

No, but my opinion is the law of the land most places, unlike your novel idea.

Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people.

There's no hurry. We've been waiting for an answer to that for a couple of days already. Take your time.

Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage.

I said that everyone here sees the hypocrisy of your arguments, not that that makes me right about this issue.

Which makes it an argumentum ad populum argument. Not surprising here as this forum is overstacked with liberal skeptics, as is proven whenever someone runs a poll.

Not that that matters anyway. Like I said, it doesn't matter if 100% of the voters support an unjust and unconstitutional law. It still won't survive its first challenge.

Hasn't it already been challenged in courts?

Why do you suppose people want to amend the Constitution to specifically limit marriage to one man and one woman? Because they know that the Constitution won't support banning gay marriage as it reads now. There could be no other reason.

Wrong, they want to amend the constitution to control judicial activism.

No matter how you try to distract and conceal and dodge it, you haven't been able to address that FACT about your "position" AT ALL, which makes the moral and logical hypocrisy of your "position" obvious. [/b][/color]

I understand you want to move the goalposts and change the definition, but two men marrying doesn't fit the definition of marriage I posted above which has been around as long as human history.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT YOUR HYPOCRISY IS NOW PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT.

You here ADMIT that your objection is not to unconventional parenting, AS YOU KEEP PRETENDING, but ONLY to GAY PARENTS.

Gay parents are unconventional parenting. A shame you value advancing the gay agenda more than children.

In particular: When you decide to get around to responding to my three (3) unanswered points, let me know.

Apparently unless you get the answers you like, you consider them unanswered.

Just for your convenience, here they are again:

And for your convenience, here are my answers again:

(1) There is no significant opposition to gay marriage that isn't religion-based:

I disagree. Liberal CA does not have enough "fundamentalists" to make up 52% of the population. 52% of the population there DOES have common sense.

(2) There is no reason why Christians should have the right to dictate the beliefs and practices of Americans to the exclusion of those who believe otherwise; and

Does that include liberal Christians who worked to oppose Prop. 8? I've been waiting a while for than answer.

(3) Those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons would not have their rights to practice their own religion infringed to the least degree by its becoming legal.

They would have their right to free excercise of religion infringed by your attempt to invalidate the referendum results when they vote with an informed conscience.

Funny how you pretend to keep debating when you won't address any of those points.

Huh?

[cnorman18]

Edits added on the "lying" allegation.

Hey, YOU brought up Obama and his "bigotry," not me.

Stop lying. Where did I call Obama a 'bigot'?

"Lying"?

By your reasoning over half the country are bigots, including Obama.

First mention of Obama and bigotry in the same sentence in this conversation. It came from you.

It's fair to compare what he's said to what YOU'VE said, right here. AND THEY AREN'T THE SAME.

Obama and I both believe marriage to be between a man and woman. Doesn't that make him a bigot?

Let me be clear; your opposition to gay marriage isn't what marks you as a bigot. It's the WAY you oppose it, with vicious stereotypes and myths about homosexuals which you get from anti-gay websites and "scholars" that don't care about accuracy, facts, or fairness, but only about promoting hatred and discrimination.

Again, stop lying. I suspect you're objecting to the article on the health risks of gay sex that I posted by an MD with 89 footnotes. You disniss it out of hand as it viloates your PC think, and begin the name-calling. That about sums up your MO.

"Lying" again?

I gave my reasons for objecting to the articles you've posted and linked to. So have the other scientists who analyzed it and rejected it, as I also noted, not to mention those whose work your beloved liar, Cameron, has footnoted, but who formally protested his misuse and abuse of their work and denounced his conclusions as unjustified and meaningless.

Who's lying NOW?

And "pathetic" isn't namecalling?

Bad choice of words. Did you read rule #1 yet?

Are you seriously equating gay marriage with incest?!? Why not bestiality, necrophilia, and forcible rape?

What does the crime of rape have to do with marriage? How about the Mormons or Muslims who may want multiple wives? Is that OK or are you a bigot and a hater?

Like I asked before, and you deleted - how low will you stoop?

Back at you.

"Missing the point" again, I see. How very convenient for you. "Unlawful" wasn't the key word in that sentence, and you know it.

It certainly was the key word.

If you haven't noticed, YOU aren't the SCOTUS either, so your remark is, once again, fatuous and meaningless.

No, but my opinion is the law of the land most places, unlike your novel idea.

Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people.

There's no hurry. We've been waiting for an answer to that for a couple of days already. Take your time.

Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but THAT WAS A TOTAL NON SEQUITUR. It was not responsive to my point to the tiniest degree. That's obvious to everyone, of course, but I thought I'd underline it.

You still won't respond to that point, will you? You're going to keep pretending it isn't there, aren't you? How credible do you think that makes you?

Feel free to dodge the question again. It's getting quite amusing to watch how you change the subject and dance around it without EVER so much as approaching the point.

I said that everyone here sees the hypocrisy of your arguments, not that that makes me right about this issue.

Which makes it an argumentum ad populum argument. Not surprising here as this forum is overstacked with liberal skeptics, as is proven whenever someone runs a poll.

Not that that matters anyway. Like I said, it doesn't matter if 100% of the voters support an unjust and unconstitutional law. It still won't survive its first challenge.

Hasn't it already been challenged in courts?

Why do you suppose people want to amend the Constitution to specifically limit marriage to one man and one woman? Because they know that the Constitution won't support banning gay marriage as it reads now. There could be no other reason.

Wrong, they want to amend the constitution to control judicial activism.

No matter how you try to distract and conceal and dodge it, you haven't been able to address that FACT about your "position" AT ALL, which makes the moral and logical hypocrisy of your "position" obvious. [/b][/color]

I understand you want to move the goalposts and change the definition, but two men marrying doesn't fit the definition of marriage I posted above which has been around as long as human history.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT YOUR HYPOCRISY IS NOW PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT.

You here ADMIT that your objection is not to unconventional parenting, AS YOU KEEP PRETENDING, but ONLY to GAY PARENTS.

Gay parents are unconventional parenting. A shame you value advancing the gay agenda more than children.

In particular: When you decide to get around to responding to my three (3) unanswered points, let me know.

Apparently unless you get the answers you like, you consider them unanswered.

Just for your convenience, here they are again:

And for your convenience, here are my answers again:

(1) There is no significant opposition to gay marriage that isn't religion-based:

I disagree. Liberal CA does not have enough "fundamentalists" to make up 52% of the population. 52% of the population there DOES have common sense.

(2) There is no reason why Christians should have the right to dictate the beliefs and practices of Americans to the exclusion of those who believe otherwise; and

Does that include liberal Christians who worked to oppose Prop. 8? I've been waiting a while for than answer.

(3) Those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons would not have their rights to practice their own religion infringed to the least degree by its becoming legal.

They would have their right to free excercise of religion infringed by your attempt to invalidate the referendum results when they vote with an informed conscience.

Funny how you pretend to keep debating when you won't address any of those points.

Huh?

Nothing else here that requires a response. ALL of these objections have already been dealt with, repeatedly; and once again, you pretend that they haven't and ignore the factual arguments concerned. You have deleted and declined to answer key points, MOST NOTABLY THE ONE BELOW; tried to mount arguments that have already been refuted; and, of course, "missed the point" and dodged questions.

Most significantly, we still have this on the table, with apparently no hope of a response from you; you've dodged it several times now, and I doubt very much if you're ever going to address it. It blows your arguments totally out of the water, and you know that, but you won't even acknowledge the point:

"All your objections only apply if the couple is GAY, and you're not fooling anyone about that. A straight couple, or as noted below, even same-sex caregivers that are NOT gay, with PRECISELY the same problems and risks that you pretend to be so worried about, should still be legally able to marry or raise children, according to you. Their possible problems should only result in the outlawing of their marriages or right to raise children if the couple is GAY.

"No matter how you try to distract and conceal and dodge it, you haven't been able to address that FACT about your "position" AT ALL, which makes the moral and logical hypocrisy of your "position" obvious."

If you ever want to try to rebut that, feel free. You haven't yet; you haven't even tried. That's not an OPINION; that's a FACT.

See ya.

[cnorman18]

Edits added on the "lying" allegation.

Hey, YOU brought up Obama and his "bigotry," not me.

Stop lying. Where did I call Obama a 'bigot'?

"Lying"?

By your reasoning over half the country are bigots, including Obama.

First mention of Obama and bigotry in the same sentence in this conversation. It came from you.

It's fair to compare what he's said to what YOU'VE said, right here. AND THEY AREN'T THE SAME.

Obama and I both believe marriage to be between a man and woman. Doesn't that make him a bigot?

Let me be clear; your opposition to gay marriage isn't what marks you as a bigot. It's the WAY you oppose it, with vicious stereotypes and myths about homosexuals which you get from anti-gay websites and "scholars" that don't care about accuracy, facts, or fairness, but only about promoting hatred and discrimination.

Again, stop lying. I suspect you're objecting to the article on the health risks of gay sex that I posted by an MD with 89 footnotes. You disniss it out of hand as it viloates your PC think, and begin the name-calling. That about sums up your MO.

"Lying" again?

I gave my reasons for objecting to the articles you've posted and linked to. So have the other scientists who analyzed it and rejected it, as I also noted, not to mention those whose work your beloved liar, Cameron, has footnoted, but who formally protested his misuse and abuse of their work and denounced his conclusions as unjustified and meaningless.

Who's lying NOW?

And "pathetic" isn't namecalling?

Bad choice of words. Did you read rule #1 yet?

Are you seriously equating gay marriage with incest?!? Why not bestiality, necrophilia, and forcible rape?

What does the crime of rape have to do with marriage? How about the Mormons or Muslims who may want multiple wives? Is that OK or are you a bigot and a hater?

Like I asked before, and you deleted - how low will you stoop?

Back at you.

"Missing the point" again, I see. How very convenient for you. "Unlawful" wasn't the key word in that sentence, and you know it.

It certainly was the key word.

If you haven't noticed, YOU aren't the SCOTUS either, so your remark is, once again, fatuous and meaningless.

No, but my opinion is the law of the land most places, unlike your novel idea.

Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people.

There's no hurry. We've been waiting for an answer to that for a couple of days already. Take your time.

Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but THAT WAS A TOTAL NON SEQUITUR. It was not responsive to my point to the tiniest degree. That's obvious to everyone, of course, but I thought I'd underline it.

You still won't respond to that point, will you? You're going to keep pretending it isn't there, aren't you? How credible do you think that makes you?

Feel free to dodge the question again. It's getting quite amusing to watch how you change the subject and dance around it without EVER so much as approaching the point.

I said that everyone here sees the hypocrisy of your arguments, not that that makes me right about this issue.

Which makes it an argumentum ad populum argument. Not surprising here as this forum is overstacked with liberal skeptics, as is proven whenever someone runs a poll.

Not that that matters anyway. Like I said, it doesn't matter if 100% of the voters support an unjust and unconstitutional law. It still won't survive its first challenge.

Hasn't it already been challenged in courts?

Why do you suppose people want to amend the Constitution to specifically limit marriage to one man and one woman? Because they know that the Constitution won't support banning gay marriage as it reads now. There could be no other reason.

Wrong, they want to amend the constitution to control judicial activism.

No matter how you try to distract and conceal and dodge it, you haven't been able to address that FACT about your "position" AT ALL, which makes the moral and logical hypocrisy of your "position" obvious. [/b][/color]

I understand you want to move the goalposts and change the definition, but two men marrying doesn't fit the definition of marriage I posted above which has been around as long as human history.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT YOUR HYPOCRISY IS NOW PROVEN BEYOND DOUBT.

You here ADMIT that your objection is not to unconventional parenting, AS YOU KEEP PRETENDING, but ONLY to GAY PARENTS.

Gay parents are unconventional parenting. A shame you value advancing the gay agenda more than children.

Where's YOUR concern for the children?!? All those problems you're so worried about apparently don't bother you unless the parents are gay. They aren't serious enough to ban either marriage or childrearing, unless the parents are gay.

WHICH PROVES, ONCE AGAIN, THAT YOUR CONCERN IS NOT FOR THE CHILDREN, BUT ONLY HOMOSEXUALITY.

Why don't YOU stop lying? You value advancing the anti-gay agenda over EVERYTHING, including the welfare of children, human rights, justice, and telling the truth.

You're just NEVER going to address the obvious hypocrisy in your statements here, are you?

In particular: When you decide to get around to responding to my three (3) unanswered points, let me know.

Apparently unless you get the answers you like, you consider them unanswered.

Just for your convenience, here they are again:

And for your convenience, here are my answers again:

(1) There is no significant opposition to gay marriage that isn't religion-based:

I disagree. Liberal CA does not have enough "fundamentalists" to make up 52% of the population. 52% of the population there DOES have common sense.

Dealt with multiple times. Nothing here.

(2) There is no reason why Christians should have the right to dictate the beliefs and practices of Americans to the exclusion of those who believe otherwise; and

Does that include liberal Christians who worked to oppose Prop. 8? I've been waiting a while for than answer.

If you're going to throw around "lying," this will do as an example of yours. That's been dealt with multiple times, and at length, and you absolutely know it.

(3) Those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons would not have their rights to practice their own religion infringed to the least degree by its becoming legal.

They would have their right to free excercise of religion infringed by your attempt to invalidate the referendum results when they vote with an informed conscience.

Huh? Maybe you can explain that bit of doubletalk.

Do you think that freedom of religion guarantees that your religiously motivated vote will PREVAILl? Does it guarantee YOUR right to dictate the beliefs and practices of others, and grants NO freedom of religion for anyone else?

Go ahead, explain it to us. Should be fascinating to watch you try.

Funny how you pretend to keep debating when you won't address any of those points.

Huh?

Posturing as having given cogent and meaningful arguments when you haven't isn't debating. It's pretending, and you're not fooling anyone. Maybe yourself.

Nothing else here that requires a response. ALL of these objections have already been dealt with, repeatedly; and once again, you pretend that they haven't and ignore the factual arguments concerned. You have deleted and declined to answer key points, MOST NOTABLY THE ONE BELOW; tried to mount arguments that have already been refuted; and, of course, "missed the point" and dodged questions.

Most significantly, we still have this on the table, with apparently no hope of a response from you; you've dodged it several times now, and I doubt very much if you're ever going to address it. It blows your arguments totally out of the water, and you know that, but you won't even acknowledge the point:

"All your objections only apply if the couple is GAY, and you're not fooling anyone about that. A straight couple, or as noted below, even same-sex caregivers that are NOT gay, with PRECISELY the same problems and risks that you pretend to be so worried about, should still be legally able to marry or raise children, according to you. Their possible problems should only result in the outlawing of their marriages or right to raise children if the couple is GAY.

"No matter how you try to distract and conceal and dodge it, you haven't been able to address that FACT about your "position" AT ALL, which makes the moral and logical hypocrisy of your "position" obvious."

If you ever want to try to rebut that, feel free. You haven't yet; you haven't even tried. That's not an OPINION; that's a FACT.

See ya.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 123:

Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage.

Why should we consider ourselves bound to this definition?

Marriage can easily be defined as any legal union between legally consenting individuals deciding to live together "as one", if we so choose.

[cnorman18]

From Post 123:

Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage.

Why should we consider ourselves bound to this definition?

Marriage can easily be defined as any legal union between legally consenting individuals deciding to live together "as one", if we so choose.

Perfectly true. But more to the point, notice the statement to which that was supposedly a meaningful response:

"Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people."

Does that look responsive to you?

[JoeyKnothead]

(3) Those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons would not have their rights to practice their own religion infringed to the least degree by its becoming legal.

They would have their right to free excercise of religion infringed by your attempt to invalidate the referendum results when they vote with an informed conscience.

Huh? Maybe you can explain that bit of doubletalk...

They would have their "right" to restrict the rights of otherwise legitimate folks negated?

The free exercise of religion should never be understood as the "free exercise" of preserving for one group what is denied another.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 123:

Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage.

Why should we consider ourselves bound to this definition?

Marriage can easily be defined as any legal union between legally consenting individuals deciding to live together "as one", if we so choose.

Perfectly true. But more to the point, notice the statement to which that was supposedly a meaningful response:

"Okay, then explain to me how it's NOT hypocritical to claim that all these "problems" that you claim are your reasons for opposing gay marriage DO NOT APPLY to STRAIGHT people."

Does that look responsive to you?

I saw that too, but didn't wanna take that angle out of an abundance of caution against not taking it out of context (though it sure does look out of context of your statement).

[East of Eden]

From Post 123:

Here is a definition of marriage for you:

"A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife."

Two men or two women or a man and three women don't don't make a marriage.

Why should we consider ourselves bound to this definition?

Marriage can easily be defined as any legal union between legally consenting individuals deciding to live together "as one", if we so choose.

Fine, changing that is up to the people, who have consistently agreed with me.