Is Gay Marriage Good for America?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I know this really bothers those of you that are ignorant of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but the majority can not vote away my freedom or my rights that are guaranteed under the constitution.
One man, one woman is a religious viewpoint that cannot be forced on me. There is no reason for same sex marriage to be illegal except for someone else's religious views. Marriage in Islam can be one man, many women. How can you restrict someone else's religious freedom and then claim those rights yourself?
If the Supreme court judges this based on logic, it is cut and dried. The government cannot endorse Christianity over any other religion. ALL religions are equal under the constitution. Christianity is no more valid a religion than Islam, or Wicca, or VooDoo.

Sam of TX 4:12PM August 09, 2010

http://article.nationalreview.com/438980/judge-walkers-phony-facts/the-editors
It has been clear since before the beginning of the year that Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco was on a mission to establish a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage and thereby to overturn California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment passed by the people of the state in 2008.
From his decision to have a “trial” of the “facts” in the case rather than proceed straightaway to legal arguments about the constitutional issues (a choice that surprised even the plaintiffs’ attorneys) to his attempt to stage a nationally televised extravaganza (brought to a halt by the Supreme Court) to his unconcealed bias in favor of the plaintiffs in virtually every aspect of the proceedings (ably summarized by NRO’s Ed Whelan here), Judge Walker has been preparing us for a baldfaced usurpation of political power for quite a while.
What Walker did not prepare us for is the jaw-dropping experience of reading his sophomorically reasoned opinion. Of the 135 pages of the opinion proper, only the last 27 contain anything resembling a legal argument, while the rest is about equally divided between a summary of the trial proceedings and the judge’s “findings of fact.” The conclusions of law seem but an afterthought — conclusory, almost casually thin, raising more questions than they answer. On what grounds does Judge Walker hold that the considered moral judgment of the whole history of human civilization — that only men and women are capable of marrying each other — is nothing but a “private moral view” that provides no conceivable “rational basis” for legislation? Who can tell? Judge Walker’s smearing of the majority of Californians as irrational bigots blindly clinging to mere tradition suggests that he has run out of arguments and has nothing left but his reflexes.
But the deeper game Judge Walker is playing unfolds in those many pages of “fact finding” that make up the large middle of his ruling. There, through highly prejudicial language that bears little relation to any fact, the judge has smuggled in his own moral sentiments — in precisely the part of his opinion that would normally be owed a large measure of deference in the appellate courts. To take one example: It is hardly an incontrovertible fact that “Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians.” But there it is, as finding No. 58. With “facts” like these, and appellate judges disinclined to question them, Judge Walker plainly hopes to propel this case toward a gay-marriage victory, regardless of how transparently weak his legal conclusions are.
But the judges who ultimately take up this appeal — the justices of the Supreme Court, not the feckless Ninth Circuit — should not be buffaloed by Judge Walker’s invented “facts.” Still less should they confirm the specious legal conclusions he has extracted from them.

PR 3:55PM August 09, 2010

Churches are protected from such suits under the first amendment. It can be shown it would violate their religious beliefs in a way that being asked to marry an interracial couple would not.
The reason we have a Constitution, is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority when it comes to the issue of individual rights. The Bill of Rights puts certain rights beyond the scope of the legislative process in all its forms in order to protect those rights against arbitrary political trends at any given time in history and indeed, to protect democracy itself!

steve of IL 3:48PM August 09, 2010

If gay marriage were legalized, churches could face law suits for refusing to marry gay couples. Pastors could be tried for "hate crimes" by preaching that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Legalizing this will do more harm than good!

Patrick of KY 3:40PM August 09, 2010

We are each entitled to our own religious values. And, to practice our religion freely. We all agree that marriage is a religion institution.
Just a few weeks ago, I was watching Fox News and much concern was expressed (in the context of the Ground Zero Mosque) regarding the supposed desire of Muslims to impose their religious values on us.
How is Proposition 8 any different? All objections to gay marriage are rooted in religious doctrine. There is no empirical evidence that gay people are "dangerous to children" or "unhealthy" (as Joan and Gary suggest) in a way the distinguishes them from straight people. There is no scientific evidence that expanding the definition of marriage would "cause serious problems in our society" (as Patrick suggests).
Your religion tells you that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage is wrong. As such, you are not required to engage in homosexuality or marry a person of the same sex. Your church is not required to perform or recognize gay unions. Your life is exactly the same today as it was before Proposition 8 was passed, while it was in effect, and after it was overturned. Your freedom to practice your religion has not been changed one bit.
My religion tells me that marriage is between consenting adults. My ability to freely practice my religion was grossly infringed upon by Proposition 8.
The overturning of this law makes us a more free society and fulfills the will of our founding fathers. Nothing is better for America.

M of CA 1:16PM August 09, 2010

I don't need to visit any of your websites,. the filter on my computer won't allow it. All I need to know about you is that you belong to GLBT, which is as much about promoting your lifestyle as it is seeking political power. You got your man, Obama, and he will loyally give GLBT everything your deviant group asks for because he is a puppet, and a very liberal one at that. Mark you will never convince average Americans that your lifestyle is anything but perverted. The modern gay man is aggressive with his agenda and therefore dangerous to our children and our educational system. You will never ever convince me that your group is "normal", so quit wasting your time.

Gary of CO 12:37PM August 09, 2010

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. Gays are allowed to marry, which by definition would mean a person of the opposite sex. They are not allowed to call their unions marriage because these unions don't include a person the opposite sex. Therefore, it is illogical to call their unions a marriage without having to change the definition of marriage. Doing so would cause serious problems in our society that are easily avoided if we keep the traditional definition of marriage.
So yes, gays have the right to marry. But this does not mean they have to marry.
Studies have found, Mark, that gay men are likely to cheat on their partners and be just as promiscuous as any heterosexual. So gay marriages are not perfect.
This is not a civil rights matter since homosexuality is a choice. There are no genes to make you gay. No study has conclusively shown that homosexuality is in any way normal or inherent.

Patrick of KY 12:26PM August 09, 2010

They want to normalize their tisted sexual acts and they are trying to capture the minds of our little boys through their propaganda machine. They are in our schools already, where ultra-liberal teachers are telling our kids that there is no real difference between being gay and being straight. This is what happens when liberals are put in a position of leadership and I can only hope that the damage isn't irreversable. Gays are generally unhappy people and through their lifestyles are usually unhealthy people. They need our compassion and help but that doesn't be we turn a blind eye and call their behavior normal, because it is not.

Joan of KS 12:26PM August 09, 2010

Gary of CO writes of gays: "They spend the majority of their time defending their acts of sexual perversion as something very normal. I'm sorry but a rational American adult doesn't find: fisting, male orgies and rampant sodomy to be normal acts. A study done years ago found that the average homosexual male could have up to 300 sex partners before the age of 40."
Regarding "acts of perversion": clearly you've never listened to Howard Stern. We GLBT folks are certainly outclass in the "acts of sexual perversion" department by our heterosexual brothers. After all, who invented fisting? "Hey, if a baby's head can come out of there, maybe my fist can fit in?" If you want to see the depths of heterosexual degradation, google "femdom". Heterosexuality is surely one small step away from moral depravity.
Regarding promiscuity: First, one study done 40 years ago does nothing to make your point. In fact, all such a study is telling you about is the behavior of those who were self-identified gay people back in the 1960's. That is hardly a cross section of the population. And it was a snapshot in time, when gay men did not have societal or community support for forming long term, stable relationships. How the world has changed.
Today gay kids come out in middle school. GLBT teens are far LESS promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts.
So why is it that people who generally claim to be devoutly religious have no problem whatsoever badmouthing all gay people based on discredited studies and outdated data? Lying: is this what Jesus would do?

Mark W. of NY 8:23AM August 09, 2010

Patrick of NY comments: "No one is denying a gay man or lesbian the right to marry. Yeah, that's right. Gays can marry."
I've heard this so many times. Sure, gays can marry, if they marry someone of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right!
Do people today misunderstand sexual orientation? Is this truly the policy of the government, that we wish to encourage all gay and lesbian people to marry someone of the opposite sex? What father believes that his daughter would be happy in a long-lived stable marriage if she were to marry a gay man?
This is irrational.

Mark W. of NY 8:11AM August 09, 2010