Personally, I'm tired of the whole GLBT demand of "see and treat us as if we were heterosexuals".

It's really much more simple than Walker makes it.... if there is no distinction in the character of the union, then try a member of the opposite sex some time. It might actually be enjoyable, once past the discrimination based on gender and"hetero-phobic" fear and inability to emotionally attach to anyone other than someone carrying the same genitalia as yourself.

Where I use to consider myself middle of the road and openminded, I am becoming incalcitrant the more I am told how to think about it, how to perceive, and why I should substitute the GLBT opinions and beliefs for my own.

I don't and this push is galvanizing me more towards supporting the opposition, not acceptance, legislated or otherwise.

We have become such an indulgent, permissive society as the walls of every institution, financial, social, environmental, ethical, crumble around us.

Isn't it about time we focused on real problems? Like declining jobs, wages, environment, or are we only focused on how and with who people get their rocks off? This is important in light of these things why? Someone please tell me...

What about REAL human atrocities and injustices, like torture, and hunger, war, poverty, health care?

To Old Red Leg:

Your point is well taken and I agree with your statement on the face of it, but do not think it applies here.... and this is why.

This isn't about being inferior, worse, or equal. Opposition to gay marriage is not an indictment of the person.

Opposition IS an effort to preserve distinctions; permit and allow for differences; to acknowledge that society is heterogeneous; that attempts to convert all members to a state of homogeneous likes and dislikes, is well, quite frankly, to stagnate and rot that society.

It is most definitely about NOT being the same, but the contradictory demand to be perceived the same....to the point where we surgically reassign gender to conform to the perception. Brave new world.... we can indulge every desire, every emotion, and if we unfortunate enough to be unhappy in the end, well we can pharmacologically alter your state of mind too.

Gay marriage in my mind is about ERADICATING distinctions and differences; it is not about permitting them and I embrace the differences in peoples. This rush to conform to the "status quo" is, quite frankly, mind boggling to me. Why the heck is it so important, as a GLBT, to be seen and/or treated as a heterosexual? It makes absolutely no sense to me. That's like me driving a car, and demanding that everyone else acknowledges me as riding a bike, because they are riding bikes too.

Let me say also that every and any restriction a society imposes is an oppression to someone. Age of consent is different throughout the states, and what would be statutory rape and a life sentence as a registered as a sex offender in one state, would be permissible without consequence in another. The Federal Government has permitted these distinctions to be made, based on age. Is Roman Polanski guilty of a crime? Ask his victim, she says no. Ask the State of California, they say yes. Put it the court of public opinion, and who knows what will be said. If we are going to eradicate differences on a Federal level and impose them on the states, why do GLBT limit their claim to their own self-indulgent practices.... why not extend it to all?

Opposition to gay marriage is most definitely about allowing for differences, CONTRACTUALLY, as well as emotionally and physically. And permitting States to decide that matter.

It is about the degree of permissiveness a society, as an aggregate of diversity, lusts, greed's, perversions, likes, dislikes,socio-economic status, religions, belief systems, laws, and states, can reasonably allow to accommodate and remain intact and functioning as a totality.

I personally cannot equate torture, war, mutilation, starvation, with the inability to marry your same sex partner. That just isn't on the same playing field to me.

To Anonymous (Fri, 08/13/2010 - 01:01 )

Contrary to what you argue, it is opposition to gay marriage that constitutes opposition to differences, a rejection of heterogeneity, and—frankly--a rejection of individuals perceived as “self-indulgent,” as you put it. Gay persons do not suffer from an “inability to emotionally attach to anyone other than someone carrying the same genitalia as yourself”; like all other normal human beings, they have strong emotional attachments to persons of both sexes. Rather, they are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Evidence suggests that there is a genetic factor involved, that it is not a matter of choice. Many have, as you recommend, “tr[ied] a member of the opposite sex”; many have even married and produced children, under pressure from the culture around them and a desire to share a “normal life.” GLBT advocates are NOT asking you to substitute their opinions and beliefs for your own, but to give all persons the freedom to enjoy the rights and privileges guaranteed by the US Constitution. They are not asking “to be seen and/or treated as a heterosexual,” but to enjoy the same rights that heterosexuals possess, including marriage.

GLBT persons are not focusing only on the issue of gay marriage, as you suggest. Many are concerned as well with the other issues you mention. ALL of them are real problems, and ALL deserve to be addressed. There is no need to establish a hierarchy and then privilege only the worst of them. We should be addressing them all.

The next to last paragraph of your reply to Old Red Leg, with its references to lusts and perversions, may suggest the real reasons that your open-mindedness is beginning to fail you. I suspect that much opposition to gays comes down to disgust over the nature of gay sexual expression. Please be assured that gay marriage and its expressions are no threat to the institution of marriage or to you.

Are the proponents of prop. 8 going to have a hard time? Maybe, look at the BIG words they have thrown out, arguing that in his decision Judge Walker "ignored virtually everything - judicial authority, the works of eminent scholars past and present in all relevant academic fields, extensive documentary and historical evidence, and even simple common sense." How on earth are the proponents going to substantiate those heavy accusations? Everybody who took the time to read the entire proceeding or watch (the re-enactment of) it, will know that these allegations are outright lies. Of course the proponents are playing sound bites poker, well knowing that the public attention span is much too short to care for details and thruth. They know they will never have to defend their words, and it's sad really, to witness another dishonest crew of legal professionals. The comfort however, is that they do not give the impression of being too clever.

It is time to get the state out of the marriage business altogether. The state should institute a registry of civil unions. Whatever couples want to do in the way of sanctifying their relationship should be left up to them and the church of their choice or whatever else they may chose to do to celebrate their commitment to each other.

Prop 8 is simply about restricting the legal status of a certain group of people, namely gays. It is so obviously unconstitutional that it competes with Arizona's emigrant bashing law for worst-law-passed-b- a-population-hoodwinked-by-demagogues. Prop 8 makes me ashamed to be a Californian.

As an aside, the real import of marriage may come during divorce, when the law protects the parties from taking unfair advantage of one another. Why shouldn't gays have that same protection? Just because they scare some straight people?

This has been criticised by many, not just proponents of Proposition 8, as 'undemocratic', however the role of this court was not to assess or to respond to the will of the people. It was charged solely with determining whether this Proposition should ever have been brought before the People in the first place, on the grounds that it breached the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by denying a select minority the right to marry a person of their choice. This same Amendment was successfully invoked to overturn anti-miscegenation laws preventing blacks and whites from intermarrying.

Direct Democracy, in other words Anarchy, would succeed only if the population were all sufficiently well educated and in possession of all the facts. This is why governments are allowed to get on with the job once they have convinced the electorate of their competency and probity to do the job. Handing 100% of the power over to the people means you wouldn't need government at all.

Speaking for myself, I elect politicians into high office to act not only in the interests of the majority, but also in my best interests. If I am not happy, I can lobby for change, vote differently next time, or stand for public office myself.

I think the present system serves the interests of the majority better than some might realise. Trampling over minorities doesn't serve the country in the long run. As we have already seen to our great cost, terrorism can be practised by surprising small numbers of people with devastating consequences for comparatively large numbers of people.

I was not aware of the origins of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. With that said, that it has a conservative leaning is about as relevant as Judge Walker perhaps having a liberal, gay-endorsing orientation and thereby rendering his decision also biased.
If those allegations are true, I doubt you would feel it renders his decision "uncredible".

That it is student generated perhaps discredits it more than it's stated political leaning.

Don: You presume much about me being "homophobic and hateful".

All I can offer you is that to me, it is a non-sequitur to conclude I must be hateful and anti-gay because I find the arguments about equality unconvincing and have stated my reasons for finding them unconvincing.
It's also non-productive to address issues by resorting to personal attacks.

Let you too be honest and admit it's not about equality, but about validation, social acceptance, and normalizing what has historically been a side sexual practice engaged in by by a minority of individuals.

Seeing it as such is a far cry from hate or anti-gay sentiments. It's calling a spade a spade, which is what you are trying to avoid.

And no, I'm not part of the majority, or mainstream. I've always lived, and enjoyed living, on the margins of acceptable society.

If the courts have no respect for marriage having been defined in Genesis 2:18-24 for thousands of years, and done so at a time before the existence of the government and courts of man, then how can the courts expect us, American Citizens, to have respect for their flash-in-the-pan decisions? If government is about bringing on the demise of our present civilization, they could not be doing a better job of it. Other than that, I think their decisions will fall upon those who know not to uphold the law of man above the law of God.
Hey, is it just me or, does old judge walker look like a homowhore from the castro district of san fransicko who has seen its' best trick a long time ago?

I agree with Gurka that "Winston Court's" mean attack on Judge Walker just confirms that many of "God's children" are just nasty bigots hiding behind religion.
And by the way, if you're going to hold up the Old Testament as an example, then you should know that Hebrew men were required to marry their widowed sister-in-laws -- see Deuteronomy 25:5–10, 21:15-17 and also Exodus 21:10, for example. Yes, polygamy was accepted and common in the Hebrew and many other societies --- and still is.