Yes, where DOES Jack Reed stand on DOMA Repeal?

November 22, 2011

By Adam Bink

Over at On Politics, which is described as “the political blog of WRNI, Rhode Island’s NPR News Station,” local reporter Scott MacKay asks the important question:

Where Does Jack Reed Stand on DOMA Repeal?

Rhode Islanders pretty much always know where U.S. Sen. Jack Reed stands on issues. But RIPR political analyst Scott MacKay has found a hot-button social issue on which Reed has been mum.

Jack Reed has long been Rhode Island’s most respected political figure. Even in the anti-Washington and anti-incumbent swirl that has enveloped the nation’s capitol, every Rhode Island public opinion survey for years has shown high job approval ratings for Reed.

In his last re-election campaign, Democrat Reed coasted to victory with well over 70 percent of the vote. There are many reasons for this. Reed, the son of a Cranston janitor, has a life story that resonates with Rhode Islanders. A graduate of West Point and Harvard Law School, he never took anything for granted and started his stride up the political ladder at the Rhode Island state senate.

First elected to the U.S. House in 1990 and the Senate in 1996, he is known as one of the hardest-working lawmakers in Washington. He and his staff are attentive to Rhode Island’s needs. With his off-the-rack suits, his everyman persona and relentless retail politicking, Reed holds one of the safest senate seats in our seriously polarized nation.

And by dint of his work ethic and smarts, Reed has become one of the go-to guys in Washington, a man whose judgment is solicited by colleagues, presidents and journalists on a spectrum of issues, from foreign policy to military affairs and banking regulation.

Along the way, Reed has carved a reputation as a cautious lawmaker who thinks things out before making a decision. Any reporter who has followed him for any significant amount of time discovers that Reed is that rare politician with a deep understanding of the intellectual scaffolding of American history and government and U.S. foreign policy. And if you don’t think Reed is loyal, ask newly minted federal judge Jack McConnell.

He has a fairly traditional Democratic liberal voting record and is usually not afraid of taking strong stands, such as his opposition to the Iraq War. A practicing Roman Catholic, Reed has nonetheless been an unwavering supporter of abortion rights. And Reed has supported gay rights, most prominently by calling for an end to the `Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy on gays in the military.

So why has Reed been so reluctant to say just where he stands on repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act? Repeal of this 1996 law has been a priority of the gay rights movement, both in Rhode Island and nationally. For about two months, Reed has ducked questions on his stance on this legislation.

Reed spokesman Chip Unruh says “He continues to carefully study the issue and continues to hear from Rhode Islanders.’’

Reed declined a request to discuss the pros and cons of the topic. Which is curious because as the senior member of Rhode Island’s Washington delegation, Reed is usually the leader on issues, with the three other Democrats taking their cues from him. Not on DOMA.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Representatives Jim Langevin and David Cicilline have all publicly supported repeal. So has Gov. Lincoln Chafee.

Before casting his vote for repeal in the Judiciary Committee, Whitehouse said, “I have had the privilege of hearing from numerous Rhode Islanders in loving, committed same-sex relationships, civil unions and marriages who suffering needlessly under current law.’’

The Senate Judiciary Committee which approved repeal on a 10 to 8 vote.

While reflecting on the repeal of DOMA, Langevin recalled a moment when his father told him that one day our nation would look back in disbelief at a time when fellow citizens were denied civil rights because of their sexual orientation.’’

And Cicilline, who is openly gay, insists that discrimination against a person based on their sexual orientation is wrong and should be illegal.

But what does Jack Reed say? He says he’s thinking about it. Doesn’t Reed owe all Rhode Islanders an explanation of where he stands on an issue of importance to so many of his constituents?

I know I’m making a call today to ask. You should too!

9th Circuit consolidates main Perry appeal with... New marriage ads running in Maine

12864170 Comments2011-11-22+14%3A15%3A37Adam+Bink Leave a Comment

1. Ann S. | November 22, 2011 at 6:44 am

§
2. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 7:54 am

So, what, you're going to "find out" his position by passively threatening him? He obviously is against repeal of DOMA, he just doesn't want to be hassled by homosexual activists who apparently have nothing better to do than make phone calls.

This is a microcosm of the whole homosexual movement: forced tolerance but never leading to actual acceptance. Go for it. It won't stop people from looking at you as strange or misfits. Society recognizes that married heterosexual couples provide value through procreation and parental responsibility for the upbringing of their children. Homosexual couples provide value to….themselves.
3. Marci | November 22, 2011 at 8:12 am

I don't know Pat. Our 3 year old adopted son would differ with that, as would hundreds of thousands of other kids being raised in loving, same-sex couple households.

Society is well on its way to recognizing stable family units, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. Check out a reputable national poll once in a while.

Also, how do you know Jack Reed is 'obviously' against repeal of DOMA? You talked to him? He has stood up for equal rights before. What you call hassling and forced tolerance, is actually a set of people tired of waiting for others to weigh the consequences of their political careers against what is the right and just thing to do.
4. frisky1 | November 22, 2011 at 8:39 am

In case you were unaware, there are plenty of people who still don't accept blacks and women as equals in society despite the laws enacted and the stigmatization of those who openly display that view. But the laws protecting minorities and the dismantling of institutional discrimination as well as education and inclusion of minorities into mainstream society, moves most people toward an understanding that any biases they have are not only unfounded, but unAmerican. It doesn't stop everyone from entertaining those biases, even if its just in their heads or private conversations, but it enables people who would otherwise be marginalized to more fully function and benefit from and contribute to society. Brown v Board of Ed showed what institutionalized marginalization does to children.

You also might be surprised to learn that there is no childbearing requirement for married couples, gay people are not infertile, and many gay couples are raising perfectly happy and healthy children.
5. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 8:41 am

1. No, asking his position is not 'threatening' anyone.
2. No, he's most likely for repeal of DOMA, we'd just like him to step up and say so like he usually does.
3. I'm not an activist, I'm an average citizen who is tired of being denied equal rights
4. I have a lot of important things to do, but fighting for my rights is right up near the top of the list
5. I don't care if you 'accept' me and more than you care if I 'accept' you. But I WILL get recognition of my equal rights.
6. If you were to list all of the ways I 'fit' into society I'd bet you I'm far more 'mainstream' than you are.
(to be continued)
6. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 8:41 am

7. Being legaly married does not make people procreate and denying civil marriage to gays does not help straight people get married or procreate. What utter nonsense. THINK!!
8. Lots of gay couples (and single people) have children and they have all the same parental responsibilities as anyone else.
9. Gay couples provide all the same value to society as anyone else. Stop slinging pointless insults. What 'value' do YOU provide to society? Please be specific.

You've managed to pack a lot of lies and superstitions and pointless anger into one post. Grow up.
7. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 9:00 am

Part 1

How is asking and expressing an opinion conflated with "threatening" in your mind, Pat? The thing is, Reed is a legislator. He has the ability, and the responsibility, to act on behalf of his constituents. As such, it is well within the rights of concerned citizens to ask him "What are you doing for us on this issue?"

I am curious what you mean by "forced tolerance… never leading to actual acceptance"? The only thing I can come up with on that is that you, personally, are homophobic, wish to continue discriminating against the LGBT community, and feel that our equal rights somehow infringe on your ability to do so. Sorry, but yes. Just as you are forced to treat people with different skin color or those who are in wheelchairs as equals, you are going to be forced to treat people with different sexualities as equals. Get over it.
8. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 9:00 am

Part 2

And for your information, the actual impact on your life is precisely zero. There will be no change at all to your marriage (if you have one) or your ability to pursue same (except that more avenues will be open to you, should you find yourself in love with someone of the same gender as yourself). You will not be forced to attend, solemnize, or even acknowledge anyone else's marriage in your private life.

Society is improved when more stable relationships occur. Believe it or not, children raised in same sex households do as well or better than those in all other situations, including those in opposite sex households. The statisics you would like to quote to the contrary do not deal with same sex households at all, they mostly state that children do better with two parents than with one. Thus, marriage equality actually benefits children in those households, and if you cared about children, you would support that.
9. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 9:01 am

Part 3
I am strange. And I am proud of it. But you are strange too, and "misfit" is rather subjective. If I don't fit into YOUR world, that is, I am afraid, YOUR loss. Because in addition to strange, I, and so many of the other people you might have met, are wonderful, and interesting, and loving, and brilliant, and wacky, and delightful, and if you are blind to that simply because of our sexuality, so very sad for you.
10. New | November 22, 2011 at 9:01 am

[youtube zRFI-Xrg1XI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRFI-Xrg1XI&feature=related youtube]
11. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 9:23 am

Hi Ann,,,, slipping in here,, actually to send a message to PAT ,,,,, wonder where that list is of LGBT HEROES, throughout history,,,, the likes of Turrin, who brought and end to the War,,, Baynard Ruskin,, who worked tirelessly in the Civil Rights Movement,,,, all the artisits who have added value to daily living,,,
12. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 9:29 am

Can someone find that list, for misinformed, judgmental PAT,,, an opportunity for education,,, including every day heroes,, who selflessly give to improve the world we live in,,,, PAT sounds like one of those narrow minded religious types who has no exposure to the realities of the world we live in,, and the ways LGBT people add value to that world,,,
13. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 9:30 am

The issue is special treatment; if you look at the reasons that there is still discrimination against Black people, you'll find that it is about the perception that Black people collect Welfare and are given special preference for acceptance to college and job offers.

Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman, based quite obviously on the fact that only a man and a woman can make a baby. If same-sex couples could make babies and opposite-sex couples could not, then same-sex couples would be the defining make-up of marriage. Pairings of homosexuals is based only on imitation of heterosexual couples; but for procreation, there would be no marriage, no reason for human pairings.

Treating opposite-sex couples (the only combination that can create children), the same as same-sex couples (which can never procreate) is special treatment.
14. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 9:33 am

I would also like to welcome PAT and thank her for sticking her nose in here,, obviously she's begging to be educated,,, including the fact that only opposite sexed couples are capable of ACCIDENTLY CREATING LIFE WITHOUT FORTHOUGHT OR PLANNING,, AN ACT OF LUST,,, brings many children into the world,,,, unwanted children,,, many who find loving family in the LGBT community,,,,
15. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 9:41 am

Here's one:
http://www.lambda.org/famous.htm

And a larger list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian…

Here's a list of famous gays who were Christian:
http://christiangays.com/articles/famous.shtml

Anda Youtube video for those who prefer to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teau7ubQTNM
16. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 9:44 am

Nope…… WRONG!!!….. My sister is a heterosexual who cannot procreate (do a shot). Regardless of that, there is NO legal requirement for marriage to "procreate". The decision to have children is a personal choice between the couple LGBT or Straight and not a requirement for marriage. Pairings of Gay or Lesbian couples are NOT based on imitation of heterosexual couples. That is a flat out uneducated propagated lie. Human beings procreate (do another shot) without marriage. Furthermore, sorry but it is not special treatment. GET OVER IT, TROLL!!!!… > I ….Ronnie
17. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 9:46 am

Subscribing & sharing……

- NC Rep. Rick Glazier: Why the Anti-Marriage Amendment Must be Defeated: http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/11/21/…

"This is a speech that NC Rep. Rick Glazier delivered at the recent State NOW Convention. We couldn’t ask for a better ally."

- Bullying Tales: In Your Own Words, Part 2
For many LGBT teens, bullying is as much a part of life as Red Bull and Facebook. Our readers share their bullying stories so others see they're not alone; there's a light at the end of the hallway.: http://www.advocate.com/Youth/Bullying_Tales_In_Y…

- & Davey Wavey speaks with U.S. Airman Private 1st class Randy Phillips about coming out…… <3…Ronnie:
[youtube SRBcjgUX5S4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRBcjgUX5S4 youtube]
18. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 9:58 am

Part 1
"Treating opposite-sex couples … the same as same-sex couples… is special treatment. "

Read that again. Read it twice. Do you not SEE how falacious it is? Treating people the same is special treatment??? Because that it what it boils down to.

No one here is asking for any DIFFERENT treatment than what YOU get. Equality runs that way, you see. You have a whole RAFT of benefits that WE pay for, including tax breaks, insurance, etc. What we are asking for, nay, demanding, is that we get the SAME TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW… that we are allowed to marry our partners and be granted the same benefits as you. No special preferences, no special treatment, the SAME as you. That is all.
19. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 9:58 am

Part 2
As to the reasons that there is still discrimination against anyone, it is because people "like you" still think that it is better to hire, pay more to, marry, respect and generally treat better people who are "like you." Discrimination did not develop out of laws guaranteeing equality, it was quite the other way around.

As to the procreation argument, it is tired, out of date and disingenuous. Some people marry to have children. Some do not. Insisting that procreation is the PURPOSE of marriage means that YOU are the one devaluing everyone else who may choose to marry for love. And if the state's interest in marriage was procreation, that would be a condition of the license, which it is not. Likewise, were it the church's interest, there would be a clause in the standard ceremony which said "do you promise to have children". There is no such clause.
20. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 9:59 am

Part 3

That you think this the only reason for human pairings is a sad reflection on you, and on your marriage (again, if you have one). The married people *I* respect are married for love, companionship, caring, support, better or worse, richer or poorer… not just to be baby factories.

Additionally, discounting people who adopt, or who raise children from previous relationships, or some other variant is cruel and very, very narrow minded. Please stop doing so.
21. Bill S. | November 22, 2011 at 10:03 am

Yes, gay couples have nothing better to do than exercise their 1st Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, showing a complete inability to prioritize. Whereas Pat, who is against equal marriage rights, shows exemplary time-management skills in perusing and commenting on a pro-gay blog.
22. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 10:12 am

Well said Bill. That made me chuckle.
23. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 10:19 am

The good news is that OUR actions are more likely to produce positive results for the entire world.

Yay us!
24. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 10:24 am

Oh my. Pat, Pat, Pat….. the old 'special treatment' lie? And your reasons for why blacks are discriminated against??? Yikes. And then that lame "marriage has ALWAYS BEEN" stuff, which you would know is not true if you knew anything at all about the history of marriage. It has changed in all kinds of ways over the years.

And then you flat out say treating people the same is 'special treatment'. No, it's called EQUALITY. Sure, everyone is different, but the LAW must treat them equally and the STATE must grant them equal rights. Nothing less. Understand?

Honestly, Pat – how is it possible that someone who is living in the year 1957 is able to use a computer??
25. Kate | November 22, 2011 at 10:24 am

Marriage doesn't cause babies; heterosexual intercourse does. (Sometimes.)
26. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 10:46 am

AnonyGirl, individuals deserve to be treated equally, and you have the same rights as everyone else: to marry someone of the opposite sex. You choose not to and you want special rights to, instead, marry someone of the same sex. If you are unable to marry someone of the opposite sex, then I stand corrected.
27. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 10:59 am

If procreation as the basis for marriage is tired and out-of-date, it's because it is thousands of years old and spans nearly every culture, every religion throughout history.

Why people marry is irrelevant to the purpose of marriage; there is no why requirement for marriage, never has been one. In fact, no one checks your sexual preference when you apply for marriage license. The State's (and Church's) interest is the promotion of lifelong heterosexual pairings to increase the likelihood that children conceived will have a mom and a dad and that the mom and dad will take responsibility for any children they might conceive. Marriage isn't a license to have kids; it's a recognition that it's best for kids to be born and raised by their married parents.

Love whomever you want; that's fine, just don't expect the State or anyone else for that matter to care about it. It means essentially nothing to anyone but to you and the person you love.
28. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 11:01 am

Nope…. WRONG again….. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the one person they love & choose to spend the rest of their life with; promising to love, honor & protect each other for good times & in bad, for sickness & in health forsaking all other until death do they part……. LGBT people do not, in some states aka the non-freedom states…… I am not a heterosexual so there is NO logical or rational reason for me to marry a woman. Your thoroughly debunked "to marry someone of the opposite sex" meme is nothing but uneducated dross. Again, NOT special rights. FACT!… GET OVER IT TROLL!!!…. >I…Ronnie
29. Leo | November 22, 2011 at 11:04 am

It's not at all obvious that marriage has been an opposite-sex union based on the fact that only a man and a woman can make a baby. On the contrary, it's more likely a post-rationalization. A more obvious explanation, I would submit, is that a large majority of people has always been attracted only to the opposite sex.

It might be observed that sexual procreation provides an evolutionary explanation why most people are heterosexual (and thus indirectly, why marriage has mostly been heterosexual), but explanation is not justification.
30. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:04 am

Why do you think people pair up instead of forming trios or quartets or more? I think it's fine for people to form pairs, but the only ones who have any impact on me, my kids, my society are the ones that might create children.

People who adopt children serve a noble purpose, giving kids a chance to have parental substitutes when their parents are unable to be there for them. It's always unfortunate when a child loses a parent (or when someone intentionally conceives a child with the intention of taking it from its father).
31. John | November 22, 2011 at 11:09 am

Uh… like gay people who adopt.
32. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:13 am

Yes, Bob, only people who have heterosexual sex can accidentally create kids; that's why marriage is so important: it promotes the responsibility of those who might create kids to take responsibility for those kids whether they are intended or not. Since same-sex couples can't ever conceive kids, there are no such accidents to worry about, no need to promote those kinds of pairings.
33. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:15 am

Of for crying out loud, Pat. Don't be so dense! People 'pair up' because they fall in love with one person and want to spend their lives together. And gay people are no different from straight people. Ask yourself – why do YOU want to pair up instead of forming a trio or quartet? I hope it's not simply to make babies.

And by the way, for MOST of recorded history, marriage was NOT pairing up. One man would have several wives. At a time when women often died in child birth and were considered property, that was 'normal'. So much for your "marriage has always been……" argument.
34. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:16 am

And what do you mean by 'the only ones who have any impact on me…are the ones that might create children"? That doesn't even make sense. What kind of 'impact' are you talking about?
35. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:16 am

Who cares what someone's sexual attraction is relative to his accomplishments? Could not any person with same-sex attraction have decided to get married, have kids and still have the same accomplishments? Indeed, many probably have.
36. John | November 22, 2011 at 11:19 am

Doing a bang-up job there, heterosexuals…
37. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:22 am

And you're just plain ignorant and really out of line when you refer to adoptive parents as 'parental substitutes'. They are parents. In every sense of the word. And in fact they are better parents than all of the irresponsible people who accidentally have kids and create messed up families full of poorly parented and unloved children. Why on earth do you put those people on such a pedistal? Just because their genitals functioned? Even when they should NOT?
38. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:26 am

Wrong again, Pat. For thousands of years, in nearly every culture and religion, the basis for marriage was OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY. Men bought women from the women's parents. It was largely a business deal to gain assets or to combine the assets of two families. If you can't bother to read a book try watching the History Channel.
39. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:27 am

So, you're point is to find fault in my pairing argument by pointing to other procreative relationships? Doesn't really do much for your case, does it? I mean, ok, so a man would have several wives to have kids with. Several pairings; the wives weren't joined together.
40. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 11:27 am

The church has no interest in CIVIL marriage. I don't pay taxes to any church. I don't care what any church has a selfish issue with. That is irrelevant because there are houses of worship, religious leaders, & full congregations that are LGBT affirming & recognize marriages between 2men or 2women & that is their first amendment right. It is not best for kids to be born or raised by their married heterosexual parents. It is best for a children or children to be raised by their parent or parents be they LGBT or straight, single or in a couple, adoptive or surrogacy, legal guardian or a relative or even in some cases an older sibling. Kids are not a requirement for marriage. FACT.

I will expect the state & federal government to care & I demand that they do because they take money out of my pay check in the form of taxes. If they don't have to care about me, AS I AM, my husband/boyfriend (which ever he is at the time) & my family then they don't need my hard earned money. Stop taxing me. The government has no choice but to care 100% about everybody equally as they are not how the government wants them to be. That is a LEGAL fact. DEAL WITH IT.

And wrong again, I have over 200 people in my life; friends, family, acquaintances & so on that tell me often that it means something special & important to them that I find the one guy I wish to share the rest of my life with, marry him, & start a family with him. Certain aspects of MY life mean "nothing" to you…..LOL… Oh happy day…. As if I care what any & all of apsects of MY life matter to you, a homophobic bigot who will NEVER provide a damn thing for me. You do not pay my bills. You do not buy clothes for my back, food for my table, a roof over my head. you don't pay for my healthcare or insurance. You certainly will not provide any of that for my future children, for MY family. Your arrogance is laughable & you need to GTF over yourself, you self righteous pap………OTIO…. oIo
> I…Ronnie
41. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:31 am

And your comment about the state's & churches interst is the promotion of blah blah…

No, that is not a state interest. Just ask the State Supreme Court. They'll tell you.

And even if it were, that is still no logical reason to deny civil marriage to OTHER couples. recognizing equal civil marriage rights does nto hurt straight marriages in any way at all.

And since the state uses civil marraige to grant all sorts of rights and legal protections to citizens, you can be sure that everyone (gay and straight) cares about it and expects the state to care about it. And the state does. That's why the State Supreme Court ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.
42. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:31 am

I'm talking about the impact of children and the likelihood of what happens to those children when the parents do not take responsibility for their upbringing. I'm talking about a society that looks at marriage as mere couplings instead of procreative couplings, thus breaking the link between marriage and child bearing. I'm talking about impressionable youth, such as my kids and their kids, viewing homosexual couplings as an equal choice to a procreative relationships.
43. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:32 am

Don't make me post the CD stats on HIV/AIDS.
44. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:33 am

So we're back in 1954 again I see. How would you feel about laws that say you can only marry someone of the same race as you?
45. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:34 am

….and no rational basis for denying them equal rights and equal legal protections, either.
46. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:36 am

You mean the one that shows that the most rapidly growing group of people contracting HIV is straight women? And the group that has the lowest infection rate is lesbians?

And what does that have to do with equal civil marriage rights anyway?
47. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:36 am

They're not parents in the biological sense of the word; any genetics student knows what a parent is. They're guardians, and oftentimes good ones, but they're not parents.

Kids want their parents; even adopted kids in the most privileged households seek out their real parents. Because parents matter; they are the building blocks of the child, the basis of everything that the child is or will be.
48. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:38 am

Why didn't men buy other men, do you think?
49. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:41 am

Pat, you asked 'why do you think people pair up instead of forming trios or quartets? And you've also been repeating your nonsense about how 'marraige has always been one man & oen woman'. I pointed out that:

1. gay people pair up for the same reasons straight people do. They are a COUPLE who have fallen in love and want to share their lives. Let that sink in for a minute.

2. You are wrong about the whole 'marriage has always been' blah blah blah. Admit it. Marriage has been through some pretty fundamental changes over the years.
50. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:43 am

Rights are for individuals, not couples. Every individual has the same right to marriage as every other. Some people decide find themselves in relationships that are not eligible for marriage (e.g., loving relationships with siblings and other close relatives; relationships with people already married; relationships with people of the same sex), so they have to seek out eligible partners. Happens all the time with straight people, as well.

You mean one judge ruled Prop8 unconstitutional, don't you?
51. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:46 am

You are not heterosexual because you've decided that you're not. You have same-sex attraction and you've decided to let that aspect define you. You could be heterosexual, get married and have kids – many people with same-sex attraction have certainly done so – but you prefer not to.
52. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:48 am

But Pat, recognizing the equal civil marriage rights of a gay couple has no effect at all on some other straight couple and whether that couple does a great job of raising kids or a terrible job or even decides not to have kids or cannot have kids or whatever. It has NO EFFECT on other couples. It does NOTHING to discourage or encourage procreation by anyone. Got that?

And news flash – if your kids are like most kids they already understand that gay Americans are entitled to equal civil marriage rights. And that's a good thing. It means they are not bigots who want to harm other families by denying their rights and they know it's wrong to discriminate against other people.
53. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 11:52 am

Dave, you're confusing why people get married to why the state recognizes marriage. Love is irrelevant, sexual preference is irrelevant to the state.

One things that has been consistent with marriage is that it is between opposite sexes; it is the defining characteristic. Change that, and it's no longer marriage.
54. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:55 am

"Guardians"? Whoa. You just insulted every adoptive parent. And their adoptive children. You really are clueless.
55. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 11:55 am

The gay men did exactly that.
56. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm

No, Pat. that's now at all how homosexuality works.

Your posts here show that you are totally ignorant of every aspect of the topics of homosexuality and civil marraige.

Why are you even here? You might as well go to a web site about astrophysics or audio engineering or hinduism or deep sea fishing and start arguing about THOSE topics that you know nothing about. So why here? Why this issue?

If you're not even interested in knowing anything about the topic, why keep spending all this energy talking about it?
57. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm

& what about LGBT kids? What about the 2million kids who have LGBT parents? What about the kids whose parents are Straight Allies? Oh that's right, they don't matter. Everybody is supposed to live their lives around what you like & do not like. What you agree with & what you don't agree with. LGBT couples take responsibility for their children's upbringing so that is moot. Marriage, in a legal CIVIL law sense is mere couplings & the law recognizes that. Marriage is not about "procreation" (do a shot), you can keep on saying it but until there is some kind of fertility test requirement to obtain a marriage license, marriage will NEVER be about "procreation". It doesn't promote , it doesn't encourage it, it doesn't protect it, & it doesn't enforce it. That is a LEGAL fact. The meaning, emotions, symbolism behind the marriage is none of your business. There is NO link between marriage and child bearing.

Your "trios, quartets, or more" straw man is irrelevant & subjective. Nobody is required to have an impact on you & it is sad & quite pathetic that you need the way other people form their families to impact you & your kids. They are somehow not worthy of respect & dignity unless they look, act, & live exactly lock-in-step with your delusional "ideal". Furthermore it is NOT "your" society, it is OUR society. Everybody.

Correct in the first part; people who adopt serve a noble purpose, LGBT or Straight, giving kids a chance to have a warm bed to sleep in, their own room, a better education, better nutrition, better healthcare, better clothing, a better life then they would have in an orphanage & most of all a parent or parents they didn't have before who will now love them & care for them unconditionally. That fact that you call them "substitutes" says more about you then it does about them. A parent can be anybody. They are not "substitutes". He/she/they are that kid's parent or parents. PERIOD. You don't define that for other people & how dare you do so. Nobody is trying to define your family for you so shame on you for thinking you can define somebody else's family for them. Again, your arrogance is laughable….. > I…Ronnie
58. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 12:08 pm

yes, rights are for individuals. And as an individual I'm entitled to equal civil marraige rights. That means I'm entitled to the right marry the person I wish to marry.

And yes, Judge Walker is indeed one person. And most of California agrees with him, but that's beside the point. The point is he is right. Before you disagree, please READ HIS RULING and then come back here and tell us where he got it wrong. We'll wait.
59. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 12:10 pm

Why on earth would you want someone to do something like that? It would only make both people miserable.
60. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Please. Men who are attracted to women are attracted to many women; marriage is a huge restriction on their lives, giving up all other women for one. If attraction to the opposite sex were the only consideration, there would never be marriage.
61. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 12:15 pm

Before you make yet another wrong assumption, you should check up on exactly what the State says is the states interest in recognizing marriage. Here's a hint – it has nothing to do with procreation.

And no, granting equal civil marriage rights to same sex couples does not suddenly make it 'no longer marriage'. It just allows more people to have equal civil marriage rights. Several states and countries have had same sex marriage for years now. Did it suddenly make marriage stop existing for straight people? No, they can still get married just fine.
62. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 12:15 pm

Nope, they are parents. Biology means nothing. My biological sperm donor gave up his right to be called my "father" when he chose his child abusing wife (my step-bitch) over me. He means nothing to me. Not a damn thing. Blood means nothing. DNA means nothing. You ask the thousands of homeless LGBT kids who have been abandoned by their hetero bio parents or ran away from home because they fear for that their lives may be in danger from the hetero bio parents about whether blood & DNA means anything. You're a delusional benighted troglodyte. STFU about other peoples families, you arrogant busy-body butinski….. > I …Ronnie
63. Str8Grandmother | November 22, 2011 at 12:16 pm

Pat = "They're not parents in the biological sense of the word; any genetics student knows what a parent is. They're guardians, and oftentimes good ones, but they're not parents. "

StraightGrandmother = Ahhhhm, uhm Pat, Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court may take exception to your statement as his children are… … … adopted. Just sayin…

Also why don't you admit what you are, an ex-gay. It is so obvious by your use of the words "Same Sex Attraction." A dead giveaway Pat. Also this statement of yours
"You are not heterosexual because you've decided that you're not. You have same-sex attraction and you've decided to let that aspect define you. You could be heterosexual, get married and have kids – many people with same-sex attraction have certainly done so – but you prefer not to."
Ex-Gay is a myth Pat.
64. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 12:18 pm

Probably some have. We have, however, evolved to the point where it is no longer necessary to marry someone to whom you are not attracted just so that you can hide who you really are from the rest of the world.

As to who cares? Who cares what famous Americans accomplished? Who cares what famous women have done? Do any of those things have any bearing on what the person accomplished? They certainly do. It is not the ONLY thing that matters, but as a member of both the "American" and "women" groups, it is encouraging to me to hear about those accomplishments in that light. Could I learn about these people without those details? Of course. We could all learn that Susan B. Anthony was simply a person who wanted others to vote, but we would be missing part of the story if that was all we learned.
65. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm

It would make miserable only those people who accord much weight to the kinds of sexual organs that their partner possesses aside from their function. Contrary to popular belief, sex is not the end all be all of a marriage. In fact, many strong marriages are sexless or of low frequency.

Everyone is capable of loving someone of the opposite sex.
66. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Nope, the only defining characteristic of marriage is two people committing to each other & all of the other vows. Some couples do this publicly, some do it in a private ceremony. Some break those vows. The state & federal government recognizes marriages for the rights, benefits, & privileges it issues. The church doesn't issue them. That's it. All of the other emotional, symbolic, ceremonial etc. etc. are personal choices made between the couple by the couple & a marriage license is not required to perform them, share them, do them. etc….. Ok moving on….. > I …Ronnie
67. Paul | November 22, 2011 at 12:24 pm

You are refusing to recognize multiple forms of parental status (e.g. "legal parent" "functional parent" and "biological parent". Or rather you are chosing to define "parent" as only the biological variety. The law looks at it a bit differently. At law, "adoptive parents" are simply "parents", with all the rights and obligations that any parents have regarding their children. They are just a "real".
68. fromdamoon | November 22, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Part 1: I wanted to point out that the child-bearing argument is largely irrelevant to whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized. Opposite-sex couples will continue to accidentally conceive children, and same-sex couples will continue to have chidren biologically and/or through adoption regardless of whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized.
69. fromdamoon | November 22, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Part 2: In order for Proposition 8 to be constitutional, there must be at least a rational basis to keep marriage between a man and woman. After listening to the arguments before the 9th circuit, the only thing that came remotely close to meeting this requirement was that marriage is used as a marketing device to promote marriage to men and woman in a sexual relationship so that they will be more likely to take responsibility for children accidently conceived in that relationship. However, this purported purpose does not pass constitutional muster under even the rational basis test. This is because it assumes that granting marriage to same-sex couples will somehow make it less appealing to opposite-sex couples to marry, thus making marriage a less effective "marketing device". The only reason that same-sex marriage would make marriage less appealing to opposite-sex couples is based on pure animosity for a class of people. This can never pass constitutional scrutiny.
70. fromdamoon | November 22, 2011 at 12:27 pm

Part 3: Finally, in looking at whether or not a stated purpose for Prop 8 is rational, the Court may look to the history of Prop 8 as well as the history of discrimination and attitudes toward the class of individuals whose rights are being violated. The animus contained in several of your comments on this page is evidence of the true purpose of Prop 8… legislation designed to marginalize gays to second-class status.

I hope one day Pat you can think about this issue with an open heart and understand that gay people just want to be treated equally under the law.
71. Rob in CA | November 22, 2011 at 12:28 pm

There are so many ways to rebut this argument I don't know where to begin!

Considering the incidence of irresponsible conception between LGBT couples compared to S couples which do you suppose is greater?

Also, which group do you imagine gives the more careful consideration as to whether or not they should become parents? Before answering remember that gay and lesbian couples can't have children by accident.

And finally, how does the recognition of my committment to the guy I love as a marriage diminish the State or the Churches interest in making sure straight couples conceive responsibly?

Rob
72. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 12:28 pm

Please re-read Leo's post Pat. that's not what Leo is saying at all.
73. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm

Frankly, some do form trios, quartets or more. That, I am afraid, is a discussion for a different day.

I am not sure how anyone else getting married has any impact on you or your kids, which begs the question "why do you care at all?" As to your society, the benefits to marriage equality are myriad. More stable relationships, more people who have better support systems, more children finding good homes. The downsides are, frankly, non existant.

I am not sure where in the world you live where the only family units that have any impact on your society are the ones that produce children. Here in the real world, there are all sorts of families with all sorts of different set ups, kids or no, single parents, adoptive parents etc. and we form this thing called "communities" that all work together.

Same sex parents ARE some of those people who serve the noble purpose of adopting children. That aside, are you this upset about heterosexual couples who use donor sperm to conceive?
74. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 12:32 pm

Dave, calling the union of two people of the same sex "married" has societal impact, even if it doesn't affect me directly. In the same way that no-fault divorce has no impact on my marriage but has resulted in a huge divorce rate and countless kids caught up in divorce proceedings and a loss of familial stability, not to mention poverty because of resulting single parenthood.

My kids know that marriage is only for a man and a woman. The know that some people choose not to get married and form relationships with the same sex, but that those couples can't make babies. In some places, those same-sex couples pretend to be married, but they're not real marriages. They're not bigots, but they are amused by the gay characters that they see on tv and chuckle about our gay friends who come to visit.
75. Leo | November 22, 2011 at 12:33 pm

First, your objection doesn't apply at all to polygamous marriages.
Second, you're misconstruing my statement. I'm saying the prevalence of heterosexual attraction is the reason why marriage has traditionally been regarded as heterosexual, not why marriage exists. I hope you're capable of appreciating the difference. If most people were bisexual, marriage would probably still exist, but without gender restrictions.
76. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Nope, WRONG again. I am not a heterosexual because I was not born a heterosexual. FACT, & the only person who could know that is ME, because only I lived MY life. Don't make ASSumptions about someone you don't know & a life you did not live or the first 3letters of that word is what you are. I did not let anything define me, again ASSumptions. I cannot be heterosexual. FACT. I can get married, to a man, & have kids aka start a family however I choose too & that, quite frankly, is NONE of your business…… Lastly, don't tell me what I "prefer", you are 100% wrong. FACT……. Once again, your arrogance is laughable & your ignorance is repugnant. GTFU…… 8 / …Ronnie
77. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 12:34 pm

What insult? It's ok, they know that they didn't conceive the kids that they're raising. I'm a guardian of my kids, and I also am their parent.
78. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 12:35 pm

same sex couples can and do conceive kids,,,,, many hetero's do to, via artificial insemination,,,, a gift first told in a bilble story,,, ie the birth of Jesus,,, he was not the product of parental love making via sex,,,
79. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 12:35 pm

Heh, heh, never heard about that.
80. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 12:38 pm

"Sexual preference is irrelevant to the state."

I agree completely. Why is it so relevant to YOU?

"Marriage… is between opposite sexes."

No, it is not. See NY. See Washington DC. See all the other places that have marriage equality. Legally, marriage is between two people (consenting adults, before you go THERE), and that is becoming more the case.
81. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 12:38 pm

"Who cares what someone's sexual attraction is relative to his accomplishments?" that is exactly the point we are moving towards,,,, expecially when it comes to the accomplishments of raising children and being family,,,, truth is same sex couples are doing a great job at it.. and have done for years….
82. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 12:41 pm

Dave, no, you don't have the right to marry any person you wish to marry; you have the same limits as I do.

Dave, I don't have time to rehash Walker's opinion. He's a nobody; a homosexual judge with a partner who decided in favor of homosexuals with partners. Brilliant. Let's see where the appeals go, shall we?
83. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 12:44 pm

Who you are attracted to, who you have sex with is irrelevant, except with respect to the outcome of the sexual act.
84. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 12:45 pm

You're part right – the organs are not the primary reason someone falls in love. And that is just as true for gay people as it is for straight people.

But I assure you, I could not fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. My brain and my heart don't work that way. These are what make me a gay person. Get it?

It's no different for gays than it is for straight people. Sure we can all love lots of people in our lives, including both men and women, but that's not the kind of love we are talking about. We are talking about the love that a couple feels for each other when they are in love and want to share their lives. And straight people don't have those feelings for people of the same sex, and gay people don't have those feelings for people of the opposite sex. Why is this concept so difficult for you?
85. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm

I think you pegged her in the right slot,,, great work straight grandmother,,,,, Pat herself is suppressing her same sex attraction,,,,,,,
86. Sam_Handwich | November 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm

I suggest starving the negative attention troll.
87. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 12:48 pm

"Everyone is capable of loving someone of the opposite sex."….. Right. I love my mother, my aunts, my sisters, my nieces, my female cousins, & my female friends…..& if I have a daughter someday I will lover her also…. but I don't want to marry them, I don't plan on starting a family & raising kids with them. You are confusing familiar love & friendship love with romantic love. There are many different types of "love"……. ok moving on…..

But here is the funniest part of your laughable statement…… "In fact, many strong marriages are sexless"….. but, but, but…. If they are sexless then they are not "procreating" therefore, according to you, that marriage has no value…… ROFL…… FAIL!!!!…… MAUDE!!!!…. LOL…. XP..Ronnie
88. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 12:53 pm

Sorry your dad left your family, Ronnie. See, if people had more respect for marriage and the responsibilities that come with it (as opposed to the expectation of happiness that most seem to think it causes), your dad might have stuck around, taught you how to throw a ball and teach you to like girls. Now, you're angry at him, you have no respect for marriage, and you like boys instead of girls. And you curse a lot. Lots of anger you have there Ronnie; and no wonder you feel the way you do, the choices you made.
89. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 12:53 pm

which is LOVE
90. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 12:57 pm

PAT!!!!!!! how old are your children,,,, you could have this convesation with them,,,, you're speaking for them,,,,, and if you communicate you may find how really out f touch you are in that glass bubble…. lets here from your kids
91. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm

PAT,, in your bubble,,, which simulates narrow minded interpretations of Bible sories, you think heterosexuality is the only way God created man,,,, homosexuality was never mentioned in the bilbe,,,, same way the earth is round and God just failed to mention that detail,,, but he has given us the ability to explore , discover and LOVE his creations as we learn new details about them
92. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 1:04 pm

The only 'impact' equal civil marriage rights has on society in general is that America has more equality. That's a good thing.

It also has a tremendous positive impact on same sex couples and their families. Everything from inheritence rights, to insurance coverage for their kids, to hospital visitation rights, on and on and on. They now have equal protection under the law. Got that?

And it has no negative impact on anyone else. Except it can be frustrating for people who just hate gays and want to harm them by imposing discriminatory laws on them and their families. Does that bother you?

And please, enough with the cheap shots about pretend marriage. As soon as the guy standing at the front of the room says "by the power vested in me by the state of xxx…." all those gay couples are just as married as anyone else. That's what is meant by the phrase 'equal civil marriage rights". See? Equal means equal.
93. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 1:07 pm

Oh snap! Good point Ronnie.
94. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 1:10 pm

Nope….. WRONG again….. LGBT people do not not have the same limits as you do. You have the right to marry according to your sexual orientation. LGBT people do not, in some states aka the anti-freedom states. Judge Walker is NOT a nobody, he is conservative appointed Federal Judge with a full well rounded education. I doubt you would be doing the same slandering if the judge was a heterosexual who ruled the exact same way. Grow up you puerile imbecile…… OTIO… oIo… > I …Ronnie
95. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm

1. The only choices mentioned in Ronnies' post were the poor choices made by his (straight) dad.
2. You cannot 'teach' a gay man to 'like girls'. It's amazing that I even have to point that out.
3. Your personal insults are way out of line and they have been reported.
96. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm

did your mom and dad stick around for you PAT,,,,, did your mom teach you how to like men!!!!!!!!!!!! were you taught how to be attracted to men?????? please share
97. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm

Stop playing semantic games and be a grown up. Without civil marriage equality, by definition, if you are straight you are able to marry the person you wish to marry but if you are gay you are not.

And you really ought to read his opinion. Really.

And personally, all of us (who actually HAVE read the court's ruling) are definitely looking forward to the next ruling from the ninth circuit.
98. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Actually, my mother left him long before that situation. The reasons why is none of your business. My mom taught me how to throw a ball, my cousins male & female, my uncles, my aunts, my friends, teachers & coaches etc. etc. raised me perfect. Besides I didn't grow up to be a baseball player, or a football player. Throwing a ball is nothing but a weekend game to pass the time. Again, you are making ASSumptions you ASS. You can't teach somebody to like girls. I'm not angry at him. He means nothing to me just like you mean nothing to me you worthless dross. I do have respect for marriage, you don't speak for me Fascist.

No anger here, just reality. The rest of your ASSumptions are so funny I forgot to laugh….. ok moving on…. 8 / ….Ronnie
99. Jacob Combs | November 22, 2011 at 1:34 pm

Hi Pat. I'm Jacob, one of the moderators on the site. This last post has been flagged by some other members of the community, and to be frank, this is more of a personal attack on Ronnie than a fair argument. I hope you'll continue commenting, but I ask you to refrain from personal attacks that villify and resort to name calling. This serves as a warning–if you continue to post like this, you will be removed from the site. Thanks.
100. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 1:44 pm

Sorry, Jacob –

I was making a point about my belief that dads are important and that they teach boys certain aspects of what it means to mean a boy in our society. I don't know Ronnie, so it wasn't personal, except, perhaps the underlying tone which was in response to his blatant attacks, cussing and all, on me. I hope that you flagged Ronnie, as well.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the "reporting to the authorities" attitude in the face of disagreement is a big point of resentment of the straight community against LGBTs (see my post on special treatment, infra.)
101. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 1:44 pm

Nobody is "pretending" to be married. They are real marriages. You are a bigot & if your spawns continue in your hateful selfish footsteps then they are bigots also. FACT. & there is the quintessential "gay friends" card….. LOL…. Oh sweetie, you are confusing kindness with friendship. The rest of your detritus proves that you are an ingrate. Pathetic…… 8 / …Ronnie
102. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 1:50 pm

Sorry, Ronnie, no more responses to you.
103. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 1:56 pm

Sometimes a good idea… sometimes it is better to address it. Not necessarily for the benefit of the troll, but for others who happen by.

As long as it is kept primarily civil, I am all for continuing the discussion.
104. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 2:01 pm

Exactly. When it became apparent that Pat was completely uninformed and unwilling to budge from a position of being close-minded, I continued to reply for the benefit of others who may be stopping by to read these posts and who may want to learn something about the issue of equal civil marriage rights. I'm not doing this for Pat.
105. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Dave –

I have same-sex attraction. I decide I wanted to get married and have kids and I gave up the idea of acting on my same-sex attraction. I'm incredibly happy as a heterosexual who happens to have same-sex attraction.

Now you'll refer to me as a bisexual, but it's really irrelevant. The point is that I wanted to get married and have kids, so I found someone of the opposite sex and got married. Anyone can do it!
106. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 2:16 pm

are you saying, sexual promiscuity resulting in childbirth, should be reason to enforce marriage upon the two?????
107. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm

are you saying we have unwed mothers because the state rewards them for this financially?????
108. fromdamoon | November 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm

Please see my point below; that the child-bearing argument is largely irrelevant to whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized. Opposite-sex couples will continue to accidentally conceive children, and same-sex couples will continue to have chidren biologically and/or through adoption regardless of whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized.

The state however does have an interest in protecting all children, including those children who will be raised by same-sex parents. Those children already exist and will continue to exist. Therefore, same-sex marriage would create stability for those already-existing families.

Furthermore, the problems you mention such as the issues in many urban communities existed long before the issue of same-sex marriage came to the forefront of society. A man who gets his girfriend pregnant will still be just as likely to marry or not marry her if same-sex marriage is legalized.
109. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 2:19 pm

you're forgetting the single fathers,,, there are lot's of fathers raising children without mothers
110. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Bob,

I think some people have same-sex attraction; I think there's probably a genetic component to that. The attraction is stronger for some than others. But one always has the choice as to what kind of behavior he/she wants to participate in and how he/she wants others to identify him/her. Some people embrace their same-sex attraction and call themselves homosexual. Others reject their ssa and call themselves heterosexual. And some who embrace both and call themselves bisexual.

I know that only a man and a woman can make a baby, and I think kids have a right to have the best shot possible to be brought up by their mom and dad. So, I think we can talk about marriage separately from one's sexual preference.
111. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 2:26 pm

Merely having the ability to marry doesn't "promote" anything
112. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 2:32 pm

Procreation is irrelevant to the state and to the courts as far as marriage is concerned. Otherwise the following groups couldn't marry:

- the infertile
- the elderly
- people who choose to not have children
- people in prison who aren't allowed to have sex with their spouses (yet a court decided that they have a fundamental right to marry)

If the state cared whether people have kids, there would be no marriage certificates. There would be certificated of procreation. Or people who don't breed within a specific time frame would have their marriages annulled.
113. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 2:33 pm

Wow PAT,,,, thanks for sharing that,,,,, you are suppressing same sex attraction,,, you think because you choose to do that,, everyone else should be forced to do the same,,,, please LOVE yourself Pat,,, your resentment and anger are showing,,,,,,
114. Paul | November 22, 2011 at 2:37 pm

Marriage was disconected from procreation long before marriage between same-sex couples became an issue. There are no legal consequences regarding procreation that follow from marriage, and no legal consequences regarding marriage that follow from procreation.

At one time there was: e.g. an irrebutable presumption that the husband was the father (no longer true) and a separate status for children born out of wedlock with respect to support and inheritence (no longer true). All of the legal connections between marriage and parenthood were severed decades ago.

Marriage, as it exists now, only has legal consequences for the relationship between the spouses. It relates to rights and obligations with respect to each other. The state's interest is in recognizing and fostering that relationship. The parental relationship with the kids is handled by laws and policies separate from marriage.
115. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 2:38 pm

Pat read my post above,,, and thank you again for getting to the heart of the matter,,,, Your experience is valid and worthy,, and now you are being honest about yourself ,,,, and your life,, I value that,,,,, but it stops at enforcing what works for you onto others,,,
116. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 2:38 pm

LOL… what cussing? I called my step-bitch a bitch… Am I not allowed to call her that? You are one to talk with all of the insults, & attacks you have posted towards LGBT families, couples, & individuals & the ASSumptions you made about who I am as a person & my life…. typical "victim" card of the anti-gay reich…. you make offensive insulting comments but when people call you out on them & call you a bigot you get all high & mighty….. You have repeatedly degraded & demeaned several people on here both LGBT & straight. But I guess you are allowed to say whatever you want because you are a high & mighty heterosexual up on your superior perch. Get over yourself.

I know exactly what it means to be a boy in society & how dare you say otherwise. You anti-gay people think you speak for everybody under the sun & that you define everything for everybody. You don't define anything for anybody. I do charity, I hold the door open for women, I respect my elders, I pay my taxes, I help my mother, I help my cousins kids. I don't lie, cheat, steal, or kill. I live my life honestly, respectfully, & openly. I am a man because I say I am. PERIOD. Not knowing how to throw a ball "correctly" doesn't make you any less of man. Being naturally attracted to the same gender does NOT make me any less of a man. I can lift more weight above my head longer then my heterosexual fratboy cousin who is the same age. Does that make him less of a "man" then me? NO, it doesn't.

You are stuck in irrational out-dated gender stereotypes, & it is pathetic & laughable. Newsflash just because a woman wears jeans (which were original designed for men only & still to this day are continued to be manufactured with mens manufacturing rules) doesn't make her less of a woman. I am a man because I say I am. I am a man because I stick up for myself. I am man because I would lay my life down for my future children & any of my friends & family. I am man because I would do anything to provide for my future family & I would not expect that the man I love to do it alone.

Lastly, that "reporting" meme…. LOL…. please…. wow… more arrogance…… 8 / …Ronnie
117. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 2:42 pm

There are historical societies that had same-sex marriages or at least socially accepted relationships. There are records of Roman emperors marrying other men in public ceremonies. Theodosius was the first to outlaw that practice, which wouldn't have happened if it didn't occur. It also happened in at least one period of Chinese history.

People taking on the roles of the opposite gender and/or marrying people of the same sex is also well documented in many native American and African tribes. In native American nations, such people were sometimes revered as healers and shamans. Social acceptance of transgender people is documented in Pacific Island tribes.
Those cultures found ways to accommodate such people in ways that don't exactly conform to the modern, western understanding of sexual orientation and gender identity, but it was hardly uncommon until Europeans came along and screwed them up.
118. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 2:46 pm

Pat in your testimony about deciding to not act on same sex attraction and choosing to marry and raise children, you are acting out a huge sacrifice, that you took on for yourself personally,,, I can see why you are so invested in having that pay off for you by valuing your sacrifice and marriage as more worthy than others,,,,, sorry it doesn't work that way,,, make LOVE your goal,,,, PEACE
119. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 2:47 pm

They did. It's called slavery. And sex with slaves (i.e. rape) was perfectly legal. Both according to Biblical and civil law.

In ancient Rome, as well as in many Muslim countries today, sexuality is seen somewhat differently. It's not about identity, but assumed gender roles. What is taboo is not necessarily the sexual activity itself, but assuming a "female", passive, submissive role. For example, in Saudi Arabia the strict gender segregation leads to a good deal of sex between men. But few see themselves as gay in the western sense and finding "bottoms" isn't that easy.
120. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 2:48 pm

And black people had the right to marry other black people. How did that turn out?
121. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 2:51 pm

I think I get it now. So what's your point, to prove that there are other theories out there? The fact is that however it got there, societies the world over have come to realize the value of moms and dads in taking care of the kids that they created and have created an institution in recognition of that fact to promote male-female unions. Theoretically, the whole world could have been homosexual except for but two individuals, and society would have had to have recognized the importance of those two exceptions who had the capacity and desire to create new lives. To suggest that procreation would not have been accorded special recognition in any case is an interesting topic of discussion, but highly unlikely.
122. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 2:54 pm

So, you're an "ex-gay". That was patently obvious.

I pity your wife and children. She deserves someone who can actually love her. Not some deluded, self-hating closet case who might eventually wake up and divorce her, or cheat on her on the side with rentboys and in bathrooms
123. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 2:54 pm

OMGaga….. How ever will I go on with my life?…… My life is over!!!!!….. (faints into fainting chair as my crinoline flies over my head and flips me off the fainting chair)…… XP…Ronnie
124. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 2:57 pm

Formalized marriages were mostly about property in the past. People needed a way to regulate the ownership and transfer of land. That's why ritualized marriages were mostly a thing for the rich or people who had at least a minimum of wealth. Up until the middle ages – which is when the church demanded that people need to be married by a priest – most people simply had common law marriages. If two people and their families considered themselves married, they were.
125. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Fromdamoon – Don't get me wrong; I understand that people of the same sex love one another and want to spend their lives together. But to treat them identically to opposite-sex couples where only opposite-sex couples can procreate ignores an important difference. And while procreating isn't important for some individuals to participate in, procreation and the whole of couples potentially procreating has a huge impact on our society; and that fact renders it and the relationships that can do it, worthy of special recognition.

Everyone has equal treatment in this country. Everyone can enter into potentially procreative relationships and thus get married. Everyone has the option to forego procreation and marriage, be it because they have same-sex attraction, or they want to remain single, or whatever reason.
126. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 3:06 pm

Procreation, per se, is not important to the state. Promoting male-female lifelong unions to assure that when procreation does occur, that kids have a married mom and dad is an important state interest. All married opposite couples, regardless of actual procreative ability, serve this purpose.
127. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 3:09 pm

Nope, no choice….. Juuuuuuuuust nature…. Marriage is not about "procreation", not a requirement, does not promote it, no connection. Marriage is not about raising kids, not a requirement, does not promote it, no connection. Kids deserve the best shot possible at life. Period. The gender of the parent(s) is irrelevant, the orientation of the parent(s) is irrelevant, the number if parent(s) is irrelevant. Gay men call themselves gay. Lesbians call themselves lesbian. Bisexuals call themselves bisexual. Heterosexuals call themselves heterosexual. Heterosexuals don't reject a same-gender attraction because they are not gay or lesbian. If they have an attraction to the same gender and the opposite gender then they are bisexual. A sperm & an egg make a baby not the physical people. You don't have the right to tell other how to form THEIR family. You don't have the right to limit or stop their life experience. Worry about your own life & stop being a busy-body butinski selfish control freak putting your nose in other peoples personal, private, & public lives…….ok moving on…. 8 / ….Ronnie
128. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 3:11 pm

No, I think people should get married before having sex or agree to take responsibility for raising any kids that might result from premarital sex. NOt that long ago in this country, people stood up and took on that responsibility.
129. DaveP | November 22, 2011 at 3:13 pm

And once again, DENYING equal marriage rights to same sex couples does NOTHING to promote any of that.
130. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 3:15 pm

Pat, you do represent another option,,, I'm beginning to see the choices you made,, but can you explain why you made them??? for some reason you seem to value children born into a relationship of opposite sex couples as more worthy or valuable to society , are you saying that you conciously thought of all this in pursuing your particular path to parenthood and family? the only important thing here is,, how are your children,,, is your family whole, healthy, loving and at PEACE and forgive this question,,, but do you have a religious background or influence???? thanks
131. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Unfortunately, Pat, that is complete and utter nonsense.

Marriage, as promoted by the state, does provide some safeguards for children. But since same sex families provide just as much security and protection for children as opposite sex families do, the state should have absolutely no vested interest in the genders of the couple. And since same sex marriage has no bearing on whether heterosexuals who may get pregnant decide to marry, the issue of accidental procreation is a nonsensical bar to use as a measurement.

Your assertions are based on some twisted notion that children are being wrenched away from their loving biological parents by homosexuals. Not so, and you know it.
132. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 3:20 pm

"My kids know that marriage is only for a man and a woman."

Then your kids are as sadly misinformed as you are, Pat. However, I do hope they can grow out of it.
133. Pat | November 22, 2011 at 3:21 pm

Well, Dave, seems we have identical objectives and equally strong beliefs in our positions. Nice jousting with you all. Happy Thanksgiving!
134. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 3:30 pm

"He's a nobody; a homosexual judge…" And thus you have become a troll.

Here on P8TT we read important court cases. We discuss repercussions. We analyze facts. We seek to understand what the laws of this country actually mean. We debate on the merits of various opinions. We pour over the various documents and we educate ourselves as to what they mean.

By denigrating Judge Walker (and others, in the process) on his personal life, however, you have just removed yourself from this community, and a declared yourself to be a troll. Until that point, I was willing to defend continuing the discussion with you. No more. And your loss.
135. Bob | November 22, 2011 at 3:34 pm

yes same to you Pat,,,, and thanks for the dialogue,,,, I guess the point is THE CHILDREN I have seen all kinds of testimonies ,, young adults raised in same sex relationships, saying how grateful they are,,, children born by artificial semination,, saying how grateful they are for the work their parents went through to have and raise them,,,,, guess we need one from young adults saying how grateful they are for being raised in a mother who sacfificed her same sex attraction to have them,,,, are you up to the challenge,,,,
136. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Nope….. Marriage is not about promoting anything. Marriage is a personal commitment for the couple involved & anyone they wish to share that with. It is not open to public opinion . You are not entitled to an opinion on my marriage or relationship. You don't have that right. I don't give you that right. You have no rights in reference to MY life or anybody's life other then your own. DEAL WITH IT!!!

There is a state interest in promoting that the government, under CIVIL law, respect, protect, & accept male-male & female-female lifelong unions whether they have children or not, but especially if they have children. Our tax dollars assure that. Tax me equal, treat me equal, AS I AM, not how some selfish homophobic bigoted neanderthal wants me to be. Kids do not need a married mom & dad. They need at least one parent that is going to provide for them until they can provide for themselves. A second parent is a just a plus. Marriage does not provide food & shelter, clothes & education. It does provide better health insurance in many cases. Marriage does not provide emotional support & love. Marriage does not provide a hug. Marriage provides legal protections, rights, benefits, ect. issued by the government, NOT the church, the government that is funded via tax dollars, the same tax dollars that are taken out of the hard earned paychecks of LGBT people. Nobody cares what your worthless disrespectful opinion is about their marriage, relationship, or family but the government is not entitled to an opinion. It is only entitled to protect us, respect us, care about us AS WE ARE or they can give us our hard earned money back & we will take care of things ourselves. The Constitution is the law in this country & it applies to ALL Americans,; LGBT, straight, LGBT affirming people of faith, anti-gay people of faith, non-religious, male, female, all races, all ages, all abilities & disabilities, all nationalities. PERIOD! NO EXCUSES!!! America is secular country, NOT a fascist religious based heterosexual only dictatorship. PERIOD! NO EXCUSES!!!…..I am an American citizen. I am a human being. I am openly gay. I paid my taxes for MY rights. I say when. I say where. I say why. I say how much. I SAY WHO!!!!….. LIBERTY, SHELTER, EQUALITY…. I control MY life, nobody else does. DEAL WITH IT. GET OVER IT….. >I ..Ronnie
137. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 3:48 pm

Ok then… you're a bisexual…. got it…..moving on….. 8 / …Ronnie
138. Leo | November 22, 2011 at 3:55 pm

That's not a fact, but your own theory. I suggest you read Judge Walker's Findings of Fact for a list of different purposes that marriage serves, based on expert testimony from people who study these things for a living (unlike you, fair to presume?) You may have your own reasons for marrying or for supporting marriage, but you shouldn't project them onto all other people, past and present.

And it's not only likely, but empirically true that the procreative capacity of a couple isn't accorded any special recognition. Fertile couples aren't generally accorded any special recognition over infertile couples. Not when the infertility is medical. Not when it's due to old age. Only when it's due to being of the same sex. In such circumstances, it's reasonable to conclude that the lack of procreative capacity is a pretext, not a genuine reason.
139. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 3:58 pm

OK… I just said above that I was done replying because you had become a troll, but then I saw this.

Pat, it is ok. You can be whoever you need to be. We here get that. If you are truly happy in a heterosexual relationship, that is FINE, but you do not have to convert US to make that work for you.

The thing is, not everyone can do what you did. Not everyone is bisexual, and not even everyone who IS bisexual is willing to suppress half of themselves. Some people are simply not ever attracted to a person of the opposite sex. That you are and found someone is wonderful, and I am sure that we are all happy for you, but trying to make us all fit in the mold you have climbed into won't make your choices any more right for yourself.

If you made those choices at the cost of possibly missing out on a wonderful relationship that might have happened with someone of your own gender, that is unfortunate, but ultimately you must do what works for you.

Please understand that your choices are yours, you own them, and that they don't have any impact on my life either. Other than me having compassion for the cry for help that I am now reading in your posts, my existence, my relationships, and my life are not colored by yours. And yours are only colored by mine if you make it so. And no matter how hard you fight to have the temptation of same sex marriage removed from the realm of the possible, the simple fact that homosexuality exists is not going away, and that is the real "threat" that you need to learn how to live with or deal with before it destroys you.

You clearly have some issues you need to resolve. I wish you all the best in doing so. If you want to talk more about this, I, and I am sure others here, would be happy to do so. I'd love to help you find a safe space where you can be ok with being who you are.
140. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 3:59 pm

Marriage does not promote male-female unions. Male-female unions promote male-female unions & those unions do not promote "procreation" unless they actually physically ."procreate". Societies the world over have come to realize the values of 2moms or 2dads or single parents taking care of the kids they chose to either have through surrogacy or adoption & strengthened the institution of family. The only societies who don't realize that are countries ruled by fascism, dictatorship, & fundamentalist terroristic zealots aka anti-freedom societies. Your "theory" is a joke & has no basis in reality….. ok, moving on…. 8 / …Ronnie
141. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 4:04 pm

You under the mistaken assumption that all beliefs, ideas or opinions are equally valid. They aren't
142. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 4:05 pm

And I am sort of back to doing it for Pat again.

Pat seems to be "ex-gay" to the extent of being bisexual at least, but having decided to suppress that. I hope that she is happy in that choice, but I fear she is doing what so many others do, which is trying to prove that her choice was the right one by making it the ONLY one.

I am hoping, very sincerely hoping, that she can figure out that we would be a SUPPORTIVE community to join, if she would only realize that she is OK, and we are OK with her deciding that marriage and family were her priorities. I hope she can see that us being who we are is not a danger to her, that we can actually be in favor of her making choices that truly make her happy.

I fear that may not be possible, but I hope, never the less.

Or he, I suppose. Doesn't matter either way.
143. truthspew | November 22, 2011 at 4:09 pm

Sen. Whitehouse is no surprise. He gets it. I worked for him when he was State AG. He's a great guy.
144. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 4:12 pm

Nope….. Everyone does NOT have equal treatment in this country. Heterosexuals can marry based on the orientation…. LGBT couples cannot, in some states aka the anti-freedom states. A sham "marriage" to a female will Never have the potential to "procreate" & I am not going to marry someone I do not love. I am not going to take the name of someone I do not love. I am not going to share my life with someone I do not love. I am not going to marry a female because selfish homophobic bigoted FASCISTS like you have an irrational issue with me marrying a man. MY LIFE. NOT YOURS!!!!!…… I don't want to forgo marriage. I will not forgo marriage. I will not be denied the right to marry the man I choose to spend the rest of MY life with. I don't want to forgo forming a family how I want to. I will not forgo that. I will not be denied it because I am forming MY family with a man. MY LIFE. NOT YOURS. I will not allow you to disrespect my family. I will not allow you to treat my family as inferior to yours. I will not allow the government to treat my family as inferior to yours or disrespect my family.

THE GOVERNMENT WILL TREAT MY FAMILY & MY RELATIONSHIP EQUAL TO YOURS OR IT WILL NOT TAX ME EQUAL…… PERIOD!!!!!….You will learn to deal with it…. & you will get over it….. > I …Ronnie
145. fiona64 | November 22, 2011 at 4:38 pm

Hmm. By your lights, Pat, my husband and I (we're straight) do not provide any value to society because we have thoughtfully chosen not to procreate. Yet, we're married. We also understand that no one outside our marriage affects it in the slightest. If your marriage is impacted by some gay couple whom you don't even know getting married? Seek counseling.
146. fiona64 | November 22, 2011 at 4:43 pm

As part of the straight community, and an active supporter of LGBT equality, I kindly ask that you not pretend to speak for me. Thanks.
147. fiona64 | November 22, 2011 at 4:45 pm

You are so very wrong, Pat. Marriage is an elastic institution, varying across time and culture. I suggest that you visit crackafriggingbook.com to look up the history of marriage from an anthropological and sociological perspective before you hurt yourself any further. (Short version: long before any church ever got involved in marriage, it was a property contract cemented by handing off a woman as property from one man, her father, to another — her husband.)
148. fiona64 | November 22, 2011 at 4:46 pm

http://www2.kenyon.edu/projects/margin/rites.htm – The Adelphopoiia Rite was used by the medieval church to unite two men in holy matrimony. That throws your "across all religions and history" nonsense right out the window, buddy.

Don't play games with anthro majors; we have references.
149. fiona64 | November 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm

Oh, Ronnie, how ever will you live with yourself? Some redneck bigot doesn't want to speak with you. Oh, the pain.
150. fiona64 | November 22, 2011 at 4:49 pm

ROFLMAO. Premarital sex happens/happened across all times and cultures. Don't fool yourself; it even happened with the Puritans.
151. fiona64 | November 22, 2011 at 4:50 pm

Why don't I believe you? Hmm. Could it be because it's the internet and you can pretend to be anything you want? OTOH, the University of Georgia did prove that the most loudmouthed homophobes were closet cases, so perhaps I'll give you half-credit.

Boyd Packer lied to you, sweetie. So did Evergreen. Nice try, though.
152. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 4:54 pm

The state has an interest in our relationships, our families. They signed that contract when they took money out of our paychecks that we could otherwise use for insurance, necessities, etc. That contract was signed in the vagueness of "WE the people" & "ALL are created equal". The state & federal government has an interest in promoting the union of 2men or 2women, the creation or adoption of children in or out of marriage, and assuring that children are raised by legally protected parent or parents.

There is no reason & their never was a reason for a man who knocks up his girlfriend to get married. If he doesn't want to get married then he doesn't have to get married & pressuring him too is not going to make things easier for the individual people or the child. Resentment & regret is toxic on a relationship & in a family. He can still be a parent to the child. Nothing is stopping him other then himself unless the mother wants nothing to do with him because he is drug addict, alcoholic or a wife beater….. Yes the taxpayers. LGBT people pay taxes also. I have no problem with my taxes going to help a single mom or dad if it means that child is going to eat, have a clean diaper, & a roof over his/ her head. Maybe that is something you need to work out with the IRS demanding that your money go here & your money go there but remember that you are not immune to ever needing that help. Nobody is.

When same-gender couples are married they are married. That is it. Marriage is NOT disconnected from anything. Marriage is not connected to anything. Marriage is an emotional connection between two people who are not directly related. Everything else is a personal choice & life options. The marriage will never be recognized, gay or straight, unless you have the license which is issued by the government not the church. The church is irrelevant.

You are living in a fantasy world. so sad……. 8 / ….Ronnie
153. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 5:02 pm

Hence the – sadly still used – custom of the father walking the bride down the aisle
154. Ronnie | November 22, 2011 at 5:17 pm

There in lies the problem. what you think has very little to do with reality. People have premarital sex. Get over it. That's life & there is nothing you are going to do to stop that. Like fiona said premarital sex happens/happened across all times & cultures….. Some people will, some people will not. furthermore, in some states aka the TRUE American states & the 10 other countries that are more American then America itself where Marriage Equality is the law LGBT kids & teens who are told by their parent(s) to wait until marriage are growing up in a world where they can wait until marriage. Some will & some will not. That is life. DEAL WITH IT….. 8 / ….Ronnie
155. Jacob Combs | November 22, 2011 at 5:26 pm

Pat, you have been banned from the site. Please don't return or post anything else. Thanks for reporting these comments, guys.
156. Kate | November 22, 2011 at 6:20 pm

Jacob, are you sure? Note that there has actually been progress with his/her attitude and that his/her posts are even beginning to sound human.
157. AnonyGrl | November 22, 2011 at 6:24 pm

I am with Kate on this. The discussion got uncomfortable, but never out of hand. And I do think we may even have been getting somewhere?
158. Rob in CA | November 22, 2011 at 6:56 pm

Wife and children? I thougt Pat was a female! I guess my addiction to the old SNL sketches is showing

Rob
159. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 7:17 pm

My bad. Guess I missed that and assumed it's a male name
160. Steve | November 22, 2011 at 7:18 pm

I wouldn't go that far
161. grod | November 22, 2011 at 7:43 pm

Pat, I'm straight, married x 30y. Canadians have had civil marriage equality for six years, some of the largest provinces for eight years. While Canada’s population is only 10% of USA, there would be very few of us who would agree with you that by definition civil marriage is for straights only. Like many Americans, thirty years ago most of us would have accepted statements like you make without thinking about its implications. But its almost 2012. Five years out, there are over 16,000 gay marriages in Massachusetts, benefitting individuals and its citizens collectively. Not to mention states that more recently recognized civilo marriage equality.

Pat, if America holds itself a beacon to the world based on ‘all wo/men are born equal’, or more recently your rights of citizenship found in the 14 Amendment, how can you assert an unequal treatment before and under US law. Have you recently read the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? These are rights of all human beings! Eleanor Roosevelt was a member of the nine person drafting committee. “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration”. Equality is a core tenant.
162. Rob in CA | November 22, 2011 at 8:09 pm

As far as I know you may be right, Steve! It really doesn't matter either way. The bigotry demonstrated by this contributer is the same. In fact it's kind or more interesting if it's a guy

Rob
163. Steve | November 23, 2011 at 7:10 am

And back alley abortions never happened
164. Sheryl_Carver | November 23, 2011 at 7:39 am

Hi, Jacob,

Please reconsider banning Pat. Except for one comment directed at Ronnie, after which she acknowledged your warning, she had not done anything worthy of banning. Having many of my comments over at NOM's blog end up in moderation hell, perhaps I'm more sensitive to banning people who's only crime is making statements the majority of a blog's readers don't like.

Note, I am NOT defending her position, it's just that I think we here are quite capable of responding to Pat, or ignoring her if one thinks she's just trolling.

I'm assuming you have her email address, Jacob. If you change your mind, please contact her. In any case, please let us know your decision.

PS – I'm late to much of this discussion, as several things happened yesterday evening that kept me away from my computer & iPhone until well after my brain ceased to function.
165. DaveP | November 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm

Hi Pat,

No, we don't have the same objectives. I am working to assure equal rights for all citizens. You are bent on oppressing gays and lesbians by denying them equal civil marriage rights. And the strange thing is, having seen your recent posts here, we see that you yourself are bisexual and yet you want to hurt LGBT people.
You made a choice to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's your business, and while I certainly could never do that, I don't have a personal problem with your choice because it does not affect me. But for some reason, you have made it your business to try to force YOUR personal choice for dealing with your sexuality on every other gay person. You cling to the lie that same sex marriage somehow affects you, and it does not. You have gone so far as to call the judge who ruled in the Prop 8 case "nothing" simply because he is gay. This reveals a tremendous amount of self hatred. I really hope you find some way to address your issues.

The difference between our objectives is that I am trying to help people get equal rights. You are lashing out and trying to hurt and oppress people just because, like you, they are gay.
166. Jacob Combs | November 24, 2011 at 3:51 pm

Hi all. I appreciate your writing about this, and I want to explain to you the reasoning behind my decision.

In my opinion, Pat's post about Ronnie's father is unfair, makes many assumptions, and is essentially a personal attack. I understand that with comments on the internet in can be hard to read in terms of tone, but that comment was certainly out of line for the tenor of discussion we want to have on this site. Hence the warning.

Calling Judge Walker a 'nobody,' again in my opinion, is another personal judgment that has no place on our site. Any sitting judge, no matter whether or not one disagrees with their rulings or positions (and believe me, there are a few with whom I would certainly disagree) is clearly someone with a lot of training and a lot of power. None of them are 'nobodies,' and I read Pat's comment as attempt to label Judge Walker a 'nobody' solely based on his sexual orientation and relationship status. Because I viewed this as a personal attack similar to the one for which I gave Pat a warning, I banned her from the site.

However, I do believe that Pat has made several important and significant points here, and I appreciate the debate that she has engendered. At P8TT, we will not ban people from the site who have different views from us, and Sheryl, I certainly would not want to resemble the moderators of NOM's blog in any way. Personal attacks and offensive comments, on the other hand, are not tolerated.

I am going to email Pat with a copy of my reasons for banning her, and invite her to return to the site if she wants to. I certainly hope she does. However, if I perceive any comment (on either side of the argument) to be personal in nature or offensive, I will follow up on that, and sometimes, the consequence will have to be a banning, if an individual (who has valid points) refuses to accept the tone of the conversation that we're looking for at P8TT.

Again, thanks for your thoughtfulness and for writing to me. Happy Thanksgiving!
167. Straight Dave | November 24, 2011 at 5:36 pm

Jacob –
Thanks for taking the time to reconsider your original decision, and also to explain it. I agree with this step and also the voices that encouraged it. IMO it is good to have a very limited amount of moderation. We're grownups and can handle a bit of rough and tumble. The line is certainly fuzzy and I don't envy someone who has to make such judgements. You acted as a responsible member of the community when things drifted into the gray area, and then showed a lot of flexibility. I like the result and hope Pat returns to continue to engage with us, recognizing we have some boundaries.
168. Josh | November 27, 2011 at 4:52 pm

Pat, you said right here, "…but the only ones who have any impact on me, my kids, my society are the ones that might create children." In that case, stop opposing marriage for gay couples since, as you said, they don't have any impact on you, your kids, or "your" society.
169. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | May 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm

[...] written before about Senator Jack Reed’s slow evolution on the issue of repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. Despite polls in his state favoring marriage [...]
170. Prop 8 Trial Tracker &raq&hellip | May 10, 2012 at 8:05 am

[...] equality as well. Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed finally completed his (extremely gradual) evolution on the issue of DOMA, tweeting that he now supported marriage equality and would cosponsor the [...]

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!

Equality On Trial

Login

Quick Hits

Recent Comments