Yesterday was the third day of testimony in U.S. Federal Court for the lawsuit that seeks to overturn Prop 8.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Wednesday’s main issue was whether anti-gay sentiment played a part in the drafting and passage of the initiative.
[SNIP]
Opponents and supporters of same-sex marriage dueled in federal court Wednesday over the question of whether anti-gay discrimination has largely faded or endures in ballot measures like California’s Proposition 8.Prop. 8’s opponents sought to illustrate [the still present] hostility with their pretrial deposition of William Tam, a San Francisco chemical engineer and activist who was one of the ballot measure’s official proponents.
Tam, who organized rallies and raised money for the measure, sent a letter to Prop. 8 supporters during the campaign warning that if same-sex marriage remained legal, “other states would fall into Satan’s hand.”
San Francisco’s government, already “under the rule of homosexuals,” would move next to legalize sex with children and prostitution, Tam said.
Zach Behrens has been doing a great job covering some of the more intense moments of the story for LAist and has more on the Tam deposition. It is….shall we say—colorful. (And not in a good way.
(Photo by Tom Andrews for LAist>)
One should ask, is Homosexuality good for society and should it be promoted by the state?
In ancient Greek society – “That a man should be attracted both to lovely women and to beardless young boys was seen as natural and normal. It was also accepted that some men would lean more towards one, and some towards the other. However, young boys were considered the fair sex par excellence; the Greek ideal of beauty was embodied by the young man.
Girls were considered capable only of chitchat, and unworthy of education.â€
http://www.gay-art-history.org/ Note: link contains partial nude teen boys.
For the sake of my gay friends in Sacramento, I hope California sson allows gays to marry. He should be a happier man after prop 8 is repealed.
How can sincere support for traditional marriage in our nation be a discrimination issue, unless one thinks that being homosexual entitles someone to special protection under the Constitution, which I’m confident was never intended by those who wrote the Constitution? Why can’t liberals stop being “offended” and learn to live like the rest of us? Have your cermonial marriages but don’t make reasonable people pretend that they are the same as others and provide them with special legal rights.
Here’s a bigger concern: Homosexual Africans face intolerance, prison and the death penalty … and Uganda Lawmaker Refuses to Withdraw Bill for Death Penalty of Gays.
Woody Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 10:57 am
How can sincere support for traditional marriage in our nation
…………….
People for prop 8 are not supporting traditional marriage. Are you really that naive? What do you think they’re going to say, that they “hate fags”, publicly? In order to make themselves legitimate, they have to have a legitimate brand and message, and “protecting marriage” is it. What are the prop 8 people doing to battle infidelity and alcoholism, which lead to divorce? What are they doing to discourage marriage at a young age, which leads to marital troubles and in many cases divorce? What are they doing overall to lower the divorce rate, which has been lingering around the 50% mark for over a decade now? Nothing. Not a thing. Because they’re not interested in protecting marriage. They’re interested in harassing the gay community. But go ahead and think they’re protecting marriage, Woody, even though they’re doing nothing to protect marriage outside of this cause.
Well, the Prop 8 supporters are protecting marriage by not wanting to expand it to a group that will have an even higher rate of infidelity and divorce. On the other hand, what are homosexuals doing for marriage other than to say that it doesn’t have much meaning. What’s next for you guys…marrying goats?
Liberals sure hate democracy and votes of the people.
Woody Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Well, the Prop 8 supporters are protecting marriage
……………….
Woody, they are not protecting marriage. Name one thing the prop 8 movement is doing to protect marriage other than keeping gays from marrying. Gays getting married are not even close to being the biggest threat to marriage. Alcoholism, infidelity,.. Two huge, ongoing threats to marriage, that have done more to contribute to the 50% divorce rate than gays getting married could ever. You can not be an intelligent person while believing the prop 8 movement is trying to protect marriage. So suit yourself.
Just to further demonstrate how the prop 8 movement was created to harass gays and nothing else, while they gave themselves a legitimate brand and message, “protecting marriage”, they didn’t even put together a bogus organization to address current issues outside of gay marriage that they believe are threatening marriage. All they had to do was put out some phony marriage counseling center, hire a couple of quacks to really sit there and pretend to counsel couples…but they didn’t even want to spend that much money legitimizing their cause. They just gave themselves a non threatening brand, and ran with it. But of course, with most of their supporters being about as smart as you, Woody, it’s all they needed.
We need to finally get serious about protecting the institution of marriage. Please support the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act:
http://rescuemarriage.org/
Let’s all do our part in safeguarding marriage from the evils of divorce. Enough is enough: family values matter!
I don’t have a problem with gays that are in a recognized union being afforded the same rights as married couples. I have a problem with, once again, throwing the traditional use of certain words out the window so people can change the meaning to suit themselves.
Why are gays so hung up on the word “marriage” if the question is about having the same “rights” as married couples? When was the last time I could describe myself as “queer” or “gay”?
If gays could move past the word “marriage” they might find the road a little easier. If somebody could point out to me where The Constitution gives people the right to a certain descriptive term I’d be interested in seeing it. If gays argue this than is it really about equal rights?
Sure Fire Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
If gays could move past the word “marriage†they might find the road a little easier.
…………..
You are just a genius, aren’t you?
Try and follow:
How would they find their road easier by dropping the “marriage” description if their goal is to be recognized as “married”?
And who are you to invoke the constitution, Sure Fire? You’ve said on a previous thread that “safety comes first”. Such ideology flies right in the face of our constitution.
When you can’t argue act like an idiot, same old stuff.
If you’re not safe to enjoy all those constitutional rights you have, than really, what good are they?
I’m with Sure Fire on this.
BTW, if the court is interested in whether the backers are motivated by anti-gay sentiment, then the court is derelict in its job. The motivation of the backers is not related to the validity of the proposition.
Sure Fire Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
If you’re not safe to enjoy all those constitutional rights you have, than really, what good are they?
…………………..
I know you don’t read, so there’s no reason for me to expect you to even understand a document like the Constitution of the United States, written by this country’s founding fathers. But try and understand this. I’ll explain it to you at a 3rd grade level, so you can understand.
The constitution works under the idea that people must defend themselves first and foremost, and that it is up to the people to decide for themselves who should protect them, if there is to be a government agency that does this job. Your belief is that the government agency, the police, rather, comes first. Without the police, we aren’t safe to do anything. You’re also stupid, and that’s documented. You’re also a fascist, documented as well. Our founding fathers were neither stupid or fascist. They truly believed in the principle that freedom was more valuable than safety, and our constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, bigger than any law that any cop has ever enforced, enforces that very principal.
Do yourself a favor, stop pretending you get it. Because when you say stupid things like, “without public safety, we wouldn’t have any freedoms to enjoy”, you reveal that your knowledge of our country, it’s founding fathers, and their ideas is limited to what you’ve overheard from other right wing, extremist idiots who don’t know what they’re talking about. You’re out of your realm.
John Moore Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I’m with Sure Fire on this.
BTW, if the court is interested in whether the backers are motivated by anti-gay sentiment, then the court is derelict in its job. The motivation of the backers is not related to the validity of the proposition.
……………
I won’t argue with that. I was just addressing the idiotic insinuations by Woody that this movement is designed to protect marriage. You’ll find me correcting Woody’s idiotic insinuations a lot. It’s a full time job in here.
I don’t need to read more than a few sentences of yours boy, to see you’re a dolt. Your attempt at showing a superior working knowledge of anything is absent anything worth responding to.
Go back to your prison pin-ups and self gratification. You’ll get more accomplished than babbling your stupidity to me.
Girls like you wouldn’t least in “my realm” for even one day.
Gays getting married are not even close to being the biggest threat to marriage. Alcoholism, infidelity,.. Two huge, ongoing threats to marriage, that have done more to contribute to the 50% divorce rate than gays getting married could ever.
BITH CRUSH – How long have you been married? I just want to be sure that the person putting these “facts” up here is and expert on marriage and has been married for a while and not just some quack just sitting here pretending he knows what he’s talking about.
or are you waiting for the verdict before you marry?
You’ll find me correcting Woody’s idiotic insinuations a lot. It’s a full time job in here.
BITH CRUSH – who appointed you to that position? I thought this was Celeste Fremon’s blog? Is this BITH Crusher a new moderator? How are you an expert?
Oh, Sure Fire, no need to come undone now just because I exposed you for not understanding the constitution. The true highlight of the day was when you at first pretended to be above the discussion, and then took your beyond stupid crack at explaining the constitution by saying that we wouldn’t have rights if we didn’t have police protection. Who decides rather or not we have police protection, numbnuts? That’s a question our founding fathers pondered, and that flies right over your rube head.
StillNoScript Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
BITH CRUSH – How long have you been married?
……………….
I shouldn’t even respond to you until you learn how to comment under a name that’s your own creation. Are you using a former name I’ve used because you’re too stupid to come up with your own name, or is this your way of saying that you know who I am? Ooooooh. You’re good! Anyway, How long has Carrie Prejean, the Miss California who spoke out against gay marriage, been married? When I see you criticize her stance on this issue due to her lack of experience (with marriage, not with diddling herself on camera), I’ll answer your question as to rather or not I’m married, of course, if you do so under your own name. If you’re not smart enough to create a screenname for yourself, I can help you. I’ve got plenty for you. But I don’t think you’ll want to bare any of them. They’re not flattering. Because they give a realistic description of you. The idea behind a screen name is to promote yourself a little. Oh, except in my case. “BITH Crusher” is dead on accurate!
StillNoScript Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
or are you waiting for the verdict before you marry?
…………..
Keep cracking duds like that and I’m going to name you Woody.
StillNoScript Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
You’ll find me correcting Woody’s idiotic insinuations a lot. It’s a full time job in here.
BITH CRUSH – who appointed you to that position? I thought this was Celeste Fremon’s blog? Is this BITH Crusher a new moderator? How are you an expert?
…………………
I don’t consider it to be a “position”. Mocking Woody’s asinine comments is more of a moral obligation, sort of like rescuing someone from a burning house. And, being an expert of any kind isn’t necessary. I’m certain there are 10 year olds who laugh at Woody when he starts going into politics.
Somebody needs one of my abuelita’s menudo enemas, to detoxify their system and find their true identity. hahaha
Sure Fire Says:
January 14th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Girls like you wouldn’t last in “my realm†for even one day.
We get it Sure Fire.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Shuster_Nights_of_Horror-8.jpg
Robbie, you’re still just a con loving nobody. Play all you want.
Gee Sure Fire, you’ve got a pretty good sense of civility, which bodes well for relationship success with Robbie.
Tip: I suggests taking lessons from old-school movie stars to hone your manners. “Watch anything starring Audrey Hepburn, Katherine Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, et al.â€
You do have the potential to be well-mannered, but you’re making only half the effort. Find someone who has great social skills, gee, like Celeste, and mimic that person’s actions. You don’t have to totally mirror what they do, but use it as a guide so you’ll feel more secure.
One thing’s for sure, homosexuals aren’t going to stay married for the sake of their kids.
In another part of the world:
“The first Mr. Gay China competition will be held in Beijing this week and a lot of the men will be Hung.”
Just to be 100% clear, gay couples do not currently have the same rights as straight couples. End of story.
I understand why people care about the word “marry” on both sides of the issue. Personally, I’d be thrilled if the state stayed out of it. What does need to happen, and I’m glad to see that surefire and john moore seem to agree, is for gay couples to receive the same rights as straight couples. Unfortunately, that can’t truly be fulfilled on a state level.
Hey, everyone, this is starting to go into personal attacks. Dial it back, please.
(And, yes, this time it was not goblins. I did just delete someone.)
Congrats Celeste. Admit it now, it felt just a little good didn’t it?
I shouldn’t even respond to you until you learn how to comment under a name that’s your own creation. Are you using a former name I’ve used because you’re too stupid to come up with your own name, or is this your way of saying that you know who I am? Ooooooh. You’re good! Anyway, How long has Carrie Prejean, the Miss California who spoke out against gay marriage, been married? When I see you criticize her stance on this issue due to her lack of experience (with marriage, not with diddling herself on camera), I’ll answer your question as to rather or not I’m married, of course, if you do so under your own name. If you’re not smart enough to create a screenname for yourself, I can help you. I’ve got plenty for you. But I don’t think you’ll want to bare any of them. They’re not flattering. Because they give a realistic description of you. The idea behind a screen name is to promote yourself a little. Oh, except in my case. “BITH Crusher†is dead on accurate!
So basically what you’re saying through all that mumbo jumbo is that you’re not married , probably never have been and you don’t have a leg to stand on in the subject so you’re just blowing alot of hot air right?
BITH CRUSH – are you saying BITH Crusher isn’t your screen name? why would you use that name if it isn’t your screen name? I haven’t seen anyone here use the name StillNoScript. I also have a blog under the same name:
http://stillnoscriptsworld.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-up-my-niggas.html
Feel free to stop by.
Being nice is how a man pays his way into the party if he hasn’t the brains enough to be brilliant or the balls enough to be an asshole.
Trevanian
People who gripe about the minor back and forth between people who are engaged in adult conversations need to look around and realize it’s the adult table, not the kiddy table, they’re sitting at.
A little bit of Mike Matusow