For Better or for Worse: A legal expert discusses gay marriage

As the California Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on a slew of legal challenges to Prop 8 -- the gay marriage ban passed by voters in November of last year -- we decided to ask Lambda Legal's Marriage Project Director, Jenny Pizer, about the history of California's marriage equality struggle, the challenges of arguing before the Supreme Court in the wake of the election, and whether she can predict what the Court will rule.

Can you give us a quick history lesson on the same-sex-marriage struggle in California?

The work in California started back in the early 1990s in terms of community organizing around marriage. From '96 to '99 there were fights in the state legislature, when [then state senator] Pete Knight was trying to change our family code to deny respect to couples' marriages from other places, but he kept failing. He got stopped in the legislature three years in a row. He then brought Proposition 22 to the voters in March of 2000, and the initiative statute was passed to deny respect to [same-sex] marriages from other states.

In February of 2004, [San Francisco] Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered licenses to be issued to same-sex couples, so from February to March of 2004 [gay] couples started getting married in San Francisco, until the marriages were nullified by the California Supreme Court [which said the mayor didn't have the authority].

That sparked litigation in February of 2004 on behalf of [same-sex] couples saying, "Hey -- It's our Constitution too, and we affirmatively challenge the state to explain why our rights are being violated in this way." And that's the litigation that culminated in the great crescendo of May 2008 -- when the Court said, "Yes, couples -- the state has been violating your constitutional rights. The state has to issue licenses to you on the same terms that it issues licenses to heterosexual couples."

And so that ruling in May was the result of four years of litigation on behalf of [same-sex] couples. So same-sex couples started marrying in June of that year.

Now, during those four years of litigation, right-wing political groups that wanted to maintain discrimination in California were trying repeatedly to put constitutional amendment ballot measures to the voters. They tried in 2005 but their measure went down in flames. In 2006, two different far-right groups tried again. They got signature gatherers to go out, but they couldn't raise enough money and they failed again.

The reality was that, in California, there was not public desire to discriminate against gay people. These groups tried to tap into some sort of anti-gay reservoir that just wasn't there, so they just didn't succeed.
In the spring of 2008 these groups were out there again, but they couldn't get enough signatures to qualify. So they tried for November.

What changed was they got a lot of out-of-state money to pay signature gatherers. There was quite a good campaign from the [marriage-equality side] to encourage people not to sign these petitions, and it almost succeeded, but the proponents of what turned out to be Proposition 8 succeeded in getting just barely enough to qualify for the ballot.

So when the word was out that they had qualified, we filed suit in the [state] Supreme Court making arguments much like the arguments we're making now, where we're saying to the Court, "Look, these folks used the wrong procedure to try to bring this to voters, it's not the kind of measure that can be done through an initiative, and you should not let it go to the voters, because it's going to be divisive and expensive and it's improper, and even if they succeed it's not going to be valid. "

The Supreme Court didn't agree to hear our arguments at that time. They could have given a reason, but they generally don't. It's fairly common, -- in every election cycle, there's a bunch of ballot measures and often there are challenges to them, and often the Supreme Court declines to hear them because there's only this little window between when the measure qualifies and when the papers have to go to the state printer for the ballot, and placed before the Court are some complicated legal questions, and it would be hard for the Court to decide within that small window.

So we had to have this hideously expensive, divisive measure on the ballot, and the voters narrowly approved it, and so then we made again the legal arguments, and this time the court has agreed to hear them, and that's where we are now.

What are your specific challenges in bringing your argument before the Court?

This is a type of legal problem that doesn't arise very often, so there's not a lot of relevant legal precedent. When we were engaged in the litigation about whether we should have the right to marry, there were scores and scores -- if not hundreds -- of relevant legal cases that we would argue about. In this area, it's a different legal question, and there's just a healthy handful of cases, and that's all -- because these are issues that don't come up very often. The legal question now is about the process of changing the California Constitution.

A lot of the Constitution's provisions are written in broad strokes, and the Courts then have to construe those terms as different questions arise over time, and different things come up generation to generation, and the Courts search to understand how the terms should be understood based on contemporary problems. So our biggest challenge is that we have these important concepts of "amendment" vs. "revision." A revision is a change that goes to the structure of a government or concerns core principles of the Constitution. Those are very important concepts, and in fact it's a rare and alarming suggestion that Prop 8 makes -- that a fundamental Constitutional right -- among the most important individual rights -- the right to marry, should be eliminated for just one group that's been historically vulnerable and recognized by the Supreme Court as historically subjected to unjustified discrimination.

We're arguing that [that gay and lesbian people] are part of a "suspect class" -- which means legally we're a group that has often been the basis of invalid, inappropriate exclusion based on prejudice and bias and we don't have the size and power to defend ourselves.

We're arguing that the courts have a special responsibility to prevent that, to strike down laws that are based on prejudice and bias and that prevent equal treatment. Also, the Court is being asked a question with implications that go far beyond marriage and gay and lesbian couples -- a question about what kind of changes to the constitution can be pursued using the initiative power.

The power of the initiative in California is important, and the Courts are respectful of its power. At the same time, the power of the initiative only exists within Constitutional limits, and if it's used by a majority to bully a minority group, then it's legally incorrect and essentially lawless, and the Courts have a responsibility to prevent that from happening. There's enormous attention on this litigation because the stakes are very high for other groups who could well be targeted by initiatives that could take away their rights if Prop 8 is allowed to stand.

How optimistic are you now that the Court will rule in favor of gay marriage?
Well, I'm cautious about ever venturing to predict much about what courts will do. I'm confident we're right with our arguments, and that the arguments are being presented in a clear and compelling way, and we're being joined in this effort by a great many highly regarded groups and institutions that represent different parts of society. That's very exciting and gratifying. And as litigation proceeds even more support is coming out of the woodwork. So there are many positive signs. And this is a highly respected Bench that's known to be independent and thoughtful, but I stop short of predicting the ultimate outcome. That's up to the members of the Court.

Oral arguments begin at 9:00 AM PT.  Watch it live!

Comments

[tomriddlesmate]

I would love it if the courts overturned this initiative. I want to see the faces and measure the reactions of those who would have gays and lesbians discriminated against and ostracized, all in the name of Jesus' Love.

I bet the reaction would not be one of christian love, but hate and hostility, no doubt being fueled by SATAN.

[James Wearing]

I'm young and I don't even have a partner yet. But every time something like Proposition 8 is passed I fear that I will never be able to share a future with the man I fall in love with. I fear that every day will not only be a battle to keep our love together under the burden of people's ignorance and fear, but under the burden of laws targeted at destroying that union.

I hope with all my heart the court sees this for what it is, a hate fueled attacked on a group of people who only want what everyone else wants, a chance at honest and loving unions.

[the_real_sweedie]

This affects my relationship in a very big way. I've been together with my partner for over two and a half years now, and since I'm originally from Sweden I'm here on a visa, a student visa to be exact, which means that I cannot work at all. I've been studying for two years at a community college and I'm about to graduate this coming May which means that my visa expires in July (60 days after graduating). My _only_ option in order to stay here is to continue on with my education and extend my student visa, which is way too expensive for us to pay for. One year at a state funded four-year institution costs $19,000 for international students.
If we could marry, or at least join a civil union which would give us the exact same rights as straight married couples we wouldn't have this problem. I would marry my partner in a heartbeat and it's sad that our relationship has to end because of politics...

[Wyatt1969again]

Amendments and Revisions…

Gay.Com - I love you - but don’t be so shabby.

Proposition Hate - sought to Amend the California Constitution - banning Gay Marriage and ignoring my right to life, liberty and freedom.

It did just that.

Our Legal Champions will argue, before the California Supreme Court, that we, Gays and Lesbians, are a Suspect Class and so should be exempt from any Amendment which seeks to further any prejudice or discrimination directed toward, again, us.

Further - that the exclusion of any class, group, ethnicity, people - what ever you want to call us (I prefer American Citizen) - on the order of an Amendment passed - PAY ATTENTION HERE:

Is a REVISION of the California Constitution.

They, our Legal Champions, hope to persuade the California Supreme Court that the act of Amending its Constitution with respect to the removal of - or “barring from” an EQUAL RIGHT is a function or act with which the rules of a REVISION and NOT an AMENDMENT should be applied. As such they will argue that the current Amendment, garnered from pure hate, stands far and away from the STATED INTENT and really - the SPIRIT - of the California State Constitution.

They will introduce us as a Suspect Class.

Throughout - they will then point to the very few cases with similar merit and if they know what they‘re doing - will attempt to add even more by asking the court to DEFINE in some way any other case which they can use.

Most importantly - they will then point directly to language used in California’s Constitution with regard to Equality and its stated position in granting such to its residents.

In a nut shell it’s going to go like this: Check it out brah - I’m a member of a Suspect Class - your “Amendment” is barring me from Equal access to the right - PAY ATTENTION AGAIN - to enjoy Equal Rights - in the State of California.

Our Legal Champions, I think, are on the right track and will in fact prevail.

WE, THE - Gay and Lesbian and Bisexual and Transgendered - PEOPLE - will win this round.

This is my thinking though - and I’m not too sure on this point here but:

Our Legal Champions must be cautious NOT to mistake the argument as one leaning too much on us being a Suspect Class as much as they might better let the California Supreme Court determine that we are first simply being guided by an improper process (that of the Amendment) and then wait for any decsion or statement they (the Court) might make regarding our being a Suspect Class and then use that interpretation to further challenge any other assault on our freedom and reinforce our right to be EQUAL.

Higher Courts are notorious for answering as little as possible. So - I’m thinking we’ll hear more about REVISION than Suspect Class.

[CowboyCoach]

Get use to the idea....If you are GAY, you are a second class citizen!

[Your_Fear]

We shall prevail!

They like it or not so don't worry James Wearing by the time you are ready to settle it will be easier for you but do not take it for granted and continue the fight for our rights.

Regards,
Marco.

[Kevin M]

Actually, the_real_sweedie, Prop 8 or not, immigration status in this country is controlled by the U.S. government and under federal law, same-sex marriages are not recognized, period. So while a California marriage might provide you some benefits under state law, it unfortunately would not provide a way for you to stay in this country legally.

[Michael]

This is a political, not a legal decision. The California Supreme court should uphold the supreme law of that state -- its constitution -- and all provisions which, as far as I can tell, do not conflict with the Federal Constitution.

If people want this changed, they should work to reverse the amendment, and to pass one explicitly delegating the right of marriage to all people.

[Homohirsutus]

This really is so clear to me. The courts have allowed peoples religious beleifs to dictate law. Its a constitutional violation. I have never heard a single argument against gay marriage that was not based on religious ideals. They say gay marriage is a sin, its not morral, and it violates family values, all of which are based on religious beleifs. And it is unconstitutional in this country to make laws based on religion.

[Ivan1231987]

I don't know how much being able to legally marry a man will make an impact on my relationship with him. I know in my heart that I can marry (in my heart) whomever I want without a court having any say in the matter. But I want Prop 8 to die soooo badly because I want the Californian government to finally recognize homosexual love. That recognition by such an important social institution will fly in the face of the personal homophobia of so many people. It will make people finally confront their fears in their hearts and realize that homosexual love is valid. It will set a precedent for other state governments a Christian Institutions which espouse homophobia will be made more irrelevant before the government. This could be an important step towards the end of social "closets".

I dunno, call me a delusional idealist, but this is my hope. I am praying that the judges will rule on the side of love - true love, not what "Christian" institutions define as love.

[the_real_sweedie]

Kevin

I'm very aware of that, we don't even live in Cali. But if I've gotten things correctly, usually what becomes legal in Cali will follow throughout the whole country, and federlarly. I'm talking about gay marriage as a whole, not just in CA.
It goes against the constitution to have different laws for gay people, it's as simple as that. And it makes me not being able to be together with the person I love.

btw, click my name and read my story, maybe even help us out, we're truly desperate.

[Tommy]

FRIG GAY MARRIAGE! Frig all Marriage.

Get rid of it. When you give the gov't the right to sanction relationships, you give them the right to choose which ones they will sanction. Frig that!! Instead of asking for our rights like Oliver Twist with a soup bowl in our hands, we shoudl demand the end to STR8 marriage. Our relationships should be solely between ourselves. Marriage should be up to the church, or the individual and expressing it which ever way THEY choose.

[If Marriage Is A Right]

If marriage is a right, why does anyone need a license?

Marriage is a privilege. Privileges often require licenses.

Rights are rights and don't require licenses. You don't need a license to exercise free speech. You don't need a license against unlawful search and seizure. You don't need a license to vote. You don't need a license to observe your faith or dogma.

The state has a compelling social interest in regulating marriage and other privileges. Prop. 8 reasserts that.

Just as individuals have rights, states have rights. Regulating the privilege of marriage is one such right of the states.

Just as a reminder, it wasn't the "right-wing" or "Christians" who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, it was Bill Clinton. Is he now right-wing and Christian? I don't think so. He could have vetoed it and forced a possible veto override but he didn't. So remember, this didn't happen during the 6 years that George Bush was in office and had a GOP congress. It happened when Bill Clinton had the reins.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[Meehd]

Maybe we need to learn from the lessons learned from black causes and maybe there will have to be rioting in the streets in order to get anything done.

Also I'm appauled at how any black person could support discrimination for gay people considering all that they have been through to get equal rights.

[Clay]

My partner and I are going on 19 happy years together, without the blessing of any of the states we have cohabited within, I might add. Even now Hawaii's legislature is considering again the Civil Union route for same sex partners. The last time Gay Marriage was addressed here in Hawaii, we got the bogus consolation prize of "Reciprocal Beneficiary" whatever that means. The court hopefully will protect the state constitution in its full, broad-stroked form to ensure that mob rule is kept seperate from majority rule. But rest assured that if Prop 8 gets overturned, I will definitely return to California to sing at all your gay weddings!

[Rain City Blues]

The fact that this is even a debate upsets me. I'm an American citizen, why the fuck do I not have the same rights as everybody else? And since when do I have to earn my rights when everyone else gets them for free? Should we hold referenda on whether other minority groups should have civil rights as well? I'd like to hold a vote, tomorrow, on whether or not Mormons should have the right to have kids or get married. Given all the press they've gotten from polygamist compounds lately,. I'm pretty sure the bastards would lose. But no- that's a religion, and we respect religion in this country. It's so bizarre to me, because if anything is a choice, religion is. And since that's the argument they use for restricting my rights-because they think it's a choice-then let's restrict the right to religion too.

We need federal level protections. There simply should not be any group in the United States that is forced into second class status. If we left every unpopular vote's civil liberties up to referenda, nobody would have any rights at all, because no matter who or what you are, there's always going to be a large enough number of people that don't like you and will try to hurt you.

It's just wrong. I keep saying I'm going to leave this country, and what's left of my youth is slipping away fast enough that I'm thinking maybe I had better just do it and enjoy what's left of it while I still can.

[Walt28]

Man thats some deep history, I wish I was out there so I could protest too. By the way does anyone know where in South Bend IN people are protesting.

[sirald66]

*************************************

If you would like to watch the oral argument on Prop.8 at the California Supreme Court, you can find it here:

http://www.calchannel.com/images/sc_030509.html

The first few minutes are a review of the court process and background on the judges; the session begins at 00:14:10 and lasts approximately 3.5 hours.

*************************************

[Qbear]

Can we END the charade California?
Rename the equal protection clause the HETEROSEXUAL EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

[VersAthlete23]

Once California prevails, the rest of the country will start to pass Gay Marriage laws. This is the last bastion of gay rights. After this, hopefully Gay Rights, like women's lib, will become a normal part of our society and less of a hot button issue.

True equality happens when someone doesn't have to give it a 2nd thought.
I think racism will never go away because it keeps being made an issue long after the rights themselves have been secured.

I hope that the LGBT community has the sense to create inclusiveness after fundamental rights are secured.
It seems somewhat paradoxical that SECURING RIGHTS and CREATING INCLUSIVENESS are mutually exclusive conditions.

[Chris Davis]

I don't understand this whole mess and why someone has not taken this to the Federal Supreme Court and argued marriage for alternative life styles on the Bill of Rights and the Decleration of Independance. In these documents that all of our laws are centered around, they declare that we all have the same rights under the law. So, this would do away with some of these so called admendments making alternative marriage illegal. I know that the legal fees would be high but, what is cheaper? Taking the jump and paying the cost up front or spending untold amounts of money fighting this state by state. In the end, just going right to the federal level would cost less. We pay taxes just the same as everyone else and we all should have the same rights under the law to live our lifes as anyone else in this country be them straight, gay or what ever.

[Shirlgurl]

The big issue is children and schools. Ken Starr is using his neo conservative power to spill hate into the streets. What is so wrong about the truth and educating children about gay people? After all, we pay taxes; we are upstanding citizens of the USA. Us as gay people are known as "2nd class citizens" who are given special rights to live together, love each other, raise children. It is our job as responsible taxpayer, and parents to teach our children how to love one another, and to accept everybody. Yes on 8 folks are haters. This is a hate crime if I have ever seen one!
Gay people are truly hated, despised, and unwanted. I wonder how long we have to suffer? Who will save us now? We want equality NOW. REMBER HARVEY MILK!

[Tony]

It was a horrible showing on our side. We probably will lose after that shameful "legal" demonstration to the court. Our only saving grace is the 18,000 marriages appear to be safe.

Our side did extremely poorly in presenting our case. The assistant A.G. stumbled over his argument and responses. So much so, that he didn't get much in edgewise over the onslaught of questions that seemed to take longer to ask than the time he was given to respond to them.

No one on our side took exception to the death penalty example or argued it as a non-cogent analogy, refuting the comparison of gays & lesbians rights to convinced criminals who by default are stripped of their liberties when convicted and sentenced. The LGBT community are not criminals, yet everyone stood their without objection!

Why was the point not made that separate is not equal? Why did we not use our own analogies, such as segregation....we can get on the same bus with equal benefits, but we have to sit in the back of the bus because we can't call it marriage.

It was obvious where certain justices opinions and attitudes leaned in the debate, but our side made VERY little in roads and had few, if any, convincing statements to the judges. The justices tour into our side on what seemed to be a key point with them..that the A.G.'s office was in opposition to our constitutional revision argument. We demonstrated a severe lack of strategy. At a minim, we lacked a strategy that could hold up to scrutiny and was virtually shut down when questioned by the justices.

It was blatantly clear no one managed this process to unite our side in projecting a concise and consistent stance against Prop 8 (now Article 1, section 7.5 of constitution). Our side looked so bad, I think we ended up doing more harm than good for our cause of equality. Shame on us!

[splerk]

Who Cares?
I am just sick of the whole thing.
I will be with & love my partner no matter what.
We don't need a piece of paper to prove anything, except maybe love letters.
I am still good to my fellow human being & Spritiually.
I am not going to worry about a damn thing nor live in fear of God for the rest of my life.
Jesus will judge me when I am dead & I know where I am going anyways.
Since I am a nice guy & generally love everyone initially and with common sense of respect, I have no worries but to live my comfortable life with my partner till we die.
Double the fees for a Marriage license & legalize Gay Marriage... I have not problem paying for it.
CA will have more Honeymooning Gay Tourists to get less in debt & boost the economy here.
If other states don't like it, then quit funding campaigns out of your own state.
Not that the CA Governing Officials know how to spend money anywayx.
Schwarzenegger loves Reagan so much, he cut school budgets killing the no child left behind Bull Shit.
Ef the rest of you gays want to fight for this, go right ahead. I am tired of it and just want to be happy & not just gay.

[Robert L]

I want to see Prop 8 overturned, not only because it is the right thing but because it would have wasted all of that straight money for no reason.

[mrbill1863]

I am a homosexual and a Christian. My beliefs come from both sides, and I am totally against gay marriages. Why? Because the gay community does too many things it should not do. This is why the heterosexuals hate us so much. If we move in with someone and then the next day decide it was bad, we leave and find the next bed to crawl into. I realize you can say this of some straight people too, but it has been my experience that it happens far more often in our community. If same-sex marriages are allowed, Britney's 18 hour marriage record will be broken by the first couple who get into a fight at the reception. Also, can you guarantee me that we will not be forcing the churches to perform weddings in their chapels? No. Many Christian preachers will never perform such unions, yet I can see us demanding they do so, because we may want a "church wedding." I personally hope this lawsuit fails so we can get on with our lives.

[Kellybobelly]

The thing that really frosts my toilet is that if the church won't let us marry then they have no right to call us sinners for having sex out of wedlock. Jesus said, "Let all the little children come to me" not all the straight white male children.

[corrective_unconscious]

>I will be with & love my partner no matter what.
We don't need a piece of paper to prove anything, except maybe love letters.

That's fine if you don't want tax or (incontestable) inheritance or social security benefits. Others do. You sound like a Log Uncle Tom Cabin Republikkkan mentality in action.

[corrective_unconscious]

>I am a homosexual and a Christian. My beliefs come from both sides, and I am totally against gay marriages. Why? Because the gay community does too many things it should not do. This is why the heterosexuals hate us so much.

Internalized homophobia - assuming you're not some troll who made a "heterosexual lifestyle choice" - is never attractive, Cletus.

[AWC]

Give it a rest, already! What a wasted effort. The people of California have spoken and you WILL NOT prevail on this state's level. The only way anything will change is if the US Constitution is amended. This just goes to show that California is an intellectual wasteland.

[CORRECTING corrective unconscious]

Dude, YOU lost this Cock Fight because I am a BIGGER DICK than you and you HUNG Yourself inproportionately & my numbers match.
It is RePUBIcKKKlan... moron.
I am a Moderate Democrat and Jesus was the Ultimate Lieberal... Think about it.
BTW - You MUST look like a fat disabled bitter bitch with bad acne stuck sitting on glue to your chair nit picking at everyone's comment as you just think you are smarter and too good for everyone as if anyone owes you anything for being the dumb ass that you are.
That is why you are alonely OLD queen because no one wants to touch your smelly snatch.
Remove the duct tape & let your ballls drop because you are a DRAG.
So Don't quote anyone for something you'd never understand by nit pickingly bash anyone for anthing anytime you get.
Hire a lawyer to secure who gets your inheritence and document a living will for whoever you want to visit you in the hospital or unplug you.
In Austin, TX me and mine got Civil Unioned & Bush took that right from us.
So I took the above action.
Prop 8 created more hetro panic to possible reverse Civil Unions across the country, but less likely in CA.
There is no guarantee that anyone in 10-15 years will even get Social Security & look were 401Ks are getting us.
My point is fight for it if you want, but don't let it stressly consume your life.
corrective-UnConscious
WAKE UP AND GET A LIFE

[Josh]

The supreme court has already made it clear that they will not overturn proposition 8. Their comments during the court proceedings basically stated that the people have broad authority to vote and change the constitution, whether it be in a wise or unwise direction.

But in addition to that, they hinted that the legislature needs to make it harder to change the state constitution. There have been a ridiculous number of changes to the California constitution. People are basically using constitutional revisions as a way to enact legislation when it fails to become law in the normal manner.

The gay community now needs to accept that we have lost in regards to gay marriage. We are going to have to look down the "separate but equal" root, although we have seen the outcome of this in the past. I personally think we need to get out and let people know how disappointed we are, so they don't think we are a community of weaklings and pushovers that they can easily bully, and realize what they did has real consequences.

We also now need to focus on other issues. We need to work towards national civil unions with EXACTLY the same rights and benefits as marriage, not just most. We also need to work to overturn the ban on gays in the military and work towards protections for gays in the workplace.

[corrective_unconscious]

>Hire a lawyer to secure who gets your inheritence and document a living will for whoever you want to visit you in the hospital or unplug you.

This sort of moronic, quisling, closet case homo swill does not speak to the benefits that marriage - a civil, secular contract - confers, including income tax, inheritance tax and social security ones.

And the phrase, "Log Uncle Tom Cabin Republikkkans" will do just fine as spelled. The word, "talibangelical" in no way implicates Jesus, as these fundie, xstain, hateful talibangelicals have nothing to do with either the Gospels or Jesus or the golden rule.

[K]

To If Marriage Was A Right:

"[The Defense of Marriage Act] happened when Bill Clinton had the reins. With friends like that, who needs enemies?"

He did it to placate the religious right. It was when Newt came into office and everyone to the left of Trent Lott was afraid NPR and PBS would go off the air and were afraid of welfare queens.
I don't think gay marriage should be as big an issue as the gay media and various strongly opinionated gay people want it. If marriage is a way to get insurance, everyone should have insurance and it shouldn't be a condition of being married. Citizenship shouldn't be based on marriage. I think marriage is best left to religious ceremonies or to the people in a relationship. The government doesn't need to validate a relationship.

[Dan Nooney]

My partner and I (17 years together) left the US because my country will not acknowledge our relationship. I am A US born citizen and he is Japanese. We are now happily married and acknowledged in Canada.
It was a very tough process leaving our home, friends, stable jobs, and for me family, especially starting over in our 50s.
So I'd like to ask other gay folks who don't want to marry themselves to stop with the uninformed argument that because they don't need it (or deserve it as an option)others don't either.Think things through.
And don't you need the same financial benefits that straight married people get? Are you that well off in these hard times?

[K]

To Dan Mooney:
I can reasonably guess that you love your husband and you didn't mean it in crass terms, but...
"And don't you need the same financial benefits that straight married people get? Are you that well off in these hard times?". This inadvertently says what people have been saying for hundreds of years, that marriage is a financial instution. It doesn't have anything to do with love. Also, what about those of us without a partner? Does that mean we inevitably suffer when the economy does a downturn?

[corrective_unconscious]

>This inadvertently says what people have been saying for hundreds of years, that marriage is a financial instution. It doesn't have anything to do with love. Also, what about those of us without a partner? Does that mean we inevitably suffer when the economy does a downturn?

Why is any of that an argument against marriage equality? Whatever flaws you are imagining with regards to marriage being a "financial" instrument or not being available to those without partners applies equally to str8s who do or do not marry.

And sharing financial aspects of one's life with another in no way excludes love, as you seem to posit.

[Tk]

Believe it or not since we still live in this world we would be judged for being gay, even though we did not harm others. I am a US citizen but I had to leave my country just to be with my partner for 10 years. It's hurt because I was born and pay taxes all my life and now I am denied to be with somebody I love. But as a Christian we are just temporarily in this world, so it does not matter where we stay. Our destination is heaven. So as a fellow human being who believes in God, I just can pray that whoever so call him/herself so righteous and think that God’s creations like us just a “trash” or not worth it, that one day God does not see you as “trash” too. It's just slap in the face if you are a father and your son is called "trash" or whatever or being treated unequal. Just spread the love y'all because GOD is LOVE and please….please…. do not judge others if you do not want to be judged.

[cbdcs4u]

Self loathe much Correcting corrective unconscious?

[cbdcs4u]

@MrBill1863

"I personally hope this lawsuit fails so we can get on with our lives."

Yes, Mr. Bill. Your hair shirt and whip await you in your closet.

Self-flagelate much, do you?