22 Jun 2013

Gay Stuff : Gay Marriage, Predictions and Strategies

Category: Gay Stuff

GAY MARRIAGE:  Predictions of Upcoming Rulings and Where We Go From There.

Watching the drama regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s potentially life changing decisions that will come up this week, I’m going to go out on a ledge and make my two cent’s-worth prediction of how it will likely turn out.  I also want to put out the idea of how to continue the battle for equality because no matter how the justices rule in the two big cases, the war will be far from over.

Proposition 8.  I predict Proposition 8 will fall and same-sex marriage will once again be legal in California.  However, I have misgivings that the ruling against Proposition 8 will be from any specific decision from the Court regarding the constitutionality of the law.  I believe the justices will wiggle off the hook and determine that the parties defending the law as valid and allowed to be restrictive against same-sex marriage have no standing in the case.  This means that Proposition 8 had no direct effect on them in any positive or negative sense, other than being haters of homosexuality in general.  They had no business getting involved. I think this ruling will also only apply to California and will not affect any other state.  The no standing decision will allow previous lower court rulings that Proposition 8 is already unconstitutional to remain in effect and would kill it altogether.  The governor of California has indicated he would allow the unconstitutional ruling to stand. Thus, gay Californians will again be allowed to get married as soon as the legal details are hammered out…probably no later than the first of the year.

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  I’m going to be idealistic and predict that the justices will strike down DOMA as unconstitutional. However, the only part of DOMA that was argued over was Section 3 which concerns mainly financial benefits provided by the federal government.  It has nothing much to do with current state laws or benefits.  Therefore, the ruling against DOMAs Section 3 will only affect people that live in states that already allow same-sex marriage.  They will have the benefit of filing joint tax returns and claim social security with the federal government. The justices will likely avoid any sweeping ruling that will affect people that live in states that forbids same-sex marriage.  I believe that the rest of DOMA will remain intact and the justices will want to wait and watch how the states make their individual choices as the years crawl by.  However, there is also a question of whether the parties that argued against striking down DOMA have any standing either.  The Obama administration refused to defend DOMA and it was taken on by ultra-conservative Republicans, which again, boils down to a group of haters.  Ruling against standing would essentially put the fight back to square one and not give any decision at all and would let the law stand as is. That is not what I (idealistically) predict will happen. The arguments against DOMA were hopefully compelling enough to force the justices to decide something.

 

Where the Fight Goes From There

I believe the Supreme Court Justices want to avoid any sweeping national rulings.  They live in fear of creating another generational backlash such as the 40-plus year ongoing fighting revolving around Roe v Wade and abortion rights.  They would prefer to let the states continue to make their own decisions and only weigh in with national rulings once a vast majority of them have decided to allow same-sex marriage, such as Lawrence v Texas that overturned the few remaining anti-sodomy laws.  They would probably be happy to be either long retired or dead from old age before deciding such a landmark case and leave it to future justices not yet born.  That way of thinking, however, is flawed because no one is asking for permission to end anyone’s life.  What is being asked for is a basic human right to celebrate life and commitment; one on one, two people, no animals.  Unfortunately, ultra-religious zealotry has too great a hold on many voters and politicians in this country and a state-by-state majority is not likely to ever exist.  Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the above mentioned two cases, the fight must remain focused on the national constitutional level. And that isn’t going to be easy or fast.

Two-Pronged Attack.  There are two specific areas of the U.S. Constitution that could be helpful in arguing for same-sex marriage and both should be challenged.  One is the 14th Amendment which includes the Equal Protection Clause.  This clause essentially was written to ensure that states did not deny one group privileges while allowing the same privileges to another group.  This clause was originally meant to give equal standing to blacks in America as whites after the Civil War. Over the years, it was read to also mean “separate but equal” was allowable and resulted in “whites only” or “coloreds only”(the standard wording of the time) separation in restaurants, trains, schools, etc.  Finally, that standard was seen for the true discriminatory practice that it was and was abolished by successive Supreme Court rulings.  It has also been used successfully to extend rights for people that wished to marry if they were of mixed-race, women’s rights, and anti-homosexual sodomy laws such as Lawrence v Texas. There is no reason to believe the same arguments could be successfully made for same-sex couples and marriage.  There are some cases pending now using this argument that are winding their way through the court system.  The more cases that are filed could hopefully result in the Supreme Court choosing at least one to decide.

The second constitutional challenge should revolve around the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution’s main original body.  This clause generally says that if one ruling or contract is valid in one state, it is valid in another.  It has been used to enforce deadbeat dads who may owe child support and move to a different state to pay support owed, rulings of protection against abused women, and family law such as same-sex adoption legal in one state but not so in another.  Since states such as New York allow mainly clerks and judges to perform gay marriages, the argument could be made that they are a judicial ruling and therefore valid in another state that does not allow gay marriages.

 

More importantly, it could be used to challenge a possibly remaining Section 2 of DOMA which specifically allows states not to recognize a legal same-sex marriage from one state to another.  Because states that allow same-sex marriages to be performed by judges, they look like a judicial ruling to me. This strategy has not yet been tested but I believe it to be a valid argument.  The more cases filed, the better the chances of a Supreme Court hearing.  Unfortunately, it would possibly still take years to get to them.  The current justices will likely get their wish and no longer be on the bench when these cases do come up.  Hell, I sometimes wonder if I will still be here to see it.

So…what do you guys think? What are your predictions and ideas?

David Beck

47 comments for Gay Stuff : Gay Marriage, Predictions and Strategies

  • i believe that Prop 8 will be overturned, and California will lead remaining states to allow same sex marriage.

  • I’m all for it but I predict that divorce lawyers will make a killing is gay marriage is ever legalized.

  • My apologies but this may be slightly long winded without much of a point:
    I think it boils down to the government needing to take a step back and look at their own rules:
    I was under the belief that the power to marry someone comes from the government and not from anyone else. Every single priest, pastor, online religion, etc, has to be given the power to marry two people off by being licensed; which comes from the state. The government cannot legally deny us our right to marry when said title is given to us by the government and the government in theory is supposed to treat everyone equally.

    With that said, I believe that prop 8 will be overturned in California.
    I think you are correct in that the justice ruling will also take the easy way out like you said and stick with the one section to rule over.
    I always understood on a basic school level, that the only purpose of the supreme court is to decide on whether or not something is Constitutional or not. And sadly, I am not one hundred percent sure if there really is anything except for David’s previously mentioned 14th amendment.
    Regardless, it is going to be an interesting next couple of years.

  • While the thought of California supporting gay marriage (again), and while it would be great if EVERY state supported it, let’s face it; why even bother? Gay men don’t know the meaning of “ltr” much less MARRIAGE. Nowadays, it seems like the ONLY reason 2 men have been together for so long is b/c it’s an open relationship. “Sure, I love you and I know you love me but let’s still leave it open to screw any one else we want, either as a couple or not”. Seriously? Get real.

  • This is actually quite a mess. The “full faith and credit” clause really does mean if you’re married / divorced / adopted / licensed to drive in one state, you are in all. It’s also complicated by the DOM act that Clinton signed stating that the federal govt only recognized mf marriages

  • i do NOT support Gay Marriage as it is described…I DO however feel that anyone SHOULD be able to marry who ever they want to….but think about this:…How many gay couples do you actually know that have survived past the 3 year mark…Not many , I am sure…Marriage will only pave the way for Gay Divorce, as we all KNOW most guys are dogs, and will fuck anything they can, so the divorce rate will be high…The lawyers will make a ton of money off gay divorce….Do we really want that???

  • NO COMPROMISES !
    Its a simple issue for a complicated world .

  • if you need your name on a piece of paper with someone else, get a joint checking acct!

  • MY POINTS:

    @GET REAL: I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR OBSERVATION ON LTR IN THE GAY COMMUNITY, AND THE ONLY REASON IT WORKS IS BECAUSE IT’S AN “OPEN RELATIONSHIP“ VERY PATHETIC I KNOW BY EXPERIENCE. HE “LOVES” YOU OR YOU BOTH “LOVE” EACHOTHER BUT LET’S FUCK DIFFERENT PEOPLE, THAT’S PART OF THE REASON *COUGH* CONSERVATIVES DON’T SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE. WE’RE ALL DEVIANTS THAT SLEEP AROUND, GO TO SEX CLUBS, AND ARE “AN ABOMINATION TO GOD” IN THEIR EYES.

    THE U.S. IS STILL LARGELY CONSERVATIVE (OBVIOUSLY APART FROM THE BIG METROPOLITAN CITIES), THE ONLY REASON OBAMA WON RE-ELECTION WAS BECAUSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE (LOOK IT UP). SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOR A VERY LONG TIME AS IT IS WIDELY EXPECTED FOR THE SUPREME COURT NOT TO ROCK THE BOAT (CHANGE THE STATUS QUO).

    @DAVE: THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION STATES BASICALLY SAYS THAT NO LOCAL (STATE LAW) CAN DEPRIVE AN INDIVIDUAL OF RIGHTS – BE IT PERSONAL PROPERTY (PASSING LAWS TO CONFISCATE), LAWS BASED ON RACE (SEGREGATION), LAWS BASED ON GENDER (NO WOMEN IN CERTAIN AREAS ETC.), OR OVERALL INVALIDATING FEDERAL LAW. FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE LAW (EVEN IF STATES CLAIM NULLIFICATION).

    AND THAT BRINGS ME TO THIS, WHAT IF STATES CLAIM NULLIFICATION? EVER HEARD OF STATES RIGHTS? THAT WHAT MOST SOUTHERN STATES ARE CLAIMING TO NULLIFY OBAMA’S GUN REFORM LAWS. I KNOW YOU’RE IN CANADA DAVE BUT YOU SHOULD BRUSH UP ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. DO YOU THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST DROPPED OUT OF THE SKY? NO! THIS IS THE SECOND (AND BY FAR MOST BEASTLY AND POWERFUL) VERSION OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.THE FIRST CONSTITUTION OF THE U.S. GAVE THE STATES TOO MUCH POWER AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS TOO WEAK (IT ONLY HAD ONE BRANCH – LEGISLATIVE), THE WITH THE FEDERALIST PAPERS AND THE CONVENTION THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 2.0 WAS RATIFIED IN 1787. THE STATES WANTED A BIGGER STRONGER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (MOSTLY FOR PROTECTION). BUT THIS GOT OUT OF HAND OVER THE CENTURIES. NOW STATES ARE USING NULLIFICATION. THE ONLY STATE THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED A DE FACTO COUNTRY IN THE U.S. IS TEXAS. TEXAS HAS NULLIFIED THE U.S. IN DOCUMENTS, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IT. BUT OF COURSE TEXAS IS STILL UNDER CHARTER OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (AS A STATE – THINK OF THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SWALLOWING UP THE CSA – CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA – AFTER THE CIVIL WAR). AND THIS BRINGS ME TO MY POINT, WHY DON’T STATES JUST SECEDE AND FORM LAWS OF THEIR OWN INDEPENDENTLY? BECAUSE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULED SECESSION TO BE ILLEGAL SO STATES MUST ABIDE BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

  • I am surprised at David’s message, he either a lawyer or well researched. I will be surprised if the decision is not what he said it would be California’s Prop.8 will go down. I agree with other the future of same sex marriage will be a challange to our soceity.

  • It’s about money, taxes and benefits is all. Gay welfare for a few who know how to work the system. The whole thing is a scam disguised as a gay rights issue. Our self appointed representitives know that all they have to do is stamp the word “gay” on anything and the sheep will follow.

  • Marriage? Is this a joke?!? By all means copulate with him, but marriage? You’d be a laughing stock. Everyone in the region has enjoyed him for free, why should YOU pay more???

    And that’s how I see marriage.

  • DJ: I think you are referring to a sort of “nuclear option” to use Separation of Church and State to remove the power of churches to legally marry anyone. That idea has been floated but would REALLY meet stiff resistance. The truth is, the idea of separation between church and state is more implicit and not explicit in the Constitution. Meaning it’s not specifically mentioned as such, but followed as a general rule over the years. It is another good angle for some couples to file a case over. The more cases filed, the better the chances of eventually getting barriers removed.

    I understand how some of you may have issues with gay marriage and divorce. Unfortunately, every angle has a downside…a yin and a yang. Check out my previous post above the comments section titled: “Gay Marriage: Doomed for Failure?”

  • In regards to the statements about gay divorce: perhaps we should consider that because we don’t have and haven’t had laws protecting our marriages, we haven’t had that sense of obligation to cultivate and nurture our relationships as straight couples. Even so, straight divorce is extremely high. Divorce is going to be expected from gay marriage. Also consider the psychological factors that lead to sexual pathologies– if gay marriage becomes legal, perhaps its stigmas and sexual oppression that comes from them will decrease and thus change the way that future gay generations will look at and handle romance. One can only hope. Xoxo

  • Ahhhhhhhh, the “sanctity of marriage” YEAH, RIGHT!

    Look at the percentage of STRAIGHT couples that don’t last in marriage over 2 years: 53% get divorced before their third anniversary.

    Has ANYONE explored or even hear of the concept of

    “GAY DIVORCE”?

    Gee, it seems that whenever the gay community DEMANDS equality, they never look at the “other side of the issue”

    If you think the courts are clogged with backlogged cases what will “gay divorce” do to the already overburdened justice system?

    And why do you want to emulate a “straight person” anyway?

    Marriage should be a “timed contract”. After the stipulated timeframe of the contract, if it’s not working JUST WALK AWAY. PERIOD.

    But NO. The gay community wants to emulate straight people with marriage? How RIDICULOUS.

    N.B.:

    (And I was just playing the devil’s advocate there, LOL: My partner and I (who are Americans) went to Calgary, Canada and applied for a marriage certificate, we used initials ONLY as our names. It was granted. When we got back to the states, we registered with the Dept of State and are RECOGNIZED AS A LEGALLY MARRIED COUPLE BY FEDERAL LAW. Why it took a BLONDE to figure that out is still beyond me!)

  • Ah, proofreading: it should have stated “couldN’T be successfully made”.

  • First, my compliments to Dave, whose post indicates that he has done enough research to develop a thoughtful, logical analysis, regardless of whether his predictions come true.

    At my age, I do not expect to find a man to whom I would like to be married, but I still support marriage equality, and believe every LGBT person should actively support it. To me, the core of this issue is not, repeat, NOT about whether two persons of the same gender should be allowed to get legally “hitched.” The core issue that we should all be concerned about is whether Government – federal, state or local – should be allowed to deny rights to one group while extending them to most or all other groups. Period.

    Eliminated governmental discrimination is the first step toward eliminating societal discrimination.

    The sexual component of the debate is not relevant, and continuing to include it – by either side – derails the discussion and further delays justice. Those of you who think gay men are promiscuous and do not deserve marriage equality are misguided. Many surveys and actual statistics demonstrate that gay men do not have a corner on infidelity. Heterosexual couples cheat and divorce at the same rate as homosexual couples.

    Why should we be outraged if lawyers make income from gay divorce? Travel agencies make money from gay travel. Car dealers make money from gay car purchases. Retailers make money from gay personal purchases, etc. Just as they do from “straight” activities.

  • I think many of you guys are missing the point by talking about gay divorce, etc. Let’s face it, Many straight relationships are not as successful as people are led to believe and currently the divorce rate is nearly 50% without adding gay relationships to the total. However, regardless of how someone feels about marriage, it boils down to “equal rights” given to ALL under the terms of the constitution. That’s it point blank. Let’s remember, it wasn’t long ago that a few using biblical principles stated African Americans and women were not equal to the minor few. And if we constantly say we don’t want state rights mixed with religious rights, it’s a no brainer.

  • I too have conflicting feelings on these issues. Having been in a supposed ltr in which toxic friends and drugs brought us down, my ex who “supports” gay marriage, decided that I didn’t deserve support to get on my feet, while at the same time providing financial support to his meth addicted drug dealing bf who had been trying to break us up for 7 years, simply to nail down someone who would support him. Many gays have no idea what a relationship truly means, or what love is. Bring on the high divorce rates and lawyers!

  • I have to totally agree with MychaelDio. They will run the divorce rate up another 25% easily because most are looking for the next younger and pretty thing that will pay them some attention. I do feel that people should marry whomever they choose but mark my words, divorce rate will be at an historic high. I think I may consider going to law school so I can make me a killing off these divorces (that will surely come)

  • Why anyone would want to get married is beyond me, but that could just be the result of a 16 year experiment in abuse and disinterest on the part of my ex wife. However, as an attorney, I think DOMA will be struck down on 14th amendment grounds. Be wary of what you wish for. According to statistics, gay relationship, even monogamous ones last around 4 years. Yes there are outliers, but “monogamy” and “long term” seem to have different meanings in the gay community, however community property has only one meaning. The historic length of a gay relationship could be shorter because of the inability to have a recognized marriage heretofor. Something for historians in the future to decide. If you have a legally sanctioned marriage, then you and or your partner can avail yourselves of all the rights and pitfalls of the divorce courts, and let me tell you brothers, its not fun. In any case, I would never put my neck in that noose for a man or a woman ever again.

  • And as a response to the part about Roe v Wade. It is generally regarded as one of, if not the worst written and reasoned Supreme court decision of the twentieth century. The court found the right to an abortion was found “in those penumbra of rights found in the constitution”. BOLLOCKS!! The Constitution doesn’t have penumbras or emanations. Whether you are pro abortion or anti abortion, (I’m ambivalent) this decision sucked. The original author was right, the court should nave left it up to the states.

  • Everyone always jumps to the 1st Amendment or the 14th Amendment or the 4th Amendment but does anyone remember the 10th Amendment?? No? It says that any rights and powers not outlined in the Constitution are reserved to the states. What does that include? MARRIAGE! You don’t hear justices of the peace EVER say “By the power vested in me by the United States” they say “By the power vested in me by the state of ____” Thus, the SCOTUS CANNOT force other states to approve their banned gay marriage (since marriage is not a right given by the Constitution) just because California’s Prop 8 is overturned, nor with their repeal of DOMA (which in my opinion violates the 10th Amendment).

  • I don’t think Adam4Adam bloggers should be in a position to endorse or discuss the merits of same-sex marriage. Your website promotes exactly the kind of lifestyle that leads many to question the merits of gay relationships, the credibility of our quest for marriage, and the overall negative stereotype of gay men being promiscuous, unloving, and okay with it.
    Yes, I have an account on Adam4Adam, and yes, I do chat with guys on here periodically, but after some thorough self-examination, I have come to the conclusion that promiscuous “NSA sex” is just an escape from the reality of shame and anger at being gay. I think this “free for all” sex attitude has not only reaffirmed (whether falsely so or righteously so) the anti-gay/AIDS epidemic, and contributed to the overall negative public image of gay men worldwide.
    In other words, guys, lets stop being sluts and maybe the world will take us seriously.

  • I know of a friend who married his bf after they have lived together for 14 years. On march if this year, the younger guy left my friend. This young guy have long been cheating even before other married. Thd younger guy would join orgies, threesomes anywhere! He obviously just married my friend coz he wanted to be secured financially before he got his citizenship!

    Do I believe in gay marriage, hell no no no! Leave it to men and women who want a costly divorce! Gays at least 97% are made to be promiscuous!

    I believe in love, sincerity, companionship, intimacy but I really do not believe in marriage!!!

  • Whether “under God” in a setting with a Pastor or “under Government” in a courthouse setting, two consenting adults who wish to join their lives (and therefore obtain all the available God-like and legal statuses) should be able to without any consideration as to what their human sex is. God and Government shouldn’t get their noses out of joint over the terribly small details.

  • Josh: u think straight people are acting differently ?
    Google : “dating site” or “hookup site”, and register, you’ll see how it is the same….

  • I’m hoping this court with have the faith, courage, and vision to state unequivocally continued discrimination against and inequality of same-gender partnerships is incompatible with this nations values of freedom and equality — in any state.

    I will grudgingly accept a piecemeal ruling that makes California gays more free than Alabama gays, but I will celebrate it as a halftime lead, not a game-winning basket.

    Freedom and equality cannot wait — do the right thing SCOTUS!

  • Who has my name in the country?? Anyway, having had been in a civil union and was forced to be “divorced” after a 5 yr marriage and altogether 15 years together, its not worth the cost and nonsense I had to go through. I am happily together with someone and wouldn’t do it again, it cost me a lot of money! Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. Philippe who are you?

  • Josh, Josh!!! Reality check ok? Gays are promiscuous! Your advise is not doable in his world! Lets get real… Just fuck, love live together for a while then LEAVE without sharing your hard-earned money via divorce process!! Too costly! All dicks have expiration dates!

  • Yes, stupid, straight people DO act different from us. That’s why they are “STRAIGHT,” and we are “BENT.” Duh.

    All (as in 100%) of my heterosexual family, are 100% monogamous and have marriages and children they honor and love. I have a gay cousin who is divorced and troubled. Yeah, that’s different.

    I support marriage for gay women, but not men. Men have not earned that privilege. All of my gay friends are lesbians. Why? Because lesbians are capable of being good decent people. I won’t even humor the notion of a gay “man.” He can be a dude, a guy, even a thug, but the male version never grows the fuck up. Marriage is about having kids, not being kids.

  • Beware of the homo-babble used by gay activists who tend to believe that the rest of us are somehow in debt to them and owe our allegiance to some cause just because we have the same sexual orientation. Being gay is not and should never become a group-think cult.

    “Some people have no choice because they can never find a voice to speak with that they can call their own, so the first thing they see that allows them the right to be; they follow it. It’s called bad luck.” — Lou Reed

  • blog:

    “Josh: u think straight people are acting differently ?
    Google : “dating site” or “hookup site”, and register, you’ll see how it is the same….”

    Straights aren’t campaigning for the same benefits as straight married people. They already have those benefits, so they don’t have to worry about how they present themselves to the general public for that cause.

    Since gay people do or should care more about how they present themselves to the general public for the benefit of this cause; Josh’s post is right on the money.

    I wish people who talk or blog about this issue would be more honest and factual. The government, Federal or state has no say in who gets married be they gay or straight. Anyone who wishes to be married can simply proclaim that they are married or be married in any church etc., that will preform the ritual for them.

    This issue isn’t about being allowed to get married. It’s about having the same benefits that straight married people have. I don’t know why supporters of this cause can’t be honest and title this cause based on what it’s actually about.

    I can only speculate that the word “marriage” is used because it’s romantic sounding and garners more sympathy. It makes no difference if my speculation is correct. What’s important is that our self appointed, (not elected), so called representatives of the L.G.B.T. community represent us in an honest way.

  • Gay marriage rights should have the same standing as abortion rights;
    “Don’t believe in gay marriage? Then don’t have one.”

  • Wow, nothing like a group of gay guys to trash other gay guys.

    I happen to know many gay and straight people in committed long-term relationships. And no, they don’t fuck around on the side. The don’t have open relationships, etc. they don’t hang out at the clubs or on sites like this.

    Just because you live that lifestyle it doesn’t mean all of us do.

    Finally — my prediction is that the courts will overturn both with very little change coming from it outside of CA. I also predict certain states, like Utah will never allow same sex marriage.

  • I will be stunned if Prop 8 is upheld.

    California went about same-sex marriage in the most patently embarrassing way known to human kind. It was precipitated by Gavin Newsome (then Mayor of San Francisco) breaking the law and allowing same sex marriage. THAT should have been what when to the Supreme Court.

    But no! We Californians went knee jerk and did Prop 8. So it has become convoluted. Currently same-sex marriage is not legal in the state but the same sex couples married during Newsome’s window are legally married but that does not allow others in California to have the same rights. What a mess!

    I predict Prop 8 and DOMA (a nasty little gift from Clinton’s tenure) will fall. Prop 8′s defeat will allow same sex marriage in California, but how soon? Probably not instantaneously. Thus, it will come back to individual states deciding which in turn is its own inequality.

    So let’s say two guys get married and they move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage…we’re back to square one.

    Prop 8 will fall, but it’s in no way a “big moment” for civil rights.

    I find it ridiculous that same-sex marriage will continue to be a bickering point among states.

  • I pity those who feel the need for government action to make your happiness complete. Get a life!! Marriage is a religious rite, the government shouldn’t be involved in any of it. You can already live with and love who you want. What this really is, is the taker class wanting some more benefits paid for by the maker class. Get a life guys!!

  • I got married in CA in October, 2008 and our marriage was not annuled after Prop 8 passed. I get the feeling very few people in the US are aware that some 18,000 same-sex marriages exist in CA.

  • if SCOTUS decides to overturn California’s prop eight the rest of the states (with no gay marriage)are left to go thru the same process of running cases to the state then federal then supreme court all fighting to implement and or overturn existing laws banning same sex marriage in those individual states…extending the reality of gay married by decades in some places. when civil rights and interracial marriage were made legal these rights applied to the entire country. same sex marriage and the rights and benefits (some 1100 plus) that go with these unions must become the law of the land and that needs to happen NOW.

    scotus = supreme court of the united states

  • IANAL, but my understanding is that a no standing ruling in Prop 8 wouldn’t necesarily have the impact you’re suggesting it would (making same-sex marriage legal again in California). Essentially it would invalidate the entire long crazy road the issue has been on since Prop 8 supporters decided to appeal the initial trial court case. That means the only valid ruling would be against the COUNTIES involved in the initial case would could have the potential to leave the rest of the state under Prop 8 unless or until other courts cases are filed and won. Some experts even suggest the effect of a “no standing” ruling may not even extend by the original two couples who sued. Not that it WILL have such a limited scope, but the legal analysis I’ve read seems to suggest that it’s just not altogether clear WHAT the impact of a “no standing” ruling would be.

    Josh et al. Do “sluts” not deserve equal protection under the law? I get that several people on here are happy to write off my 13 year (and counting) relationship, because THEY haven’t been lucky in the love department, but the fact is that gay people should be free to marry under the law regardless of whether they are in a long term monogamous relationship, a long term open relationship, a bunch of short term relationships, or just some one night stands. Citizens deserve equal rights by virtue of being citizens. To suggest that you have to meet some behavioral standard (especially when the rights are granted to others who don’t meet those standards) in order to have your government treat you equally is ludicrous.

  • Sadly what many are missing here is the right to marry. Whether you personally believe that gays truly understand what “LTR” means is irrelevant. Half of all “straight” marriages end in divorce. Does that mean we should get rid of the right to marry for them? The logic many of you are employing is completely flawed. Does the fact that marriage is treated like a prize in tv shows mean that it should be disbanded?

    Leave your own personal baggage at the door and allow those of us who want the option of marriage the right employ when we are ready. As an African American I may decide to go to an HBCU but I like the idea that I can choose what school I want to go to despite my race. SMH. Many of you sound like the breeders trying to stop gay marriage. #SelfHateIsUgly

  • I wouldn’t count on the 14th Amendment to provide much cause for change. Most cases citing this amendment since Roe V Wade have done so without any success. For example, most death with dignity cases. Which is odd, because the choice to ends one life when afflicted with a terminal illness and little time to live(as allowed in four US states) should indeed be a right and their physicians protected

  • Im a 29yo bisexual (Im a Kinsey 4.5-5) white male. I am also a Southern Baptist CHRISTIAN!!! I personally don’t believe the gov’t should have ANY control over who gets married and to whom! I believe it should be religious entities (only over ppl that identify as that religion) and/or JOP’s (non-religious ppl can go to JOP, as can anyone). If “my religion” doesn’t recognize my true love, then I probably wont be in that religion anyways so……. I don’t believe the gov’t should say yes/no, only “oh, you’re married. Fill this paperwork out to receive joint gov’t benefits and/or recognition.” I personally don’t need a piece of paper to tell me Im married or not, I do want the SAME IDENTICAL benefits. Case to be made against the “God designed marriage as….. or the Bible says…..” defense is the simple fact that there’s a separation b/w Church and State, PERIOD! IF there was a gov’t recognized religion that said “Gay is right and straight is wrong and you must get married and have a family for the sake of abandoned/lost children of the world”, would gay couples have freedom of religion and the right to get married? Would straight couples have to go to court to fight for their right to get married? NO! Food for thought, don’t you think?

  • Steve, you probably live in the country,or you are from another generation. In the city, my straight friends are approx 33% in open relationship, and they are not perv, some are married, some not, some have kids, some not.

    “marriage is about having kids” ??? Maybe for you dude….
    For other people it’s not…

  • Many gays have no idea what a relationship truly means, or what love is. Cos, the male version never grows the fuck up.in other words, guys, lets stop being sluts and maybe the world will take us seriously.
    ..
    I saw all gay men always think about hook up and sex.. most of them not mature enough to control that..

    I really hope we can b trust and love each other for ltr..
    Once again guys, lets stop being sluts and maybe the world will take us seriously.

  • Opps I think I posted That in the wrong place!!! oh well I’m only human

  • Hmmm, I feel more like Josh does and have for a long time, especially since moving here to So.Fl., it’a trend to have third party. I think the more freedom people have the more abusive they become with those rights, they loose respect for it. Long ago, before gay rights was inacted, there were more relationships that stood the test of time than today, some well known actors to be exact.

Leave a comment

Visit us
Link website adam4adam.com
Follow us
Rate this blog
Best Male Blogs - naked men, gay porn, homo culture, queer blogs

PLU Gay Blogs