Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

blissed · 28-10-08 00:47:50

Just been reading the story of someone who lives in California and who's heart is sinking because of this, I think it's dumb and cruel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT0fbzOqMWQ

If it goes through it can be reversed, I think the world movement for same sex marriage is unstoppable, and if it goes through it also makes California look a bit third worldish, because the obvious no brainer result is that people should have their sexuality recognized, so it's about intelligence and therefore in the long term partly about economics.

Most people who provide the things that make the USA successful are intelligent. A critical mass of scientists, engineers, developers and investors who are marginally ahead of the world and as a group are not only predominantly atheist but sexually and racially inclusive. Make California and the USA for that matter uncomfortable enough for them and enough go elsewhere, which loses the USA's marginal advantage. Joe the plumbers live all over the world, they can work as hard as they like, if all they can do is the plumbing they aren’t the component that makes the USA any greater than any other country. but rather if their dumb, and selfish enough, drag it into a place who's lifestyle is less attractive for anyone with any sense let alone leading edge investment, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :)

.

blissed · 28-10-08 02:18:08

Ellen DeGeneres

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_ai2Lr … re=related

.

nihpuad · 28-10-08 05:20:15

blissed wrote:

Just been reading the story of someone who lives in California and who's heart is sinking because of this, I think it's dumb and cruel.

Don't just let your heart sink; donate!

I did; it'll make you feel better.

FWIW, I think you're right about the change being ustoppable: If my daughter and her friends are any gauge, within a generation nobody will be able to remember why this was even an argument... but folks like that 60-year-old couple shouldn't have to wait.

I'm proud to say my state now has gay marriage; I'd be even prouder if we'd gotten it through statute, rather than through the courts.

PS: Now that I think about it, it's illegal for non-U.S. nationals to donate to U.S. political campaigns. I don't know if that applies to ballot questions, though; I only know about donating to candidates.

Last edited by nihpuad (28-10-08 05:21:51)

Soberman · 29-10-08 05:38:25

Blissed, I don't know where you live but if it's the City of Bath (as in England) Bus Station, you might consider all the Joe the Plumbers who served in WWII alongside Nigel the Plumbers, Bakers, Drivers, etc. Neither youth nor intelligence have cornered the market on righteousness, civility or sensitivity and to run on as if either does is to propogate the kind of attitude that has resulted in the rank partisanship in America. Most Americans respect not only the sexuality of gay couples but ensuring that such couples are entitled to the same basic rights as hetero couples. The tough issue, strange as it may seem, is what to call it. Traditionalists, like myself, have a tough time applying the word 'marriage' to a gay couple. I know plenty of gay couples who don't particularly care what it's called so long as they are guaranteed the same rights. I respect the logic of the "why not call it marriage" wing as much as I respect fellow traditionalists and I really wish to hell that painting every single issue in black and white, when life is a journey of nuance, gives way to intelligent debate. If not, just wait until we traditionalists die off and you can try and make the world a better place.

blissed · 29-10-08 09:33:29

It really is a no brainer Soberman, that is my point, there are no subtle nuances here when it comes to accepting homosexuality, it's like saying do I wear shoes when it's raining or just go out wearing my socks. What's at stake in California isn't what to call gay marriage but it's existence. And if it were a case of just what to call it, who cares if it's called marriage, if you do, your being discriminatory and surely that reveals a basic homophobia thats just cruel.

I can't really see what the tragedy of WW11 has to do with appreciating and celebrating the talents of people who are exceptional rather than being jealous of them and expecting them to be mundane (and thus assume we are) just so we can identify with them. Thats ironically a very traditional communist view. My point here is the ubiquitous Joe the plumber or their Soviet counterpart (the person beyond reproach because they're "ordinary") doesn't exist, people are diverse and why not celebrate the extraordinary, the uncommon sense and rich diversity, rather than expect everyone to share a kinship based on similarity.

.

Soberman · 29-10-08 20:48:52

I think you're making my point in your last sentence, Blissed. As to your psychoanalysis that wanting to preserve a description of marriage for a heterosexual couple is an expression of homophobia, this is the ad hominem argument that folks with your point of view have asserted with too much regularity that it has no plausible merit. As I've noted, the issue is more to the concept of marriage as a traditional custom between a man and a woman than it is to an objectioon to a lifestyle that is neither hurtful nor uncomfortable to most people I know. This is why the contmeporary label, for better or worse, "civil union" has so much resonance with moderates of all shapes, stripes and colors, including Barack Obama, who opposes gay marriage but not civil union between same sex couples. I suspect that won't be the final "word" because civil union is also a description of a magistrate/justice of the peace/mayor presiding over a union between a man and a woman outside of a house of worship, though 'marriage' is readily applied to that as well.

For the record, in the industry in which I work, I am in constant, daily communication and contact with gays (by the way, I don't particularly like that label either), maintainiing close friendships with other gay singles and couples and generally enjoying the decent humanity, intellect and sense of humor of virtually all of them. Like immigration, this issue needs to be confronted with reason and sensitivity in the US. Civil unions need to be strengthened and, through, legislation put on an equal par with hetero couples who are married. In addition, one state must recognize and give "full faith and credit" (a constitutional mandate) to the laws of each state. If, indeed, it's about words, then a suitable alternative to marriage can be fashioned. In the end, if 'marriage' ends up being a lifestyle-neutral description I'll bet the ranch it will still be distinguished as 'marriage' and 'gay marriage'. I wonder if that will be a pyrrhic victory.

Last edited by Soberman (29-10-08 20:52:02)

blissed · 29-10-08 21:51:25

Soberman wrote:

I think you're making my point in your last sentence, Blissed. As to your psychoanalysis that wanting to preserve a description of marriage for a heterosexual couple is an expression of homophobia, this is the ad hominem argument that folks with your point of view have asserted with too much regularity that it has no plausible merit.

How can a point of view lose merit because it's repeated regularly, that makes no sense, if you hold a view you express it.

and yes it is homophobic because your excluding people on the grounds of sexuality, I think Ellen expresses this well here too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8 Mccain is very polite in the video which he uses as a device to refuse point blank to discuss why he holds his view.

Soberman wrote:

"civil union" has so much resonance with moderates of all shapes, stripes and colors, including Barack Obama.

Ooooooooooh! Barack Obama!!!! :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oZ_pe1 … re=related Just because if I became a US citizen I'd vote for what I see as the considered intelligence of Obama instead of the truly abysmal Mccain doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he thinks or agree with a body of what you see as moderate opinion. Not being discriminated against on the grounds of your sexuality is a human right. Obama is just recognizing your view by not focusing on the issue of the title of marriage but upholding the union as marriage in everything but name ,so I'm pretty certain he's not a supporter of proposition 8.

Soberman wrote:

As I've noted, the issue is more to the concept of marriage as a traditional custom between a man and a woman

Because something is traditional doesn't mean that it's right, especially when the tradition is discriminatory. So why do you want to preserve a description of marriage just for a heterosexual couple? how would including homosexual couples in that definition harm you, or effect you in any way?

.

jwhite · 30-10-08 03:17:34

To get technical, marriage is a religious rite which the law has invested with civil force. The actual union was a property transaction between families- it is only in the late industrial age that romance became a part of the plot. Each religion may define marriage as they wish- note Muslim divorce laws under Sharia. Civil authority should guarantee all citizens equal protection (the 14th Amendment) under the law. And both church and state should stay out of each others' business, to the benefit of all.

Last edited by jwhite (30-10-08 03:19:20)

theant · 31-10-08 01:08:37

jwhite wrote:

To get technical, marriage is a religious rite which the law has invested with civil force.

Yes, but in all religions the purpose of the rite was simply to control who people had sex with and when. And so religions almost always forbid sex outside marriage. And the reason was almost always to enforce the man's possession of the woman. Which is why most of the gay people I know don't actually want the right to marry at all. If they had the right, someone might tell them they had to.

blissed · 31-10-08 01:59:45

There's legally more than one way to live in a house (Owned, leased, rented, shared equity) I think for all sexual persuasions there should be different types of marriage contract because people have different types of relationships, plus, if we specify the rights of children etc. then we could grant ourselves a certain amount of freedom to customize our own marriage contracts giving the same or more flexibility and creativity than we have with business contracts.

.

blissed · 06-11-08 23:27:15

Well proposition 8 banned Gay marriage in California unless a legal challenge is successful, which is apparently doubtful.

Surely if your gay and live in California you now get married in another state, surely California has to recognize your marriage. If a Brit married an American in the UK and they both moved to California the state would have to recognize their marriage surely.

.

Soberman · 07-11-08 04:23:31

It will depend upon whether non-gay marriage states give full faith and credit to the laws of gay marriage states. It's a Constitutional question which will no doubt eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court.

Note to the gay-marriage movement: wait until Pres. Obama appoints more liberal justices to the Supreme Court.

momentextase · 10-11-08 01:55:12

jwhite wrote:

To get technical, marriage is a religious rite..... Civil authority should guarantee all citizens equal protection (the 14th Amendment) under the law. And both church and state should stay out of each others' business, to the benefit of all.

This is one heck of a good point JW.

Get the whole issue of marrage out of the law entirely, it language, everything and confine it to the public... however each religion, person, couple or group wants to define marriage for themselves.

In the law at both federal and state level, there should only be domestic partnership(s), period. With all 14th amendment protections (here in the USA anyway... substitute equivelent elsewhere) in place. Amend all law to eliminate gender references and substutite existing language of "marriage" with "domestic partnerships."

That would solve all sorts of problems, issues of recognition across state lines, etc.
Marriages for people from countries outside the USA would simply be recognized as domestic partnerships in the USA... easy peasy.

nihpuad · 10-11-08 05:17:17

momentextase wrote:

Get the whole issue of marrage out of the law entirely, it language, everything and confine it to the public... however each religion, person, couple or group wants to define marriage for themselves.
In the law at both federal and state level, there should only be domestic partnership(s), period. With all 14th amendment protections (here in the USA anyway... substitute equivelent elsewhere) in place. Amend all law to eliminate gender references and substutite existing language of "marriage" with "domestic partnerships."

This is precisely my solution, as well. I'd actually go a step farther: I'd say the law should take no notice whatsoever of any sexual act between consenting adults. That is, I would say (and I think this would require a constitutional amendment) that no law should prohibit, restrict, encourage, or mandate any act based solely on sexuality. This would effectively invalidate all prohibitions or restrictions on sodomy, fornication, contraception, prostitution and other sex work, pornography, etc. It would not invalidate laws against rape, pedophilia, bestiality, public lewdness, etc., because those things can easily be defined as crimes without reference to sex (i.e., rape is assault, pedophilia is child abuse, bestiality is cruelty to animals, public lewdness is disturbing the peace, etc.).

Sadly, though, I think the state of American politics is such that even your (and my) idea of replacing civil "marriage" with domestic partnerships for all is a bridge too far right now, and my utopian idea about a sexual "bill of rights" is total fantasy. I'm afraid the best we can realistically hope for is marriage equality.

The good news, though, is that marriage equality will come, despite the setback on Prop 8: It's a generational thing, and if my daughter and her friends are any gauge, in just one more generation, gay rights (including marriage equality) will be a foregone conclusion.

blissed · 10-11-08 15:39:53

momentextase wrote:

In the law at both federal and state level, there should only be domestic partnership(s), period.

nihpuad wrote:

That is, I would say (and I think this would require a constitutional amendment) that no law should prohibit, restrict, encourage, or mandate any act based solely on sexuality. This would effectively invalidate all prohibitions or restrictions on sodomy, fornication, contraception, prostitution and other sex work, pornography, etc.

This is what I expect from you flowery liberal crowd, it's political correctness gone mad :)

.

momentextase · 10-11-08 19:21:25

nihpuad wrote:

This is precisely my solution, as well. I'd actually go a step farther: I'd say the law should take no notice whatsoever of any sexual act between consenting adults. That is, I would say (and I think this would require a constitutional amendment) that no law should prohibit, restrict, encourage, or mandate any act based solely on sexuality.

Nowhere in the US Constitution is marriage mentioned!!!!!

It is at the level of state law and Constutions where it has been defined, I think at most it is fair to say that marriage has always been looked at as a matter of state rights.

Jefferson, acting as a legislator in Virgina wrote an act, that passed, and in it he said:

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Now, in Reynolds v U.S. (98 US 145 [1878]), the defendant, accused of bigamy in the Territory of Utah, argued that the Congress should not be allowed to regulate a religious act, that being bigamy. In particular, bigamy is not "malum in se" (or innately immoral), is not prohibited by the Ten Commandments, and is not prohibited in any of the teachings of the New Testament. Reynolds argued that over such a religious act, the Congress should have no power to legislate.

The court pointed to an act passed in Virginia that augmented and expanded Jeffersons:

"In the preamble of this act religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State."

The Court linked Jefferson's words in the Virginia Act referenced to his later words in the Danbury letter, and used the linkage to further its opinion that the Congress did, in fact, have the power to restrict bigamy in the Utah Territory:

"Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

The Court concluded that to make religious rule or law superior to civil law would make each person "law unto himself" and render the government ineffectual and irrelevant.

See:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

So, we see the court making a distinction between beliefs, which are beyond legislative perview, and "acts" ... which the court can legislate subject to -'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order."

So nihpuad, although I am loath to make any amendment to the Constitution -there is a basis to both maintain fidelity to previous court decisions and to the test: "violation of social duties or subversive of good order -if it can be demonstrated that discrimination in laws concerning marriage or domestic partnerships based on gender or sexuality is indeed "overt acts against peace and good order."

A combination of 1s and 14th Amendment arguments, along with the case law in 'Reynolds' would have to be argued.

momentextase · 10-11-08 21:48:21

blissed wrote:

This is what I expect from you flowery liberal crowd, it's political correctness gone mad .

Ah blissed! While I do see and appreciate the mischievous point you make, I submit that what nihpuad and I suggest is more libertarian than liberal!!! lol!

As for political correctness gone mad:

Extremism in the defense of personal sexual choice is no vice!

...you may quote me!

nihpuad · 11-11-08 07:37:57

Keith Olbermann has it exactly right; I wouldn't change a single word of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

nihpuad · 11-11-08 07:57:16

momentextase wrote:

Nowhere in the US Constitution is marriage mentioned!!!!!

I think we're in general agreement, but just to be clear: I didn't mean to suggest a constitutional amendment would be required to achieve marriage equality. The amendment I had in mind would be aimed at my more radical goal of guaranteeing sexual freedom. Really what I'd like to do is add sexual expression to the list of things protected under the First Amendment, but AFAIK there's no way to amend an amendment except by a whole new amendment (if you can follow that).

I have neither the skill nor knowledge required to draft the language of a constitutional amendment, but the amateur first draft of what I have in mind would be something like "Congress shall make no law, nor shall any state, prohibiting, restricting, promoting, or mandating any act or expression based on its sexual nature." What I'm looking for is a separation of sex and state to parallel the separation of church and state we're supposed to have.

momentextase wrote:

I submit that what nihpuad and I suggest is more libertarian than liberal!!! lol!

It might be more correct to say that this is a point of overlap between my ideas and those of libertarians. I self-identify as a political liberal, and have serious disagreements with libertarianism (at least as it typically manifests in U.S. politics). While I believe personal liberties need to be protected, I also believe strongly in the necessity (and desirability) of a robust public sector, and in government that is active on behalf of the public good. The libertarians I know all tear their hair out when I talk like that!

momentextase wrote:

Extremism in the defense of personal sexual choice is no vice!

This I agree with most completely!

momentextase · 11-11-08 19:27:12

nihpuad wrote:

I self-identify as a political liberal, and have serious disagreements with libertarianism (at least as it typically manifests in U.S. politics).

I can sympathise with this, a lot of what passes as libertarian in the USA is actually anarchist in philosophy.

To be clear, my own conception of libertarian is much closer to the 18th century late Enlightenment free-thinkers.

It is interesting that the 18th century ideal of libertarian was filtched and morphed by anarchist movements in the 19th century. Oh well...

blissed · 12-11-08 00:31:34

Well apparently Connecticut has a constitutional provision guaranteeing gay marriage.

I think marriage is the commonly used word and anyone can get married without setting foot anywhere near a church, The act of marriage is older than any religion around today, religious groups have no exclusive claim to the word marriage or it's concept.

momentextase wrote:

In the law at both federal and state level, there should only be domestic partnership(s), period.

Tho it's a neat workaround instead of redefining marriage to accommodate people who are gay I prefer the idea of just accepting them into the way things are now with the same title and rights. Most of the parallels with racial discrimination are valid I think.

.

momentextase · 12-11-08 07:57:32

Even though Connecticut had a statutory civil partnership law (which was being litigated and challenged) a direct assault was mounted on the constitutionality of disallowing marriages between same sex partners. The Connecticut Supreme Court found such a defacto "ban" on gay marriage in violation of the equal protection and due process rights enumerated in Article 1 of the Connecticut state constitution. So, while there is no specific constitutional law regarding gay marriage, Connecticut did exactly what you suggest blissed!! And that made the statutory civil partnership law a moot point!! If only it could always be that simple!

However, there is an effort to amend the Connecticut state constitution to ban gay marriage in an attempt to put the whole matter beyond the jurisdiction of the Court OR legislation. Also that was a 4-3 decision-gulp!

Blissed, as much as I agree with your preference to simply modify the meaning of marriage, there are features of US Law that make that very problematic.

First, in these matters "Proper Interpretation" is applied here, and under that regime common law meanings trump newer or unconventional and controversial meanings. Common law has always strictly defined marriage as "between one man and one woman" in English, French and American common law. Also, words and language is used here legally in very precise ways, meanings are deliberately constricted and narrowed (and often at odds with common usage.) The goal of this is to give "continuity and consistancy through the ages" in case law, and that is a laudable thing. But it makes a redefinition of a term -like "marriage" (because legally a redefinition it would in fact be) very difficult here in the USA.

Connecticut was able to do it, but the Connecticut state constitution allowed for that due to its very robust, detailed and explicit enumeration of rights. Most states constitutions do not have this feature, and the US Constitution does not either. The framers of the Connecticut constitution were determined to remedy what they saw as weaknesses in the US Constitution. The US Constitution describes a minimum set of rights (The Bill of Rights..or the After Thought of Rights..lol!) that the Connecticut constitution exceeds, and this fact is even mentioned in the text of the Connecticut Court's gay marriage ruling!

It will be interesting to see if the Connecticut ruling can be applied as precedent at the Federal or at the state level elsewhere. That is possible...

Once a lawyer told me, "Changing a definition in Black's (law dictionary) requires not merely an act of congress or the Court, it requires an act of dynamite."

But adding a new term to Black's is another matter.

Also, 'marriage' has another legal meaning problem that is vexing for some people. Take away the issues of gender -there is still the issue of "one marrying one." A different term allows for many 'marrying' many, etc. The polyamory community has problems on this score...

Then there is the interesting phenom, as in the case of many European countries, that almost all the successful efforts to give perfected rights to people in unconventional commitment arrangements have relied on "registered partnership" or some such wording... as Denmark did in 1989, and as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, The Netherlands and Germany eventually did... etc. I suspect that is because there are similar legal problems due to the way the law treats words in those countries.

Bliss, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Great Britain also uses the "registered" or "civil" partnership construct, although I understand there it is slightly limited in rights in comparison to Denmark's law???

Anyway... I prefer to take the whole term 'marriage' and all the historical, religious and legal baggage it has out of the jurisdiction of the US law entirely and replace it with a new legal structure that confers the same rights and duties... along with expansions adequate to deal with rapidly evolving and diverse ways we form committed relationships and "families."

Also, it short circuits the whole chuch/state question and reinforces that "wall of seperation" -which focus's clarity on and helps prevent the type of abuses seen in Arizona City and with Warren Jessops...etc. Jessops appealed to a 1st amendment right of religious freedom to successfully (for a while-years) circumvent consent and age requirements.

This would also have huge and positive implication interms of divorce law... it could take the slightly irrational and sexist US divorce laws and replace it based on more rational contract law... divorce laws have been slowly moving that direction anyway.

The legal difference between civil rights laws and the gay marriage laws here are subtle but distinct.

In gay marriage challenges, Courts have been ruling that because gays are not prohibited from marrying, there is no violation of equal protection. Anyone, gay or not gay, has the same rights as anyone else... to marry one person of the opposite sex. Here any equal protection violation is obvious only if you think being gay would comprise a valid social group. Many-most- do not think that way.

This is different from the inter-racial marriage prohibitions for instance, those existed here until 1967 in some places but eventually were eliminated because a whole Racial Group was prohibited from "marrying" (one man to one woman-remember?) ANY-ONE from another Racial Group. Here the equal protection violation is starkly obvious... now.

I am not saying I agree with these silly distinctions, I am just explaining how the courts (except for Connecticut) here in the USA see this and why challenges to "marriage" based on equal protection have not worked...so far.

Last edited by momentextase (12-11-08 08:44:17)

blissed · 12-11-08 08:42:43

Hey thanks for the reply momentextase, I think the bottom line is religious groups claim ownership of the concept of marriage even tho everyone can get married, so a different word was used for gay marriage just to please the religious groups, even tho a gay civil partnership has the same rights. Thats why in Britain people who are heterosexual can't enter into civil partnerships :) but I suppose for now if it gets the job done, We just have to wait until religious objections die off or subside, that forms a kind of bereavement dividend quite apart from any money we might inherit :)

.

nihpuad · 14-11-08 03:53:49

momentextase wrote:

However, there is an effort to amend the Connecticut state constitution to ban gay marriage in an attempt to put the whole matter beyond the jurisdiction of the Court OR legislation. Also that was a 4-3 decision-gulp!

Re the effort to amend the CT constitution, are you referring to the Constitutional Convention question that was on our ballot last week? If so, that was overwhelmingly defeated. That result, plus the fact that there are veto-proof Dem majorities in both houses of the CT legislature, probably spells the end of any attempt to ban gay marriage by legislation or popular vote (any time soon, at least, and I firmly believe the passing of time increasingly favors marriage equality).

In addition, even our Republican governor has said she has no intention of challenging the Court's decision. I think gay marriage in CT (they started issuing licenses yesterday, and the first weddings were today, BTW) is a permanent thing, just as in MA. The more states in which gay marriage becomes routine (without the mouth of Hell opening to swallow the infidel!), the harder it will be for the haters in other states to make their case.

momentextase · 14-11-08 07:38:01

nihpuad wrote:

Re the effort to amend the CT constitution, are you referring to the Constitutional Convention question that was on our ballot last week? If so, that was overwhelmingly defeated.

nihpuad, I was refering to the Court decision this October, and the attempt to amend the constitution to nullify this recent decision.

So yes, that ballot item was just voted down as you correctly point out, I am totally losing track of the outcomes of all these initiatives... senior moments I'm afraid.

Looking at the Connecticut law, it appears that no other ballot item to trigger an amendment to your constitution on this matter can be put to vote for another 20 years! That's very cool.

I suppose a statutory prohibition could be attempted, but I should think now it would be struck down by the Court as unconstitutional even if it passed and your governor did not veto it??? Which therefore puts things beyond the reach of any change of state administration?

So in Connecticut, it appears that this is indeed beyond statute or initiative for quite a while, and I am really hoping that this enlightened interpertation of an ancient tradition finds its way into cases and arguments of Federal constitutional law.

Remember the Mann Act? Vestiges of it still exist, but time has worn it down, hopefully new generations will bury these anacronisms and invasions for good.

#1 28-10-08 00:47:50

Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#2 28-10-08 02:18:08

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#3 28-10-08 05:20:15

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#4 29-10-08 05:38:25

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#5 29-10-08 09:33:29

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#6 29-10-08 20:48:52

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#7 29-10-08 21:51:25

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#8 30-10-08 03:17:34

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#9 31-10-08 01:08:37

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#10 31-10-08 01:59:45

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#11 06-11-08 23:27:15

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#12 07-11-08 04:23:31

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#13 10-11-08 01:55:12

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#14 10-11-08 05:17:17

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#15 10-11-08 15:39:53

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#16 10-11-08 19:21:25

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#17 10-11-08 21:48:21

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#18 11-11-08 07:37:57

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#19 11-11-08 07:57:16

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#20 11-11-08 19:27:12

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#21 12-11-08 00:31:34

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#22 12-11-08 07:57:32

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#23 12-11-08 08:42:43

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#24 14-11-08 03:53:49

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

#25 14-11-08 07:38:01

Re: Proposition 8 and the end of gay marriage.

Board footer