Gay Judge Decides Against The People Of California, Thinks Gay Marriage Is OK, Imagine That! [Reader Post]

Loading

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, an openly homosexual man, has ruled against California’s Prop.8. The Gay community of San Francisco doesn’t think that there is a conflict of interest or that being openly homosexual was an influencing factor.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise – or advertise – his orientation.

Californians held a referendum on gay marriage after the Supreme Court voted for legalization of gay marriage. Prop. 8 ruled that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Walker, however, found it violated the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses while failing “to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

“Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in his 136-page ruling.

He also said proponents offered little evidence that they were motivated by anything other than animus toward gays — beginning with their campaign to pass the ban, which included claims of wanting to protect children from learning about same-sex marriage in school.

“Proposition 8 played on the a fear that exposure to homosexuality would turn children into homosexuals and that parents should dread having children who are not heterosexual,” Walker wrote.

Walker heard 13 days of testimony and arguments since January during the first trial in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married.

Walker is a Republican that was nominated by Reagan, but his nomination was held up by gay activists, he was later appointed by H.W. Bush.

He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, but his nomination was held up for two years in part because of opposition from gay rights activists. As a lawyer, he helped the U.S. Olympic Committee sue a gay ex-Olympian who had created an athletic competition called the Gay Olympics.

Walker is a Republican. He said he joined the party while at Stanford University during the Vietnam War protests, and spent two years clerking for a judge appointed by Richard Nixon.

Currently, Gays can only marry in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Washington, DC. Walker has asked both sides to submit paperwork by Friday so that he can determine whether to allow marriage during the appeals process.

Legislating from the bench has been considered a tactic of the Left, this is a bit different since Walker is a registered Republican.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Cary: Truck drivers have a way of saying what is going on with some of the commenters.

QUESTION
Why is arguing with a truck driver like wrestling with a pig in the mud?

ANSWER
After a while you finally figure out that the pig likes it.

Some truck drivers start arguments just so they can see how far they can get it going.

You are wrestling pigs in the mud here.

Gaffa stated:

>> Traditional marriage is a lifetime commitment and traditionally our ancestors had less trouble than we do in fulfilling such vows as ‘to death do us part’. If you divorce then by nature of the traditional vows you have failed. <<

Gaffa, I don't understand your point. The only thing I can think of is that you, like tadcf, are trying to trash traditional marriage — the point being that it's already so bad that it's got nowhere to go but up.

The concept that two people could get married at age 28, raise two kids to adulthood, while being taken out of the sexual disease reservoir for that period of time, and having a mutually rewarding relationship during that period of time, only to have the marriage dissolve 23 years into it, owing to irreconcilable differences, infidelity, or anything else, and claim that the couple never should have gotten married (i.e. because the marriage was ultimately a "failure") is ludicrous.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

P.S. I shall address your earlier, more thoughtful message (#139) late tonight, when I have the time.

– Larry W

:

First rate gratuitous snark. I give it an 8.5

– Larry W/HB

@Cary: I usually agree with , but this is a personal issue. All we have to do is look at it this way:

Anything that isn’t declared illegal is legal. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage or gays, so neither one is illegal.

One preacher said he was asked if oral sex was a sin. He said that it isn’t mentioned in the bible, so he has no opinion about it.

If being gay is a sin in the bible, then I choose not to live by that part of it and another reason why I choose not to be a church goer.

It’s OK for a person to have their own opinions. That’s one of the main reasons people come to the USA. It’s when people try to FORCE there opinions on others that I have a problem. I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things. If I went on and on and on and on and on like so many people do about the differences I would be arguing all the time. I would rather accept their right to their own opinion and keep them as a friend than try to win an argument that can’t be won.

One grade school teacher gave her class a lesson on prejudice. She picked the kids with blue eyes as the target. They were now the lower class, and the other kids started treating them that way.

The gays are the blue eyed kids in the grade school of life.

There’s nothing in the constitution about horse stealing or drug dealing, either. By your definition; both should be “legal.” Anyway, there’s nothing illegal about two people, of any gender, offering vows to each other, in any venue they wish and before any guests they wish, officiated by anyone who will do it, and then saying that they are “married” and living happily or unhappily thereafter, in whatever circumstances they choose. What matters, in the present context, is the degree to which local and national governments recognize this particular social contract, for tax and inheritance and other purposes, and the name which said governments use to describe this particular social contract.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@tadcf: I’ll do it for them:

(1) None
(2) See (1)

SMORGASBORD: hi, I just read about infiltration in TEAPARTY by DEMOCRATS WHO will block
CANDITATES of TEAPARTY choice and get their own instead . bye

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: “There’s nothing in the constitution about horse stealing or drug dealing, either.”

There is no Federal law against them unless it is on Federal property or are Federal items. That’s why each state has to come up with their own.

The way I understand it is the Federal government has to accept a type of marriage, just like they have to accept a new country that has been established before they will recognize it as one and start political proceedings with it. Anybody can have any kind of a union they want that isn’t restricted by law. It is up to the Congress to decide whether to accept it or not.

@ilovebeeswarzone: The democrats know they will lose most of the coming elections, so they are sending in people who are “pretending” to be republicans and Tea Party members. They are hoping to take enough votes away from the actual supporters of the Tea Party movement that the democrats will win. Some say Ross Perot ran for president to take votes away from George Bush. I don’t know.

As the democrats have been doing for some time now, they know they have the propaganda media on their side, but they forget that the Internet is neutral. There are many blogs such as FA that are reporting the fakes. The fake Tea Partiers are being spotted because the locals in the area have never seen them at Tea Party events before, and the fake Tea Parties they create are soon found out and kicked out of the organization.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Okay, Larry, I apologize for assuming that, after somewhere around two years of participating in the same discussions (mostly agreeing around 80-90% of the time) in which I’ve revealed much about myself, including links to my blog you just found, and quite a many discussions at that, you would know who I was. Funny that I’ve been to your site, and even know what you look like!

Perhaps I should change my user name to “Mr. Cellophane.”

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

I particularly recall a discussion, some time ago, where I agreed with your point about remaining anonymous, and said so, until Aye posted a very logical reason as to why he wished to remain anonymous, at which time I changed my position and let it go. Yet you continue to bring the same argument over and over and over and over and over again, as if it affected the points being made. You seem to think that adding your name to your posts somehow puts you on the moral/ intellectual high ground. Sorry, it doesn’t.

As for the “ad hominem” attacks, I never called you a bigot. I went through the entire thread to make sure, and never once did I use the word. As for being dishonest, if you were to steal, I would not be tarnishing your reputation by calling you a thief.

I challenge you to walk up to any gay couple, and say to them that you have no problem with them at all, but you don’t think that they should have the same things as you, in word or deed, because they:

are promiscuous

are prone to disease

are a threat to children

don’t take their relationship seriously

will “dumb down” your own relationship

and then gauge how volatile MY reaction is!

You use a pop culture movie and a NY Times article with stats, procured who knows how, as your evidence, to paint an ugly picture of an entire population of people and THEN boo hoo about your own reputation! When confronted with specific examples of heterosexual infidelity, flippancy, and serial marriages, which show that none of the things which you have a problem with are exclusive to one sexual preference or an another, you dismiss them as “exaggerated” and non-reflective of the general attitude of the group YOU’RE a part of. You continue to maintain that these are the reasons you don’t think that gay couples should be excluded from what you have, but you “don’t have a problem with them.” Perhaps the person you’re being dishonest with is yourself.

I also don’t get how someone of your intellect wouldn’t understand the concept that if you have a healthy respect for yourself and others, you’ll be less likely to engage in behavior that is harmful to yourself or others. When one goes to a mental health professional for addiction or other ways of acting out, that’s exactly how it is most often approached, even as part of 12 Step programs. Not too far a path of reasoning to walk down.

Since you like movie quotes, and newspaper “studies” to form your views, here’s a movie quote for you. I’ll give you a gold star if you can name the movie without looking it up….

“You’re an orphan right? You think I know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you?”

Marriage has not been one thing throughout history. It is a constantly evolving institution, just as the roles of men and women have evolved, and the only reason you’ve voiced opposition to what’s next, when it comes down to it, is your personal distaste. You’re entitled to how you feel, I will not take that away from you.

However, neither my arguments, nor yours, trump my point that the 14th Amendment prohibits the majority to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of the minority. That Proposition 8 didn’t specifically address homosexuals is moot – the entire reason for its existence, its goal, was to exclude the homosexual population, and discriminate because of the gender of whom one wants to enter into contract with. The first judge who said that the issue should be decided by popular vote, made a huge constitutional mistake, which was bound to be overturned just as Colorado’s Amendment 2 was in 1996.

So, although I have presented a reasoned, non-emotional argument, I have indeed gotten emotional. I apologize for hurting your feelings. When I’m next in California, we can meet and I’ll buy you a beer as consolation. I’ll be sure to call “no homo” before I give you a hug.

If you have anything further to say, I respectfully request you to avoid asking me questions, as I’m now incredibly behind on various tasks, and probably won’t have time to answer you. I’ve said all I can say, and have hopefully made my position clear.

:

Before we can have that beer, you have to clarify the following. It’s not about “hurting my feelings,” it’s about the following:

As for being dishonest, if you were to steal, I would not be tarnishing your reputation by calling you a thief.

That’s the one thing which I will not tolerate. As I said, I’m a real person, with a real business, and a real family, and a real reputation. It is doubly outrageous to have one’s integrity impugned by an anonymous scribbler of Internet graffiti, which is what I first took you to be (props for the wonderful reference to Mr. Cellophane from Chicago; no disrespect — I’m one of those people terrible with names but good with faces — so long as they haven’t aged or ballooned beyond recognition).

With respect to your assertion that I think the mere fact I sign my own name entitles me to any greater degree of politeness or deference — no, I don’t think that, at all. The only thing it entitles me to is protection against being libeled. Calling me dishonest is libel. Either back it up or withdraw the charge and apologize.

I’m going to address the other points, above, but, first, I demand that you state — specifically — where I have ever been “dishonest,” or else take it back.

BTW, calling someone a homophobe is the same thing as calling that person a bigot, according to the definition of the word bigot. Thanks, at least, for clarifying the last:

You think I’m a bigot because of statements relating to the following, regarding gays:

are promiscuous
are prone to disease
are a threat to children
don’t take their relationship seriously
will “dumb down” your own relationship

I’ll address the above later, but I have to object immediately that the third of the above is an outrageously inflammatory charge. As stated, it strongly implies pedophilia. You know that I wasn’t referring to that, but, rather to something much more complex — relating to making parenting more difficult. The example I heard (on NPR station KPCC earlier this week) was a father with a young son and daughter, with the daughter saying, during a car trip, that when she grew up, she wanted to marry her Daddy. The Daddy replied that, some day, she would find a nice young man to marry, just as her brother would find a nice young woman to marry. He said that it would create confusion in the minds of his kids, were there to be absolutely no difference, especially in name, between traditional marriage and gay marriage. His daughter might then think, maybe some day I’ll find a nice young woman to marry and his son to think, maybe some day I’ll find a nice young man.

Now, I don’t consider the above to be one of the greater arguments against gay marriage, per se, but it’s an important point for the following reason. I think society would be well served were gay marriage introduced in a way which promoted acceptance and did not promote enraged resentment. It is a fact that the number one reason for which many people (not me, but I understand the point of view) are opposed to gay marriage is because of the potential negative effect on children. You assert, nonsense, but you have no data to back up this assertion. It’s simply something you take on faith, presumably because of your superior insight into the minds of growing children. In the nature/nurture question, I’m of the opinion that it’s 90% nature and 10% nurture, but studies of identical twins raised apart show much less than 90% concordance, in cases where one twin turns out to be gay; so there’s clearly a nurture component.

It introduces no bigotry in the mind of a child to teach said child that girls are different from boys, girls’ sports are different from boys’ sports, and that unions between men and women are similar, but not identical, to unions between same genders.

Simply calling them by different names would solve virtually all of the problems. I have no idea why it is so necessary to have a fight to the death over the semantics of a single word.

There are now actual data to support my point about the importance of semantics in what same sex unions are called. These data were not presented to Judge Walker, presumably because of incompetence on the part of the lawyers for Proposition 8, who’s arguments and witness were pathetic. I’m currently working on a hopefully straight forward summation of my position, in which my assertions and reasons for concern will be referenced. I don’t agree, at all, concerning your point about the 14th Amendment. You ignore the well established legal principle of reasonable accommodation. I’ll discuss this, as well.

For now, you’ve given me the opportunity to respond to at least one of your three charges (that I’m a homophobe). You still owe me an explanation for the charges that I “exaggerated” and that I was “dishonest.”

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Gary- I feel I need to respond to some of your comments with a clarification- I do not, nor have I ever been leery of gay men or women, and while I feel that a “marriage” of some type (civil unions come to mind) should be an option for those who are gay (after all, as I said before- gay people have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us)- it was, and is a divisive issue to some people, and it IS akin to poking one’s finger into a wild animal’s eye- you might just draw back a stub, and it serves no useful purpose.
My personal take on this is that if the gay population HAD accepted civil unions, with ALL the perks and requisites, after awhile, as soon as the more reactionary people among us could see that the sky did NOT fall, then they might have been more accepting of “Marriage”.
But to some people, there will only ever be one “man, one woman” in a typical marriage.
Those people you will never win over, law or not.

@Larry:

or now, you’ve given me the opportunity to respond to at least one of your three charges (that I’m a homophobe). You still owe me an explanation for the charges that I “exaggerated” and that I was “dishonest.”

I again scoured the thread for uses of the word “homphobe” as well as “bigot” – again, you should double check your assertions before you hit send. I used neither word, except to quote you. Please stop telling me what I think, when I never used the words. Now who is libeling who?

I demand that you state — specifically — where I have ever been “dishonest,” or else take it back.

Please read my reply again. I indeed did. First you point out that references to straights are exaggerated, but to gays are not. I’ll retract that charge when you do.

As I wrote in the above, but you clearly missed it, you continue to maintain that these are the reasons you don’t think that gay couples should be excluded from what you have, but that you “don’t have a problem with them.” I think I can reasonably perceive that as dishonest. Feel free to disagree, but I’m entitled to my opinion.

…opposed to gay marriage is because of the potential negative effect on children. You assert, nonsense, but you have no data to back up this assertion.

Fair enough. Here ya go…

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender_parents

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6542286.html

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/11/23/gay-parents-do-not-warp-their-kids-research-shows/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-mannino/what-do-mothers-day-and-g_b_199407.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/15/5/241.abstract

http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2010/07/29/adopted-children-raised-by-gay-parents-are-typical-kids/

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/national-organization-for_n_206003.html

http://sparkaction.org/node/561

That should keep you busy for a while.

You ignore the well established legal principle of reasonable accommodation.

From Law Dictionary:

reasonable accommodation
: something done to accommodate a disabled person that does not jeopardize safety or pose an undue hardship for the party (as an employer) doing it

also
: something done to accommodate a religious need that does not create undue hardship for an employer

A ramp for a wheelchair, a landlord allowing a blind person to keep a dog, or a drug store allowing a Catholic pharmacist not to fill a prescription for an abortion pill so long as it can be filled elsewhere… Good laws… all which support nondiscrimination.

Now please respect my previous statements about my time.

I’m sorry we don’t agree on this, but look forward to a future conversation when we do.

So this is the basis for your claim that I’m “dishonest:”

Please read my reply again. I indeed did. First you point out that references to straights are exaggerated, but to gays are not. I’ll retract that charge when you do.

You did not make this clear, when you used the word “dishonest.” You never stated what you considered to be “dishonest.” Now you are specific. You claim that I dishonestly stated that there are dramatic differences between gays and straights in committed relationships, with regard to numbers of partners outside the relationship. That I made dishonest claims relating to incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. That I made dishonest claims with respect to the importance of fidelity in the marriage contract. Is this what you are saying? You still haven’t been specific, but I am inferring, from your last post, that these are the statements which you feel warrant the charges of dishonest and exaggeration.

Fair enough, this gives me something to which I may respond.

Along with the list of references. Most helpful.

(to be continued).

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Please read what I wrote again. Not a speed read, but read it to comprehend. I was very specific about what I perceived as dishonest, and it’s not present in your quote. I’m not going to retype it or copy/paste again. It’s very frustrating to communicate this way. You are free to disagree, of course, but please don’t respond to me regarding something I didn’t say, again. Thanks.

: Why do you have to turn this into an intelligence (or reading comprehension) test? You say that I was dishonest and that I exaggerated. Just tell me what I said which was a lie and what was exaggerated.

All I can find is the following, frankly cryptic, statement:

First you point out that references to straights are exaggerated, but to gays are not. I’ll retract that charge when you do.

As I wrote in the above, but you clearly missed it, you continue to maintain that these are the reasons you don’t think that gay couples should be excluded from what you have, but that you “don’t have a problem with them.” I think I can reasonably perceive that as dishonest.

I still don’t understand what you are saying is dishonest and/or where I exaggerated.

Firstly, I never said that references to straights were exaggerated. Someone said that 50-70% of straight marriages ended in divorce. I stated that the average first straight marriage endures more than two decades. I stand by this. Second, I wrote that the average gay in a committed relationship has 5 to 6 partners per year outside of the relationship and that straight people in committed relationship simply won’t tolerate that level of infidelity. I stand by this. Third I quoted a New York Times article which stated that in 50% of gay marriages there is infidelity within the first two years and that, in straight marriages, there is no infidelity over the entire course of the marriage (which, again, averages more than 20 years for first marriages) in 80% of marriages. I stand by my correct quoting of the New York Times article and by the statistics for straight marriages. Fourth I related that the writer in the New York Times article noted that fidelity was not considered nearly as important in gay as in straight unions (and actually advocated that straights would do well to be more like gays, with regard to tolerating infidelity), and I think the above statistics confirm that this is obviously correct. I stand by this. Fifthly, I never said that gays should be “excluded” from anything, simply that the gay equivalent of marriage should be called by a different name, in recognition of the obviously different natures of the two institutions. I continue to maintain that this should be the case.

If you are inferring that I must be dishonest by stating that my reasons for wanting gay “marriage” to be known by a different name is because I am biased against gays, rather than because of the above (and more), then I’ll will answer you with your own words, directed at me:

Please stop telling me what I think, when I never used the words.

More later. And please don’t tell me what I can and can’t write, directed to you, when you call me dishonest, for reasons which you have still failed to clearly explain — the charge being both manifestly unfair and frankly libelous.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

I did not make this a test, but it was clear, based on your response, that you did not get what I wrote. FAIL.

And you’re really wasting time for both of us when you retype the same position over and over and over and over within the same thread. Do you think anyone here is incapable of scrolling back up to find what you think?

Among the legal defenses for libel is opinion, which I made clear is what I was stating in regards to you. You’ve also yet to retract accusations of words I did not use. If you wish to continue this train of implied threats, I shall eagerly await my summons. I just ask the favor of waiting until after the World Series – my team is in first place, and I don’t want to miss it!

Enjoy the rest of your day.

my team is in first place, and I don’t want to miss it!

Don’t count on it. The Tigers were sitting pretty at the All Star Break, 10 games over 500 and leading the AL Central by a game and a half. Now they are 4 games under and 9 games back. Marking time until kickoff time.

– LW/HB

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Tigers fan, eh? Well then, thanks for Curtis Granderson! Yankees next home series will be against them, and I’ve some Detroit friends who’ll be there. The only AL team that really scares me are the Rays, but the Bronx Bombers are good with momentum. One more win, and we’ll be the first in the MLB with 70!

Don’t worry, it won’t be too long a wait to witness some domination from the Giants!

(#167)

Quoting me:

or now, you’ve given me the opportunity to respond to at least one of your three charges (that I’m a homophobe). You still owe me an explanation for the charges that I “exaggerated” and that I was “dishonest.”

You assert:

I again scoured the thread for uses of the word “homphobe” as well as “bigot” – again, you should double check your assertions before you hit send. I used neither word, except to quote you.

Yet, from your #131:

But you prove Gaffa’s points with your replies, which can easily be characterized as homophobic and exaggerated, and way beneath how you otherwise portray yourself. I’m done with you on this.

– LW/HB

, re: Granderson

The Yanks and Rays are in a league of their own, but the former got their clock cleaned on the Granderson/Jackson trade:

http://motorcitybengals.com/2010/08/10/austin-jackson-is-no-curtis-granderson/

– LW/HB

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Yup. I wrote that. The things you’ve written could indeed lead someone to such an opinion, as I’ve said, and you’re free to assert your disagreement.

I stand by my stance that to advocate punishing an entire population of people by passing exclusionary and discriminatory laws based on “one size fits all” statistics is extremely unfair to individuals, and beneath every other image you put forth of yourself.

So, as long as you’re making it about you, I will say that I think very highly of you personally, from what I know. But I hold your views on this matter in very low esteem and respect. You’re free to think likewise of me, I can live with it.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Yeah, he’s been slumping a bit, but still has had some great moments. We seem to like him nonetheless. Heck, with our lineup, we’re doing just fine! Cano, Swisher and Teixeira are on fire, Jeter just broke the Babe’s record for all time base hits, Arod just hit his 600th career homer, and our future looks in tact with the likes of Cervelli and Colin Curtis (who has my favorite moment of the season so far when he came in to pinch hit for Gardner who was ejected for arguing balls and strikes, with two strikes and then hit his first major league home run!)… we’re having quite a fun season!

As for you guys, Galarraga should’ve been given his Perfect Game. That whole thing was a travesty, but I immediately became a fan of his with the way he handled himself. Of course, I’m rooting for the Tigers tonight!

, I don’t mind being called names. You can call me homophobic; just tell me what specific thing I said which was homophobic. You wrote that my responses to Guffa were homophobic. I had no idea what you were talking about.

I wasn’t saying that gays are, by nature, more promiscuous and unfaithful than straights. I think I made that clear. If straight men had the same opportunities as gays, they’d be just as promiscuous and unfaithful. They’d also be afflicted with a slightly different spectrum of STDs, but equally afflicted they’d be. So it’s got nothing to do with proclivity or morality.

What controls behavior in straight marriages is the universal taboo against adultery, dating from Hammurabi and Abraham. One secular; one religious, yet codified and maintained over the ages. I make the points that (1) this tradition is overwhelmingly respected in straight marriage, to the benefit of children, family, and society. (2) this tradition does not have the same, central importance in many if not most gay unions. (3) cinematic and musical interpretations of popular culture have a huge influence in not only reflecting but shaping popular culture. (4) gays have a disproportionately powerful role in shaping cinematic depictions of popular culture. (5) In the future, there will inevitably be an increasing number of story lines featuring and celebrating gay marriage, with the most compelling and funny often being story lines dealing with the “open” nature which is pervasively common in gay relationships (study cited in New York Times article, referenced previously). It would be best if such relationships were not referred to using the term “marriage.”

By the way, your laundry list of links (#167), reassuring me that exposure to the concept of gay marriage doesn’t influence the child’s ultimate sexual preference is not helpful, because there is inadequate follow up, just as in the case of the ultimate influence of the reality of gay marriage on traditional marriage. (n.b. the best evidence to date does show that gay marriage negatively impacts traditional marriage, as I’ll discuss subsequently.)

From one of the links you provided:

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/11/23/gay-parents-do-not-warp-their-kids-research-shows/

And having gay parents doesn’t make children gay themselves, she tells the newspaper. There is no indication in her research, she says, that suggests children’s sexual preferences are determined by their parents.

Some don’t agree. Sociologist Tim Biblarz of the University of Southern California tells USA Today that there have not been enough long-term, large-scale research projects to definitively say what effect the sexual orientation of parents has on children.

To keep things in perspective, we aren’t talking about denying gays the use of an institution (or even the use of a word; we do have the First Amendment). What we are talking about is what term government uses in reference to gay unions.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

: Re: the perfect game that wasn’t. Ump showed mega-class, too. One of the game’s better moments. – LW/HB

Ump showed mega-class, too. One of the game’s better moments.

Completely agreed.

@Larry

P.S. I shall address your earlier, more thoughtful message (#139) late tonight, when I have the time.

Still waiting…

@gaffa:

Still waiting…

I ask patience/forbearance. I got seriously behind in my day job, owing to the little bit of a
pi – – ing contest which Cary and I had with each other. I need to devote my time responsibly tonight (at my office, getting out consultations). Then have a short trip out of state, to attend my older daughter’s matriculation (“white coat”) ceremony in med school. Then back. In the meantime, I’m working on a more organized (and referenced) presentation of prior and additional arguments. I really did like your last comment (#139), and it will be a pleasure to consider and address the points which you so thoughtfully raised.

– Larry W/HB

Meanwhile, for your viewing pleasure, the Conservative lawyer, Ted Olsen, who argued and won the case, explains his position and why it reflects both Liberal and Conservative values…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkU9n5GxCDk&feature=player_embedded

@Larry

Fair enough…

@gaffa Still need a couple more days. I was traveling Thursday AM – Sunday night. Need a bit of catch up time at work. But I won’t forget and will be back soon. — LW/HB