Gavin Newsom explains court challenge to Prop 8
By David Sunday Nov 23, 2008 4:00pm
California courts agreed to hear a challenge to Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage. The question before the court asks if Proposition 8 is an amendment to California's Constitution or a revision. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told CNN's Anderson Cooper that if Proposition 8 is a revision to the Constitution it would mean that the courts no longer had a role in determining if the rights of minorities had been violated.
"Should we go in front of the voters every time there is an adjudication in the courts that we don't like and submit the rights of minorities to the whims of the majority, based upon the morality of the day?" asked Newsom. "That's what's happened here in California."
I mean, this is an interesting point. Look, if we were having this conversation in 1967, we would have had a U.S. Supreme Court, the loving court, that unanimously decided to get rid of all of those laws in the remaining 16 states that denied interracial marriage.
If we had gone to the voters, almost every public opinion poll showed that the overwhelming majority of voters would have overturned that court decision
Newsom argued, "Well, what's next? I mean, now, if this is the basis of principle, what other rights should we take away? And is the court powerless in each and every case when the voters by a majority decide to change the constitution, again based upon the issue of the day?"
COOPER: Protesters this past weekend against California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. There was a major new development today. The state's highest court said the initiative can be enforced. They're not going to try to delay it. But at the same time, the court agreed in March to hear arguments on its validity.
And they're going to focus on three questions: does Prop 8 revise the state's constitution instead of amending it? Does it also violate the state's constitution separation of powers doctrine, violating judges' ability to guarantee equal rights? And the court is going to try to decide what happens to the thousands of gay marriages that have already taken place.
MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM, SAN FRANCISCO: Well, I mean, the question in front of the court now and the question that they're willing to adjudicate is the validity of Proposition 8. And the question really is this, Anderson: whether or not it's an amendment to the constitution in the state of California or it's a revision.
The court has, in nine previous occasions over the last 100 years, made a determination in three of those instances that amendments were, in fact, not amendments but actual revisions. We believe there is some continuity to those decisions, and that gives us confidence in the context of this one.
COOPER: But for something to be ruled a revision it has to be decided as a fundamental change in government structure. How is gay marriage, or overturning gay marriage, changing state government structure?
NEWSOM: Well, remember, something was legal in the state of California, as legal as my ability to get married to my wife. And that was simply stripped away and taken away by a simple majority vote. Leaving the courts with what?
If you change the law that's one thing; the courts adjudicate the constitutionality of that law. But if you change the constitution, what role does the court have now in terms of adjudicating whether or not that's constitutional?
COOPER: There's also the issue of whether or not -- basically, it boils down to who should be able to determine what is right for a group of people; the people or a judge.
NEWSOM: Yes. I mean, this is an interesting point. Look, if we were having this conversation in 1967, we would have had a U.S. Supreme Court, the loving court, that unanimously decided to get rid of all of those laws in the remaining 16 states that denied interracial marriage.
If we had gone to the voters, almost every public opinion poll showed that the overwhelming majority of voters would have overturned that court decision.
The question is, is that appropriate? Should we go in front of the voters every time there is an adjudication in the courts that we don't like and submit the rights of minorities to the whims of the majority, based upon the morality of the day? That's what's happened here in California.
Login or Register to post comments.
And if it is upheld by the California Supreme Court, can it then be challenged in the Federal Supreme Court? Any Constitutional scholars out there...?
Constitutional scholars?
Don't need them, constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.
Just ask bush.
nonny mouse:
The technical answer to your question is, yes, it can be challenged in federal court. Whether it is likely to succeed is another question.
As long as there is a federal issue --- and this one would obviously be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause --- and the matter could not be wholly resolved on state grounds, the federal courts can here the case.
Equal Protection law under current Constitutional jurisprudence is messy. (And absurd, in my opinion.) I would not have high hopes of winning at the federal level. And while one never knows, there's always the potential of making bad law if the issue appears in front of the wrong panel of judges. (I'd be more comfortable if we waited a while, for Obama to replace a retiring conservative, but we may not even get that chance.)
Frankly, I don't have high hopes that the California Supremes will strike down Prop. 8. But the arguments I've read are pretty decent given the case we have.
In any case, the best strategy, I believe, is to be ready not just with another initiative to repeal Prop. 8, but a simultaneous amendment to fix the fundamental flaw in California's Constitution --- that RIGHTS CAN BE RESCINDED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE. I mean, hell, why not just take away the right to be Mormon by majority vote. Most people don't like Mormons. Right?
What we should be ready with is an amendment to the Constitution that says:
Rights protected by the California Constitution, whether through explicit Constitutional language, interpretation or construction of that language by California courts, or because rights are otherwise retained by the people of California or the United States, shall not be rescinded in the state of California except upon a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the legislature followed by a two-thirds majority vote of all registered and eligible voters.
If we can amend the Constitution to say that at the same time that we correct the mistake of Prop. 8, they won't be able simply to put anti-rights laws on the ballots to change things every two years.
Is that Anderson Cooper or Ziggy Stardust?
how about the simple fact of discrimination as well? it's sad that discrimination, on its face, is NOT sufficient as a show cause reason to open the challenge in court.
Just because a majority of people believe in something does not make it right. Slavery, interracial marriage were both supported by a majority and both were wrong. The rights of blacks in the 60's and a woman's right to vote? Equal pay for woman?
This is a civil right issue and not a majority issue. The so called people of values think this is a majority issue. It is NOT! This is a rights issue....
IF this country was based on theocracy they would win and would be right. But it is not. This country is (was) based on the rights of people.
I can name a few countries that are based on the government THEY want. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somolia etc...Is this really how they want to be viewed? What's next for them? Executing woman in a public arena for having an abortion or adultery? Cutting hands of for stealing? Stonings for having sex out of wedlock? They have proven that they are at least a century behind us.
It may have been a typo, but it should've been "Loving Court" after Richard and Mildred Loving's appeal of Virginia's law against interracial marriage.
I know that many African-Americans hate the comparison, but it's absolutely valid, and if Ike had to send in troops to force compliance with Brown v. Board of Education, it's a sure bet that the voters would've overwhelmingly shot integration down.
I see the direct correlation between the Loving decision and the arguments put forth against same-sex marriage. I am however surprised that some African-Americans absolutely refuse to see the similarities. When I discuss this with some who do not like the comparison, I get a lot of grumbling about how the civil rights movement can not be compared to this issue because A-A suffered more at the hands of institutionalized racism than gays and lesbians have suffered from homophobia. My question is why does this have to be a competition about who suffered more at the hands of bigotry? Why can't it just be about the right to privacy and the rights associated with those couples who are legally married? It makes me sad to hear some folks argue against the notion that the denial of these rights is bigotry after they themselves have suffered from it.
Just because it is not happening to you doesn't mean that its alright if someone else is subjected to it.
"Should we go in front of the voters every time there is an adjudication in the courts that we don't like and submit the rights of minorities to the whims of the majority, based upon the morality of the day?"
The entire proposition system is mob rule, with the instigators being powerful interest groups.
What happened to elected officials creating fair laws and making wise decisions?
Prop. 8 will be upheld. When Prop. 8 was losing in the polls, I predicted it would win and it did.
Now, It's going to win in court. The opponents have a very long shot at winning but I don't see it happening. Just call it a feeling.
And those comparing laws against gay marriage with those against interracial marriage are off base. Marriage has always been between men and women and often between mixed races. It has never been between same sex couples.
I don't see why they can't just come up with a new name and quit asking for the meaning of marriage to be changed. And yes, I'm OK if the state only issue civil unions if that's what it'll take.
In light of the economy, the war and all the other issues at hand, this whole issue is getting far more press than it's worthy of.
You aren't saying anything about same sex marriage that isn't true of interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was never allowed here until it was legalized; it may have been in other countries, but the same is true of same sex marriage. Several countries now allow it.
I don't know whether we were the first country to allow interracial marriage--probably not--but we were probably much more ahead of the curve than we are with same sex marriage.
There have always been same sex couples and interracial couples who were "as good as married", throughout history. Neither one is a new phenomenon.
Getting too much press you say? I don't agree, because the issue here is equality before the law and denial of constitutional rights---which I think IS important. Personally, I am tired of our government and others openly discriminating against gay people and judging them by their sexual preference instead of their ability to our lift up our society through our common bond of humanity. Discrimination in any form, racial, sexual preference, or whatever is wrong and it is time for society to aspire to a higher standard. Our hypocritical and judgmental standards that we have today must go---for good.
Amen to your last para!
Marriage (a "word" adopted by the church, aka holy matrimony, two other "words") is no longer a religious institution so the religious argument is null and useless. I'll fight zealots with fire from Hell, elect Satan for president and shit on a crucifix in front of the Pope to make my marriage EQUAL. But as to how I really feel? Prop 8 has fucked with me personally, it's far from over pal!
why do you care who uses the word marriage and how
they apply it?
I'm a very happily married, co-joined, connected, whatever....
heterosexual woman. I've been married for 20 years and I
don't think that two men or women wanting to have their version
of what I have threatens or demeans what I have in any way.
My husband agrees.
If you really want to make marriage matter, then make it
important and special for everyone. Also, you might want to take
a look at porn, gambling, etc. Help people understand how to
make a marriage work, help them understand the give and take
of a lasting relationship and help them understand the idea of
mutual respect.
No one group owns the word marriage anymore than they own the word
freedom.
By the way, my husband and I attended a gay wedding a couple of weeks ago. It was a beautiful event and we were proud to share in our friends' happiness. Who is anyone to deny another person the
right to a formally committed relationship?
Amen
the laws against interracial marriage were NOT supported by different motivations that are asserted prop 8. Sure, when it is convenient NOW these supporters are spewing the "man and woman" mantra and I believe that a part of that is based on the fact that some African-Americans have now joined in the fight to prop up prop 8. However, the original miscegenation laws were steeped in socio-economic rhetoric, racists interpretations of the Bible and general racist apprehension of race-mixing during and after the Reconstruction period. The antebellum period fostered a fear and hatred of legitimizing interracial relationships through marriage because doing so would make it harder to justify continued enslavement of blacks and the children of black-white marriages and went further to reinforce the notion that blacks and the children resulting from interracial relationship were property to be used rather than human beings whose relationships could be legitimized and honored.
Now some would look at these arguments and say that this legitimizes the need to differentiate between miscegenation laws and prop. 8. I however, look at the rationale and say that both miscegenation laws and prop.8 were based on extremely biased and bigoted interpretations of the Bible which in turn is used as a twisted moral justification for the perpetuation of bigotry at any level.
Just my two cents.
i've been meaning to ask, wondered this a good while:
if this prop8 is unconstitutional, how did it even get on the ballot?
how could it get to the proposition stage?
katy:
Heh, you can pretty much get anything you want on the ballot if you have enough money to gather the signatures. :) It's how the law works. You pass a law, and then other parties challenge it as unconstitutional.
For instance, someone could gather the signatures for a proposition that says, "No people named katy may speak their minds during daylight hours." If you get enough signatures, it gets voted on. If passed, you, as a person named kay, would file a lawsuit challenging it in court, since it violates your first amendment rights. And the courts would strike it down.
In any case, what makes this particular fight so interesting is that Prop. 8 was itself an amendment to the California Constitution. Under the California Constitution, the people may amend it through simply initiative and majority referendum. So, the inexplicably obsessed activists gathered the signatures, and put the suggested amendment on the ballot. And it passed.
The question now, is whether the rescission of rights already protected is itself appropriate for an amendment, or whether such an action actually counts as a "revision," which requires more than a mere initiative and referendum to change the Constitution.
I'm sure we can get the proper number of signatures.
Let's bring it to a vote!
Marriage is a "Religious" ceremony.
Make everyone get "Civil Protection" for their companion.
Keep Religion out of STATE Law.
Oh, and Do unto others as they try to do unto you.
An Aye for an Aye,
A YES for a Yes,
A Ring for a Ring !
One marriage to bind them, one Ring to Rule Them All !!
Straight, Gay, Mixed, Polygimists !
Why should gay people not have the right to totally screw up their lives and get divorced, like the rest of us?
Live and let live. I am a tad libertarian in my approach to people; if you're not doing anything which harms others, then I will have little problem with it. Why on earth would someone want to prevent anyone else from marrying?
Marriage is simply two people who commit to spending the rest of their lives together (usually making each other miserable) and caring for and loving the other person forever. Why should whom they wish to marry matter to anyone else?
" if you're not doing anything which harms others, then I will have little problem with it." How do you feel about Canadians who post to this blog?
One of my best friends lives in Ottawa and I spend more time there (not working time) than any where else on the planet.
I resent the hell out of any person who does not live in America telling us that we are a bunch of dolts, who rails against anything and everything Obama, who talks down to and denigrates us. I don't care if they are from Canada, Germany, or friggin' Timbuktu. Those people, no matter where they are from, will encounter the full on wrath of me.
Does that answer your question?
I think Gavin could achieve equality and expend a lot less energy and a lot less of SF's money by eliminating 'marriages' period, and having only civil unions for both gay and heterosexual couples. You want a sanctified "marriage", go get one in your church. Of course he'd get less face time on the teevee...
Most people I know who were in favor of Prop 8 didn't like it for religious reasons, they have a biblical ideal of "marriage", but they were OK with the idea of civil unions for gays. Interestingly, two of the women I know who supported Prop 8 were a woman having multiple affairs on her husband and a divorcee.
Many of my gay friends are also obsessed with "marriage" as well. All of you, get over it! Civil unions for all, anything else, find an appropriate church. I'm sick of my mayor allowing my parks to disintegrate, the streets to be dirty and the public schools to fail, but to see him all over the news and teevee dealing with this issue that shouldn't even be an issue. If there is any sanctity to marriage then as an institution it shouldn't be a government function.
As a gay man who was legally married in California on Nov. 3, I have great interest in this case. I've heard the argument before that, in order to provide equality for all that's not separate, we should eliminate "marriage" altogether and call it a civil union. Sounds good on the surface, but it's extremely naïve, and would never work. The concept of marriage is so firmly entrenched in our society that there is no way in hell you're going to be able to wrest the idea of getting married from the vast majority of people. Moreover, the fact that no fewer than 1,138 federal statutes directly address rights and benefits that apply to a married couple is more proof that marriage isn't going away in favor of the civil union. (I would like to point out here that although gay couples can be legally married in Massachusetts or Connecticut, they cannot take advantage of those 1,138 rights because of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA], signed into law by President Clinton. Overturning DOMA will be a necessary step to achieving true equal protection under the law throughout the entire United States.)
There is only one possible solution: Marriage for all couples, same-sex or opposite-sex, as well as couples where one partner or both are of indeterminate sex (yes, such people exist and are as fully human as you or I). Marriage is not going away, and separate is most certainly not equal.
Majority rule with REGARD TO MINORITY RIGHTS?
Jesus. Minority's must be protected by law because the tyranny of the majority is rarely just. But because 52% of CA wants to strip a minority of their rights, we should stand aside and let them do it?
Not in MY America.
What we need to do in California is get a proposition on the ballot to deny Mormons the right to marry in California. No different from what the Mormons did to deny gays the right.
A society in which a majority can strip rights from a law-abiding minority based on nothing more than religious belief is not a free society.
I did a post about this a week or so ago:
http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/200...
I'm not fishing for hits, just wanted you guys to know that there is a lot of support for the 'no' side out there (I'm Canadian) and that people are losing their right to equal protection under the law in many areas these days.
Just asking.
Meanwhile as regard gay marriage, I'm REALLY TIRED having to explain this to you people over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Get a clue, as well as a life!!!!!
Loving v Virginia was a case that challenged the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited the mixing of the races. These laws were prevalent in the South and the Supreme Court ruled that they were unconstitutional. The Court never ruled on any aspect of marriage, as marriage was not adjudicated in this case.
As to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court would have to decide if marriage, whether religious or cultural, is a civil right! If ruled a civil right and the legal definition of marriage is changed, then that would open a Pandora's box of legalities. How could marriage rights be denied consenting adults who believed in polygamy, polyandry or whatever?
As to Gavin Newsom, after having an affair with his friend's wife, a woman who was under psychiatric care, he is a poor choice to be a spokesperson for anyone!
Boston Blackie:
Loving was decided on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Equal Protection, to be precise. What the Court decided was that, since racial minorities are in a suspect class, laws that discriminate based on race draw strict scrutiny. Thus, the state of Virginia bore the burden of proving that its anti-miscegenation law was as narrowly tailored as possible to meet a compelling state interest. In other words, the interest must be paramount and really, really important to the state at large, and there must be absolutely no less discriminatory means for the state to meet its goal than the law it passed. (The state almost always loses when strict scrutiny is drawn.)
With that in mind . . . . .
No, it wouldn't. I mean, it could do that, and largely, marriage is a fundamental right in this country, but that's another story.
In any case, what the Court would really have to decide is that sexual orientation, like race, is considered one of those suspect classes that draws strict scrutiny. If the Court decided that, then the state of California (or wherever) would be forced to justify its discrimination under the same test that Virginia had to. And the state would lose.
But the Court is not likely to do that. At least, not this Court. Even the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned sodomy laws did not exactly grant sexual orientation that special suspect status that draws strict scrutiny. (There are those of us civil libertarians who were hoping that Lawrence would herald a new era of civil libertarian Constitutional interpretation, but that's yet another story.)
If the Court concludes that sexual orientation merely draws "rational basis" scrutiny, the state will have to prove nothing. Instead, the challenging citizens will have to prove that the law itself is balls-out, blithering-idiot irrational. (That's not the actual language, of course, but you get the idea, which is that the citizen always loses, since you can always come up with some argument that the law is rationally related to the state's goal.)
But even if the Court did rule against anti-gay marriage laws, under Equal Protection law, it would only have to decide that sexual orientation is a suspect class, such that if marriage laws are going to be on the books, they can't discriminate against gay people. There is no reason they would have to decide anything further about marriage itself.
Even if marriage were deemed a fundamental right, there is no reason the state would necessarily be prevented from defining it. We set limits and arbitrary definitions all the time.
Now, if you ask my personal opinion, as a Libeqrat, yes, I believe that consensual polygamy ought to be legal. But when I say so, Tyler Durden or the like will appear to tell me I support child molestation, so, I'll not go into it much deeper. :)
Heh, well, the "sanctity of marriage" spokespeople are, by and large, hypocrites with multiple affairs/divorces/gay lovers. At least our guy isn't a hypocrite about the whole thing.
Oh, and, being under psychiatric care is nothing to be ashamed of, and doesn't mean she isn't perfectly capable of making decisions in her own life.
Karen:
Didn't the court already do that? Wouldn't it make sense that it will do it again?
barefootguy:
That's the California Supreme Court. Since Boston Blackie was referring to Loving v. Virginia, I assumed we were discussing the U.S. Supreme Court --- as in, if Prop. 8 is upheld in California, and then appealed to the federal level.
There is no doubt that sexual orientation is a suspect class in California. California is light years ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to protecting LGBT rights. We even have it encoded that you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity or expression in our laws.
I see; thanks for the clarification.
So you believe that the California Supreme Court will uphold its prior decision, allowing gay marriage?
On another note, I imagine that whoever loses the Prop. 8 battle will try to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if that happens, regardless of which side it is, my guess is that the Supremes will not hear the case.
barefootguy:
But of course. :)
I have serious doubts, unfortunately. The issues are completely different. What the Court said originally, was that marriage was indeed a fundamental right under the California Constitution, and that discrimination regarding that right was likewise unconstitutional.
So, the Prop. 8 folks went and amended the Constitution.
Now, the question is no longer whether such discrimination is unconstitutional. It's not unconstitutional. Since the discrimination is now written into the Constitution. The question is now whether the process by which the discrimination was written into the Constitution was itself unconstitutional, such that the Court has the power to erase it from the Constitution. Follow that? :)
Suffice it to say, it's a much more difficult case to make. But it's not impossible. The argument will be that rescinding an already recognized right is not appropriate for a mere initiative and referendum. That is, it can't just be by mere majority vote. The argument will be that such changes aren't mere "amendments," but "revisions," of the basic, fundamental structure of the Constitution, and there will be many reasons argued why that's the case.
Will the California Supreme Court go for it? I dunno. I tend to doubt it, but I've been wrong before. :)
Heh, well, I doubt the pro-Prop. 8 people will get to appeal it (though they'll probably want to). There would be practically no grounds to request that the federal courts force California not to recognize gay marriage. They could try, but they'd lose.
We'll see, though. Ultimately, It depends on when the appeal is made, and the manner through which it proceeds through the federal courts. For the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, four out of the nine justices must agree to hear it. On this Court, that unfortunately could mean that Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas vote to hear it in order to strike down gay marriage once and for all.
But you never know. The other five are the very same ones who decided Lawrence, and they just might want to uphold gay marriage. That would ultimately depend on Justice Kennedy, who is very pro-gay rights, but with no discernible jurisprudential reasons for his stance. He's an odd duck, but the one who makes the difference thus far for gay rights cases.
The best time to do it, I imagine, would be later. After Obama has had a chance to replace a justice or two (or three?), and we get a whole new philosophy on the Court. But who knows what that philosophy will be?
:)
...why is it that the ones we want to stay seem to be the least, um, robust? :-) My fear is that Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will be around for a long, long time. Ah, well, perhaps we can hope for a scandal that will make Anita Hill look like a walk in an English garden.
barefootguy:
Well, you're certainly not imagining it. Justice Stevens is of the old liberal guard, having served with Brennan and Marshall and Blackmun. He's been on the Court for a few millennia now, and will likely be retiring upon Obama's inauguration. (If he doesn't, he'll probably not live through Obama's administration.)
Ginsburg, the other genuinely liberal jurist, is not quite as old as Stevens is, but she has been through cancer treatments, and it wouldn't surprise me if she resigned to let Obama replace her as well.
I'm not a huge fan of Justice Breyer, but he's largely on the Court's left, and he'll be around a while. Justice Souter, who I really like a lot, is young (comparatively, that is) and in good health, but apparently becoming increasingly disillusioned with his job. I really hope he sticks around, but we'll see.
Kennedy probably isn't going anywhere, and that's a mixed blessing.
So, that brings us to the RATS wing. Yeah, three of the four ain't goin' nowhere for decades to come. Roberts, Thomas and Alito are young, and love their jobs. And they want to influence the law.
So, we're left with Scalia (for whom I actually have a great deal of respect, even if I disagree with him a lot). He's actually getting old. He's still sharp. And stubborn. So, he's probably not leaving, but we can dream, right? It is not completely inconceivable that he'd begin to want to retire as he gets older. And for Obama to replace him would alter the Court entirely!
Ya never know with the Supreme Court game. Eisenhower and Nixon were the ones who ended up appointing the old liberal guard of the Warren-and-later Courts. Reagan appointed Kennedy and Papa Bush appointed Souter. So ya just never know.
We shall see. :)
I don't know how you arive at the conclusion that "sanctity of marriage" spokespeople are, by and large, hypocrites with multiple affairs/divorces/gay lovers. This statement infers that a sizable number of opponents to prop 8 are hypocrites, aside from a few isolated instances, please cite your findings. As to Gavin Newsom, he took advantage of a vulnerable woman and he betrayed a close friend! He is a hypocrite, he tried to use as an excuse, substance abuse and entered rehab. Give me a break, the man is a scumbag.
Blackie:
Given the length of my response to your post, it is curious you responded to only the last couple of throw-away lines. I was pretty much joking around. I didn't really mean to throw down a gauntlet with those lines, but since you picked one up anyway.......
Oh, it's just a general impression of those on the right who moralize to everyone else.
To name just some, off the top of my head and in no particular order:
Newt Gingrich;
Larry Craig;
Mark Foley;
Bill O'Reilly;
Ted Haggard;
Glen Murphy, Jr.;
David Vitter;
Bob Livingston;
Bob Allen;
Bill Bennett;
Don Sherwood;
Strom Thurmond;
Should I go on? Are they all in reference to Prop. 8? No. They're all just people who see fit to moralize to the rest of the world, and encode their morals into law on one subject or another. And then, wouldn't you know it, they're caught engaging in the very kind of behavior they preach against. It's the culture of the right, and there are tons of examples.
I think the word you're looking for is "implies," not "infers." But, no, I didn't imply that a sizable number of "opponents" to Prop. 8 are hypocrites. Just that a lot of the "spokespeople" who are out there talking about the "sanctity of marriage" tend to be hypocrites. Feel free to google any of the names above with which you are not familiar. None of those people ought to be moralizing to anyone or outlawing their own bad behaviors.
(Actually, I don't really care what they do. It's their arguments about why such things should be illegal and/or are immoral that bother me.)
Fine. He did something bad. I didn't say he didn't. Just that when it came to marriage, he wasn't a hypocrite by abusing the privilege himself, and arguing that others shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Now, why don't you actually concentrate on the important part of my post?
Login or Register to post comments.