The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Religious Right Reacts With Fury to Prop 8 Knockdown

By Mark Potok on August 5, 2010 - 12:19 pm, Posted in Anti-LGBT

In the hours since a federal judge struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage yesterday, religious-right organizations have sent up an angry howl of protest, accusing the judge of doing everything from overruling the Constitution to laying the groundwork for a contemporary version of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Tim Wildmon, leader of the American Family Association, called the decision “tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional” and said it “cavalierly trashed” the votes of some 7 million Californians who voted to approve Proposition 8 in 2008. “It’s also extremely problematic that Judge [Vaughn] Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. … His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute.” Wildmon went on to demand that the U.S. House of Representatives impeach Walker.

Randy Thomasson, president of, which worked to support the proposition during the 2008 campaign, sounded a similar theme, saying that the ruling dealt a “terrible blow” to the country and that the “biased, homosexual judge” had “imposed his own homosexual agenda.” Bishop Harry Jackson, leader of Stand4MarriageDC, called the judge’s ruling a “slur” against those who had voted for Prop 8. And former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the judge’s “notorious decision” showed “outrageous disrespect for the Constitution.”

In fact, Walker found that Proposition 8 merely asserted “the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples” without any rational basis. “The Constitution cannot control private biases, but neither can it tolerate them.”

But that’s not the way most religious-right organizations and activists saw the decision. On the contrary, they seemed to believe that it was them who were being discriminated against. Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, for example, said that the decision would lead the government, “almost Soviet-style,” to reeducate American children. Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund that represented supporters of the proposition, said the judge had “literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent” in voting for it. Robert George of the American Principles Project said his decision was a “usurpation of democratic authority” and described same-sex marriage supporters as having a “revolutionary sexual ideology.” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council blamed “the far Left” for pushing judges to such decisions, and said that “this dangerous decision” had to be appealed. And David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, said that “radical forces” and “tyrants who threaten to destroy this country” were to blame.

Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, put it even more starkly. “This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed,” he said. “If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges.”

Actually, the decision supported the very American idea that people have “rights” that cannot be legislated away via the “tyranny of the majority.” There was a time in this country when a majority of eligible Americans would most certainly have voted to keep from giving the vote to black men and women. But the courts, as is their assigned role according to the Constitution, finally ruled that African Americans had basic rights that could not voted away. Similarly, many civil rights attorneys believe that in the end, the Supreme Court will rule, as Walker did yesterday, that society has no right to discriminate against homosexuals in marriage.

James Edwards is no official of a religious right organization — far from it. But the racist and anti-Semitic host of the Memphis-based radio show “The Political Cesspool” seemed to understand that last point better than most of the ruling’s more “mainstream” opponents. “You can thank Martin Luther King and his crusade to make it illegal to recognize important distinctions between human beings for this,” Edwards wrote on his blog yesterday. “Had the courts never thrown out laws against interracial marriage, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.”

Larry Keller, Leah Nelson and Evelyn Schlatter contributed to this post.

  • majii

    I am a Christian who believes that the Constitution should be upheld in every circumstance and not amended or interpreted in a way that denies anyone his/her rights under the law. I am not offended by religious groups imposing themselves into issues like Prop 8. I just don’t agree with them, and I choose not to follow them in discriminating against others. I think that when religious groups work to take away the rights of others, they are usurping the power of God, and this makes me wonder whether they’re acting in their own interests or in the interests of Christianity. Based on what I’ve seen, I think the former position is their focus. How does one say that man is created in God’s image and hate what God created? How can one who professes to believe in the infallibility of God’s decisions turn around and say that God made a mistake in creating some people whose only difference hinges on sexual orientation? The two points are incongruous. IMHO, to love one’s fellow man means accepting them as they are and minding one’s own business. As a Christian, I know it’s not up to me to make judgments about others whom God created just as He created me.

    The most important reason I cannot move myself to violate anyone else’s civil rights is related to growing up under segregation in this country for the first 18 years of my life. Against overwhelming odds I graduated from high school and college, and worked and earned two graduate degrees, so I have a particular empathy with anyone whose rights are being infringed upon. I just don’t have it in my heart to put someone else through what my parents, my siblings, and I went through for no reason at all, except the small-mindedness of a group of people who feel a sense of entitlement they think allows them to dictate the way others live.

  • Carter

    Katekilla said,
    “…being gay or straight isn’t a choice or a lifestyle; it’s an inextricably linked identity feature, just like race and gender. Discriminating against people who are gay is every bit as ugly as doing the same on the basis of race or ethnicity.”

    I believe these words are true. Racism, Ageism, sexism, all set the stage to separate; deny equality under the law.

    Rhetorically; why is it that when ARIZONA passes a law that is deemed racist, a boycott ensues. But when CALIFORNIA DENIES GAYS THE SAME RIGHTS as straights (marriage) there is not a word of a boycott, etc???

    Political pawns & Hypocrites! Religion HAS to be a choice as faith depends on it.
    Pretty tough to find an easy answer isn’t it?

  • ruben

    religion can and is often used as a tool of oppression look at all your right wing hate groups both christian and muslim,the christian right will hate on you if you ain’t white anglo/saxon and the muslim right will hate you because you are an infidel that does not worship god the way they want you to.who cares what they think!! these people are just full of hate and they think that they hold the moral high ground to be preaching on to others how to behave!!half the people slaughterd in the worlds wars have been because of religion.why don’t we all just mind our own buisiness and let god judge us when we die,i guarantee you it would be a better world.

  • William LaBarge

    Loretta: What would you think of Muslim majority vote to outlaw granting equal rights to Christians because Muslims believes that granting equal rights to Christians goes against their Islamic belief? Would you consider that to be right or what?

    I admire you for your Christian belief, however, I do not believe that you nor anyone else have the God-given right deny other people their rights just because the way they live goes against your religious belief.

  • Loretta

    I have supported almost everything the SPLC has fought for so far. I do not agree with gay marriage. I know a lot of gay people and love them and do not condemn for their life style. I just do not think they should be married. I am fairly conservative on this issue and do not appreciate being considered a bigot because I am a born again Christian. This is condemning another group for their stance on this issue. I think everyone has the right to believe the way they choose on this issue and not be a hated group.

  • William LaBarge

    MARLLI: It is the faith-based organizations who have pushed to maintain laws that persecuted homosexuals and pushed to deny gay people the rights that they are guaranteed by the US Constitution. We do not believe that anyone has the right to continue to deny gay people the right to marry thru such vehicles such as Proposition 8 any more than gay people have the right to deny faith-based folks the right to practice their faith. However, I have yet to see such effort to deny faith-based folks their rights, and at the same time, see faith-based folks pushing such things like Proposition 8.

    Now for the question: How does gay people getting legally married bring harm to anyone else? Please be honest when you answer.

  • Martha Wenstrand

    The right wing, conservative religious right never ceast to amaze me for their ignorance. Indeed, orientation is indeed inate, not chosen for heaven’s sake. Anyone should be able to understand. I once worked with the group listed above who called homosexuality an abomination and felt people could be counselled with the goal of being “degayed” Unbelievable.

  • Mike Magruder

    The Confederates hollered bloody murder as well. People always do when you grab their “labor saving devices”. Consider the situation with the Mexican illegal immigrants. Have you ever met a poor Latin American who was openly gay? Despite all the bellowing about illegals in this country you know that somebody has been profiting by this sort of thing for a long time.

  • Mike Magruder

    Though I’m not gay myself I couldn’t care less about religious opinions on this subject. Speaking of serfdom, the institution of feudalism was powered by traditional attitudes regarding proper association of males and females. Bottom line is that males can’t mate with each other and females can’t either. Gay marriage can never be valued in any culture that depends on the forced breeding of slaves.


    Yada yada. Hate speech from “anti-hate-speech” leftists. More yada yada intolerance of religious-based viewpoints, filled with hatred for faith-based citizens. Your ilk lend more credence to anti-gay rhetoric, when your intolerance reeks of hypocrisy. The sadness is that so many of us non-leftist voters have NO PROBLEM with gay marriage. So, be aware that you are tossing out the baby with the bathwater when you generalize and lump together all Christians, straights, Republicans, and whites. Really? Do you hear yourselves? Or does all your hates peech come from wounded place that never heals? Is that is the case, I’m sorry for you.

  • Paen

    Gay rights are human rights and if we allow bigoted fanatics to win on this issue,you can be sure that the bastards will attack the rights of other people next.Furthermore although I have never fallen in love with another man I’ll be damned if I will let ignorant scum dictate who I may have feelings for.

  • Tracker10

    I’m so very impressed with the level of intelligent commentary here. Of, course this is an appropriate subject for “Hatewatch!” Does anyone remember Matthew Shepard? Tortured and killed for being gay.
    As long as these atrocities go on, all rational people need to shout out loud against discrimination of ALL minorities. A society that singles out minorities for abuse is sick.
    Thank God for the U.S. Constitution!!!

  • Marisa

    Ignorance, superstition, and fear always seems to plague the “religious right.” I am a Mormon, who believes that my church made an ASS of itself with regard to Prop. 8 and the same prop in Arizona. It needs to exit the 19th Century and enter the real world. Religion in general needs to stay out of politics, and religious “leaders,” in general (that includes ministers, priests, pastors, preachers, et al.), need to get real jobs – give up “conducting brainwashing for a living” – and quit trying to deprive American citizens of their civil rights. Marriage is, and always has been, a CIVIL CONTRACT, whether they like it or not. Divorce is the way one dissolves that civil contract, and if a couple is seeking divorce, it doesn’t matter if they were married in a religious or civil ceremony. Prop. 8 was ridiculous – is still ridiculous. ANYONE who wishes to get married (and make that commitment) should be allowed to do so without conservative IDIOTS standin their way. ENOUGH already.

  • Cheryl

    I think this discussion is appropriate for the SPLC. This is a case of religious bigotry and the religious right’s attempts to use the amendment process to inject religion into government where it was never supposed to belong.
    Don’t start with the Judeo-Christian nation junk, that is pure myth. The pilgrims weren’t the founders, they didn’t care as much for democracy. The majority of the founders were deists, Freemasons, Quakers and other belief systems that were much more progressive thinking. This idea of democracy instead of having the crown or the church to tell you what to do was a big deal-people willing to listen to the church never could have come up with it. The founders were more thinkers rather than believers.
    We really did it right when the 14th amendment was ratified. This was putting all that we said we believed in that was put in the Declaration, but now given the force of law. Even Congress was obligated to ensure equal treatment when the states did not. So I’m beginning to see that Congress owes the people a few repeals like DOMA and DADT.
    I may be straight, but I’m not narrow-equality means having the same degree and QUALITY of access, opportunity, consideration, and above all dignity. This ruling is the first step in that direction. Unfortunately this will likely get ugly as the religious right can’t get past their giant ego problem and realize that they aren’t superior to anyone. Love is the only thing that ever matters and its a shame that they can’t figure out that they don’t even love their concept of God. If God made everything and everyone then to hate anything that God has made is to hate God as well. I actually feel sorry for them, this blindness must be horrifically painful.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Ah yes, the American conservative:



  • Mark Potok

    According to this story (among others), the judge was not known to be gay when he was nominated in 1989, but now is (not clear how that was established):

  • T.Sam

    So, back to tk’s question: what IS the evidence that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual?

    My question, and I suspect tk’s as well (?), has nothing to do with homosexuality, nor with a gay judge’s ability to render a solid decision according to legal precedent and available statutes. It has to do rather with my own extreme and growing cynicism about “facts” presented by the Right, secular and religious alike.

    A virulent dismantling of I recently received — most of the allegations were false and/or irrelevant — concluded with these words (paraphrased): “We can believe whatever we want to believe!” That is a pretty good working definition of psychosis, IMHO, and the level of nonsense in the diatribe didn’t help the feeling any. (The diatribe, BTW, recommend a different, religiously-based site for sifting through rumors and “urban legends” — the owner and manager of which has stated disagreement with the letter and support for

    The more email forwards and other unsolicited stuff I get from the right, the more unsettled, frankly, I become. So *much* of what comes out from that community seems to be made up.

    So, joining with tk here, *is* Judge Walker gay? If he is, glory to God for the gift of a good and decent man. If not, what the hell is driving the Right toward collective and community psychosis?

  • R Lavigueur


    I think there is plenty of cause to include a discussion of proposition 8 in the hatewatch blog. For one thing, as the trial record demonstrated readily, there is no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. It was a discriminatory proposition passed purely on irrational ideas about gays and lesbians. Proposition 8 was ‘defended’ on the idea that same-sex couples, being unable to have children, are inferior to opposite-sex couples (including childless and infertile couples) and so do not deserve protection. This may, as you note, not qualify as hatred, but rather ignorance, however this is hardly the whole story.

    The procreation arguements were not extensively used to get proposition 8 passed in the first place. Campaign advertising, such as the infamous ‘Gathering Storm’ ad, basically claimed that same-sex marriage was a threat to either parenting, children, society or marriage in general. Claiming that gays and lesbians are a threat to children or to society is certainly designed to make people hate, fear, or at the very least dislike gays and lesbians. And that merits inclusion in this blog.

    Voting away the constitutional rights of a group of people out of dislike of that group of people is, for that matter, likely hateful no matter how ‘democratic’ it is. Democracy alone does not prevent an action from being bigoted or hateful, it just means that it is a popular form of hate.

    As a final point, your assertion about civil unions is less meaningful when we look at cases such as the debates and conflict over civil unions in places like Hawaii, where the same groups and religious organizations that fought so hard to pass proposition 8 fought just as hard to prevent the recognition of civil unions. It doesn’t matter what we call it or how inferior the unions are, these people oppose any recognition of same-sex couples under any name. They may claim to support civil unions as long as they aren’t actual marriage, but that’s only until the LGBT community stops demanding marriage and starts demanding these alternatives.

  • Sharlyn Curtis

    This is a comment that is for information only. If it helps just one reader then that is a start. Sometime in the past the Discovvery Channel had a series of documentaries titled “In the Womb.” I would like to recommend the episode, “Identical Twins”. There is one titled “Twins” but that is the wrong one. Watch “Identical Twins”. It discribes identical twins who are born with ‘different/alternate’ lifestyles. This documentary helps to give a greater understanding as to what happens within the womb that causes a fetus to develop his own lifestyle. Because mothers have both male and female hormones, a simple explanation is given as to why a baby will absorb different amounts of these hormones thus defining each child’s sexual orientation. This takes place during development entirely in the womb prior to birth. While this episode is limited to identical twins, the concept is the same in single births. For thoses readers who have profound religious views on the subject, I think the documentary shows how this concept could be in the category of “Intelligent Design”. I rented this DVD from Netflix.

  • contragenic

    Since we live in a Constitutional Republic, the USA, we need to understand and educate our fellow Americans that when a policy is found to be unconstitutional, it will be removed. This is the whole point of having a constitution, the votes do not matter, and whether or not the majority agrees with Judge Walker is irrelevant. Justice has finally prevailed in California and the rest of the country will follow no matter how much they kick and scream. It’s called progress.

  • Sam Molloy

    Those people should know that Jesus never spoke on the subject, even face to face with a Centurion pleading for healing for his lover.
    By the way, He healed him.

  • bryony1

    “If you don’t, you made the wrong “choice,” because your orientation ISN’T theirs.”


  • bryony1

    Lou: ” ‘“… finally ruled that African Americans had basic rights that could not be legislated away.’ ”

    “That’s right – based on race and NOT lifestyle/behavior choices!”

    Homosexuality, male or female, is not a “lifestyle/behavior choice,” Lou. It’s ingrained. It’s an orientation, as heterosexuality is an orientation. Just WHO do you think would actually CHOOSE to be as vilified and deprived of rights (although this judgment was a big step for rights) as LGBT people are?

    Do you think they have more fun than you do? Then “choose” to indulge their sexual practices. If you like them, you’ve been kidding yourself for a long time. If you don’t, you made the wrong “choice,” because your orientation is one of theirs.

    Let straight people be straight, let LGBT people be LGBT, and let them all have the same rights. WHY NOT?

  • skinnyminny

    This is a great victory for the LGBT community. Here in Calif, some of the voters were misled, scared, manipulated into voting for this prop 8, then reports surfaced that largely blamed the black community for its passing. Here are the facts, blacks do not make up the majority in California, some blacks (due to racial profiling, unfair and/or imprisonment…) are convicted felons which prohibits them from voting, and there are some voters that just doesn’t vote – example, during the pres election, notice how some blacks throughout the country said this was their first time voting, or haven’t voted in a long time.

    As far as trying to impeach this judge, people, beware, this is what they are doing with the members of the black caucus. I guess this is the GOP’s way of saying, you can go the easy way or the hard way. Look out for the RULERS!!!

  • Snorlax

    We went through a similar situation with Amendment 2 in Colorado.

    This was an attempt by the right to ban any protection of gays in the state constitution.

    The State AG at the time was Gayle Norton, who later worked for Dubya. She wasted $4 million of taxpayer dollars defending Amendment 2 to the Supremes. She lost.

    Amendment 2 would have prohibited the state legislature from passing SB-200 a couple years ago, which made GLBT citizens in Colorado a PROTECTED CLASS.

    We’ve had a couple transsexual murders here and other assorted anti-gay mayhem, so SB-200 is needed.

    We have seperation of powers and a judicial system that reviews laws for a reason…to keep the “tyranny of the majority” from violating the rights of everyone else.

  • Snorlax

    If you think it’s a choice…When Did YOU Choose???

    I dare you. You can’t say because you didn’t “choose”.

    Sex drive is innate. You don’t “choose”.

    And you KNOW it.

  • Mitch Beales

    Well said Ian. The only way opening marriage to all could threaten “traditional marriage” is if there are huge numbers of spouses just waiting for an opportunity to divorce their partners and wed someone of their own gender. It makes you wonder about folks like Lou.

  • Kenneth E. Tucker

    “For people so repulsed by homosexuality, these homophobes certainly presume to be experts on the subject.”

    Touche Mike @2:30PM !

    This curious confluence of ‘credentialed revulsion’ was aptly ‘demonstrated’ by (not so) ‘expert’ witness and infamous ‘Rent Boy’ client, George Rekers.

    SLAMMED by the judge as lacking any credibility/standing as an ‘expert’, Rekers

    a) might want to consider sitting down & shutting up
    b) doing some more boy toy ‘research’ (perhaps Rent Boy offers frequent (bareback) ‘rider’ points)
    c) taking that lame ass act on the road to the 9th Circuit (watch out San Francisco!) and/or the SCOTUS.

    I ‘vote’ (c) > There’s nothing like having a your opponent make your case for you! This guy virtually guarantees ‘equal (civil) rights’ can’t/won’t be ignored.

  • William LaBarge

    In the eyes of the Christian right, it is tyranny when gay people have rights including the rights to marry, but it is liberty and freedom when people are sent to jail for being homosexual.

    Anyway, Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for Proposition 8 being stuck down!

  • Ian

    Lou, if you choose your sexual orientation it does not mean you’re straight. It means you’re bisexual. Now, I have no problem with you being bi, it’s a free country. But please don’t deny my boyfriend and I our rights because you have to decide between XX and XY.

    Since this is the site of the Southern Poverty LAW CENTER, I reccommend everyone go to the Marriage Trial page on YouTube to see reenactments by actors based on the trial transcripts. Maybe this is just me being a legal geek, but for me there are few things better than getting some popcorn and enjoying some schadenfreude as the defense’s case just collapses around them.

  • Kenneth E. Tucker

    re: James Edwards > “The Political Cesspool” (couldn’t be more appropriately titled) quotes:

    “You can thank Martin Luther King and his crusade to make it illegal to recognize important distinctions between human beings for this,”

    “Had the courts never thrown out laws against interracial marriage, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.”

    FINALLY!! In a truly revelatory ‘cats-outta-the-bag-now’ moment, Memphis’ own James Edwards, SPITS it out for all those VERY frustrated dittoheaded-912-freeping-TeaBaggers!!

    An excerpt from one of his devotees:

    “Homosexuality is a Black people’s disease, not White, and was outlawed by our founding-fathers socially and lawfully in America under the “Anti-Miscegenation Laws” which was illegally overturned by the Kennedy’s….why these Communist insurgents are overturning these laws which are the founding principals of America to protect the White family and reproductive state of our people.”

    Just on more low-info reich-winger with absolutely no grasp of ‘fact’, but thanks for (finally) being ‘honest’, reich-wingers, ‘honest’and stupid, but that ain’t ‘half’ bad. Now that the hood is off, we can ID you and, keep a closer eye on you.

    SPLC, thanks for being there AND ‘eyeballin’ this wing-nuts.

  • josephS

    I support same-sex marriage, but is this “hate” you’re talking about? Every so often SPLC’s Hatewatch tosses something in that would more appropriately be called right-wing sentiment, not HATE. This is where the SPLC loses credibility, showing off its Left-wing creds for what, donors? You think there wasn’t any opposition from the “religious Left”? It exists, you know.
    The fight over same-sex marriage, contrary to what some have said, will not be looked back at as akin to KKK violence and HATE against blacks. Civil Unions, for example, have been around for a while for the Gay and Lesbian community. Granted, it’s not the same thing as marriage, but let’s not go overboard and assume Gays and Lesbians had no rights.
    The time came to overturn bans on same-sex marriage, and this was a step in that direction.
    Funny, on the one hand we have Citizens United, where a court struck down years of dubious Campaign Finance doctrine and the Left screams “NO!” at the SCourt for having the audacity to rule in favor of free speech. Here, the court rules to override the democratically voted ban on same-sex marriage in CA and the Left screams “YES!” to overturning the will of the people on a subject where support and opposition cut both ways.
    And SPLC includes support of Prop 8 in its Hatewatch Newsletter.

  • tk

    What is the evidence that the judge is a “practicing homosexual” ?

  • Jenelle

    Hitler was not a “devoted” Christian. He was deeply steeped in the Occult from his youth. He saw nothing wrong with appearing to be “Christian” in public while being the complete opposite in private. He taught his young soldiers to do the same. They could feel fine about engaging in a heinous act and then return home to celebrate a Christian holiday. Of course, they didn’t share the heinous act with their families.

  • John

    Thank God the United States is guided by the US Constitution and not some particular religious bigotry. Discriminate all you want within your religious community. After all religion is a personal choice. If I don’t agree, I leave that religion.
    The US government has never been in the business of promoting religious beliefs. It’s called “separation of church and state.”
    The founding fathers left european countries for America because in most of those countries the Church was the State.
    Why would anyone want to go back to that same kind of dictatorship?

  • Mike

    Homosexuality is no more a choice than being left-handed is a choice. Both are different orientations that minorities of people have. For people so repulsed by homosexuality, these homophobes certainly presume to be experts on the subject.

  • PSzymeczek

    Many of the people who voted in favor of the proposition two years ago are now saying that they would vote against it. If it were voted on today, it would be defeated.

  • photojack

    I marched in the huge celebratory parade through Hillcrest in San Diego today and it felt great. Thousands of people marched and all the reactions were positive. I saw no dissent anywhere. San Diego’s Conservative Republican Mayor Sanders gave a speech and publicly apologized for his erroneous views in the past and thanked us (the gays), his wife and family for turning him around. It was a major victory and one I was sure would happen this way. No judge could possibly see this as anything but a fundamental Constitutional right that was being denied us. I also predict that it will have a snowball effect on other states acceptance of gay marriage rights AND the other issues we’re fighting for like DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) and ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). The momentum is on our side now and like an analogy I’ve said for decades, those who try to deny our rights will be looked at like those who tried to deny interracial marriages in the 1950’s and 1960’s. This was a great day and I’m happy to have marched and taken part in my small way to celebrate this milestone. WHAT A GREAT VICTORY! Those few backward religious zealots can scream their heads off, they won’t overturn fundamental human rights or our Constitution! They are a losing intolerant bunch of bigots that need an education in true ethics and morals. Let then squirm!

  • Herbert E. Larson

    Once again the religious fanatics anything that goes against their fundamentalist beliefs means socialism and dictatorship for America. I find it absurd that they accept medical and technological advancements as god’s work but selectively refuse the parts of proven science they want to, never seeing the disconnect. All fundamentalists have this disconnect and they simply refuse to see the facts and in their believe god is directing them they will make everyone live like they think is right or die.

  • phil

    Prop8 or as some call it the Mormon Prop.
    Is discriminatory.

    Why isn’t the “Religious Right” having a battle with Tattoos or wearing mixed fabric clothing, or even planting 2 crops in the same field.

    They are a group of pick and chose wunder peoples, they know what’s best, BULL poop..

    I’m a straight man married over 55 years and have hear this all before, remember Hitler was a devote Christian.

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

  • Dan

    Hey, great article guys, but how about links to share on facebook etc.?? My friends need to read about this topic and subscribe to your blog! Thanks for your work

  • Kenneth E. Tucker


    re: ‘rights’ _ what you don’t know about rights could probably fill volumes, but, in all fairness, you’re probably NOT a constitutional scholar OR an attorney, or a judge…are you?

    my ‘gut’ tells me you’re just another under-informed dittohead/912/Freeper/teabagger.

    – you say ‘tow-may-toe’ – Judge Walker (appointed by George H W Bush, btw) sayz ‘toe-mott-toe’

    – eg ‘rights’ are ‘rights’ and a simple majority of Cali voters cannot abridge those US CONSTITUTIONAL rights, 14th amendment. so…

    Lou, if you wanna do something besides bitch and whine, here’s the ‘path’, Amend the US Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment:

    “The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.”

    2/3’s majority votes in House and Senate are gonna be hard to come by, and, don’t forget that the states have to ratify too…by 3/4 of 50 (that would be 38 states, rounding up).

    And, save the whining about the ‘process’, thank you…UNLESS you wanna question the ‘foolishness’ of those sacred ‘founding fathers’?


  • MM

    @Lou: Marriage is a lifestyle/behavior choice. One chooses to get married much sooner than one chooses to be gay. Are you saying that there should be no protections for any married couples?

    “Wake up you fools!”

    I’ll take tired clichés for $1,000, Alex.

  • Pamala

    Can’t trash a vote on something that is not up for a vote, and basic human rights in America are not debatable. This decision will be upheld in any other court it goes to.

    Yay! One for equality; zero for right-wing bigoted haters.

  • Dave

    Lou, being gay is not a lifestyle choice just as being black or white is not a choice.

  • kevin

    You cannot stop these religious nutjobs. They don’t (or won’t) understand that the majority doesn’t get to vote on what rights the minority gets.

    They want to say that homosexuality is a “lifestyle/behavior choice” but let’s be rational. I am a heterosexual. I did not make a “lifestyle/behavior choice” to be heterosexual, it is the way nature made me. A am sexually attracted to women. I did not choose to be sexually attracted to women it is just the way that it is, but when it comes to homosexuals they, by some mysterious method “choose” their sexuality.

    Folks opposing gay marraige is just hateful persecution of a minority and no matter how much fake science and biblical nonsense you throw at it that won’t change.

  • Ellen

    If the concern is that by providing equal access marriage will somehow be undermind, I’d like to remind that married heterosexuals have been the ones to denegrate marriage. No help needed. Everyone wants the same thing and thank heavens we have a constitution that protects us all, even those in the minority.

  • Katekilla

    Lou, being gay or straight isn’t a choice or a lifestyle; it’s an inextricably linked identity feature, just like race and gender. Discriminating against people who are gay is every bit as ugly as doing the same on the basis of race or ethnicity.

    Religion — now that’s a choice and a lifestyle. Choose to wake up to love, respect and equality. You’ll be so much happier!

  • Deciminyan

    Celebrate Victory, but Prepare for the Worst:

  • Lou

    “… finally ruled that African Americans had basic rights that could not be legislated away.”

    That’s right – based on race and NOT lifestyle/behavior choices!

    Wake up you fools!