Prop 8 Gay Marriage Trial Explained Part 3: How Do We Win This Thing?

Another week of the Proposition 8 gay marriage trial is over, and you know what that means! Yes, that you got four more glorious recaps of the action. BUT ALSO Jessica, your favorite lawyer ever, is back to explain everything to us laypeople!

Last time, Jessica told us about the equal protection clause. Specifically, she explained how our side is trying to prove that Prop 8 violates that clause because it discriminates based on sexual orientation.

This time around, she’ll explore Team Totally Right’s other arguments — there are several! So here we go, these are all the possible ways we could win this thing, it’s like a choose your own adventure book but a judge gets to do the choosing:

If you support marriage equality, it’s obvious to you that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. And even if you don’t understand the legal rationale, that discrimination seems inherently wrong.

Conveniently, there’s a good argument from a legal standpoint, too. So with a strong legal argument and a convincing message, can’t we just focus all of our attention on equal protection?


I. We Got 99 Reasons but They Just Need One

Effective advocacy can’t stop with one convincing argument. Our side wants to ensure they’re providing the judge with multiple paths to rule in our favor.

For example, take the arguments regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. Obviously, our attorneys argue, discrimination based on sexual orientation warrants some form of heightened scrutiny — either intermediate or strict. Proposition 8 is neither “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest” nor “substantially related to an important governmental interest,” which means that regardless of which level of review the court selects, we win! But, if through incomprehensible twists and turns of logic the court doesn’t decide that classification based on sexual orientation warrants heightened scrutiny — well, we still win. The government has no legitimate reason for denying marriage equality. So using the rational basis test, Proposition 8 must be overturned.

But what if the court doesn’t agree with us there, either? Then we need alternative arguments. So, in addition to arguing that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminates based on sexual orientation, we’re also arguing that this is blatant gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. And in case that’s insufficient to persuade the court to strike down this ridiculous law, Proposition 8 is also unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental right to marry as established by the Due Process Clause.

For Proposition 8 to be declared unconstitutional, we only need the court to agree with us on one of these points. The rationale matters because it will help to define how much this affects future issues pertaining to marriage equality. But for this case, any will suffice. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional; you don’t get extra bonus points because the law violates the Constitution in multiple ways.

II. Gender and the Equal Protection Clause

With that in mind, let’s begin with gender discrimination. Fortunately, the law here is well-established, and therefore much easier to follow. We don’t need to evaluate the four factors to determine whether gender is a suspect class. Since Craig v. Boren in 1976, a law that discriminates on the basis of gender has been subject to intermediate scrutiny. Classifications based on gender are unconstitutional unless the government can demonstrate that the classification is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

We can’t simply jump into talking about what intermediate scrutiny would mean for us, though. We first have to establish that the law classifies people based on gender. This may seem obvious. I mean, I cannot marry my girlfriend in California. If either of us were male, we could marry in California. Seems like a pretty clear classification based on gender, no? But it’s not quite that simple, because it depends on how you frame the issue. As H8ers (and Mark Harris from the Log Cabin Republicans documentary) are happy to remind us, even with Prop 8, anyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender. Based on that logic, there is no classification; everyone is treated the same. So which interpretation is correct?

Conveniently, this issue runs parallel to a case the Supreme Court has already considered. Virginia maintained laws making interracial marriage illegal up until 1967. At the time, those supporting the law argued that it was perfectly constitutional because it treated everyone the same. When declaring the law unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court noted that the mere “fact of application [to both the white and African-American members of the couple did] not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.”

By extension, our attorneys argue in their trial memorandum, the fact “that both sexes — gays and lesbians — suffer from Prop. 8’s discriminatory classification does not render it constitutional.” To uphold the law, the government must meet the heavy burden reserved for these types of discriminatory classifications: intermediate scrutiny. This doesn’t mean we win, it just means that the court must examine the law and its purposes more carefully.

III. Due Process & Fundamental Rights

And if none of these equal protection arguments persuade the court? We turn to the Due Process Clause. In addition to offering one more reason for the court to invalidate Prop 8, this clause offers one more opportunity for mental gymnastics (just in case the gender discrimination arguments were too straightforward).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment asserts that the government shall not deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that there are certain individual liberties and freedoms that inherently restrict government power. For example, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that intimate, consensual sexual conduct is part of the liberty protected by substantive due process, thereby invalidating sodomy laws across the country.

In some cases, these liberties are so important as to be deemed “fundamental rights.” When the government interferes with these fundamental rights, the action is subject to strict scrutiny review; to withstand a constitutional challenge, the government must demonstrate that this interference is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental purpose.

But what is a fundamental right? Some things are clearly established as enumerated fundamental rights — the First Amendment guarantees free speech and religious freedom, and these rights are widely recognized as fundamental.

But the Court has also found several fundamental rights outside of the text of the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia provides that there is a fundamental right to marry a person of any race:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

When the fundamental rights are found outside of the text of the Constitution, though, legal scholars and Supreme Court Justices debate the nature and scope of these rights. Some believe strongly in the existence of non-enumerated fundamental rights, while others allege that the court is usurping the political process by protecting these rights.

So how do our attorneys persuade the court that Proposition 8 interferes with a fundamental right? They begin with the words of the Supreme Court. Without necessarily recognizing the long-term implications of their assertions, the Court has provided strong guidance. According to Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, the Court held that “freedom of choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.” In other cases, the Court has noted that “marriage is the most important relationship in life” and that “choices about marriage” are “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” This sounds like the language of fundamental rights to me.

But again, this is just one step in the process. Establishing the violation of a fundamental right does not inherently mean we win — it just establishes the appropriate standard of review (strict scrutiny), and the court will determine whether the infringing action is permissible.

So How Do We Win?

Clearly, this is the question everyone cares about. As much fun as tracing the legal analysis may be, the part that matters to everyone on both sides is how it’s going to end. So how does this end?

It depends.

Are you following us on Facebook?

Pages: 1 2 See entire article on one page

Profile photo of Jessica

Jessica has written 16 articles for us.


    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      We have a good chance of winning at the Trial Court.
      We have a pretty good chance of winning in the Ninth Circuit.
      We have a pretty slim chance of winning at the Supreme Court.

      Our arguments are strong, our lawyers are brilliant and our expert witnesses could not have been better. But we definitely don’t have the advantage. If this case makes it to the Supreme Court, we need five of the nine Justices to rule in our favor. Based on the current composition of the Court and the inclinations of each Justice, we will have a really hard time getting there (which, incidentally, is why many LGBT organizations advised against pursuing this case at this time in the first place).

      Ultimately though, any Supreme Court decision will depend upon the reasoning of the lower courts. So until Judge Walker gives his opinion, anything I say is really just speculation. (It will be speculation after he gives his opinion, too, but then it will be slightly more informed speculation).

  1. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Fantastic explanation- a must read for pretty much everyone I know. As I will make abundantly and annoyingly clear to them via every social media mechanism possible (as the majority of my friends are currently an ocean away, in person badgering is reserved for a select few).

    This really clears up my confusion over why certain questions were asked etc.

    Now, on to the inevitable appeal: what is the appeal based on? I think you (or someone) said before that it has to be on a point of procedure or an issue with evidence used, but knew stuff can’t be introduced? Is this true or am I confusing my Autostraddle education with episodes of lawyer shows?


    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      Yup, as Sarah said, new stuff can’t be introduced after the trial court (Generally, that is. There are always exceptions).

      At the appellate level, they’ll just be arguing over the interpretation of the facts, from a legal standpoint. So, they’ll be arguing over whether the trial court should have used strict scrutiny for equal protection (because sexual orientation discrimination is akin to racial discrimination) or rational basis (because sexual orientation isn’t a suspect class), for example.

  2. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Not only are you cute and smart, but you make it sound so good! Which makes me optimistic! But that’s probably because despite the fact that I’m a trained conflict mediator and it is my job to listen to and understand multiple perspectives on any issue, I CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF ME UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE COULD EVER CLAIM THAT THE H8ERS ARGUMENTS ARE RATIONAL.

    And if our judges somehow, ridiculously, decide that the h8ers arguments prevail over ours, then I am *seriously* devoting my life to inventing a new political system that is not democracy, because obviously democracy is fucked up.

  3. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Thanks for explaining that; however, I have a question. Will the depositions of the proposition 8 witnesses who have withdrawn from the trial, because they’re afraid of gay retaliation, be used against proposition 8 to bring it down?

  4. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    So I have a question about the appeal process… if we win (yay!), would there be any reason that the opposition might not appeal, like to not have it make it to the Supreme Court and set a national precedent? I am assuming that if we lose we could appeal our way to the top (even though they don’t have to hear the case), but if we win and then no appeal, would the ruling have any effect nationally?

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      Everyone I’ve seen talking about this acts as if appeal is a foregone conclusion, but overall strategy is always/should always be a consideration.

      A single opinion in a federal court case doesn’t offer much more than a suggestion to other federal courts. It’s not binding for any other jurisdiction. So, if they really don’t appeal beyond the this court’s opinion, the nationwide effect would be very limited.

      There might be some strategic value in that (particularly because the next challenge might come from outside of the Ninth Circuit, and I’m quite certain the defendants would prefer to litigate this issue through the courts in a circuit not known for its liberal persuasions). But I still don’t imagine it will happen.

      But…such a decision might also embolden challengers in other states, thereby making them fight this battle in lots and lots of courtrooms, rather than really targeting a single case.

      • Thumb up 0

        Please log in to vote

        Hmmm…I meant to delete that last paragraph before posting. I fear I was having some trouble organizing my thoughts and the comment had multiple forms before reaching its final version. Ignore that last part, please.

  5. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    I’m glad you brought up gender discrimination. I hate continually hearing the argument that various propositions and opponents of same sex marriage are not discriminating because “every person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex”. I am always getting into arguments touting that if they want to play that game then they are getting into gender discrimination because if a man can marry a woman than a woman should be able to and vice versa. With the ammunition that Loving v Virginia provides, I really don’t see any rational way we can lose (but then again i’ve said that before). Thank you for the clear and concise explanations. We appreciate you! . Cheers!

  6. Pingback: Prop 8 Gay Marriage Trial Explained Part 3: How Do We Win This Thing? | MyGaySpot

  7. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    I just wanted to thank you again for doing this! Seriously I feel like I’m ten times smarter this week than I was two weeks ago. So even if we lose, I’m smarter. Which is really important. To nobody ANYHOW THANK YOU

  8. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Question, From a legal, constitutional standpoint why isn’t religious persecution also involved?

    Not everyone who voted for prop 8 is a hater. They discriminate against us, they are prejudiced against us, and they persecute us; but they do not necessarily hate us.

    I have a very close friend who is a devout Catholic. She loves me and my family, and I love her family. She had a gay brother who she gently nursed until his passing of AIDS in the late 1980s. She thinks the civil injustices against us are unfair but will never support gay marriage. She has no clue the hurt she causes. She has no clue that every time I see her, my insides are in a knot and I wonder why I maintain this friendship. She has no clue that in reality, she is saying to me that my family has less value than hers. I have tried to talk about it with her, but her religious convictions run too deep.

    I truly believe that I am being persecuted because of religion. Is only protection of religion in the constitution and not the other way around? I am interested in the legal aspect of this. Thanks in advance.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote


      Your question potentially implicates two different constitutional issues, the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

      Let’s start with the equal protection issue. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination based on religion. But the first question is whether a group of people that is being treated differently than others because of their religious beliefs. In this case, gays and lesbians are not facing persecution because of their religious identifications. Those who are unable to marry because of Prop 8 undoubtedly hold a wide range of religious beliefs. Religion doesn’t decide the classification at issue, so there isn’t an equal protection challenge to be made on that ground.

      The First Amendment reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Much like the analysis of the equal protection and due process, religious freedom as protected by the First Amendment has a precise meaning.

      The free exercise clause has been interpreted to mean that the government generally cannot prohibit someone from the free exercise of their religious practices (though there are exceptions). This doesn’t really affect the definition of state-sanctioned marriage; religious institutions that want to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples are free to do so, the state just won’t validate these marriages.

      The establishment clause means that the government cannot establish a religion or become excessively entangled with a religion. Certainly marriage and religion are intertwined (religious officials can sign marriage certificates), but sanctioning a relationship between two people isn’t akin to declaring a national religion. And excessive entanglement generally affects things like public funding for religiously sponsored programs or public displays involving religious symbols or prayer in schools.

      So, in the summary version that you were probably hoping for in the first place, the Constitution provides protections for religious freedom, but these protections are somewhat narrowly defined — and this falls outside of those protections.

      • Thumb up 0

        Please log in to vote


        Just because someone doesn’t have religious beliefs does not mean they are not being persecuted because of religious beliefs.

        Religious persecution has two forms: persecution of a person based on their religious beliefs, and persecution of a person based on the religious beliefs of the one doing the persecuting.

        In this matter, as in the matter of same-sex marriage, persecution is taking place wherein the parties doing the persecuting do so based on their own personal religious beliefs in marriage.

        In that regard, this is in fact religious persecution.

        Further, because religious believers went to the polls and voted to persecute same-sex couples using the law, Proposition 8 and other same-sex marriage bans in fact violate the Establishment Clause because voters mistakenly believed they were voting to protect their belief in a religious institution; an act specifically banned by the Constitution when one considers that the government is one “of the people…”

        • Thumb up 0

          Please log in to vote

          The problem with this argument, Michael, is that the First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom don’t guarantee that no one can be persecuted for their religious beliefs. The First Amendment doesn’t promise that individuals will behave decently or civilly or sanely or respectfully with regard to others’ religious beliefs, but only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

          To make a viable constitutional argument based on the Establishment Clause, you have to establish that somehow the government has established a religion or has become excessively entangled with a religion. To my knowledge, those are the only two lines of reasoning the Supreme Court has used when invalidating legislation because it violates the Establishment Clause.

          It’s not sufficient to argue that a law was influenced by religious beliefs or that voters made decisions based on their religious beliefs (among other things, courts are hesitant to infer the beliefs of the voters). It doesn’t matter. The question is: has the government established a religion (it hasn’t) or is the government becoming too entangled in religious affairs (providing public funding for religious programs or creating public displays involving religious symbols or public prayer).

          Your argument that this violates the establishment clause doesn’t fall under any existing line of Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court gets to say what the law means. They get to say what it means for Congress to Establish a religion. And thus far, they haven’t indicated that your argument has any merit (which is why Olson/Boise didn’t try to make this argument, as well).

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      For right now Prop 8 is the only thing at issue in this case; DOMA is an entirely separate law and it is not directly challenged here. However, presuming this case reaches the Supreme Court, the Court’s holding could have implications for DOMA.

      Pretend for a moment that the Supreme Court decides that any law which limits marriage to one man and one woman violates the equal protection clause. Under DOMA, the federal government treats marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman exclusively. Such a broad holding would seem to automatically invalidate DOMA.

      Alternatively though, the Supreme Court could rule on a more limited basis. For example, the Court could consider the unique situation in California: first the state made it clear that everyone had particular rights, then the state stripped an unpopular minority group of these rights. If the Court’s holding is more narrow and more focused on the factual background leading up to Prop 8, then it might not have much of an impact on DOMA.

      Also worth mentioning: another case out of Massachusetts (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management) is directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. MA is in the First Circuit, which is generally much faster than the Ninth Circuit, so despite the fact that Perry is currently further along, there’s a decent chance Gill will reach the Supreme Court first.

  9. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Is there an argument based on the intentions and motivations of the proponents of Prop 8? If so, how could that invalidate Prop 8? Is there actually case precedent that some sort of wrong intent can invalidate a proposition? I thought I heard something about this earlier.

    • Thumb up 0

      Please log in to vote

      It depends.

      Presuming the Supreme Court takes the case and rules in our favor, then Proposition 8 is invalidated. California will return to its pre-Prop 8 status, and same-sex couples will be allowed to get married. But the broader implications depend on how the Court reaches this decision.

      If five Justices decide that the Constitution provides a fundamental right to marry the person of your choosing regardless of gender, or that it violates the Equal Protection Clause, then any federal or state statute or state constitutional provision that limits marriage to people of opposite genders could be challenged (and should succeed).

      If instead, two Justices find that that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause and three find that it violates the Due Process Clause (or some other combination of reasoning that gets five votes for us), then we have five Justice on our side, but no majority rationale. As a result, it becomes more difficult to challenge related legislation, because only the majority rationale becomes binding precedent. Everything else just becomes part of the argument. Should this happen, we’ll likely see quite a bit of litigation as lower courts try to figure out what exactly is and is not permissible.

  10. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Homosexual Red Tide! How befitting that gays chose red shirts as their color of choice during “gay days at Disney”. The lefts crème de la crème is the red in the red time. Our forefathers fought the red tide and soon the war against the reds is coming again.

    Are gays the only group that perverts and mocks Gods #1 commandment “ Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and love your neighbor like yourself”? Probably not the only group, but the sure are at the top of the list. It’s pretty obvious the gays foul godliness and the wholesome life when they crack jokes about loving a neighbor in a gay way. It’s almost like they are looking to start a fight with normal people. Look at how they fouled the cowboy culture with their Brokeback Mountain movie. The American cowboy has been the backbone of right wing Christian heterosexual living for more than a century. The movie has probably only served one thing, an increase of violence between straight cowmen and gays. We will probably never know that stats on how many bar fights were caused because of that movie. Just the slightest provocation by someone that infers homosexuality will cause a fight, and the movie has only increased the likelihood of that factor.

    Homophobe is commonly defined as a fear of gays and the gay lifestyle. However it is also a mental suggestion. The gays are suggesting that we be afraid of them, and also to tamper with our mental process. So in a way homophobe is a psychological attack against the straight world. We don’t fear the gay sex act, because we are naturally straight. Fear is a powerful tool of mental suggestion. Most gays don’t know the people they call homophobic well enough to justify the use of the word. Using suggestion to attempt to confuse the enemies mind was used in World War 2, and in the Vietnam War, Hanoi Hannah used propaganda and disinformation against American soldiers.
    So I say tit for tat. They want to call us homophobic,(to harm us) and in return we should correct them by saying, we are homoabomino, or homoabominaters.

    10-22-09 GAYS SERVING OPENLY IN THE MILITARY MEANS STRAIGHTS HAVE A LEGAL AND MORAL RIGHT TO SEPRATE HOUSING. YOU DON’T FORCE MEN AND FEMALE SOLDIERS TO BUNK AND SHOWER TOGETHER, SO EQUAL PROTECTION WOULD MEAN SEGREGATED BARRACKS FOR THE GAYS SERVING OPENLY. So let’s spend billions of dollars building new housing, showers, and toilets, and while were at it new uniforms for the probationary gay service members. After all this would be a new program and they should be distinguished form normal troops.
    Once gays become legal to serve in the military the straights will have a new found “right” to demand separate housing. The segregated living conditions men and women enjoy currently will be the rallying point for more division.

    The argument that other countries have gays serving openly in the military has been presented without any specifics. I’ve heard that in smaller countries the men train in the army during the day, and go home to sleep with mom and dad. America has the largest military in the world and should not be compared to the smaller countries.
    The same logic should apply when considering the Gay Army of Thebes. They were only 150 couples and we don’t know what kind of rules, disciplines maybe even torture was used to control them. One small example over 2,000 years ago hardly represents the millions of gays in America.
    Homosexual predators are looking for young straight men that have not developed a strong moral fiber, and firm sexual identity. The basic training and advanced military training facilities are prime hunting grounds for preying gays who know there is confusion in the minds of the new recruits fresh from home. Do you want your son or daughter exploited by these vultures of human sexuality?
    THE MILTARY VICTIMS OF HOMOSEXUAL PREDATORS ARE UNTOLD STORIES, LOST BECAUSE OF SHAME, DEPRESSION, AND FEAR. Someone must speak to congress for them. Those men and women were exploited/molested by gays learned a lesson from the school of hard knocks. They trusted someone who they believed was a friend and coworker, only to wake up and find themselves used and abused at an age and time when there wasn’t anyone to turn for support. They have carried this dark secret for decades and many will die rather than speak out. So we only hear from the soldiers that were never attacked by gay predators. They speak out, saying the gays were O.K., and that they did the job right. Unfortunately they don’t understand there is two sides to every story.

    While we are at it let’s define exactly what kind of homosexual behavior should be permitted in the gay barracks. Will they be allowed to have oral and anal sex in the showers and barracks? What about more deviant types of gay sex, like feces and urine, and S&M?

    Gays are trying to pass themselves off as being intellectually superior because they claim to practice and endorse metrosexuality and bisexuality. In truth intellectually superior people are those that contribute to our modern technology by inventing and discovering and innovating. Bisexuality doesn’t even exist! It’s more lies from the gay left. The proof is in your own body and mind. You can only desire and lust after one gender, it’s the natural way we function. Bisexuality can only happen as an act of deliberation, concentration and meditation. They make themselves perform bisexual acts for whatever reason is conjured in the mind of the offender. This isn’t being intellectually superior, it’s just a con, usually by prostitutes and other criminal types.

    Gay marriage
    10-13-09 The real reason God destroyed the homosexuals of Soddom has nothing to do with religion. God wanted to protect us from a group of people that mock all laws. Putting a gay man in prison is like putting a fox in a hen house. Can you imagine if we had coed prisons? A murderer or rapist, bank robber, etc. would be in hog heaven if he was doing 20 to life with a cellmate that looked like Marilyn Monroe. He’d have free rent, free food and medical care and a good looking lady. Homosexuals do not fear jail, in fact as we have seen homosexuality in prison is beyond commonplace. That is why some people say “homosexuality is a more heinous crime than murder”, because it mocks and laughs at all laws, and law and order is what we must live by.

    10-15-09 The homosexual mafia is the largest and most unrecognized organized crime family in the world. They have the ability to transcend every way of life, race, religion, job, and family are all tainted by the gay underground. Lacking any fear of prison and encouraged by the knowledge they can overcome through attrition, extortion, lies and deceit, murder and mayhem the gay man is a monster in comparison to the mafias and street gangs we read about in the daily news. They live a secret life and even those in the “out”, celebrities, and working gays are despicable drug addicted alcoholics willing to bend to the will of anybody that professes allegiance to the gay cause, for the purpose of defending their sect. Gays may be hiding inside the real mafia or working at the FBI, they operate as doctors, lawyers and police officers, and they have one thing in common, a reason to defy the government, which is the protection of the gay world.
    The most despicable homosexual propaganda suggestion in the world is “if a man is sensitive, and displays any artistic and creative abilities then he is obviously gay”. This is often used as an innuendo to undermine a man’s success in life. It’s pretty obvious these people will take over the world soon. Only a worldwide war on homosexuality will stop them, and we are to civilized to do that. It is understandable why God destroyed the gays at Soddom, he wanted to slow their conquest of the world. 6/23/09

    So why are we kissing up to these fiends? Give them gay marriage, openly serve in the military, etc is a travesty considering the probability they did spread AIDS on purpose. If you were around in the 80’s you’d remember the enormous amount of antigay activity.
    It is so obvious that some members of the gay community infected with AIDS went around spreading it to the straight world, that if you don’t see it, it’s because you nose is to big. Oh!, so they were just trying to protect their culture from the hate crimes. Spread AIDS to heterosexuals and children, killing thousands is O.K. because you are trying to protect your gay friends. Now we have “moved on” the typical liberal response, based on a mental deficit because they can’t or don’t want to remember the atrocity of homosexual monsters contaminating straight people on purpose So now it’s time to reward the gays with special rights. Ignore the fact that millions of people in America sincerely believe homosexuality is a disease out of control. “homosexuality is at least as heinous as a crime as murder”. Because of world overpopulation problems the gay population is multiplying in greater numbers. We must be prepared to safeguard our future in a post apocalyptic world. When God returns he must not see us as a Caligula-ized society. The gays are using psychological warfare tactics to spread their cult. Every time they use innuendos to suggest some celebrity is gay, or they call you a homophobe, or they say that anybody over 30 years old that isn’t married is gay, is mind warfare. It’s part of their plan to convert us. Look at gay marriage; have you ever seen a gay couple that has been together 60 years? We have millions of hetro marriages that have lasted 40, 50, and 60 years, but there is probably not one gay couple in America that has lived together in a marriage lifestyle for 60 years. The demand for gay marriage is just part of their conquest plans. “Smiling faces show no traces of the evil that lurks within” Undisputed Truth. It means that our worst enemy is sometimes the one we don’t see. Homosexuality may be a greater enemy than the Taliban. We have fought religious wars for thousands of years, but the war against homosexuality may be something new that is emerging from overpopulation.
    S.I.M.P.L.E., surplus intelligent male population life elimination is a simple philosophy based on one simple fact. The fact is for thousands of years women have given birth to more male babies than female ones. Whether you believe in God or not it is still a biological and historical fact that all wars throughout history were fought primarily by men only. War, crime, suicide, drugs, etc all contribute to balancing the sex ratio. It’s the real reason God the Father destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, cities having an enormous surplus of males, and they all (except Lot) were worshippers of the beast. A male dominated world must be free of homosexual contamination to function as a civilized people.
    The normal growth patterns that have kept our population balanced are out of whack because of global overpopulation. This problem can have a cancerous effect that would allow one group to escalate out of proportion. Nature may be trying to correct the problem of overpopulation through homosexuality. Unfortunately it takes intelligent design to repair a problem of this size. If we abide by natures fix the consequences may be a Sodomite planet. 10-18-09 We seem to think that things like women’s lib is an intellectual evolution. What a coincidence that at the same time women’s lib is, we are also experiencing world overpopulation, a factor in considering nondiscriminatory war. Nature is a real part of life, and it is entirely possible that gay populations may be on the rise to counter our overpopulation.


    We can’t even find the right labels for these people. Individually they are not a cult, or a religion, or a disease, or an army. Combine them together and it appears to fit. The gay movement of today is a combination of cult, religion, army, and disease. Any one of them would set of alarms if it was some other group, but we just ignore any suggestion that gays are a cult or an army. So why doesn’t somebody invent or create a new designation for these people? They obviously embrace gayness as a cult/religion. It’s common knowledge many gays refer to us heterosexuals as “repressed homosexuals”. Supposedly we live in a world of fear, unable to loose the chains of oppression. Open up and accept their homosexuality as way to world peace, by sleeping with as many people as you can. As the gay movement grows they are easily implementing tactics that would be considered in some countries as psychological warfare. This “gay marriage” scheme is one such tactic. Gays have lived for thousands of years without marriage, so why all of a sudden are they looking for marriage? So they don’t have guns and rockets, you can still fight a war without, “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Edward Lytton.
    Homosexuality may not be a disease one finds in the Merck manual, they are biased enough to not even refers to it as a disorder. Just remember Sodom a city ruled by homosexuals as a parable. When and if ultraliberals and gays become the voting majority we will see laws change until rape and incest and every imaginable type of despicable act is legalized. In the movie “The Island of Dr. Moreau” H.G. Wells. The creations were half man and half beast; in real life we are hiding our other half (the beast) deep within the walls of the mind. “All have sinned” Romans 3:23 means we are supposed to repress our lower base animalistic desires, not open up to them as the homosexuals preach.

    Gay Marriage is all about “flaunting”, looking for attention, jumping into the limelight, even if it is only for 15 minutes of fame, it is what the gay mind craves. In rebuttal the gays cite the high divorce rate among straights, totally disregarding the nature, decided by thousands of years of patterns, and a culture with a hyper-serious intent. The sanctity of marriage sits higher up than the basal understandings gays associate with. The mockery of our institution is as juvenile as being “mooned” by roadside hooligans.
    God help us if the prison population finds some loophole in gay marriage laws that helps them “get over” on the system. This will certainly help turn prison into a gay paradise.

    Links to homosexuality as a disease:
    My Genes Made Me Do It. (book) N.E. Whitehead, PhD.
    Gay Cure Makes homosexuality A Disease., blog, found in yahoo under search ”why isn’t homosexuality a disease”? Gay Gene: Implications and Dilemma Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of It’s Medical Consequences Homosexuality is a Mental Illness.


    Is homosexuality a more heinous crime than murder? Are gays a greater enemy than the Taliban or Al Qaeda? If so, how can it be demonstrated? It looks like one answer is popularity/propaganda potentials that could elevate gay movement. If they became very popular homosexuality could become a cult or even a religion. The idea that we as a people can find peace happiness and prosperity, to live in a crime and war free world is possible if we all sleep and have sex together is not that farfetched of an idea that the gays would support. Is it why God destroyed Sodom, because the gays took over the government and had laws that required strangers and visitors to their cities to have sex with the people of Sodom in order to be accepted? Should we allow the homosexuals the opportunity to advance their cult/religion and create a popularity front that will draw our world’s youth to their cause?

    Fact: “In December 1973 this movement achieved a major victory when pressure groups succeeded in forcing the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses”.
    Was the pressure on the APA some kind of extortion? Could it be challenged in today’s court system?

    If you told a blind person or someone with kidney stones that their disease is a normal biological experience, and that they should accept and even learn to enjoy their disease, and not to seek a cure, you would more than likely get spit on. Homosexuals have used pressure tactics to force the APA to remove them from a disease status, is like the blind doing the same because they like their social security check more than sight. The difference is homosexuality is a perversion of deviant pleasure and being blind is not. They both are normal and natural biological occurrences, but being a common experience in nature doesn’t exclude them from being undesirable. Any desirability in homosexuality lies in the government’s unwillingness to lead and educate the people. It is a responsibility for parents that must be reinforced by the government to teach our nations youth that homosexuality is biologically wrong and is a disease in nature.

    If you take away the religion, what is left behind is pure biology, nature, evolution, and where does homosexuality stand then? It becomes a natural enemy of the heterosexual, a biological force of competition, a foreign army, a predator that one must protect from.
    When you add religion homosexuality is the power of evil, sin, lust and sexual aberration.
    How can an intelligent heterosexual show any support for gay marriage, knowing that with or without religion gays are a type of enemy, something that you cannot in any serious contemplation stand in defense of?


    Gays have had thousands of years to fine tune a culture of deception. They have passed on from generation to generation the ability to hide their homosexuality from family, friends, church, and community and even the work place. The lies and deceit come automatically and mechanically, and is a function that allows this segment of the population to blend invisibly. Unless one has lived within the gay community (as one of their own) then you can never really be certain of the full extent of their culpability.


    Gays don’t enlist in the military because of a deep desire to serve their country. It’s more likely they are joining to try and bond in a predominately male environment. Some are possibly possessed with the intent of treason and to master the system undetected, so as to come out later and champion the gay liberation cause. It is clear they are not serving the purpose of honor and duty to their country. It’s pretty obvious that gays in the military do not lack male aggressive behavior. The idea that gays are timid and meek effeminate types isn’t not true to the cases we see and read about in the press. All the more evidence to not trust them.

    We have all seen or read of homosexuality in other species of animals. It’s acceptable behavior because they are lower animals. We know it’s wrong because in our simplest understanding of biology, sex is for the creation of new life.
    With human homosexuality, we tend to view those infected as we would others with birth defects and disease, consequently we embrace and protect them from harm. Unfortunately gays are humans with minds, not cats and dogs, and what has happened is they have used this protection to enhance their predatory nature. They have learned to accept their defect as normal, because it is normal in nature to have defects. The problem is they misused the word normal, and now claim to be normal or free of defect. They have twisted the reality of being defective/diseased people and created an illusion of being in a proper state of existence.
    Science not religion, or the combination will prove the gays undoing. We will soon create the technology to design sexual preference at birth. Eventually homosexuality will be phased out of existence. After all what rational minded couple would choose their newborns to be gay?

  11. Thumb up 0

    Please log in to vote

    Also, another interesting case that might be relevant is Plyer v Doe, where the Court struck down a law denying public education to illegal aliens. The reasoning was rather unique in SCOTUS jurisprudence, it seems. First, education is not a fundamental right, but it was deemed to be so important that they gave it a kind of quasi-fundamental right status. Second, the classification based on legal status (not to be confused with alienage) does not get heightened scrutiny, but the Court deemed this to be a quasi-suspect classification. Combining this quasi-fundamental right status of education and the quasi-suspect class status of illegals, the Court seemed to apply a somewhat heightened level of scrutiny.

    The relevance here is that classification based on sexual orientation hasn’t explicitly received heightened scrutiny. And same-sex marriage has never been considered by the Court, so its status as a fundamental right is uncertain. But I wonder what you think of the argument that the combination of the two might create a Plyler-esque situation: if same-sex marriage is at least a quasi-fundamental right, and sexual orientation is at least a quasi-suspect class, then the combination of the two should lead to a heightened level of scrutiny, just as the combination of education and illegal aliens did in Plyer v Doe?

Contribute to the conversation...

Yay! You've decided to leave a comment. That's fantastic. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated by the guidelines laid out in our comment policy. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation and thanks for stopping by!