Brad Pitt has donated 100,000 dollars to oppose a California referendum seeking to ban gay marriage, The Los Angeles Times reported.

Gay marriage has been legal in California since June.

But opponents of same-sex marriages collected enough signatures to force a referendum seeking to ban them. Called “Proposition 8,” it goes before voters in the most populous US state November 4.

“Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8,” the Times quoted Pitt as saying in a statement.

He and partner Angelina Jolie have said they would wed when everyone who wants to get married in the United States is able to do so. Same-sex marriages are illegal in most US states.

Source: AFP

19 Responses to “Pitt donates to support gay marriage rights”

»Karonica

September 19th, 2008 at 2:59 am

Well, because of Mr. Pitt’s position on this very important issue, I will no longer be supporting any of his movies and will make certain that everyone I know is aware of his support for homosexuality and discrimination against traditional marriage, which has always been in existence until June 2008 when four CA Supreme Court Justices overruled against the majority of the people who already voted yes on this issue in 2000.

Mr. Pitt’s ought to stick to acting instead of politics or he just may lose many of his fans.

»Gabe

September 19th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

I CAN’T believe you are supporting gay marriage. A Marriage should be between a man and a women.

»Gabe

September 19th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/

»Courtney

September 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Thats awesome!

»Philip Chandler

September 20th, 2008 at 11:59 pm

I have been described by some people as a “gay rights activist” (whatever is meant by that description)…

I am deeply grateful to Mr. Pitt for making this contribution — for quite literally putting his money where his mouth is. The California Supreme Court handed down an analytically rich and carefully researched opinion, interpreting the California state constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection as granting gay persons the right to marry on equal terms with heterosexuals. Not only do Brad and Angelina make financial contributions to suppress bigotry and discrimination, and to prevent this ruling from being wiped out by a discriminatory constitutional amendment — they also refuse to marry until gay people are also allowed to marry across the USA.

Thank you, Brad, for helping us in our efforts to secure — and retain — equality in the eyes of the society of which we are a part. You are looked up to by many, many people — particularly the younger people who will one day be leaders and politicians — and this gesture is of great significance. This kind act will be an inspiration to other fair-minded, heterosexual Americans.

With sincere thanks,

PHILIP CHANDLER

»Melly

September 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm

When I think of the definition of marriage and how it is evolving in California, few issues have brought me as much emotional conflict. I love my fellow man, and have a strong belief that people should have the agency to live their lives however they choose.

However, I don’t believe any one’s choices should corrupt the sanctity of God’s commandments, His churches, or His Gospel, whichever denomination we choose to embrace. Mortal law should not be allowed sue its way into our
religions, churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. (see “six consequences if
Prop 8 fails” below).

I believe marriage is sacred, is ordained of God, and meant to be between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 will be on November’s ballot, and will protect marriage by changing State constitution by legally defining marriage as being “between a man and a woman”.

I’m comforted to know that gay and lesbian Californians are not disadvantaged by this proposition, to include legally or financially. So I hope all of us will consider the great need that exists for voting YES on Proposition 8 in November.

For more information on Proposition 8, link to http://www.protectmarriage.com

Six* *Consequences If Proposition 8 Fails

1. Children in public schools will be taught that both traditional
marriage and same-sex marriage are okay.

The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)

Therefore, if the definition of marriage is changed, children will be taught that marriage is a relation between any two adults. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. Churches will be sued if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings that are open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries. For an example of one such lawsuit, link to churches sued for gay and lesbian access.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government
agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston has already closed its doors because of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools and which provide housing for married students will be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if it runs counter to church doctrine, or lose tax exemptions and benefits.

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages will be sued for hate speech and could be fined by the government. It has already happened in Canada, one of six countries that have legalized gay marriage.

6. It will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money - your money, your church contributions - that will have to be spent on legal fees.

And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?

It’s your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.

Search, ponder and pray about this issue, then vote your conscience on November 4th.

»Kathie Marshall

September 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Good for the gays! But what about the people of the Houston area? Ike has left millions without power in a very hot climate for well over a week now. Many have no home to go back to, perhaps his money would be better spent on real help for desperate people rather than political causes. There are so many worthy causes. I just get my feathers ruffled when I hear of such silliness.

»Kevin

September 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Brad,

Thank you for supporting the No on 8 Proposition. You are a wonderful human being for taking a stand as a Celebrity to say No to those that want to prevent gay and lesbian citizens of California the right to love, and live life with each other.

You are the greatest!

»lady

September 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

hello i want to be elite with you, can be elite affiliates?
http://oh-paris.org/

»Jamie

October 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Um…this Proposition isn’t about “equality” it’s about morals. If you want to be gay…that’s fine. But we need to stick to what is right.

Our country was founded on Christianity and being gay is an abomination.

Do what you want in the privacy of your bedroom but don’t ask for rights when you CHOOSE to be perverted.

»Jamie

October 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Below are some Bible verses that condemn homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
I Corinthians 6:9(NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB) - “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Jude 1:6-7 (NASB) - And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

»Jamie

October 4th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Where are my other comments?

»Karonica

October 9th, 2008 at 5:48 am

Just want to let Mr. Pitts know that I will no longer be supporting any of his upcoming movies because of his stand in opposing Propostion 8 and his support of deceptive marriage. Here’s a little info for him to consider…

The Consequences of Homosexual Marriage

In the next few weeks Californians will be inundated with media messages about the importance of allowing same-sex marriages. Voters will see TV ads telling them that homosexual love deserves “equality” with heterosexual love. Voters will hear radio reports about how all gays and lesbians want is to have the same “rights” as all married couples. And the main message that will be repeated is that allowing homosexuals to marry will have no impact on your marriage or your family-so what’s the harm in giving gays their chance to marry?

Although on the surface these arguments appear convincing, they don’t tell the whole truth.

Homosexual marriage will have a direct, intrusive and damaging effect on your family.

Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot. Books like “Heather has Two Mommies” or “Daddy’s Wedding” will be used to teach kindergartners about homosexual relationships. When parents in Boston complained about an eighth-grade teacher instructing students about gay sex, the teacher responded, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.”

Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that medical professionals may not defer treatment to another professional based on their religious objections. In other words, Christians and those with moral beliefs must check their conscience at the door when they arrive at work. The same case law will apply to churches. Pastors will no longer be allowed to refuse marrying homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.

Businesses will be prosecuted for not participating in homosexual ceremonies. A New Mexico photography company is being prosecuted for refusing to photograph the “commitment ceremony” of a homosexual couple. The full force of the government will used to make citizens publicly accept homosexuality.

Married couples will no longer be considered “bride and groom,” but “Party A and Party B.” A young couple in Placer County wrote the terms “bride” and “groom” on their marriage license, which was returned from the state as an “unacceptable alteration.” A husband and wife are legally referred to now as Party A and Party B according to the California government. By redefining marriage, every marriage has already been affected.

The role of parents will be diminished. The family unit is already under assault with no-fault divorce, acceptance of single parenthood, and nanny government usurping the role of fathers. Homosexual marriage worsens this trend by giving government approval to single-sex parenting. Children need both a mother and a father. By approving homosexual marriage, government and society denies children their right and need for both parents.

These are just a few of the negative, damaging consequences of allowing homosexual marriage in our society. When you encounter a neighbor, church member, work associate, or family member who says, “I’m not a bigot-and homosexual marriage won’t affect me,” remind them of just how much it will impact their family and all families.

This is not an issue of bigotry, but of ensuring marriage isn’t redefined by four activist judges. Wanting children to be raised by both of their parents isn’t bigoted either. What’s truly bigoted is telling Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of faith that their beliefs must be silenced.

Folks, vote YES on Prop 8!

»Philip Chandler

October 22nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm

THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE WAS DELETED! SO MUCH FOR FREEDOM OF IDEAS ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD! I REPOST THIS MESSAGE IN ITS ENTIRETY:

Karonica wrote:

“Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that medical professionals may not defer treatment to another professional based on their religious objections. In other words, Christians and those with moral beliefs must check their conscience at the door when they arrive at work. The same case law will apply to churches. Pastors will no longer be allowed to refuse marrying homosexuals based on their religious beliefs. ”

*********
Response:
*********

This is absolute rubbish.

No church can or will be prosecuted for not performing gay marriage ceremonies. Just as churches are free to decide not to marry divorced persons, or persons who are not members of the church in question, so will churches retain the right to decide whether or not to perform marriage ceremonies. Had Karonica spent a few minutes researching the impact of gay marriage, she would realize that she has written bald-faced lies.

Gay persons have been permitted to marry in Massachusetts since 2003, when the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts handed down the _Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health_ decision. No church anywhere in that state has been forced to marry gay persons, and Karonica would have found this out had she simply spent a few minutes checking her message. I don’t know why she wrote this — she had to have known that this was blatantly false before posting it. Whatever happened to the commandment about not bearing false witness?

Karonica also writes:

“Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot. Books like “Heather has Two Mommies” or “Daddy’s Wedding” will be used to teach kindergartners about homosexual relationships. When parents in Boston complained about an eighth-grade teacher instructing students about gay sex, the teacher responded, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.” ”

**********
Response:
**********

You are complaining about the fact that gay people have won some measure of political clout, by fighting for their rights. Schools exist to teach children about the world in which they live. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that something does not exist does not change the fact that it does exist, and will continue to exist. Children throughout the country are taught that interracial marriage is legal, and that white people may marry black people. What is the problem with this? Do you want children in the State of California to be taught that gay marriage is NOT legal in that state? The bottom line is that schools teach about reality.

Karonica writes:

” Businesses will be prosecuted for not participating in homosexual ceremonies. A New Mexico photography company is being prosecuted for refusing to photograph the “commitment ceremony” of a homosexual couple. The full force of the government will used to make citizens publicly accept homosexuality. ”

*********
Response:
**********

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with gay marriage! The photographers were prosecuted for denying to a gay couple a public service that they provide, for profit, to heterosexuals. The State of New Mexico has a law on its books that makes it illegal, as a matter of state law, to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, access to housing, and access to places (and services) of public accommodation. Karonica is complaining about the existence of a state anti-discrimination statute that is utterly unrelated to gay marriage (which is NOT legal in New Mexico!). The New Mexico law was enacted by the state legislature in response to the democratic process — gay persons in that state lobbied the state legislature for the passage of a state law that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in employment, access to housing, and access to places (and suppliers) of public accommodations.

I repeat — for the record — the anti-discrimination law has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Also, this law cuts both ways. A gay photographer can be prosecuted for refusing to photograph a traditional Christian marriage ceremony. This is as it should be — such anti-discrimination statutes protect EVERYBODY, and do not create “special rights” (EVERYBODY has a sexual orientation). By cleverly juxtaposing the anti-discrimination statute and its impact with the debate about gay marriage, Karonica has told yet another bald-faced lie. If she does not believe this, she need only examine state law in New Mexico. Gay marriage is not legal in that state. However, the legislature respected the will of the people of the State of New Mexico, and passed an anti-discrimination statute that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination such as that which I have just described. There are some laws that I personally find offensive — but I recognize that, in a democracy, I have to abide by the law, and cannot pick and choose which laws to break and which laws to obey based on my religious sentiment!

Karonica then writes:

“Married couples will no longer be considered “bride and groom,” but “Party A and Party B.” A young couple in Placer County wrote the terms “bride” and “groom” on their marriage license, which was returned from the state as an “unacceptable alteration.” A husband and wife are legally referred to now as Party A and Party B according to the California government. By redefining marriage, every marriage has already been affected.”

**********
Response
**********

More blatant lies by omission! What Keronica does NOT mention is that, in response to public pressure, the bureaucrats backtracked, and now permit heterosexual couples to use the designations “bride” and “groom” should they so desire. Usage of “Party A” and “Party B” is optional. Why, Keronica, do you not tell the WHOLE truth? Why are you selectively citing only as much of the truth as is convenient to you?

Keronica then writes:

“The role of parents will be diminished. The family unit is already under assault with no-fault divorce, acceptance of single parenthood, and nanny government usurping the role of fathers. Homosexual marriage worsens this trend by giving government approval to single-sex parenting. Children need both a mother and a father. By approving homosexual marriage, government and society denies children their right and need for both parents. ”

**********
Response:
**********

This is more of the tired, old argument that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman, therefore it must always remain between a man and a woman.” The fact is that gay marriages do not impact the rights of heterosexual parents in any way at all. Heterosexual married couples are in no way worse off as a result of the Court’s decision. Marriage is celebrated by so many conservatives because it has a stabilizing effect on those who get married. This applies to gay persons just as it applies to heterosexual persons. The Court merely recognized the fact that some gay couples do raise children, just as some heterosexual couples do NOT have children. The Court noted that the link between marriage and procreation has already been broken, by forces having nothing to do with gay people. Many married heterosexual couples choose NOT to have children, just as many unmarried heterosexual couples choose to have children despite the fact that they are not married. Conversely, many married heterosexual couples choose to have children, whereas many unmarried heterosexual couples choose NOT to have children. There is no longer a stigma associated with being born out of wedlock — society has matured, and recognizes that it is morally perverse to harm children because their parents chose not to get married.

The bottom line is that the Court recognized that extending marriage to gay couples will have the effect of HELPING children who are raised by gay couples. Karonica may not like it, but the hard fact is that many gay couples do raise children. The Court’s decision now permits them to avail themselves of about 300 state benefits and privileges that were previously unavailable. These benefits include automatic visitation rights in hospitals, automatic inheritance rights, automatic tax breaks, the extension of health benefits to the spouses of gay employees, etc.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH GRANTING CHILDREN HEALTHCARE?

Sadly, forces of bigotry and ugliness may well prevail in California on November 4, and I am prepared for defeat (although I continue to hope for the best). Fortunately, there is one thing that the people of California cannot undo, or take away. The state court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is every bit as ugly and as pernicious as is racism or religious bigotry. The Court held that gay persons comprise a “suspect class” for the purposes of equal protection analysis. Even if gay marriage is eliminated at the state constitutional level, this reasoning will remain intact. The practical result is that existing Domestic Partnership benefits MUST now be recognized not as a matter of legislative grace, but as a matter of right. Any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in the State of California must not survive “strict scrutiny” — the state will have to demonstrate that any law that discriminates against gay persons must promote a compelling state interest and must be necessary to promote that interest.

This holding can never be disturbed. The implications of this holding alone are almost more significant than gay marriage itself.

Also — on October 10, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that gay persons comprise a “quasi-suspect” class for the purposes of equal protection analysis, meaning that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is now treated as seriously as is discrimination on the basis of gender. Laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation will now be sustained only if an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the challenged legislation can be demonstrated. The Connecticut Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state, and the people of that state cannot undo this victory at the ballot box. The hard right would love to modify the state constitution, but this can only be done by a constitutional convention, and there is simply not the political will to hold such a convention right now.

So gay marriage WILL prevail!

PHILIP CHANDLER

Vote NO on the monstrous Proposition 8!

»Philip Chandler

October 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm

This is the SECOND TIME I have had to repost the message below. Karonica keeps deleting my messages. I wonder why?

IT WOULD BE NICE IF THIS CENSORSHIP WOULD END!

I WILL KEEP REPOSTING THIS MESSAGE AS MANY TIMES AS NECESSARY…

____________________________________________________________________

Karonica wrote:

“Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution under anti-discrimination laws. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that medical professionals may not defer treatment to another professional based on their religious objections. In other words, Christians and those with moral beliefs must check their conscience at the door when they arrive at work. The same case law will apply to churches. Pastors will no longer be allowed to refuse marrying homosexuals based on their religious beliefs. ”

*********
Response:
*********

This is absolute rubbish.

No church can or will be prosecuted for not performing gay marriage ceremonies. Just as churches are free to decide not to marry divorced persons, or persons who are not members of the church in question, so will churches retain the right to decide whether or not to perform marriage ceremonies. Had Karonica spent a few minutes researching the impact of gay marriage, she would realize that she has written bald-faced lies.

Gay persons have been permitted to marry in Massachusetts since 2003, when the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts handed down the _Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health_ decision. No church anywhere in that state has been forced to marry gay persons, and Karonica would have found this out had she simply spent a few minutes checking her message. I don’t know why she wrote this — she had to have known that this was blatantly false before posting it. Whatever happened to the commandment about not bearing false witness?

Karonica also writes:

“Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot. Books like “Heather has Two Mommies” or “Daddy’s Wedding” will be used to teach kindergartners about homosexual relationships. When parents in Boston complained about an eighth-grade teacher instructing students about gay sex, the teacher responded, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.” ”

**********
Response:
**********

You are complaining about the fact that gay people have won some measure of political clout, by fighting for their rights. Schools exist to teach children about the world in which they live. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that something does not exist does not change the fact that it does exist, and will continue to exist. Children throughout the country are taught that interracial marriage is legal, and that white people may marry black people. What is the problem with this? Do you want children in the State of California to be taught that gay marriage is NOT legal in that state? The bottom line is that schools teach about reality.

Karonica writes:

” Businesses will be prosecuted for not participating in homosexual ceremonies. A New Mexico photography company is being prosecuted for refusing to photograph the “commitment ceremony” of a homosexual couple. The full force of the government will used to make citizens publicly accept homosexuality. ”

*********
Response:
**********

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with gay marriage! The photographers were prosecuted for denying to a gay couple a public service that they provide, for profit, to heterosexuals. The State of New Mexico has a law on its books that makes it illegal, as a matter of state law, to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, access to housing, and access to places (and services) of public accommodation. Karonica is complaining about the existence of a state anti-discrimination statute that is utterly unrelated to gay marriage (which is NOT legal in New Mexico!). The New Mexico law was enacted by the state legislature in response to the democratic process — gay persons in that state lobbied the state legislature for the passage of a state law that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in employment, access to housing, and access to places (and suppliers) of public accommodations.

I repeat — for the record — the anti-discrimination law has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Also, this law cuts both ways. A gay photographer can be prosecuted for refusing to photograph a traditional Christian marriage ceremony. This is as it should be — such anti-discrimination statutes protect EVERYBODY, and do not create “special rights” (EVERYBODY has a sexual orientation). By cleverly juxtaposing the anti-discrimination statute and its impact with the debate about gay marriage, Karonica has told yet another bald-faced lie. If she does not believe this, she need only examine state law in New Mexico. Gay marriage is not legal in that state. However, the legislature respected the will of the people of the State of New Mexico, and passed an anti-discrimination statute that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination such as that which I have just described. There are some laws that I personally find offensive — but I recognize that, in a democracy, I have to abide by the law, and cannot pick and choose which laws to break and which laws to obey based on my religious sentiment!

Karonica then writes:

“Married couples will no longer be considered “bride and groom,” but “Party A and Party B.” A young couple in Placer County wrote the terms “bride” and “groom” on their marriage license, which was returned from the state as an “unacceptable alteration.” A husband and wife are legally referred to now as Party A and Party B according to the California government. By redefining marriage, every marriage has already been affected.”

**********
Response
**********

More blatant lies by omission! What Keronica does NOT mention is that, in response to public pressure, the bureaucrats backtracked, and now permit heterosexual couples to use the designations “bride” and “groom” should they so desire. Usage of “Party A” and “Party B” is optional. Why, Keronica, do you not tell the WHOLE truth? Why are you selectively citing only as much of the truth as is convenient to you?

Keronica then writes:

“The role of parents will be diminished. The family unit is already under assault with no-fault divorce, acceptance of single parenthood, and nanny government usurping the role of fathers. Homosexual marriage worsens this trend by giving government approval to single-sex parenting. Children need both a mother and a father. By approving homosexual marriage, government and society denies children their right and need for both parents. ”

**********
Response:
**********

This is more of the tired, old argument that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman, therefore it must always remain between a man and a woman.” The fact is that gay marriages do not impact the rights of heterosexual parents in any way at all. Heterosexual married couples are in no way worse off as a result of the Court’s decision. Marriage is celebrated by so many conservatives because it has a stabilizing effect on those who get married. This applies to gay persons just as it applies to heterosexual persons. The Court merely recognized the fact that some gay couples do raise children, just as some heterosexual couples do NOT have children. The Court noted that the link between marriage and procreation has already been broken, by forces having nothing to do with gay people. Many married heterosexual couples choose NOT to have children, just as many unmarried heterosexual couples choose to have children despite the fact that they are not married. Conversely, many married heterosexual couples choose to have children, whereas many unmarried heterosexual couples choose NOT to have children. There is no longer a stigma associated with being born out of wedlock — society has matured, and recognizes that it is morally perverse to harm children because their parents chose not to get married.

The bottom line is that the Court recognized that extending marriage to gay couples will have the effect of HELPING children who are raised by gay couples. Karonica may not like it, but the hard fact is that many gay couples do raise children. The Court’s decision now permits them to avail themselves of about 300 state benefits and privileges that were previously unavailable. These benefits include automatic visitation rights in hospitals, automatic inheritance rights, automatic tax breaks, the extension of health benefits to the spouses of gay employees, etc.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH GRANTING CHILDREN HEALTHCARE?

Sadly, forces of bigotry and ugliness may well prevail in California on November 4, and I am prepared for defeat (although I continue to hope for the best). Fortunately, there is one thing that the people of California cannot undo, or take away. The state court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is every bit as ugly and as pernicious as is racism or religious bigotry. The Court held that gay persons comprise a “suspect class” for the purposes of equal protection analysis. Even if gay marriage is eliminated at the state constitutional level, this reasoning will remain intact. The practical result is that existing Domestic Partnership benefits MUST now be recognized not as a matter of legislative grace, but as a matter of right. Any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation in the State of California must not survive “strict scrutiny” — the state will have to demonstrate that any law that discriminates against gay persons must promote a compelling state interest and must be necessary to promote that interest.

This holding can never be disturbed. The implications of this holding alone are almost more significant than gay marriage itself.

Also — on October 10, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that gay persons comprise a “quasi-suspect” class for the purposes of equal protection analysis, meaning that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is now treated as seriously as is discrimination on the basis of gender. Laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation will now be sustained only if an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the challenged legislation can be demonstrated. The Connecticut Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state, and the people of that state cannot undo this victory at the ballot box. The hard right would love to modify the state constitution, but this can only be done by a constitutional convention, and there is simply not the political will to hold such a convention right now.

So gay marriage WILL prevail!

PHILIP CHANDLER

Vote NO on the monstrous Proposition 8!

»Philip Chandler

October 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 pm

SOMEBODY KEEPS DELETING THE MESSAGES THAT I POST…

THEN, WHEN I REPOST THE MESSAGES, THEY APPEAR DUPLICATED!

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS THREAD????

PHILIP CHANDLER

»Philip

October 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm

MESSAGES POSTED HERE KEEP VANISHING — THEN REAPPEARING!!

»Ilja

October 25th, 2008 at 9:34 am

What is wrong with you people?! why shouldn’t other people have the same rights you do? I’m from Europe and my eyeballs where almost falling out while reading your comments.. In Holland (where I come from) gay marriage is legal and it doesn’t effect me in any way. Why should I care what other people do? My goal in life is to make other people happy, not miserable.
As long as same-sex marriages are not performed in church, I really don’t see the problem. The law is not the bible.
I was raised as a Catholic but I turned away from it, because it hurts when I hear their point of view of people who are different. It’s pure discrimination but somehow the church gets away with it.
In my eyes Brad is a hero. He is prepared to give up part of his fame and popularity for this cause. I hope that Americans will fellow him, to end discrimination.

»Ilja

October 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am

“We protect only what we love, we love only what we know, we know only what we are taught.” - Author Unknown

Leave a Comment!