Teaching Gay History in California

Jul 9, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

California lawmakers on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would make the state the first requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.

Comments
12,201 - 12,220 of 12,516 Comments Last updated Sep 7, 2013

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13168 Jan 27, 2013
Again, use here of disease transmission information is intended to demonize, dehumanize, and promote irrational fear in order to justify causing further harm. It implies most gay people are infected, which is not true. Yet even misleading information about disease transmission supports the importance of encouraging committed relationships through marriage.

It also demonstrates the importance of accurate and honest education about disease transmission and risk reduction. Anyone engaging in sex can catch any disease, but only if exposed to the infectious agent. They need to know the risks of having multiple partners, and how to prevent disease transmission.

It fails to provide an excuse for legal discrimination and the continued promotion of the irrational prejudice that leads many to self destructive behavior, including high risk sex.

It also fails to consider gay women are the lowest risk group for disease transmission, while straight people of both sexes are also at risk for all of the same things used to demonize gay people of both sexes.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#13169 Jan 27, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no valid arguments to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, so you keep repeating your silly diatribes as if you make the rules.
1. What people voted for is irrelevant. Nobody is supposed to be able to vote on each others' rights. They're guaranteed in the Constitution, remember? The fact that they do, win or lose, is a perversion. Many things the people voted for or would have voted for have been wrong, and have been corrected, repeatedly.
2. "Activists courts" in the sense you and others use that term, are a myth.
3. History and precedent are irrelevant. Equality takes priority.
4. Limits must be borne of reason, not prejudice. You have no reason. Only prejudice. It won't hold up. It never does.
The fairness is only counted in the amendments. The constitution itself doesn't say equality. The people aren't changing the amendments, just the propositions. People vote for propositions. Thats how it works. He had no evidence, he didn't ask why they gone against it. He doesn't know their minds. He is 68 or 69, and yet he is so arrogant to proclaim that people are against same sex marriage and believe it is a union just because of bigotry. There is no fool like an old fool? Correct. Old fools should know better. Hence I am more accountable.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13170 Jan 27, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
The fairness is only counted in the amendments. The constitution itself doesn't say equality. The people aren't changing the amendments, just the propositions. People vote for propositions. Thats how it works. He had no evidence, he didn't ask why they gone against it. He doesn't know their minds. He is 68 or 69, and yet he is so arrogant to proclaim that people are against same sex marriage and believe it is a union just because of bigotry. There is no fool like an old fool? Correct. Old fools should know better. Hence I am more accountable.
Not sure what you are talking about, but all of the courts that have found laws that deny marriage equality to be unconstitutional, have done so only after having hearings, based on written testimony as well as oral arguments and testimony before the court. Judge Walker even encouraged those opposed to equality to submit more of both.

But just because a proposition is voted on, does not mean it is constitutional. To be legal, it must treat everyone equally, as required by the 5th and 14th amendments, and as promised in the founding documents.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13171 Jan 27, 2013
"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13172 Jan 27, 2013
"Log Cabin Republicans has demonstrated the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act, on its face, violates the constitutional rights of its members. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act." http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/trial...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13173 Jan 27, 2013
Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" and "the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski." (Golinski v.)

“As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”(Gill v.)
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#13174 Jan 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure what you are talking about, but all of the courts that have found laws that deny marriage equality to be unconstitutional, have done so only after having hearings, based on written testimony as well as oral arguments and testimony before the court. Judge Walker even encouraged those opposed to equality to submit more of both.
But just because a proposition is voted on, does not mean it is constitutional. To be legal, it must treat everyone equally, as required by the 5th and 14th amendments, and as promised in the founding documents.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Everybody has rights of the 14 amendment to marry the opposite sex.
Proposals are legal.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13175 Jan 27, 2013
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional." (Perry v)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13176 Jan 27, 2013
The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117)

Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118)

"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."

"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
(In Re Marriage Cases, Ca. Supreme Court)
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#13177 Jan 27, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
The Ca. Supreme Court found "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children.(p.117)
Additionally, the court found "the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite sex couples likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.118)
"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
"Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."
(In Re Marriage Cases, Ca. Supreme Court)
Judge walker had no right to dismiss the people and allow homosexuality without evidence and he didn't even know the peoples reason for being against it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13178 Jan 27, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Judge walker had no right to dismiss the people and allow homosexuality without evidence and he didn't even know the peoples reason for being against it.
You are mistaken. He did hear evidence, and even encouraged the prop 8 folks to submit more. They submitted written as well as oral testimony. Here is some:

The Court: "I'm asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite sex marriages."
Mr. Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." p. 24, Motion for Summary Judgement

Hearing testimony:“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.” Conservative anti-marriage equality director of the Institute for American Values David Blankenhorn, one of the few witnesses who testified in favor of Prop 8. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/f...

The problem for the prop 8 supporters was, they had no rational governmental interest sufficient for harming gay people by denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.

And neither do you.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13179 Jan 27, 2013
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. Laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." p. 135 Perry v. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/f...
Brenda Lee Johnson

Los Angeles, CA

#13180 Jan 27, 2013


~~

Cool Hand Luke wrote:

That is just more of that twisted homosexual up is down, down is up bullshit! Your pedophile counter parts make the same argument about sex with children.
.
You are just trying to destroy the concept of normality!
.
One queer posted: "there are a lot more homosexuals today than ever" only because there are more people in the world.
The percentage of queers in the world has never been greater than 2% of the population. No where in the history of mankind, ever!
Nature has made sure of it. Homosexuals existence is just like Einsteins theory of Relativity, it's only going to go so far before it just stops.
After the 60's sexual revolution which was the beginning of the expansion of homosexuality in the U.S. suddenly more and more diseases appeared and it's the same today, more queers more diseases. Aid's wasn't known until the early 80's and as it is noted by your homosexual leaders on bill boards across California.
We knew that back in the 80's when they first campaigned to cover up the truth.
Same Sex Marriage is no more than an attack on family values. Just like in the 60's when The Catholic Church allowed homosexuals into the Church, homosexuals claimed that being celebrant would detour child molestation. We all know how that worked out!
You have an ace in the hole, Democrats and sop called Log cabin republicans! You don't think the number of people voting makes a difference, give it time. The homosexual situation has to get worst before it is corrected.Just look at history.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#13181 Jan 27, 2013
Brenda Lee Johnson wrote:
~~
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
That is just more of that twisted homosexual up is down, down is up bullshit! Your pedophile counter parts make the same argument about sex with children.
.
You are just trying to destroy the concept of normality!
.
One queer posted: "there are a lot more homosexuals today than ever" only because there are more people in the world.
The percentage of queers in the world has never been greater than 2% of the population. No where in the history of mankind, ever!
Nature has made sure of it. Homosexuals existence is just like Einsteins theory of Relativity, it's only going to go so far before it just stops.
After the 60's sexual revolution which was the beginning of the expansion of homosexuality in the U.S. suddenly more and more diseases appeared and it's the same today, more queers more diseases. Aid's wasn't known until the early 80's and as it is noted by your homosexual leaders on bill boards across California.
We knew that back in the 80's when they first campaigned to cover up the truth.
Same Sex Marriage is no more than an attack on family values. Just like in the 60's when The Catholic Church allowed homosexuals into the Church, homosexuals claimed that being celebrant would detour child molestation. We all know how that worked out!
You have an ace in the hole, Democrats and sop called Log cabin republicans! You don't think the number of people voting makes a difference, give it time. The homosexual situation has to get worst before it is corrected.Just look at history.
Wow, you're even an embarrassment to people in the South.

I am so "celebrant!" LOL. Stupid.
Worm

Miami, FL

#13182 Jan 27, 2013
Gays will lie in a second to try and win argument.

wm

Gay marriage will not reduce homosexual promiscuity

Gay marriage is an absurd proposition. Dan Savage, a leader of the gay movement, promotes promiscuity. The homosexual revolution is founded on sexual promiscuity.

In states that have gay marriage, few men marry. Between 2004 and 2008, only 37 percent of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involved men.

There is no evidence that “coupling” or gay marriage has notable impact on gay promiscuity.

Marriage becomes a promiscuous government village

Gay marriage is destined to be a three-way marriage between two women and big government. When Suzie marries Joanie, the kids will most often be born of serial extramarital encounters (where men are unlikely to know that birth control is not being used).

Gay marriage establishes a superior four-income, two-mother, big-government family. Marriage-as-village policy is a lucrative tentacular arrangement: women keep their own incomes, depending on government to force several men to provide multiple tax-free “child support” incomes.

The tremendous advantages of gay marriage for women are reflected in marriage data. Gay marriage is nearly twice as popular with women in Massachusetts, where 63 percent of gay marriages involved women between 2004 and 2008.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/homosexual-promisc...
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you're even an embarrassment to people in the South.
I am so "celebrant!" LOL. Stupid.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#13183 Jan 27, 2013
Worm wrote:
Gays will lie in a second to try and win argument.
wm
Gay marriage will not reduce homosexual promiscuity
Gay marriage is an absurd proposition. Dan Savage, a leader of the gay movement, promotes promiscuity. The homosexual revolution is founded on sexual promiscuity.
In states that have gay marriage, few men marry. Between 2004 and 2008, only 37 percent of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involved men.
There is no evidence that “coupling” or gay marriage has notable impact on gay promiscuity.
Marriage becomes a promiscuous government village
Gay marriage is destined to be a three-way marriage between two women and big government. When Suzie marries Joanie, the kids will most often be born of serial extramarital encounters (where men are unlikely to know that birth control is not being used).
Gay marriage establishes a superior four-income, two-mother, big-government family. Marriage-as-village policy is a lucrative tentacular arrangement: women keep their own incomes, depending on government to force several men to provide multiple tax-free “child support” incomes.
The tremendous advantages of gay marriage for women are reflected in marriage data. Gay marriage is nearly twice as popular with women in Massachusetts, where 63 percent of gay marriages involved women between 2004 and 2008.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/homosexual-promisc...
<quoted text>
Wow, so much misinformation, where to begin...

"wnd" is not a credible source. They are a biased site.

Any marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, reduces promiscuity for obvious reasons. Plenty of heterosexuals cheat, so you just focus on that.

I personally have never cheated on anyone in my life. However, I did fool around usually on weekends when I was single, generally speaking. I've been married for 5 1/2 years and obviously going home with a different guy every weekend ended at that point. And no, it was not difficult, or challenging. I'm one of those people who is much happier in a steady relationship.

Before you go there, I know bazillions of straight men and women who go home with a different person from the club every weekend.

Your argument seems to imply that gay people find it difficult to not be promiscuous, which is silly on its face. Gay people have been excluded not just from marriage, but from the light of day for many, many years. They were forced "underground" which created its own subculture. Without any structure of marriage (or even societal acceptance of being in a relationship for the longest time) and no risk of pregnancy, why wouldn't they just limit meetings to sex if they wanted? Keep in mind AIDS wasn't even a thing until fairly recently.

You can't force people underground and then blame them for behaving that way.

There is no denying attitudes have already changed. Younger gay people grow up in a different world with different expectations. I and my husband are 41, and while we grew up in a more hostile time than today, we always knew we wanted the married life.

As society stops stigmatizing gay people and our marriages, you will see more and more with each generation being raised with a more "regular" perspective on relationships and marriage.

Sorry to rain on your propaganda, but it's BS from people who want you to believe that stuff.

Don't be stupid.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13184 Jan 27, 2013
Worm wrote:
Anti-Gays will lie in a second to try and win argument.
<quoted text>
Your fear mongering fails to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Marriage is a fundamental right of the individual. It matters not how many choose to exercise that fundamental right.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13185 Jan 27, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Judge walker had no right to dismiss the people and allow homosexuality without evidence and he didn't even know the peoples reason for being against it.
Have you even READ the case?

Want links? I can provide.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#13186 Jan 27, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you even READ the case?
Want links? I can provide.
I have done that twice so far on this very page.

Maybe 3rd time is the charm? Again:

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/f...
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#13188 Jan 28, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You are mistaken. He did hear evidence, and even encouraged the prop 8 folks to submit more. They submitted written as well as oral testimony. Here is some:
The Court: "I'm asking you to tell me how it would harm opposite sex marriages."
Mr. Cooper: "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know. I don't know." p. 24, Motion for Summary Judgement
Hearing testimony:“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.” Conservative anti-marriage equality director of the Institute for American Values David Blankenhorn, one of the few witnesses who testified in favor of Prop 8. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/f...
The problem for the prop 8 supporters was, they had no rational governmental interest sufficient for harming gay people by denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the constitution.
And neither do you.
He didn't give a good proper arguement. The people decided who won the debate. Judge Walker had no evidence for the peoples reasons.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
goodlooking filipino offering massage in jeddah (Jul '13) 39 min yaso 301
meet here gays.(. jeddah) (Feb '10) 1 hr wow 12,676
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 1 hr Fa-Foxy 904
jeddah riyadh dammam top and bottom (Jun '11) 2 hr top riydah 815
California Takes a Stand Against Gay and Trans ... 4 hr Dubya 42
7 Surprising Ways Your Company Can Still Discri... 4 hr NE Jade 3
i am bottom in dammam (Aug '12) 5 hr abdulhadi 510
lookin for top jeddah (Jul '10) 13 hr bottom looking fo... 1,115
where guys and gays hangout in jeddah (Sep '10) Thu asadkhan 1,326
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Transgender People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••