Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Blowback: Nothing defensible about DOMA

Maya Rupert responds to our editorial, "Defense of Marriage Act: Attack the law, not the lawyer." She is the federal policy director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Click here for more information on Blowback, our forum for readers to respond, at length, to Times articles.

DOMA In its April 21 editorial, The Times argues in favor of Paul Clement's decision to defend Section 3 of the  Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, which discriminates against legally married same-sex couples by prohibiting the federal government from recognizing their marriages for any purpose. In the editorial, The Times  takes the curious step of extending the familiar maxim that "every person deserves a lawyer" to the more expansive "every position deserves a lawyer." The first is a fundamental right upon which we base our criminal justice system. The other is a fiction that mistakenly seeks to insulate a shortsighted law firm from criticism for its decision to defend a discriminatory law. 

As the editorial correctly points out, there is an honorable tradition of lawyers defending unpopular and controversial clients. Civil liberties organizations, for example, have repeatedly, and admirably, defended plaintiffs whose views they abhor (such as members of the Ku Klux Klan), in order to protect cherished principles like freedom of speech and assembly. In this case, there is no greater good, no cherished larger issue at stake; the only issue contested  is discrimination. There is no venerable tradition of lawyers defending laws that single out certain groups for discrimination.

DOMA forces the federal government to discriminate against same-sex married couples and to treat their families as unworthy of protection or respect. A law that serves only to designate some families as second-class citizens has no principled defense. Defending DOMA simply prolongs the harm to same-sex couples and their children. There is no countervailing good.  

A private lawyer is under no obligation -- from a state bar, pursuant to ethical rules, or out of respect for the adversarial process -- to defend an indefensible law. Those who choose to defend such a law do so at the peril of their reputations as fair-minded and just advocates. Clement has made a decision not just to stand on the wrong side of history but to lead the charge on that side and, sadly, to bring his law firm, King & Spalding, along with him. He is free to do so, but we should not pretend that decision represents a magnanimous fidelity to the adversarial process or to justice.

Throughout history, discriminatory laws have weakened our country's commitment to equality and fairness. Those laws have generally remained in effect until judges, lawyers and the public took a stand against them. And those powerful statements -- that people will no longer use their power or profession to foster discrimination and harm -- forced those viewpoints into the far fringes where they belong. There are moments in history where people are called upon to make such statements. This is one of those moments. King & Spalding had an opportunity to use its considerable power to further justice, not perpetuate discrimination. In declining to do so, it acted in a way that is indefensible.

--Maya Rupert

RELATED: 

Adoption made hard for gay couple

Respecting all marriages

Out front on gay rights

Same-sex weddings, now

In the Netherlands, gay marriage's anniversary

Blowback archive

Photo: Same-sex couple Nowlin Haltom, left, and Michael McKeon hold a sign calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act outside the county clerk's office in Los Angeles in February. Credit: Robyn Beck / AFP / Getty Images

 

Comments () | Archives (164)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sharon Moore

It seems that K&S don't care about their reputation, nor about what this choice says to all the LGBT employees of the firm. Essentially, they are saying that the information on their website about diversity is a bold faced LIE!

morenvi

This has nothing to do with defensible or indefensible, it only has to do with one thing - FLEECING TAXPAYERS OF THEIR MONEY!

This hyprocritical lawyer is expected to rack up to $500,000 ($900/hour) in taxpayer dollars, which House Republicans don't seem to mind spending at a time they are complaining the government is wasting too much money and running up deficits.

And for what? To defend a lawsuit against a widow who was legally married, yet because her deceased spouse was of the same sex, the government taxed her late spouse's estate $350,000, something that wouldn't happen if she was married to an opposite sex spouse.

And the law firm to whom this sleazy lawyer is a partner, King & Spalding - it says they create a diverse and welcoming workplace for the LGBT community, i.e. the firm has a non-discrimination policy that "prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity" and even offers benefits to same-sex partners.

What riles people most is even though this firm protects LGBT in it's workplace, the provision of the contract between the firm and the House Republicans specifically leaves out sexual orientation and gender identity out of its nondiscrimination clause.

Again, it's fine they protect gays in their law firm, but the truth is, it's all about racking up free taxpayer money... just so Republicans can continue their moral crusade discriminating against Gay & Lesbian people...

janet bajan

great analysis. i was struggling with this issue but didn't know how to phrase it. i hope it gets wide coverage because i'm sure a lot of people are having trouble with this defence but can't verbalize why. you've done that for us.

Liz

Moreover, it has been reported that the firm has put a gag rule on their employees and prohibited them from working against the law. If that is truly the situation, then their California employees who question the legality of such an order and want to start researching it could start with California Labor Code section 1101:

No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule,
regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or
participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public
office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the
political activities or affiliations of employees.

And there is some really nice dicta here:

"There is no question that a cause of action exists under § 1101 when an employer makes, adopts or enforces any rule, regulation or policy that has as its purpose or succeeds in preventing or controlling the sexual preference-oriented political activities (aimed at achieving equal rights) of an employee." Smedley v. Capps, 820 F. Supp. 1227, 1229 (N.D. Cal. 1993)

Again, look at it yourselves -- these are just a couple of suggeseted starting points.

Ironman Carmichael

DOMA is this generation's Jim Crow: currently the law but it's only a matter of time before it's repealed.

Cue "Black Panther" to go bananas.

TJ Parker

They're from Atlanta. Need I say more?

Tony Locke

If this law were not defended, then laws passed by a duly elected congress are just one lawsuit away from being overturned. I expect any administration to defend the laws on the books, or else submit them for repeal. To attack the men and women providing representation in this case is unfair and immature. A law is not indefensible simply because you disagree.

Michael Equality McKeon

Well done , well said. Now to put pressure on King & Spalding for choosing hate.

Michael McKeon

PlayfulWalrus

The editorial board got it right this time. I can understand why some would assume the law is wrong, but we do have courts for this reason. All laws discriminate, by the way. The question is - on what basis do they discriminate? Federal law is not blind to gender. Consider the draft, Violence Against Women Act, and many more.

Marco Luxe

The current Republican House leadership wants to argue that DOMA meets the legal criteria for rational basis review, presumed for most general legislation. However, their new outside counsel has an obligaton to tell them defending DOMA requires arguing that LGBTs have not been historically subject to invidious discrimination, and that any disparate legal treatment of LGBT citizens is related to this minority's inability to contribute meaningfully to society. These are clearly factually indefensible positions. In addition, DOMA proponents must also argue that Prop 8 here in CA, Measure 1 in ME, and the rejection of Iowa Supreme Court justices somehow don't show the lack of political power of this minority. House Republicans have neither the facts nor the law on their side. They only have historical animus. This doesn't come close to passing constitutional review, and they and their new counsel know it. A good lawyer would instruct their client of these facts.

Randy E King

The L.A. Times is infested with same-sex activists for two very important reasons:

1) Power corrupts

2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Simply put; same-sex enthusiasts, when given a choice, will only hire like minded people. Same-sex relations are an activity that should in no way ever be viewed as equal to race, religion, or gender.

Somewhere along the way same-sex enthusiasts came to understand that they could change their place in history by simply redefining words, but what these perverts - check the definition please - failed to realize is that SCOTUS ruling's on marriage were based on the definition of the words at the time of said ruling; not on their revised definitions that took affect well after the fact.

Same-sex enthusiasts are intersted in power; truth and legalities have nothing to do with their demands for special rights for those that embrace this depravity as their own.

semyon_suslov

The fees to be spent on the lawyer defending DOMA will be money well spent. For it's the constitutional duty of the government to defend such a law - a duty that our Clueless-In-Chief, Obama, refused to carry out for purely political reasons because he wants to be re-elected in 2012 and desperately needs his base to do so.

Indeed Obama's blatant political move is symptomatic of his complete lack of honesty and integrity. For if he really had these traits, Obama would acknowledge that Laws must be based on facts - not wants. If facts indicate that a law is needed to encourage behavior for the benefit of society, then the it should be passed. On the other hand, if facts indicate that encouraging a behavior would be detrimental, but not enough to be banned, then we limit it to consenting adults without government encouragement. It is this category into which we've placed smoking, drinking, gambling, and extramarital relations.

It is this same category into which homosexual behavior rightly falls for several reasons, among which are:

1. The urge for the same-sex behavior (homosexuality) - not the behavior - results from a genetic, biologic, and cultural factors, which vary in significance among individuals and form the basis for every behavioral urge.

2. Because of the cultural factor, encouraging same-sex behavior through marriage or other means increases the likelihood for those who are pre-disposed toward homosexuality to either develop the urge or engage in the behavior.

3. In doing, so they would expose themselves to the serious disease and bodily damage to which homosexuals are at high risk.

These and other reasons for opposing same-sex marriage are in "The Case for Limiting Government Recognition to Traditional Relationships." (1) Placed on Yahoo Pulse, it summarizes information from peer-reviewed papers written by researchers working at respected mainstream universities and research organizations, such as USC, New York University, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, and the Center for Disease Control.

So please email the link below to as many as you can, including your legislators, and ask that they do the same. In this way, we can not only defeat judges and legislators, who unjustifiably force same-sex marriage upon society, but keep marriage between one man and one woman, as it needs to be.

1 - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HTB4W4CSYDBWN6R2D5ESTASCUQ/blog/articles/270046?listPage=index

LukeJoe

Horray, great response to a stupid editorial!

bizu

Blowback: Nothing defensible about DOMA<<<<<< huhuh huhuhuhuhuh huhuh h uhhhh he said Blowback! LOL

Amalgamate

So many bigots-
Youre just running scared-your God and your religion cannot stop gays from reaching full equality-scary huh?
Its funny how ignorant people are (randy king, semyon-talkign to you cats!)-granting equality will encourage homosexuality?? what??? ALL accredtied psychologists agree that being gays is at least partly nature-no one just tries out being gay-thats absurd! Do you really think someone would choose to be gay in this world? If that were true, bigots, there woudl be no gays.
But you do choose to be bigoted-sad, but your kind will be dead in about 20 years.
And your kids, thank God, will know better
Equality for all!!

Randy E King

As everyone can see from Amalgamate's rant; same sex enthusiasts arguments in defense of their depravity harken back to spoiled children kicking and screaming until their wants are satisfied.

Religious bigots are the true enemies of our nation.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

Benjamin Franklin


Let us turn to scripture shall we:

•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 blood guiltiness 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."

Revelation 21:8 – “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” Revelation 22:14-15 – “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and SEXUALLY IMMORAL and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.”

Corinthians 6:18-20 – “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”

It is true that we will never be rid of same-sex enthusiasts; nor will we ever be rid of murderers, rapists, thieves, and tyrants, but that does not mean that members of society do not have a vested interest in protecting themselves through the legislative process from these miscreants.

Jon

It's this simple. Some things are so reprehensible, they are indefensible. DOMA is one such item. There is nothing honorable about defending DOMA. The Obama Administration chose to defend DOMA in court. There is nothing that says a law has to be defended all the way to the Supreme Court. When the Administration lost their case at the District level, they chose to accept the verdict rather than do the dishonorable thing by defending DOMA any further. Maya Rupert can spin it however she likes, but it still doesn't change the fact that K&S continue to harm thousands of individuals by not allowing this law to die based on the verdict that has already been handed out by the Courts.

Paul Florez

@Randy E King
"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."

So either you must obey the Bible 100% and call for the death of Gay Americans, or you must admit that the Bible is wrong. You cannot "pick and choose."

If you call for the death of Gay Americans, your dream of a theocracy will die faster than weed plucked from the ground and burned. Americans will not tolerate it. In fact, they would look away from your kind in disgust.

If you do not call for their death, then it becomes obvious that you "pick and choose" what your obey from the Bible and what you do not. Your argument, to other Christians, becomes weak. If the Bible says that Gay Americans should not be gay, and the Bible says if they are gay then we must kill them, but we don't obey by killing them, how are we any better than Gay Americans who don't obey by being gay?

If the Bible got wrong the part about "putting to death" Gay Americans, then it's likely that the Bible got wrong the party about Gay Americans being who they were born to be.

I know this makes absolutely no sense to you. In your mind you've rationalized away the contradictions of disobeying the command the kill gays and obeying the command to not engage in same-sex relationships. Personally, I don't care about what you think because I know you'll never change your mind. I'm just hoping that a rational person who bothers to read your garbage will read my writing as well and say "hey, this person has a point, why is it ok to disobey the command to kill gays but not to disobey the command to abstain from same-sex relationships?" After all, it will be independent minded people and the younger generation who will bring the wave of equality upon the country in a movement of the majority.

The day that happens to you, I will feel sorry for you. You will be isolated, searching and confused. You will feel more alone than you've ever felt before. Your available friends will shrink, and either you will have to go through the painful process of re-rationalizing your beliefs and asking forgiveness or spend the rest of your life alone with your doubts. Think of how we treat people who berate different-race couples, how we reject them, disconnect from them and abandon them. The same will happen to you.

And how appropriately ironic, since that's what people like you have been doing to Gay Americans for centuries.

Imani

Jon, I think you misunderstood the piece. Maya Rupert is making the exact same point you are. Read it again. It's awesome.

Mark

Hey Randy E King,

According to the Bible, male homosexuality is wrong. It never really mentions female homosexuality right? Therefore, women should be able to marry eachother?

Yes, taken literally, the bible would have us doing and believing a whole lot of ridiculous things but the constitution sort of separates church from state and give freedom of religion, ehh?

Carrot Cake Man

The "scripture" to which Mr. King refers has been found by modern Biblical scholars to be relatively recent mistranslations inserted into the Bible to convenience rising levels of homophobia.

These major denominations have married same gender couples in 6 US States and the District of Columbia:

The Episcopal Church
United Church of Christ
Metropolitan Community Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Unitarian Universalist Church
Reform Judaism

They clearly reject Mr. King's deceptive Bible "scripture."

NorthValleyJoe

Nothing biased about this piece of trash writing. not one single character.
OK true, it's a opinion response to an opinion topic. but let me fry you in the fire LA Times; where is the contrary side to be represented?
All this obviously biased and self-interested writer is sniveling about is trying to play behavioral qualities off as a discrimination issue. Science is still locked in the closet as to conclusively proving, "beyond any reasonable doubt" that homosexual behaviors, in all it's twisted flavors, is anything other than a behavioral choice.
Last I checked, the Constitution does not protect behaviors that are not specifically against the law.
Now, MY bias being spoken, oh please do heap your usual weak "hater/"bigot" tag lines on me. That's all you factually have for a counter argument.

misanthropicus

Liberal garbage - nicely lined with the homosexuals' usual threats and attempts at blackmail -
DOMA is the law willed by the people, and DOMA must be enforced, and DOMA will survive this base attack -

As far as the idiocies about K&S' loss of reputation, it is exactly the opposite - the reputation of K&S will increase in this nation and among those who need competent and reputable lawyers who cannot br swayed by gross blakmail & threats campaigns like the one carried by the homosexual movment now -

Randy E King

Paul Florez,

Does the commandment "Thou shall not kill" mean anything to you? You sir are the one picking and choosing; you are picking and choosing how you should interpret presented text.

Same-sex relations is an activity people do not have to choose to accept, those that do choose to purse these acts do so of their own free-will and not because of some yet to be identified biological urge. Much like those that choose to smoke and those that choose to drink; same-sex enthusiast deserve no special consideration for the life they choose to pursue when said pursuit has absolutely no benefit to society.

The point I make is that perversion activists have absolutely no factual data to substantiate their ridiculous assertions; a point you folks never miss an opportunity to demonstrate with each response.

Hey, aren’t you the same people that were pimping Ebonics a few years back?

Uncanny similarities…

Linguist

I am a person of faith. My partner and I were married, by a rabbi, in a mainstream Temple, before God and our families. It was wonderful. It gave social and religious standing to what was already, for many years, the most important aspect of our shared lives.

People are free not to believe in God the way we do, of course. That's about faith, though, and I think we have to respectfully acknowledge that we may never agree, nor do we have to.

Now we are looking to protect our most important relationship legally, so that we are not legal strangers to one another. We share a house, a car, a mortgage, bills, decisions about what to have for dinner and decisions about life and death.

We've already made multiple trips to a very expensive lawyer to try to protect that relationship, but even our lawyer acknowledges the difficulty of doing so without a marriage certificate.

The lawyer has had to think ahead to all manner of possible situations just to try to make sure they are covered--they would have been automatically by a single marriage certificate.

And here, the law has to be equitable. Heterosexual couples get to protect your most important relationship. I want to protect mine. That seems like a reasonable thing to do, and one which no one would have any rational objections to.

So please consider: this isn't about "sticking it” to anyone. Our loved ones –our heterosexual parents and siblings and friends and neighbors-- all celebrated our religious wedding.

It isn't about being some weird "sex enthusiast," whatever that is. I was there last week when my partner was sick with the flu, feeding him chicken soup (hey, we're Jewish), and making sure he got plenty of rest. Relationships are based on love--and are both selfish and selfless. They're about stability and about sharing life-- all of life-- both good times and bad.


We're already married in the eyes of God and the congregants who saw us marry in a religious ceremony.

Now we seek to protect our relationship legally-- something that most opponents apparently think is important for them to be able to do, but somehow, unimportant for us? That their stability is good for society but ours is bad?

That makes no sense.

Peace.

Tom

Democrats had full and complete control of all federally elected branches of government for the last two years. Repeal of DOMA is a liberal issue. If in fact it was truly important to the left, they would have repealed it when they could have....anytime during the last two years. This proves that Democrats themselves had a problem with repeal, and are only using that now to demonize anything not in their particular political agenda.

Anyone with a shred of common sense sees right though this.

Thomas Alex

I find it ironic the GOP wants to defend DOMA because the law is still on the books, yet won't defend the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution that guarantees Equal Rights--a direct contradiction of the law itself.

Thomas Alex

@Randy E King

What ruling do you speak of? Gay marriage has of yet to be discussed by the SCOTUS. Denying LGBT Americans their US Constitutional rights, is the depravity.

Randy E King

In Loving v. Virginia when SCOTUS declared marriage to be a civil right; the 1967 word marriage was exclusively defined as a joining of opposites. In order for any court - or legislature - to declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage they will have to create a special constitutional right and award it to people based solely on an activity they choose to embrace.

Awarding special rights for an activity will be the beginning of the end for this nation.

You people have a lot of question, but no answers and absolutely no facts to substantiate your ridiculous assertions. Little wonder you folks spend so much energy coining phrases and redefining words to lend the appearance of acceptability to your depravity; history does not speak well of your perversion.

Thomas Alex

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Applying the 14th Amendment makes Gay marriage a legal right.

Thomas Alex

"Awarding special rights for an activity will be the beginning of the end for this nation."

Wouldn't that contradict the 1st Amendment?

Thomas Alex

"to declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage they will have to create a special constitutional right and award it to people based solely on an activity they choose to embrace."

So awarding Heterosexuals a special right of marriage based solely on an activity they choose to embrace, isn't a contradiction to what you speak of?

Thomas Alex

If marriage is a right, it has to be applied Equally per the 14th Amendment. You can't have it both ways, either the US Constitution applies to ALL Americans or it applies to none.

Linguist

"they will have to create a special constitutional right"

Actually, equal protection under the law is not new, nor is it created a "special" right when applied equitably to all couples.

Randy E King

The 1st Amendment is rooted in "...these truths we hold to be self evident..."

"Fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Nobody in their right mind would ever contend that our "very existence and survival" will ever be dependent upon perverts rubbing their reproductive organs against each other.

Thomas Alex

"word marriage was exclusively defined as a joining of opposites."

Please show me where this was stated in their ruling?

Randy E King

'Please show me where this was stated in their ruling?"

There is no need for SCOTUS to declare that the words they use are based on the definition of the words at the time of their use. Why do same-sex activists have such difficulties with common sense; could it be the you indeed suffer from mental deficiencies?

Thomas Alex

"Nobody in their right mind would ever contend that our "very existence and survival" will ever be dependent upon perverts rubbing their reproductive organs against each other."

That is a good argument to ban infertile and elderly couples from marrying, wouldn't you say?

Thomas Alex

"There is no need for SCOTUS to declare that the words they use are based on the definition of the words at the time of their use. Why do same-sex activists have such difficulties with common sense; could it be the you indeed suffer from mental deficiencies?"

Actually, there is. Mental deficiencies? You just called yourself a mental deficiency? Cause you had to choose to be straight if gays chose to be gay. Life does NOT work both ways.

Thomas Alex

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Isn't that something? Next your gonna say you know everything, and the Medical and Scientology community know nothing.

Randy E King

Once again you folks never miss an opportunity to demonstrate to your readers that you have absolutely no factual data to substantiate your ridiculous assertions.

Wait, wait; let me present your rebuttal argument for you:

I know you are, but what am I.

Thomas Alex

"Awarding special rights for an activity will be the beginning of the end for this nation."

Wouldn't that contradict the 1st Amendment?

So people who CHOOSE to follow a religion and believe in gods shouldn't be awarded special rights correct?

Thomas Alex

Once again you folks never miss an opportunity to demonstrate to your readers that you have absolutely no factual data to substantiate your ridiculous assertions.

Wait, wait; let me present your rebuttal argument for you:

I know you are, but what am I.

Wow, I just gave you FACTUAL data. You aren't very intelligent are you?

Thomas Alex

Your incorrect applying of laws will not matter when the SCOTUS rule legalizing Gay marriage nationwide. At least they apply the rule of law to all, not just the ones you approve of.

Thomas Alex

So if being Straight is a CHOICE, they don't deserve any special rights correct? Wouldn't that apply to interracial couples who CHOSE to marry someone of the opposite race?

Thomas Alex

"history does not speak well of your perversion."

I had to laugh. Every hear of American Indians, Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians? Well a little history for you, all condoned Homosexual Marriage. Although the word Homosexual was not coined until 1869. So for the bible to have the word Homosexual in it, is in itself a perversion. Not to mention, what you find perverted others may not. Some find oral sex perverted and a sin, do you?

David Jackson

RandyKing seems to be a Baptist Minister who believes his King James version of the bible to be the inerrant word of his god and quotes from Leviticus to support his homophobia. Among other things, Leviticus also has something to say about where it is appropriate to buy human slaves. One wonders, then, where does Pastor King think its appropriate to buy his slaves?

Randy E King

"Ever hear of American Indians, Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians? Well a little history for you, all condoned Homosexual Marriage"

And where are these 'great civilizations" today?

Take your time; I’m sure you will figure it out.

You folks want to go back in time and duplicate that which has already proved itself to be a failed concept? Your beloved utopians - only some had perversion marriage - are what brought about the dark ages; you do know that don't you?

It never ceases to amaze me that their exists in my nation an organized horde of miscreants demanding the right to use their God given gift of freedom to deny themselves access to the source of their freedom.

It is kind of like laying claim to the water but being offended by the faucet - pure stupidity.

This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature. Benjamin Franklin

Mark L Holland

DOMA needs to be dumped as the trash that it is.

Thomas Alex

Your belief in god randy is just that. Do you deserve the right to choose to believe in god?

 
1 2 3 4 | »

Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...