News Is Polygamy Legally Permitted in Canada?

[Art]

I'm not getting sucked into your argument. I've had plenty of homosexuals ask me to "try it". In which case I might wake up one morning and say just that.

So you are unsure of your sexuality, that's fine too although most people are a little more self aware and have found homosexuality chose them rather than they chose it.

 

[drankin]

So you are unsure of your sexuality, that's fine too although most people are a little more self aware and have found homosexuality chose them rather than they chose it.

I'm pretty sure of my sexuality but who knows. If I tried it, I might like it and decide I have always been a homosexual. But that's neither here nor there.

 

[LowlyPion]

Homosexuals cannot be classified as a minority. It's a preference. People of the same race and gender have the same rights in this country. Marriage isn't a Constitution right. It's not in the Bill of rights. You can't compare marital rights to these things. It's a state by state issue. And California, the most lib state in the union has voted.

All I can say is that you have a quaint grasp of the foundations of the Nation's Constitution and an incomplete understanding as to what constitutes a minority.

Before you get too far afield I would direct you to the Federalist Papers (#55 would be a good start for your purposes) and understand that it was precisely this type of "majority" bias that concerned the founding fathers. You might want to recall that Religious persecution was in the first instance a compelling reason for many of their forebears to have settled in America to begin with. But that was not the only minority they sought to protect.

Your supposition moreover that gays do not constitute a minority because "gaydom" is supposedly a "preference" is simply absurd, as well as incorrect. Gays are a well recognized minority under current application of the law. And the idea that gays forming family units that are not in accordance with your view, and even that of a majority faith base, as to what constitutes a family unit, simply flies in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees ALL individuals equal application of the law.

Ultimately the issue is not one of States Rights and the laws that discriminate against same gender unions as the Federal Constitution supersedes.

 

[drankin]

All I can say is that you have a quaint grasp of the foundations of the Nation's Constitution and an incomplete understanding as to what constitutes a minority.

Before you get too far afield I would direct you to the Federalist Papers (#55 would be a good start for your purposes) and understand that it was precisely this type of "majority" bias that concerned the founding fathers. You might want to recall that Religious persecution was in the first instance a compelling reason for many of their forebears to have settle in America to begin with. But that was not the only minority they sought to protect.

Your supposition moreover that gays do not constitute a minority because "gaydom" is supposedly a "preference" is simply absurd, as well as incorrect. Gays are a well recognized minority under current application of the law. And the idea that gays forming family units that are not in accordance with your view, and even that of a majority faith base, as to what constitutes a family unit, simply flies in the face of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees ALL individuals equal application of the law.

Ultimately the issue is not one of States Rights and the laws that discriminate against same gender unions as the Federal Constitution supersedes.

Well then, if it's so cut and dry, it should be no problem overturning the proposition based on your legal analysis.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well then, if it's so cut and dry, it should be no problem overturning the proposition based on your legal analysis.

I think that's what you can expect to see happen.

The Defense of Marriage Act will be scuttled under the new administration. And state prohibitions against same sex marriages will be declared unconstitutional. The world has turned away from the small minded and the divisive and the current tyranny of the majority will be repudiated.

But not to fear. No one is taking away any rights that you may choose to enjoy - except of course the right for you to attempt to tell others who they may marry.

 

[drankin]

But not to fear. No one is taking away any rights that you may choose to enjoy - except of course the right for you to attempt to tell others who they may marry.

I didn't tell anyone who to marry. The state of Cali defined for themselves what a marriage is. I just happened to agree with their definition.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Firstly I confess I missed the fact the report you quoted was for Canada. You had been talking about tolerance in the US

No, the comment that you asked me to go find research for had nothing to do with tolerance. All I said was that the children of same-sex couples I've known don't seem detrimentally affected as you've claimed, in fact they seem better off socially compared to many children of hetero couples I've known.

however I did indeed read it and was tempted on the basis of the very small sample size used (as acknowledged by the author)

Er, sample size of what? You are again making me think that you didn't read it and that setting me off to find it was a complete goose chase. It isn't a study of a group of children, it's a survey of the available scientific literature on the social development of children of same-sex couples. Did you simply skim through it until you hit the phrase "sample size"?

...to question the validity of any conclusions but rather than leave myself open to an accusation of being churlish and being genuinely grateful you had taken the trouble to go and find the data I instead decided to accept the conclusion verbatim, credit (wrongly) the US with it's enlightened view,

Again, that report had nothing to do with anyone having an enlightened view. It simply says that, no matter what sort of bullying and other experiences the children of same-sex couples encounter and whether or not it's any worse than what the children of hetero couples experience their social development is on par.

It appears not only did you not read the report I referenced

You didn't actually reference a scientific report, you referenced a bulleted list on a web site, the goal of which is not stated nor clear, so there's no way to know whether it's trying to give a comprehensive overview of the research it references or if it's intentionally cherry-picking and representing only the "key findings" the authors like. This is what I meant when I said that I took the time to find quality research for you.

Three out of four of the bullet points you presented talked about gay or lesbian children. The children of same-sex couples are not necessarily gay or lesbian, they're just as often hetero. So what you presented there is an attempt to stretch some little tidbit statistic of research you found on a website to support your position. Whereas I bothered to find actual scientific work to present to you.

but you didn't even read the extract I posted, wherein it categorises the specific types of bullying with 17% receiving actual death threats;

But again, that one particular line doesn't say that the recipients of death threats are the children of same-sex marriage, whether they're homosexual like the statistics in the other bullet points you listed, or if the recipients are just children of hetero couples who are hetero themselves and experience homophobic bullying.

somewhat more serious than verbal taunts which IMO are in themselves pretty serious. Would it be acceptable for people to bandy around taunts like cool person and wog in the school yard? I think you do the gay community a grave injustice by minimising the hurtfulness of such verbal assaults.

Total straw man. I did not minimized the hurtfulness of bullying in any way. I said that you did not demonstrate that the statistic you presented had anything to do with the children of same-sex couples being bullied.

To address the other points you accused me of avoiding (though why you think I would I have no idea) In the UK straight adoptive parents are indeed ethnically matched with adopted children for a variety of reasons (unreasonably so some say, myself included) and though I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, no I was never called a poof or any other gay slur.

That seems pretty amazing to me. Even if you just look around the internet you can find innumerable examples of young males talking to each other that way. But it may well be that the U.K. is more enlightened than the U.S. in that respect.

And we're not talking about anything like trying to ethnically match children, we're talking about excluding a category of couples from adopting at all. Yes, I'm sure you have no idea why I would suspect that you're dodging discussion of the fact that your criteria do not result in the same exclusion apply to any non-same-sex couples.

The pc attitude of the UK adoption board has been reinforced by the experiences of black children who are now themselves adults who were adopted by white parents and now claim 'Love is not enough' Will children adopted by gay couples be adding their voice to this chorus in years to come?

No, because as that news article asks the question in that case is "Where do these children [placed in white families] get their linguistic, religious and cultural knowledge from?" which isn't any problem with same-sex couples. In fact, by the principles presented in that article, a same-sex couple that is an ethnic match would be a much better place to put an ethnic adopted child.

I think we both actually agree on what the end result should look like but have very different views on how to achieve the goal. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you but my impression is you believe change should be bulldozed through immediately

Are there not any same-sex couples raising children in the U.K. right now? There are many in the U.S. Calling this "change being bulldozed through" is pretty pejorative if its the extension of something that is happening quite successfully everywhere else in society to the adoption process.

over the objections of 'unreasonable' traditionalists whereas my thinking is that all the evidence shows a tremendous amount of ground work needs to be done first to pave the way, particularly in the area of re-education of today's youth, to prepare people to accept the change and thus avoid future conflict.

This sounds like the same argument as "the country just isn't ready for racial integration" argument that was presented in the U.S. in the sixties. If these sorts of children raised by same-sex couples are all over the place already and growing up entirely successfully and socially well-adjusted as the scientific literature suggests, where exactly is this tremendous amount of ground work needed?

My concern remains solely that I would not like to see children being martyred in the cause of supporting an adult's strongly held views irrelevant of whether those views are correct or not.

"Martyred"? Exaggerate much? Really, you should ask yourself whether, if all you can find are scraps of at most tangentially related information on web sites and in news articles with which to meet actual scientific research, and if you have to exaggerate a difference in school experiences that you can't establish evidence of into anyone being "martyred", you might be making these objections up out of thin air and perhaps you aren't really open to being persuaded of anything. At all.

⚛​

 

[LowlyPion]

I didn't tell anyone who to marry. The state of Cali defined for themselves what a marriage is. I just happened to agree with their definition.

Then it will be of no concern to you when it is overturned.

 

[NeoDevin]

I've provided plenty of evidence to support my opinion that there are some fundamental flaws in society that need fixing before you could even think of dropping an adopted child into the potential minefield of a same sex parent relationship.
If you and some others here choose to ignore or deride the studies done on homophobic behaviour in schools and how it affects children on the grounds your opinions outweigh any facts I produce then there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion

You've provided statistics which are only tangentially related, and the only ones you provided for which a valid comparison can be made don't show the major difference you claim (I can't say there is no difference, but it's not as significant as you make it out to be). If you choose to compare numbers drawn from different methods, and not numbers about the issue at hand at that, there's not really much point in you continuing this discussion

I am glad that you, as a self proclaimed white straight person, are not offended to hear terms like fag tossed around By the same token not many white people would be too offended by being called a wog or a cool person but one would have to be really obtuse not to see how these terms would be highly insulting and/or threatening to someone who actually meets the criteria particularly if the person making the comments knows or suspects you meet the criteria.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. As a white, straight youth I did not consider it bullying to be called a fag. I was pointing out the selection bias that may be present in respondents. Edit: And I was pointing out why that selection bias makes it impossible to translate these numbers to children of same-sex parents.

 

[drankin]

Then it will be of no concern to you when it is overturned.

I'll be surprised. Throw me a link so I can follow the case.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'll be surprised. Throw me a link so I can follow the case.

You can start with this one:

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:56 AM PST
Jerry Brown asks Supreme Court to review Prop. 8
California Attorney General Jerry Brown on Monday filed a brief with the California Supreme Court asking it to review and resolve the legal challenges surrounding Proposition 8.

The proposition, which was passed by voters Nov. 4 with a 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent margin, eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry. Opponents of the gay marriage ban have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the measure.

Brown on Monday urged the Supreme Court to review the measure to “ensure uniformity of decision, finality and certainty for the citizens of California.” He said he would prefer an expedited resolution to a temporary stay on the measure to avoid confusion.

Brown said in a news release that same-sex marriages performed between June 17 and Nov. 4 are valid will continue to be recognized by the state.

“The constitutionality of the change created by Proposition 8 impacts whether same-sex marriages may issue in California and whether same-sex marriages from other states will be recognized here,” he wrote in a set of briefs filed with the court. “There is significant public interest in prompt resolution of the legality of Proposition 8. The Court can provide certainty and finality in this matter.”

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/17/daily20.html

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yeah, it seems like a pretty clear violation of equal protection to me. A similar precedent would be the striking down of segregation laws. The reason this hasn't come before the courts before is because there were never laws permitting gay marriage until recently, so there were never laws banning it. Opponents of gay marriage may have started something they really won't like the end of; if a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" ruling was to strike down the ban it would be a justification for gay marriage to be permitted nationwide.

⚛​

 

[Art]

No, the comment that you asked me to go find research for had nothing to do with tolerance. All I said was that the children of same-sex couples I've known don't seem detrimentally affected as you've claimed, in fact they seem better off socially compared to many children of hetero couples I've known.

I said children would suffer through the intolerance of others and you said they wouldn't and went off to prove itl

Er, sample size of what? You are again making me think that you didn't read it and that setting me off to find it was a complete goose chase. It isn't a study of a group of children, it's a survey of the available scientific literature on the social development of children of same-sex couples. Did you simply skim through it until you hit the phrase "sample size"?

You did read your own report, right?? It's a collection of many studies each of which were based on small sample sizes

Again, that report had nothing to do with anyone having an enlightened view. It simply says that, no matter what sort of bullying and other experiences the children of same-sex couples encounter and whether or not it's any worse than what the children of hetero couples experience their social development is on par.

Ah that answers my question. you obviously didn't read it or you wouldn't be trying to claim it supports your position.. Per the summary on p35

Only one aspect of social functioning distinguished children in different family types and was replicated across multiple studies: discrimination. There were more concerns about being discriminated against and possibly more experiences of being discriminated against for children living with one or two gay or lesbian parents compared to children living with hetrosexual parents

You didn't actually reference a scientific report, you referenced a bulleted list on a web site, the goal of which is not stated nor clear, so there's no way to know whether it's trying to give a comprehensive overview of the research it references or if it's intentionally cherry-picking and representing only the "key findings" the authors like. This is what I meant when I said that I took the time to find quality research for you.

What are you on about?? The website I gave you is for the organisation who commissioned the study by the SHEU who specialise in lifestyle surveys of young people. The actual paper is linked on the LH side of the page.

Three out of four of the bullet points you presented talked about gay or lesbian children. The children of same-sex couples are not necessarily gay or lesbian, they're just as often hetero. So what you presented there is an attempt to stretch some little tidbit statistic of research you found on a website to support your position. Whereas I bothered to find actual scientific work to present to you.

The problem in the UK is it has only recently been legal for gay couples to adopt and so there have only been 170 cases of gay couples adopting children ever so it is impossible to have direct information which is why I was pointing out the endemic homophobia in British schools which imo is a good indicator of what the adopted children of gay couples are likely to have to endure irrelevant of their own personal sexuality.

But again, that one particular line doesn't say that the recipients of death threats are the children of same-sex marriage, whether they're homosexual like the statistics in the other bullet points you listed, or if the recipients are just children of hetero couples who are hetero themselves and experience homophobic bullying.

The point is it is homophobic bullying. Just because the bully mistakenly beats up the wrong person on occasion is irrelevant. In the cases listed though the bully got it right as this survey was only for gay and lesbian and bi respondants. (You'd know that if you had actually read the report)

Total straw man. I did not minimized the hurtfulness of bullying in any way. I said that you did not demonstrate that the statistic you presented had anything to do with the children of same-sex couples being bullied.

Yes you did!

By the way, you realize that "homophobic bullying" probably just means the bully called the other kid a "poof" or something in the course of the bullying, don't you?

And here you go doing it again

That seems pretty amazing to me. Even if you just look around the internet you can find innumerable examples of young males talking to each other that way. But it may well be that the U.K. is more enlightened than the U.S. in that respect.

And we're not talking about anything like trying to ethnically match children,

Really? So you didn't raise the issue of ethnically matching children to prospective parents? So what's this then?

Originally Posted by CaptainQuasar View Post

The status quo in the States where I am is that children who are raised in a damaging fashion by adoptive or foster parents are removed from the custody of those parents and that, for example, the possibility that a black child adopted by white parents might be picked on in school for it is not grounds for denying adoption, I don't believe. I would think the same thing would be true in the U.K. but I won't make assertions.

No, because as that news article asks the question in that case is "Where do these children [placed in white families] get their linguistic, religious and cultural knowledge from?" which isn't any problem with same-sex couples. In fact, by the principles presented in that article, a same-sex couple that is an ethnic match would be a much better place to put an ethnic adopted child.

I have no interest in going down this rabbit hole. You accused me of refusing to address your comment re ethnically matching children and adoptive parents so I responded. Even then I questioned it's relevance

Are there not any same-sex couples raising children in the U.K. right now? There are many in the U.S. Calling this "change being bulldozed through" is pretty pejorative if its the extension of something that is happening quite successfully everywhere else in society to the adoption process.

Not that are being tracked. Parents sexuality isn't exactly something the schools quiz you on when enrolling your child in school and so as I informed you above the only records are for gay adopting couples who are still very few. However if there are so many in the US you should have no problem citing a few US studies to support your contentions.

This sounds like the same argument as "the country just isn't ready for racial integration" argument that was presented in the U.S. in the sixties. If these sorts of children raised by same-sex couples are all over the place already and growing up entirely successfully and socially well-adjusted as the scientific literature suggests, where exactly is this tremendous amount of ground work needed?

Firstly the study you cited, as I detailed above, does highlight discrimination issues for children of same sex couples and secondly even if Canada is a shining beacon of enlightenment, from all the info I have provided, it should be blatantly clear the UK isn't . Whether or not the US is is a mystery but given the level of support for the likes of Palin I very much doubt attitudes are as liberal as you would like us to believe.

"Martyred"? Exaggerate much? Really, you should ask yourself whether, if all you can find are scraps of at most tangentially related information on web sites and in news articles with which to meet actual scientific research, and if you have to exaggerate a difference in school experiences that you can't establish evidence of into anyone being "martyred", you might be making these objections up out of thin air and perhaps you aren't really open to being persuaded of anything. At all.

⚛​

lol when you need to resort to dismissing the study I referenced whilst misrepresenting your own source then your position is lost.

Whether and to what extent children might suffer is the whole point here. Out of interest how much child suffering do you think it is worth so your own high ideals are realized? None? A little? A lot? It certainly seems to over-ride your ability to construct a consistent, cohesive argument without hair splitting, back tracking, outright denial of blatant facts and misrepresenting your own sources.

 

[NeoDevin]

Whether and to what extent children might suffer is the whole point here. Out of interest how much child suffering do you think is worth it so your own high ideals are realized? None? A little? A lot? It certainly seems to over-ride your ability to construct a consistent, cohesive argument without back tracking, outright denial of blatant facts and misquoting your own sources.

And how much child suffering goes on because of the children left in foster care for most of their lives? Do you really think a small increase in bullying outweighs that?

 

[Art]

And how much child suffering goes on because of the children left in foster care for most of their lives? Do you really think a small increase in bullying outweighs that?

Leaving children in 'temporary' care homes is without doubt the worst possible option but that raises a couple of issues.

Is there an insufficient amount of heterosexual couples looking to adopt? This I doubt given the number of people who go abroad to find children due to shortages at home and secondly if the unclaimed children remain in care because they are 'problem' children then are gay and lesbian couples going to be given them (which to be clear I am in no way advocating) as if not it won't make an iota of difference to the current position.

 

[NeoDevin]

Is there an insufficient amount of heterosexual couples looking to adopt? This I doubt given the number of people who go abroad to find children due to shortages at home and secondly if the unclaimed children remain in care because they are 'problem' children then are gay and lesbian couples going to be given them as if not it won't make an iota of difference to the current position.

There are times when there are more than enough heterosexual couples, and other times when there are not. Some children become problem children, and then end up in foster care, they probably would not be helped by allowing homosexuals to adopt. There are others who were not problem children, but happened to be put in foster care at a time when there happened to be fewer couples looking to adopt. After years going from one home to another, they become problem children, after which no couples (hetero or homo) would adopt them. These children, had homosexuals been allowed to adopt in the first place, would have been helped by it. I don't know any numbers for how frequently this happens, but I do know that it happens.

 

[Art]

Adoption market: Big demand, tight supply

The legal battle over Baby M that was decided this week in a New Jersey courtroom has focused attention on a widening gap between the number of infertile American couples who want children and the number of babies available for adoption.

Out of desperation for a baby, couples are increasingly placing advertisements in college and urban newspapers seeking an unwed mother willing to surrender her child. Some couples have even sought infants by placing notices on cars at shopping center parking lots and on park benches and railroad overpasses.

Federal officials say the rising demand has also led to a proliferation of organized rings that smuggle babies, some of them kidnapped, across the Mexican border and then sell them to the highest bidder in this country.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6D61F30F936A35757C0A961948260

For years now demand has greatly outstripped supply.

Out of interest here is an interesting article about the discord between the 600,000 women in the USA looking to adopt and the 150,000 children in care.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../AR2008110403819.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I said children would suffer through the intolerance of others and you said they wouldn't and went off to prove itl

No, I didn't just go off to prove it. You [post=1961116]claimed[/post] that you were willing to be persuaded that the detrimental effect you worry about wasn't a concern and asked me to present research that demonstrated that. I even [post=1961162]asked you[/post] for specifically what kind of information you thought would be persuasive so that I could tailor my search for you and you refused to answer, now it's obvious why - because you had no interest in being persuaded and you were not open to it.

You have been a complete a▒▒ and using "confused" smilie icons is not going to convince anyone otherwise.

You did read your own report, right?? It's a collection of many studies each of which were based on small sample sizes

Oh, give me a break. Good try imitating me by attributing your own clumsiness to me but no one here is stupid. About a report written by six different scientists that references something like two hundred other studies you said

“...however I did indeed read it and was tempted on the basis of the very small sample size used (as acknowledged by the author)...”

No one is going to believe that you looked closely at it or checked the sample sizes of all two hundred derivative studies and were just using the singular definite article part of speech as a short hand for all of them as a group. Total faceplant.

Ah that answers my question. you obviously didn't read it or you wouldn't be trying to claim it supports your position.. Per the summary on p35

The thing you quoted is talking about discrimination, not bullying. And it only said that they were all concerned about being discriminated against, and only that possibly there might have been fewer cases of discrimination against children of hetero couples.

Anyways, that's what you're going to try to stretch into children being "martyred"? You're essentially saying that we have to discriminate against their parents because they might be discriminated against if we don't. That you were ever pretending to be open-minded is a complete joke.

The problem in the UK is it has only recently been legal for gay couples to adopt and so there have only been 170 cases of gay couples adopting children ever so it is impossible to have direct information which is why I was pointing out the general feeling of homophobia in British schools which imo is a good indicator of what the adopted children of gay couples are likely to have to endure irrelevant of their own personal sexuality.

Again, it's notable that there's discrimination against people of all sorts. But it's unintelligible to use that as a reason to discriminate against people. Do you think it would have been a good idea to refuse to let Irish parents adopt? (I know you didn't say you were adopted but this is an example based on your analogy.)

The point is it is homophobic bullying. Just because the bully mistakenly beats up the wrong person on occasion is irrelevant.

Bullying is not just beating people up - the report you linked to a bunch of bullets from is including "verbal abuse" and "intimidating looks" in with bullying. But even if it was you would have to show that it's really significantly different from the rate at which the children of heterosexuals get beat up for there to even be a reason to take it into consideration as a justification for discriminating against their parents.

In http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/school_report.pdf" the percentage of homosexual or bisexual respondents who mentioned verbal abuse was 92%, p. 4. On page 2: 97% of pupils hear insulting homophobic remarks such as "poof", "dyke", "rug-muncher", "queer", and "bender". Yeah, this is some really devastating evidence you're presenting.

Yes you did! And here you go doing it again

As I just showed above, I was completely correct. Here is the text of your bullet point that mentioned "homophobic bullying" that I responded to by saying they were talking about people being called "poof": "...92 per cent have experienced verbal homophobic bullying..." Per what I cited above that means exactly what I stated it did.

Like I said, complete straw man. You're desperately trying to find some reason to call other people misanthropically discriminatory the way you want public policy to be.

Really? So you didn't raise the issue of ethnically matching children to prospective parents? So what's this then?

The thing you highlighted was the point that white adoptive children of black parents possibly being bullied is not any justification to prevent black parents from adopting. Nice attempt at a derail but equally as ineffective as any of the other rhetorical tricks you're lobbing.

I have no interest in going down this rabbit hole.

Oh, you have no interest in going down rabbit holes, eh? Except for trying to push a point about bullying in the case of cross-racial adopting into a discussion about whether within those allowed adoptions linguistic and cultural heritage of the children is addressed. Or are Arab adoptees who don't learn to speak Arabic until they're older "martyrs"?

Not that are being tracked As I informed you above the only records are for gay adopting couples who are still very few. However if there are so many in the US you should have no problem citing a few US studies to support your contentions.

A few besides all the ones referenced in the report I already found for you? And now you're claiming that lack of tracking data is a great reason to discriminate against people? As I said, I've never been saying anything about tolerance, at most I've talked about intolerance like what you're displaying here. But it matches well with your evidently deceptive and dishonest nature.

Firstly the study you cited, as I detailed above, does highlight discrimination issues for children of same sex couples and secondly even if Canada is a shining beacon of enlightenment, from all the info I have provided, it should be blatantly clear the UK isn't .

Again with the "people are being discriminated against so we have to discriminate against people." Dude, your reasoning skills are pretty pathetic if you have seriously tricked yourself into believing that you are open and objective in regards to this issue.

Whether and to what extent children might suffer is the whole point here.

If that was true you would be looking for ways to prevent children from suffering. Instead you're looking for ways to reduce the number of available adoptive families for children who need parents.

Out of interest how much child suffering do you think is worth it so your own high ideals are realized? None? A little? A lot?

Utter pretension. You have not even come close to showing that having the "wrong" kind of loving family does some sort of harm to an adopted child.

It certainly seems to over-ride your ability to construct a consistent, cohesive argument without hair splitting, back tracking, outright denial of blatant facts and misrepresenting your own sources.

You've heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection" , haven't you?

From you response to NeoDevin's point:

Is there an insufficient amount of heterosexual couples looking to adopt? This I doubt...

You yourself are the one who brought up the point that there are insufficient numbers of couples in Britain who are ethnic matches for the adoptees!

⚛​

 

[NeoDevin]

Out of interest here is an interesting article about the discord between the 600,000 women in the USA looking to adopt and the 150,000 children in care.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../AR2008110403819.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

From that article I get that a large percentage of people looking to adopt are prevented by the screening processes, and that places with less strict screening processes adopt out more children. The questions that was not answered by the article is this: Are these screening processes unreasonable? Are there valid reasons some of these parents are being turned away? Maybe some of the reasons are silly ones (like say, turning them away because they are homosexuals?). You've now made the point that there are more people (the article doesn't say hetero or homo) who want to adopt than there are children to adopt. It doesn't specify any of the parts of the screening process which prevents these people from adopting. You further make the point that a number of them turn to illegal sources for children, suggesting they're not concerned for the child's welfare at all, and therefore were rightfully turned away from the adoption agency.

A relatively small fraction of the parents wanting to adopt are considered suitable for children. If we remove silly restrictions (like preventing homosexuals from adopting), then we would have a higher fraction of parents considered suitable (or if those numbers don't include homosexuals, it gives us a bigger pool to choose from).

Do you have even a single article or study which directly supports your assertion that having same sex parents is a detriment to children? By directly I mean one that doesn't take a few unfounded leaps of faith to apply to the issue, like the studies on bullying of homosexual children.

 

[kathrynag]

Do you have even a single article or study which directly supports your assertion that having same sex parents is a detriment to children? By directly I mean one that doesn't take a few unfounded leaps of faith to apply to the issue, like the studies on bullying of homosexual children.

It is not a deteriment. I turned out just fine!

 

[NeoDevin]

It is not a deteriment. I turned out just fine!

Did you experience any additional bullying because of it?

Edit: Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware than an anecdote does not count as data.

 

[drankin]

It is not a deteriment. I turned out just fine!

I'm glad. Seriously. Growing up with that type of family structure might be better than a lot of single family environments. That's not really the point IMO.

Our society, in general, does not cherish children as societies of the past. Children used to be (in general) a prized part of a family legacy with a father and mother that stuck it out for better or worse for many reasons uncommon nowadays. Those times are gone, unfortunately, in many respects. A study of broken homes and the children from homes becoming significant leaders in society would be interesting. I'm sure there are exceptions but the stats would be significant towards stable traditional families.

What's that have to do with same sex adoption or marriage? Nothing directly, but simply the state of the society we are in. It is and will be more accepted in the future. But the reality of this is what being "conservative" has trouble accepting. Losing the standards of "family" that once were common. Is it a bad thing? Not in all situations, but a sad circumstance in many peoples opinion.

What happens will happen. I support where my country goes via the Constitution. I support Obama because he will be our president first and foremost (for example). Whether I voted for him or not.

All in all, in civilizations of the past, marriage was respected as a commitment between a man and a woman to maintain a legacy in society. Doesn't mean so much anymore. And I don't see that as a good thing for humanity. Time will tell the story.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

All in all, in civilizations of the past, marriage was respected as a commitment between a man and a woman to maintain a legacy in society. Doesn't mean so much anymore. And I don't see that as a good thing for humanity. Time will tell the story.

I think your attitude is a good one for people approaching this particular issue with a conservative philosophy, drankin. I just wanted to point out that, as discussed earlier in this thread, marriage being particularly between one man and one woman is primarily a standard that comes from the pagan Roman civilization. In civilizations in the rest of the arcs of history - including, notably, all the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism - marriage was just as likely between one man and several women.

⚛​

 

[drankin]

I think your attitude is a good one for people approaching this particular issue with a conservative philosophy, drankin. I just wanted to point out that, as discussed earlier in this thread, marriage being particularly between one man and one woman is primarily a standard that comes from the pagan Roman civilization. In civilizations in the rest of the arcs of history - including, notably, all the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism - marriage was just as likely between one man and several women.

⚛​

Just to say, as a married man, THOSE MEN WERE CRAZY! One woman is hard enough to please. Insanity!

I don't know what the cultural rules around it were for those cultures but it wasn't common among the common. I think the common folk had the better end of it. :)

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Just to say, as a married man, THOSE MEN WERE CRAZY! One woman is hard enough to please. Insanity!

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/lol.gif Crazy indeed. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/notallthere.gif

I don't know what the cultural rules around it were for those cultures but it wasn't common among the common. I think the common folk had the better end of it. :)

Well certainly, at least for the 19th-century Mormons, the "royalty" or the leaders were the ones with the largest number of wives, Brigham Young with his 55 of them...

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Arrgh, accidental double post

 

[Art]

From that article I get that a large percentage of people looking to adopt are prevented by the screening processes, and that places with less strict screening processes adopt out more children. The questions that was not answered by the article is this: Are these screening processes unreasonable? Are there valid reasons some of these parents are being turned away? Maybe some of the reasons are silly ones (like say, turning them away because they are homosexuals?). You've now made the point that there are more people (the article doesn't say hetero or homo) who want to adopt than there are children to adopt. It doesn't specify any of the parts of the screening process which prevents these people from adopting. You further make the point that a number of them turn to illegal sources for children, suggesting they're not concerned for the child's welfare at all, and therefore were rightfully turned away from the adoption agency.

A relatively small fraction of the parents wanting to adopt are considered suitable for children. If we remove silly restrictions (like preventing homosexuals from adopting), then we would have a higher fraction of parents considered suitable (or if those numbers don't include homosexuals, it gives us a bigger pool to choose from).

Do you have even a single article or study which directly supports your assertion that having same sex parents is a detriment to children? By directly I mean one that doesn't take a few unfounded leaps of faith to apply to the issue, like the studies on bullying of homosexual children.

Did you read the article?? Do you have data to support your assertion I bolded above?

Sadly, the gap between supply and demand in adoption isn't surprising. The Listening to Parents project, which I founded, has studied the experience of people adopting children from foster care since 2002. We have found that for every 1,000 people who call a public child welfare agency seeking to adopt, only 36 do so. Far too many parents we have interviewed describe the agencies they dealt with as bureaucratic and unwelcoming. Far too many agencies view their primary response in adoption as screening out "bad" parents rather than recruiting good ones.

Contrast two of the locations we studied for a 2005 report: In San Jose, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was invited to an information meeting designed to inform prospective parents about the children available and to get parents into the training program. In Miami, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was required to fill out a two-page questionnaire, over the phone, that included sensitive personal and financial information. Those who "passed" the call were invited to an information meeting that began with an announcement that all attendees would be fingerprinted at the front of the room. Is it any wonder that a prospective parent in San Jose was 12 times more likely to adopt than a prospective parent in Miami?

It is, of course, important that those responsible for arranging adoptions secure safe, appropriate homes for children. And many agencies have improved their procedures. But too many public child welfare agencies still serve as barriers rather than as roads to adoption. If we could remove the barriers, the demand for adoption would better match the supply -- and every waiting child in America could have a family.

I think you missed the author's point. These people are not being screened out they are being put off adopting by the high-handed bureaucracy.

Because someone refuses to divulge personal financial information over the phone or refuses to be publicly fingerprinted means they drop out but it doesn't mean they have been deemed unsuitable parents as you claim.btw Of the 3 areas mentioned in the article, in San Jose and Boston being gay is not a disqualifier.

Here's the full report the article was based on http://www.hks.harvard.edu/socpol/listening_to_parents.pdf

 

[NeoDevin]

Sadly, the gap between supply and demand in adoption isn't surprising. The Listening to Parents project, which I founded, has studied the experience of people adopting children from foster care since 2002. We have found that for every 1,000 people who call a public child welfare agency seeking to adopt, only 36 do so. Far too many parents we have interviewed describe the agencies they dealt with as bureaucratic and unwelcoming. Far too many agencies view their primary response in adoption as screening out "bad" parents rather than recruiting good ones.

Contrast two of the locations we studied for a 2005 report: In San Jose, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was invited to an information meeting designed to inform prospective parents about the children available and to get parents into the training program. In Miami, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was required to fill out a two-page questionnaire, over the phone, that included sensitive personal and financial information. Those who "passed" the call were invited to an information meeting that began with an announcement that all attendees would be fingerprinted at the front of the room. Is it any wonder that a prospective parent in San Jose was 12 times more likely to adopt than a prospective parent in Miami?

It is, of course, important that those responsible for arranging adoptions secure safe, appropriate homes for children. And many agencies have improved their procedures. But too many public child welfare agencies still serve as barriers rather than as roads to adoption. If we could remove the barriers, the demand for adoption would better match the supply -- and every waiting child in America could have a family.

Presumably those who didn't "pass" the call were deemed unsuitable.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Presumably those who didn't "pass" the call were deemed unsuitable.

It's quite easy to look up adoption stats. Unfortunately wading through them to find specific data is quite difficult. I think that the last time I made a search with the keywords "homosexual" and "adoption" all I could find were gay porn and dating sites.
At any rate, it's always been the way that infants are preferred and most couples will only adopt infants. Due to this the screening process is made very daunting and rigorous and even those that pass it wind up on a very long waiting list because there are not enough infants up for adoption to meet demand (as Art points out). To avoid this many parents now adopt from foriegn countries.
Those children stuck in foster care were not placed there as infants and allowing or not allowing homosexuals to adopt is unlikely to change their numbers in any significant way.
I think that gay couples should be allowed to adopt. I'm just pointing out that adoption statistics will make a poor arguement.

 

[kathrynag]

Did you experience any additional bullying because of it?

Edit: Before anyone jumps on me for it, yes, I am aware than an anecdote does not count as data.

No, I did not experience any bullying because of it. i told peopleand they were just fine with it. Never had any problems. Sure kids didn't understand at first, but I just had to explain, so they would understand.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, I did not experience any bullying because of it. i told peopleand they were just fine with it. Never had any problems. Sure kids didn't understand at first, but I just had to explain, so they would understand.

a/s/l? ;-)

That is:
What generation are you from? I think that younger generations are far more accepting.

Are you male or female? I don't remember if you mentioned but your name looking like 'kathy' made me think female. While I always heard rumours about this girl or that girl being a 'dyke' I don't believe I ever heard of females being physically abused over their sexuality when I was in school. I think most often they didn't even know what was being said about them. And lesbians (as I believe you stated you had two mothers) are generally not looked down upon as much as gays.

And what region are you from? Personally I live in California where I assume it is less likely that I would have encountered these issues going on in my school than if I were in say Alabama.

 

[kathrynag]

a/s/l? ;-)

That is:
What generation are you from? I think that younger generations are far more accepting.

Are you male or female? I don't remember if you mentioned but your name looking like 'kathy' made me think female. While I always heard rumours about this girl or that girl being a 'dyke' I don't believe I ever heard of females being physically abused over their sexuality when I was in school. I think most often they didn't even know what was being said about them. And lesbians (as I believe you stated you had two mothers) are generally not looked down upon as much as gays.

And what region are you from? Personally I live in California where I assume it is less likely that I would have encountered these issues going on in my school than if I were in say Alabama.

Well, I'm 19. I know both of my mom's parents were not accepting at first, but they accepted it after some time.
I am female.
I lived in Ohio for a very short time, then lived in Florida for 8 years, and now am in Vermont.

 

[LowlyPion]

Sic 'em California.

California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

Nov 24th, 2008 | SAN FRANCISCO -- California officials will investigate whether the Mormon church accurately described its role in a campaign to ban gay marriage in the state.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said Monday that a complaint by a gay rights group merits further inquiry.

Executive director Roman Porter says the decision does not mean any wrongdoing has been determined.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, accuses the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of failing to report the value of work it did to support Proposition 8.

A representative from the Salt Lake City-based church could not be reached for comment.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/11/24/D94LNA7G0_gay_marriage_mormons/index.html

 

[Zantra]

Sic 'em California.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/us/2008/11/24/D94LNA7G0_gay_marriage_mormons/index.html

I just wanted to comment that although I don't agree, I understand people's positions on marriage being solely between a man and a woman. I do concede that it is their right to those beliefs. But I live in America, where everyone has a right to choice. In a land separated by church and state, in a land where my sworn enemy may advocate his position without fear of reprisal, and practice his lifestyle freely, even if I think that lifestyle is wrong. I also fear the alternative, which exists today still in many countries around the world.

So where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is invalid, maybe protestants are wrong. We could get rid of those Mormons- they believe in polygamy, so they need to go. And the Buddhists- they don't believe in the "true God". In fact, those atheists might as well not marry anymore either-they don't believe in God, why should they be entitled to a religious ceremony?

Sound pretty extreme,unfair, and biased yet? Well then you've just gotten a glimpse of what it's like to look through a different pair of eyes for a change. This issue isn't about redefining marriage. It's about separate but equal. It's about 2 drinking fountains and 3 bathrooms- men, women, and blacks. I'm sure many African Americans are offended by comparisons being drawn between this and slavery, and that's unfortunate-but I understand it's because of the deeply rooted religious beliefs many African Americans hold. But although they may choose not to see it, this is an issue of equality- and even if you're against homosexuality, equality is something to value, particularly if you're African American or any other minority in America.We still haven't learned from our past mistakes- and that is troubling.

Seperate but equal is a slippery slope, and if we start drawing lines, it's only a matter of time before this line comes to your doorstep. At some point you've fallen on someone's unfavorable list- everyone in their lives has encountered differing opinions. Yet we discussed, disagreed, shook hands, and moved on. Afterwards we didn't always see the other viewpoint, and maybe we shook our heads a little, but nothing was infringed, and no one was harmed. Yet here we stand debating yet another issue of relative unimportance in comparison to the rest of the universe. So at some point we either stop drawing lines, or before long there will be no one left to draw them. Just one straight, white middle-aged, upper middle class, American, Catholic male screaming his vitriol at nothing,clutching his Bible in one hand, Starbucks coffee in another, and waiting to die. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either equality applies to all, in all situations, or it is not true equality. For true equality there need to be no lines. the criteria for rights are that they don't affect the well-being of others, and this does not. That addresses the pologamy/pedophila argument.

For those who are against gay marriage, I would encourage you to truly ponder exactly why you oppose it- and see if it truly comes to you as an issue that personally affects you, or just a belief that hoimosexuals shouldn't marry. If it's the latter, then I hope you consider that carefully-who has the right to control someone else's life, weather we agree with them or not? For the religious folks, I am sorry, but I must go to this well again, because it has merit and meaning:

First they came…

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up


I try to keep my politics to a minimum on this board, as this isn't really the place for it in my view, but I do on occasion comment, and this is one of those occasions. My apologies to those who had to read this long post :)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Proposition 8 - the musical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbAK2efZrQ

 

[Zantra]

Proposition 8 - the musical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnbAK2efZrQ

This was hilarious. The full version is here:

http://www.funnyordie.com/

 

[LowlyPion]

Pat Boone Speaks out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCuFKvFNIMM

 

[Zantra]

Pat Boone Speaks out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCuFKvFNIMM

Well I don't know.. I mean c'mon.. it's only a matter of time before free speech turns to violent terrorist gangs going from church to church executing people. All is lost! All is lost!

But seriously, I think any violent protest is wrong, and represents a fanatical minority... but then I don't go around calling every anti-abortionist a crazed wacko out to kill abortion doctors, do I?

 

[LowlyPion]

Well I don't know.. I mean c'mon.. it's only a matter of time before free speech turns to violent terrorist gangs going from church to church executing people. All is lost! All is lost!

But seriously, I think any violent protest is wrong, and represents a fanatical minority... but then I don't go around calling every anti-abortionist a crazed wacko out to kill abortion doctors, do I?

This would be one of those violent despicable Mumbai-like assaults that Pat Boone was referencing? It's getting ugly out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZJvMzSKmKA

 

[Zantra]

This would be one of those violent despicable Mumbai-like assaults that Pat Boone was referencing? It's getting ugly out there.

I like how they call these people anarchists.

 

[rcgldr]

Legal aspects of prop 8:

The reason this hasn't come before the courts before is because there were never laws permitting gay marriage until recently, so there were never laws banning it. Opponents of gay marriage may have started something they really won't like the end of; if a SCOTUS ruling was to strike down the ban it would be a justification for gay marriage to be permitted nationwide.

It's not that recent. Courts in Hawaii declared same-sex marriage legal back in 1993. The Federal government passed a law against same sex marriage back in September 21, 1996, almost 12 years ago: No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

So far, the Supreme Court has refused to accept any cases regarding these laws. As it stands right now, regardless of the laws in individual states, same sex marriage won't be recognized by the Federal government. This affects things like federal income taxes, or a foreigner becoming a citizen by marrying a US citizen.

Seperation of church and state in the USA originally applied to the federal government, not individual states, some of which had official religions in the early days of the USA, and up until the late 1960's, many states had blue laws (no liquor sales on Sundays, business had to be closed one day a week, ...). The point of the first amendment was freedom of beliefs (opinions), but not behaviors (actions), at pointed out in this letter from Jefferson:

legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

So far the legal analysis of prop 8 seems to indicate it should hold as a valid amendment, but it initially goes before the same court that decided 4 to 3 to legalize same sex marriage. My guess is that prop 8's survival is 50:50 at this point (if not overturned, perhaps another amendment vote in a few years). However I doubt the the Federal law is going to be overturned anytime soon, since it's been around for 12 years.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

More Prop 8 news for those who are interested...

Proposition 8 proponents filed a lawsuit today seeking to nullify 18,000 gay marriages that took place between June and November this year. The brief filed with the court was co-written by Pepperdine's law school dean Kenneth Star, who also was the former independent counsel that investigated President Bill Clinton. "Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," it read.

Attorney General Jerry Brown promptly responded to the filing in a statement this evening. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

source

It's quite encouraging (depending on your camp I suppose) to see that the man responsible for defending the proposition is stating it is unconstitutional.

In somewhat related news...

From Hollywood's perspective, there's a cloud over Barack Obama's inaugural. Now the question is whether the weather that day will simply be overcast or stormy.

Obama's selection of Orange County mega-pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his swearing in has hit liberal Hollywood in one of its sorest spots: the passage of Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, which Warren strongly supported. In fact, he has compared same-sex nuptials to approving polygamy and pedophilia.

Reaction in the entertainment industry -- where interestingly, Warren has his own powerful ties -- has been swift, angry and bitter. (And nothing undermines a good party quite like disappointment and hurt.)
cont...

 

[LowlyPion]

OK. So he's British. But still ...

Brown attacks US gay marriage ban

Gordon Brown has condemned California's ban on gay marriage as "unacceptable" and warned people to be vigilant against all forms of discrimination.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7928563.stm

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

the analasys of the court proceedings so far I heard this morning is not so encouraging. the attourney for the gay couples is arguing that prop 8 ought to be invalidated because it is not an amendment (which can be voted on by the people) but rather a revision (which must be voted on by the legislature). the logic here is that since the California constitution states all persons are to be treated equally an amendment to ban gay marriage necessarily revises this clause.
apparently the judges were not so impressed with the arguement. the judges seemed to be of the opinion that it only banned the use of the label "marriage" but did not ban any of the legal aspects which are supposedly all cover by a domestic partnership and so does not appear to be an infringement on any fundamental rights. the attourney was challenged to explain why this would be the case and apparently only stated that it makes homosexuals second class citizens which is more or less a restatement of the idea that it infringes on fundamental rights and again the judges didn't seem impressed.

 

[mgb_phys]

Brown attacks US gay marriage ban

Gordon Brown has condemned California's ban on gay marriage as "unacceptable" and warned people to be vigilant against all forms of discrimination.

Which is a bit ironic given that-
The Californian prop 9 only bans using the word 'marriage' (AFAIK) it doesn't stop gay partners getting any legal/financial benefits.
The British 'legal administrative partnership' (romantic!) allows some legal and financial benefits but they went to great lengths not to use the word marriage anywhere in case they offended the church - especially the rather more strict churches in Scotland ( Brown is very Scottish)

 

[Count Iblis]

Kenneth Star argued that if the majority of the people decide so, rights up to and including freedom of speech rights could be limited.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Which is a bit ironic given that-
The Californian prop 9 only bans using the word 'marriage' (AFAIK) it doesn't stop gay partners getting any legal/financial benefits.
The British 'legal administrative partnership' (romantic!) allows some legal and financial benefits but they went to great lengths not to use the word marriage anywhere in case they offended the church - especially the rather more strict churches in Scotland ( Brown is very Scottish)

It could be argued that the label of "marriage" is important legally. Labels are quite important legally. The legally defined meaning of a single word can change the meaning and specification of a law or contract significantly. I'm not sure what the law here says about domestic partnerships but if there are any laws that specify application to marriage or married couples it obviously would not apply to any couple whose legal relationship is not defined as "marriage". Even if California law specifies that as far as the government is concerned "domestic partnership" and "marriage" are equivilant for the governments purposes this would not cover private persons, businesses, and organizations. Services, policies, and contracts can specify clauses that pretain to "married" couples and then deny contractual rights and services to those that are not legally defined as "married".
It's unfortunate that their attourney did not make such an arguement.

 

[mgb_phys]

It could be argued that the label of "marriage" is important legally. Labels are quite important legally.

I agree - it's like having a civil rights amendment that says 'blacks aren't really people' but we won't persecute you!
My point was that Brown is criticizing California for doing exactly what his own party did in not allowing the word 'marriage'.

 

[Karl G.]

I wish I could criticize the whole mess ... but I live in Texas, where Gov. Perry wants sodomy to be illegal. http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usnews52.htm

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, maybe Obama having Warren give the invocation at the Inaugural paid a little dividend in tolerance?

Warren waver on Prop 8 stuns leaders
Stance about-face at issue
By Julia Duin (Contact) | Saturday, April 11, 2009

Evangelical leaders say they are bewildered and stunned by the Rev. Rick Warren's apparent turnaround on gay marriage after the famous California pastor said earlier this week that he was not a proponent of California's Proposition 8.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/11/warren-waver-stuns-leaders/?xid=rss-page