I Am A Mother. A Tale of Two Views

I Am A Mother.

As I was reading through NOM blog today, I came across these two posts by women on opposite ends of the marriage debate.  Their heartfelt takes on marriage and what it means really impressed me.  In particular, they are both powerful, emotional statements, yet worlds apart in focus:

“I am a citizen, who desires nothing more than any other citizen. I want children for the exact same reasons any heterosexual does. I want to be married for the exact same reasons any heterosexual does.

I can’t change who I am, or who I fall in love with any more than you can, and I should just accept I’ll never have the same thing as my sister or brother, who are heterosexual?

And because of people like you, my partner and I will probably have a harder time raising our son than you would your children.

The only reason a child would think any less of his or her family would be because people like you do.

Good night, and I really hope none of your children are gay. If they are, make sure and tell them early on why they shouldn’t ever be able to marry. It’ll be easier on them in the long-run.”  —Marci


When I dated, I chose who I made relationships with. I chose who I would live my life with. No one took those choices from me. Because of my choices, my children will have a mom and a dad, and I will work every day to make sure it stays that way because my children need a mom and a dad. I would never deny a child what they are entitled to simply because of my own selfish wants and desires. Children have rights too, rights that can’t be denied simply because they don’t fit a certain parent’s sexual desires. I am prepared to teach my children by example what a family is, and You can bet I will make sure that they know, if they are not prepared to give a child the things they need in life, they ought not be bringing those children into the world. I am a mom, and because I’m a mom, the needs of my children surpass my petty wants. That is a sacrifice I’m willing to make a thousand times over, and one we should comit to as a society. Every child needs a mom and a dad. Death and divorce aside, we should do everything we can to give them the best chance possible to have that in their lives.”  —Sandee

I thought the response to Marci’s letter was singularly powerful.  One letter focused on the writer, what the writer wanted, what the writer felt, and children were an accessory to that.  The other writer’s focus is on her family, her children and what makes a family.

Two mothers. Two world views.

The first takes no responsibility, the second is the embodiment of responsibility.

It was a poignant example of the very basis of disagreement in the marriage debate, excellently articulated by two of society’s mothers.

—Beetle Blogger



  1. Troy said,

    January 22, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    A very good contrast. Obviously both women have thought about their feelings and presented them in a heart-felt way. The recognition that personal feelings come second in a family and even in a relationship with another person is a hard one to accept and one that I still have to work on but that I recognize as correct.

    In economics there is the idea that I agree with that if everyone pursues what is best for them, a free market will produce the best for everyone as a whole (Adam Smith who was the champion of the free market put this forward well.) I feel that I understand at least partially (I’m not an economist) how that comes about. I think the same applies to personal relationships but that it requires a more long-term view that takes into account the idea that short term gains may result in long term failures.

    I think that Marci may find that in pursuing the short-term gain of the marriage title and bringing children into the world without a father, she ultimately fail at long term happiness because of the multitude of problems that plague same sex couples (shorter relationship durations, domestic violence, psychiatric disorders, child abuse, and the lack of role models for children to name some of the major ones.) I am not saying that Marci will experience any one of these things but that the chance to experience them in her relationship of choice is much higher and so the chances for her happiness is commensurately lower.

    Attempting to short-sightedly force society to pretend there is no difference between the two relationships, in my opinion, will ultimately result in unhappiness.

  2. marci said,

    January 22, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    My comments kept being blocked on NOM’s site, so I couldn’t respond. I’m sure this will be too.

    Petty wants? Having children is a petty want? You have no idea what my partner and I went through to become parents. Responsibility? We live on one income so I can stay home with my son. We talked at length about what it would mean to adopt a child and the problems (with people like you) that we would encounter because #1 he’s adopted, #2 he’ll never know his dad (birthmom didn’t even get a last name) #3 He’ll have two moms. Our conclusion was that we could give him a stable, loving, two parent home and there are enough people in the world that believe that because you weren’t born into a loving heterosexual home, doesn’t mean you cannot have a positive, loving upbringing.

    I’m deeply offended that you would make such judgements on me from a few paragraphs. But that’s what people like you do.

  3. marci said,

    January 22, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Troy… you got your information from a widely recognized biased pediatrics association. It is complete and utter lies. My long-term goals are to raise a compassionate, loving, hardworking young man and take care of my partner until one of us dies.

    Could you give up the notion of marriage? Being a parent? Having someone to spend the rest of your life with? How do these things rank in your life?

  4. marci said,

    January 22, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    These things aren’t just what make people happy, it is why people exist. You have not had to sacrifice your reasons for existence have you?

    It seems to me that because I am gay, I shouldn’t exist.

  5. beetlebabee said,

    January 22, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    “I’m deeply offended that you would make such judgements on me from a few paragraphs. But that’s what people like you do.”

    Marci, you may not like what your words say about you, but nonetheless, your priorities are what they are, and they’re not unique to you. These two representative comments are exactly that, representative of the larger picture. Do you not think so?

    You made the decision to have children. That is not petty, it is a big thing for a parent and difficult no doubt when biology does not cooperate, but for a child, it is everything. SSA is not easy to live with. I know many people who live with it, including family members and one of my best friends. That is irrelevant, but the thing that matters is no matter what life gives us, we have choices. These two contrasting statements illustrate that brilliantly. I’m sorry you don’t see it.

  6. Sockpuppet Politic said,

    January 22, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    “I’m deeply offended that you would make such judgements (sic) on me from a few paragraphs. But that’s what people like you do.”

    Wait, did just make a broad judgment on you from a few paragraphs while stating her offense at being judged on a few paragraphs?

    I think my brain is about to explode…

  7. marci said,

    January 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Never will see it either. Thanks for solidifying my decisions even more. The only reason for someone to repress their true self (not feelings, not choices, SELF) is because others are making them do it. I believe that wholeheartedly because I’ve seen it and have been a victim of it.

    I really hope none of your children are gay. I can’t imagine telling my child he cannot be who he truly is.

    And thanks for allowing me to post comments in response to yours. I know you could have just not published them.

    Have a good night and many happy wishes to you and your family.

  8. beetlebabee said,

    January 22, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    “These things aren’t just what make people happy, it is why people exist. You have not had to sacrifice your reasons for existence have you? It seems to me that because I am gay, I shouldn’t exist.”

    You and I have very different views on this point. No one is entitled to marriage, or children. Those things are things we all hope for, but sometimes life takes us a different way, and it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I’ve known many good women who have not been given those blessings but who have refocused their lives around their extended family. Everyone makes their choices. I’m just saying that as someone who has suffered many long years of infertility and many other trials, your self worth, your existence, is not tied to your ability to have children, and having children will not automatically entitle you to the acceptance and recognition that according to your comments, you seem to most desire from society.

  9. beetlebabee said,

    January 22, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    “The only reason for someone to repress their true self (not feelings, not choices, SELF) is because others are making them do it.”

    Marci, your idea that you ARE your sexual orientation must be a difficult burden to bear. That philosophy discourages free choice. You are more than your sexuality. Who you truly are is a person, a daughter of God, a citizen as you said, a sister, a friend. There are different philosophies with regard to how to be “true” to your “true” self. Being a slave to sexuality is one way yes, but there are so many other ways to think and govern your life.

    Many happy wishes to you and yours as well Marci. Thank you for participating in this discussion.

  10. mlabot said,

    January 22, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    I’d just like to point out that Sandee’s comment is not just about Marci’s. It’s about her whole outlook. It is also applicable to divorce, pursuing a career, etc. The thing I like is that her first thought is for the helpless, vulnerable ones in her life who depend on family for everything. The sacrifices of a mother are too often overlooked today in the quest to “have it all”. Anyway that’s my two cents.

  11. Rosss said,

    January 22, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    Beetle: SSA is not easy to live with. I know many people who live with it, including family members and one of my best friends.

    Wow, I pity your friend for having you as a “friend” based on the phrasing of that comment alone

  12. beetlebabee said,

    January 22, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Ross, no need to employ your typical badmouth sarcasm. We all have friends, and friends come in all types. Do you realize that a good portion of the gay population voted FOR proposition 8? This particular friend was one of them. In fact, she and I worked together getting the message out about the importance of marriage and families and still talk regularly about what’s going on nationally. Does that go against your stereotype? I thought it would. You’re too easy Ross. Not everyone takes in the gay agenda as living gospel.

  13. Richard Lang said,

    January 22, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    You know, society owes its future to the strength of its mothers. The motivation behind motherhood and the dedication to it for those formative years especially can’t be overestimated. Good post.

  14. January 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    It sounds like you are trying hard be a good mother and I give that utmost respect. I am wondering however, in your efforts to give your son the best, how are you going to give him the regular fatherly influence he needs? Men are very different than women and bring a unique and balanced facet to parenting, which is something that every child needs. You and your partner as women will never be able to do this for your son. If you don’t mind opening up a bit more, I am very curious to know how you are going to remedy this to give your son the best chances at a successful life?

  15. Marty said,

    January 23, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Marci doesn’t know the first thing about being a little boy, or about being a father. Apparently her son will have to learn this stuff second hand too, because her gender bias is FAR more important than her son’s need for a Dad of his own.

    Your bias is your problem, not your son’s. It’s a very cruel and unusual thing to deprive him of a father, simply because you find it difficult or impossible to love men. BECAUSE they are men.

  16. Dwane said,

    January 23, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    I am sorry I do not agree with Sandee – Is she say that she could honesty choose today to be homosexual? None of you chose to be heterosexual – did you – in your heart of hearts – you know you could never be homosexual, no matter how hard you tried.

    We all choose who we have a relationship with – Ideally it is with someone we love, cherish and respect. When someone has a child I pray that is because they want the child not because they just bumped ugly and made a baby — ooops!

    Having a child is a selfish act “period” – You want the child ideally – it is a choice – you had sex, you had in-vitro, or you adopted – all choices.

    There is nothing that a SSM couple cannot give a child that a mother and a father can give – beyond the physical gender characteristics of male and female.

    There heterosexuals are not all cut from the same cloth – I know women who would have “traditional” manhood traits vs “traditional womanhood traits” and vise verse for heterosexual males.

    I have yet to have one person who can give me any explanation of what a mother and a father can give a child beyond the gender physical differences.

    A Child needs the following – from parents (Hetero or Homo)

    Provided for (Shelter, Food, Clothing, etc)

    None of these items are particularly male of female traits – The may have been traditional roles through time – but those have changed a lot – especially since the time when women were considered property of their husbands.

  17. Chairm said,

    January 23, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Often, people who deny the importance of fathers will point to male neighbors, uncles, family male friends, and the like and say, “The child has a male role model.”

    1. That shows there is a lack that these people perceive a lack that someone might try to fulfill for their child.

    2. That sentiment, or that theory, reduces fatherhood to a mere role, to a man putting on a costume, and so it is imagined that a woman might put on the same costume.

    These points stand in stark contradiction.

    Increasingly there are cases in family courts where lesbian couples raising children will request that their known ‘sperm donor’ (yet another supposed costumed role) be recognized as a co-equal parent with the two women. In these cases the father agrees and the women also agree and state that the parental status of the father is essential to the well-being of the child. And so the court is apt to agree because of all of this mutual agreement.

    Similarly, “open adoptions” are increasingly prevalent. This is where the child’s mom and/or dad — by birth — are included in the child’s life even though parental status is fully relinquished.

    Now, there are other circumstances — other forms of adoption, for example — in which a child is both rendered fatherless and motherless due to tragedy or dire circumstances. But these are the hard cases that do not make for good general rules nor for good laws.

    All things being equal, a child has a birthright to her mom and dad’s continued presence and influence. Society has an obligation to protect that birthright and not to take the inverse as the new default position. And, all things being equal, a child who has lost her mom and dad is entitled to a commitment by society toward providing her with a married mom and dad as adoptors.

    There is no actual shortage of such candidates for adoption in this country. There are obstacles that can be removed or at least reduced. That’s where we all can do more.

    Still, single person adoptors, and adoptors whose enhanced qualifications fit the special needs of a child, these people are often heroes and deserve our deepest respect.

    What I find appalling, however, is that examples of such hard cases and exceptional scenarios are being held-up as the new standard — as the hallmark of a new paradigm for parenting across all of society.

    Exceptions are exceptions and ought to be seen and treated as such.

  18. Dadof6 said,

    January 23, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    I’ve been reading this blog for a while, and this article tugged at my heart.

    I have been married for 13 years, have 6 wonderful children – 5 girls, 1 boy. As I read both statements, I found that while heart-felt and full of hope – Marci’s was not complete, and cannot be complete. What she and her partner “chooses” will cause complications that no one can really tell the full extent of, nor will they be able to until it is too late. A mother’s role is a complimentary one to that of a father. I would not be the man I am if it not for the examples – daily examples – of life by both my mother and my father. From my father, I learned justice, strength and will. From my mother came compassion, service, joy and happiness.

    These are things that must be instilled from both mother and father, without them, a child will not be complete. Pointing to a family member as an example does no one any good – where is the daily interaction? How can someone learn in a few hours what it takes in a lifetime to complete?

    God made woman for a reason – to perfect man. She completes, helps us rise to full potential. Together, man and woman do all they can – sacrificing in ways that only their peers would truly understand. Two mothers cannot make up for one stand-in father. Likewise, two fathers cannot make up for the missing mother. There are studies going on back and forth, but they mean nothing. Only experience will be the final judge. How will the son of two women grow and understand how he is to treat a woman when he has no example?

    When I was young, I remember my father pleading with God that she would pull through a rather risky surgery. I saw that he sacrificed so much so that she would be happy, that she and us would be safe. How does a child learn that unless they experience that daily? My children learn from my wife and I. They learn that we sacrifice together to make it work. My daughters will learn what kind of man they should look for when they are ready to marry. My son will learn that he should treat a woman with respect, compassion and caring that cannot be instilled by two mothers.

    As a citizen, everyone has rights. But when it comes to children, you surrender your rights so that they may thrive and prosper. Your job, your goals, your “things” no longer matter. You put them aside, and you allow your childrens goals and dreams to fill your heart. A father and mother is the true example, the true balance that a child needs.There is no study on earth that can change that. There is complete lack of true guidence that a child needs when raised in a same-sex home.

  19. Dwane said,

    January 23, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    Charim – As you speak to birth right as to a child knowing their mother and father.

    As you know as do i all things are not equal. We do not live in a perfect world.

    Then would you support such laws that force – recognition of “donors” sperm and egg for any couple that used such services (hetero or homosexual) – is there a specific age that the child would be “required” to “know” who this / these people were?

    What about those people who anonymously donate eggs and sperm – to help couple who wish to conceive – yet do not want to have anything to do with said child. Do we deny the rights of these people to be anonymous donors – or do we recognize the birth right of the child?

    As to those people who have caused single parents homes – do we force a compulsory admittance and proof of fatherhood / motherhood – if so how do we do this when someone may have had a one night stand? What happens when the father cannot be located?

    What about those women who may have been raped and decide to keep the child – when do we tell the child that they were the product of a rape?

    You talked abut the concept of fatherhood – what exactly is that by your definition – what are the tangibles and intangibles that make this such a unique role….. I would like to understand your position – but I require context. I am a gay parent – I know plenty of gay parents and children of gay parents who do not agree with your assertion.

  20. Jennifer S said,

    January 23, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    While I may have an honest disagreement with Beetle Blogger, it appears she has at least an open mind to allow posters to state their opinions. NOM is obviously afraid of an open debate since they purge comments that does not fit with their world view.

    It is important to remember that not all marriages are about procreation. There is absolutely no requirement for any couple to state their intentions to have children, their ability to support them, the love they can give them and the extent of their parenting skills in order to obtain a marriage license. I for one do not want our government asking any of those questions to any couple who wants to marry. But it appears some people do or perhaps they just want to challenge another person’s beliefs, skills, abilities and perhaps even their motivations to have children.

  21. beetlebabee said,

    January 23, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Jennifer, here as elsewhere, thoughtful on topic comments from both sides are welcome, personal attacks and vain repetition are usually discouraged.

    I think you may have missed the target here. The question isn’t who should have children and who shouldn’t, it’s what is the ideal we should set as a society to strive for. The current ideal is a man woman union where they are happily married and committed for life to their children and each other. There is a new philosophy of the last few years that says, gender doesn’t matter, and two people of the same gender can be just as great an ideal as a man and a woman. While those who are advocating that position want to goad or shame people into simply accepting this theory as reality without scientific, historical or even biological basis, this is foolish. The debate is a necessary one.

    What is at issue here goes to the heart of the same-sex marriage debate. There are some who believe that gender is just a social construct, you can just as easily be male as female, and there is nothing inherently unique. If that is the case, two men marrying would be less of a big deal, two men parenting would raise fewer concerns etc.

    No one is saying that government would forbid parenthood to anyone else, what is at issue is what is the legally and socially acceptable ideal, why, and should it be changed?

  22. beetlebabee said,

    January 23, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    Dad of 6,

    Excellent comment, and well articulated. These two mothers and the personal backgrounds behind their stories warrant a soft touch in discussion, but I want to just lay aside all the heartfelt emotions for a moment and simply take a second to look around in amazement at the philosophy that is driving this madness.

    It is astounding to me that any movement can be so arrogant as to imagine that gender simply doesn’t matter. Men and women have got completely different sets of chromosomes, wildly different chemistry, different physiology, different thought processes, in fact whole libraries of books are dedicated to helping one gender understand of the opposite gender, and here in this generation all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that not only are men and women as individual people, equally valued, but their genders are equal, i.e. irrelevant, replaceable, meaningless.

    It defies logic, science and everything solid society is built on. We are a two gender species built on complimentary compatibility. Yes we’re equally valued individuals but that’s where the equality stops. Everything else is gloriously unique. Are apples oranges? Are boats and airplanes interchangeable? Where did the feminist movement go wrong? Let me count the ways.

    Personally I love the complimentary nature of men and women in marriage, and I think you described that well.

  23. Chairm said,

    January 23, 2010 at 10:38 pm


    What do you propose as the default position, if not the birthright I described?

    By the way, that birthright is the expressed in the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. That legal presumption has an overflow effect; many places, if not most, hold unwedded mom-dad duos to the same first principle: that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is responsible for, and to, the children we create (barring dire circumstances or tragedy). That is also the basis for at least two pre-requisites for adoption and for third party procreation. 1) parental relinquishment or loss; and 2) government intervention to assign a substitute. How each society navigates the implementation of this first principles is at issue. Indeed, the marital presumption of paternity, as vigorously enforced as it is in our legal system and our culture, takes into account that this is not a perfect world.

    Or would you say that the better default position is that the child has no such birthright, in this imperfect world? A default that takes its lead from the scenarios (most of which entail tragedy or dire circumstances) you listed?

    Please articulate the replacement default you’d propose, if any.

  24. Dwane said,

    January 24, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Chairm & Beetlbabee- Based upon the sheer number of heterosexuals the default position is a mother and a father (90% of the population). But just because it is the default does not invalidate the others – nor should it prevent the protection of those families.

    I am a gay father of 4 children – 2 biological and 2 adopted – all happy, healthy, heterosexual, and self-sufficient adults (also they are all heterosexual).

    I am not saying there are not biological differences in men and women -it is quite easy to see – unless you are blind. Of course I have to wonder why men have nipples.

    Gender roles – have changed and are changing over time – at one time there was no such thing as a male nurse – traditionally see as a woman’s role – yet we have male nurses now. At one time we had dad who went to work and mothers that stayed at home – now we have the reverse in a lot of cases.

    You say that a mother and father are complimentary – I have no problem with that. But can you look past the physical and maybe broaden your scope for a second – Why is it that you and your spouse are complimentary to each other?

    Could it be that you love them?
    They complete you?
    They deal with your short comings and you with theirs?
    Maybe it is because he make a better spaghetti sauce than you?
    Maybe it is because the way they snuggle up with you and say that they love you.
    Maybe it is because you know they would do anything for you – even give their life for you when push came to shove.
    Maybe it is because of that special look at a dinner party that is a secret signal to you and spouse that it time to go.

    Of course – there are always those physical attributes that attract us to our spouses – but it would be a shame if that was the only reason why you married the person – Since physical attributes tend to be fleeting.

    Before (ideally) any of us were parents – we honestly had no idea how any of us would be as parents – Yes we had ideas, yes we had may have had some practice by baby sitting etc… But until you commit to becoming a parent you have no idea what it really involves – no-one does.

    Now this is not saying that there is not a physical/emotional bond the mother feels while carrying a child – I know plenty of women who loved being pregnant, yet had no problem handing their child over to the nanny – day one. Just as I have know women who hated being pregnant and could not wait to have “it” removed – but would never part a moment with the child when the child was born. I know fathers who were just the same – very in to the pregnancy but not the child and vise versa.

    I do not believe a child knows the difference – prior to being born – I know the child easily can pick up on the parents concern or indifference pretty quickly.

  25. beetlebabee said,

    January 24, 2010 at 8:17 am

    “You say that a mother and father are complimentary – I have no problem with that. But can you look past the physical and maybe broaden your scope for a second – Why is it that you and your spouse are complimentary to each other?”

    Duane, I was not commenting on physical attributes, though those are of importance. I was highlighting Dad of 6’s articulation of the complimentary nature of male and female attributes. Men have strengths in how they behave, see, relate to others that are unique to men. They are chemically and genetically wired to be that way, just as women have strengths in how they behave, see and relate to others that are unique to them. These strengths are not identical, they are complimentary— each are essential.

    We may play around with typically seen gender roles on an individual basis, but that does not change who we are inside. We may see one woman sent out into the workplace, and one father at home, but that is the exception, and not the rule. Why? In nursing gender may not matter, but in parenting it does. Why? I think Dad of 6’s comment answered that.

    To sum up your argument so far:
    1. The differences between men and women are physical differences only. (no)
    2. Any adult can pair with any other adult and feel close attraction. (true, but irrelevant)
    3. Children need a loving non gender-specific pair. That is essential. (no)
    4. Individual parents are often worse than the ideal. (true, but irrelevant.)

    What you have not addressed is the difference between men and women beyond the outside physical attributes.

  26. Marty said,

    January 24, 2010 at 8:18 am


    I chose heterosexuality 24 years ago, and I could change my mind tomorrow.

    Am I attracted to men? No — I don’t even entertain the thought. Could I become attracted to men? Sure — why the hell not. Some of them are VERY attractive.

  27. Chairm said,

    January 24, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Dwayne, the share of persons in a population who exhibit same-sex sexual orientation is irrelevant to the questions I asked — questions that arise from your previous remarks.

    Each person in a population has been born equal, of a man and a woman. That’s rock solid and fundamental. The child’s birthright is vulnerable for reasons that you touched on in your most recent comment.

    I had asked if you thought there ought to be a new default position and, if yes, what would it be in your view?

    * * *

    You raised the question of proportion. In the HRC’s own analysis of census and related data, they estimated (or perhaps guesstimated is the better term) that 5% of the adult population is openly homosexual.

    This means that about 97% of adult homosexual persons do NOT live in same-sex households with children.

    Of the relatively few who do, most of them attained those children through the old fashioned way: a procreative relationship — either marriage (mostly) or unwed cohabitation. These children have both moms and dads. They have access to the same protections of children of divorced or estranged parents. Indeed, the sexual basis for the presumption of paternity protects the birthright of these children; protects the parental status of both mom and dad — regardless of sexual orientation; and protects the societal significance of both fatherhood, motherhood, and the solidarity of these foundational institutions of civilization.

    Of the 72-plus million children in the country, about 30,000 or so live in same-sex households as a result of adoption or third party procreation. Both of these means of attaining children come with pre-requisites: 1) parental relinquishment and 2) government intervention to assign a substitution. I mentioned this in my previous comment. This is the virtual inverse of the marital presumption of paternity — the sexual basis of which is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangeements, regardless of sexualization and regardless of the sentimental stuff you mentioned in your latest comment.

    On the other hand, privisions for designated beneficiaries are available on a very different basis. Families which experience vulnerabilities — especially those with children — can access protections. But that is in response to the lack of (or the diminishment of) responsible procreation and sex integration in their circumstances. Nonmarital trends do not make the case for a new default; rather the contrary, as per the social ills that society experiences.

    What is the new default, if any, that you have in mind, Dwayne?

  28. Karma said,

    January 24, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    Just a thought: I think women are beautiful. I think men are beautiful. When I was growing up, I tended to be physically MUCH more attracted to the “bad boys”. I chose to give that ideal up when I decided that I was ready to think about settling down and finding an ideal partner in parenthood and in life. I started consciously choosing to date within my religion, and made sure that, no matter how much I was physically attracted to a person, it wouldn’t matter as much as the strength of their character, the wisdom in their hearts, and the faith in their lives. I CHOSE who I would put into my line of sight TO fall in love with. I found that yes, you CAN choose who you fall in love with. Before I met my husband I was desperately in love with someone who I knew would never be the man I wanted to be the father of my children. Yes, it hurt, but I let him go and changed who I looked at as suitable. I ended up with an amazing man, and have been absurdly happy ever since. And to be honest, if he had not displayed the characteristics which I was looking for in my and my future children’s lives, much though it may have hurt, I wouldn’t have married him.

    P.S. We raised our oldest daughter buying her trucks, shark toys, dinosaurs, and footballs. She wants to be a ballerina and a cheerleader. My youngest son was raised with 2 older sisters who dressed him in tutus and made him play Barbie and Littlest Pet Shop. He lives for hockey games, front-loaders, and Transformers. You can’t tell me that boys and girls are interchangeable lol! ;)

  29. Troy said,

    January 26, 2010 at 11:55 am

    It was a little careless to make a comment and then not come back to engage in the conversation. I read your comment on my information sources. Maybe you can post some links to research that supports the opposite of what I indicated were the problems that plague same sex couples:
    Is there research that indicates that same sex relationships are more permanent in duration than marriages?

    Is there research that indicates that domestic violence is lower for same sex households?

    Is there research that indicates that psychiatric disorders are less prevelant?

    Is there research to indicate that the incidence of child abuse is lower for same sex households?

    Is there research to indicate that children in same sex households have better role models?

    Hopefully I’m not too late to participate in the conversation. Thanks.

  30. Jennifer S said,

    January 26, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    If being married were a requirement to procreate and raise children, then many of the arguments about which home situation would be best for a child may seem valid. Most want that home situation to include parents who are loving, caring, nurturing, providing the necessities of life and then many add, parents of the opposite sex (for a variety of reasons stated earlier by many others).

    But being married is not a requirement for heterosexuals to have children. The last stat I saw had the out of wedlock births in the US at 40%. Then add the sad fact that opposite sex marriages are successful only about 50% of the time. So it is clear that most children are not part of a “ideal” family where their biological mother and father are their parents for their entire childhood. But we should at least try to give the children a stable home life.

    But being married is not a requirement for homosexual couples to have children either. If they want children, they can have them by the old fashion way, by newer methods of surrogacy and in some states adoption. So the question we should be asking ourselves, do we want children of same-sex couples to live in more stable or less stable families.

  31. Chairm said,

    January 26, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Jennifer S,

    Are you saying that unless there is a legal requirement that makes a particular thing mandatory, then, that something is not essential? You used the example of procreation.

    Are you also saying that if something can occur outside of marriage, then, it, too, is not essential? You used the example of procreation.

    1. Is it a legal requirement, anyplace that SSM has been enacted or imposed, that same-sex couples have children?

    2. Do same-sex couples attain children, anyplace that SSM has been enacted or imposed, outside of SSM?

    If the answer is no and yes, then, your question is not the priority you presented it to be here.

    Also, given your lament about participation rates in marriage, do you agree that the very low participation rates in SSM, where it is available, and same-sex householding of all other kinds, stands against your proposed priority?

    If not, why not?

  32. marci said,

    January 27, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Hey Troy, not careless, busy. I am raising a child, you know. :)

    As for statistics on domestic violence, I found some objective sites that had some old (15+ years) saying gay domestic violence was higher than hetero. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

    I did find this website, however. http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm

    Also check out their list of members too. It is expansive.

  33. beetlebabee said,

    January 27, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    Marci, I believe Troy was referring to himself being careless for not tending to your response sooner.

  34. marci said,

    January 27, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    beetlebabee, I do believe he was calling me careless for not responding to his information sources with some of my own. Check out his post again. If you still think he was calling himself careless, I stand corrected.

  35. marci said,

    January 27, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Oh, yes. You are right, beetlebabee! I re-read his post. I stand corrected! At any rate, there’s my two cents. :)

  36. marci said,

    January 27, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    Oh, and I wanted to include a link to a Time article about gay relationships. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1704660,00.html

    It touches upon why some gay relationships don’t last as long as hetero marriages.

  37. marci said,

    January 27, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    cura te ipsum, my partner and I talked a lot about that too. Our son’s birthmother specifically asked for a same-sex couple to raise her son, and she chose us. We talked about raising a son without a father. I agree, there are some things that our son is not going to want to learn from his moms! He has a three male cousins that are all 12-13 years older than him and four uncles that adore him. He’ll be going to whichever one he feels most comfortable with talking to when there’s something we can’t relate to, we being female. They are all good, hardworking young adults and heterosexual, married men that think we are good parents and think our son is lucky to have us and visa versa.

    As for teaching him all he needs to know to be a good human, that will be his moms. Between the two of us he’ll learn how to: be a hard-worker, be compassionate, listen before speaking, prioritize, love unconditionally, use restraint when necessary, put others before himself when situation calls for it, be honorable…

    Being gay and raising healthy, happy children are not mutually exclusive. The ever-increasing body of research is proving that.

  38. Chairm said,

    January 27, 2010 at 6:45 pm


    Your comment about non-father male role models was anticipated earlier in this discussion.

    See 23 January:

    Do you feel that the consent of the birth mother absolves the adoptors of deliberately designing a fatherless family?

    If not, what would justify it, in your view?

    Now, I’m not trying to put your private life on the spot. You have shared that in your own comments. My questions are not on that level. I am asking about the default position that I mentioned earlier in response to Dwayne’s comments upthread.

    In other words, you are not being scrutinized, in my query, but rather your viewpoint is being questioned.

  39. Marty said,

    January 27, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Can’t imagine having to choose between “uncles”, when I could have — i SHOULD HAVE — and dammit i DO HAVE, SOMEWHERE! — A father of my own!

    Where is he, and WHY does he hate me??

  40. Jennifer S said,

    January 27, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    Chairm, you may have missed the point I was making. G&L are already raising children either as a single parents or with a “partner” either in a marriage or domestic partnership. Some have argued here and on other blogs that SSM should not be allowed because children would be raised by two parents of the same sex.

    But, this is already happening. The question for me is whether marriage would help same-sex couples maintain a stable relationships, improve their financial ability and decrease the social stigma many now have for same-sex partners.

  41. Chairm said,

    January 27, 2010 at 8:27 pm


    I got you points and I asked questions on those points.

    A lot of stuff already happens outside of marriage, which is one of your points, right? I asked about that.

    Now you say we should bring that stuff inside the bounds of marriage because it already is happening outside of marriage.

    And where there are children, marital status should be bestowed on the adults.

    Please reconsider the questions I asked of you, Jennifer. They are directly on your points as per the original comment I responded to and as per your latest comment.

  42. marci said,

    January 27, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    To both Marty and Chairm. Just kind of combining both responses if you don’t mind…

    Marty, they are uncles, not “uncles”. My heart does and will ache for my son when he knows the truth about how he came to us. It isn’t ideal, nor is it fair. Because of his birthmother’s choices and subsequent choosing of us and us accepting, he will be raised by non-biological, same-sex parents.

    We’ve agonized over the fact that his birthmother didn’t even get the last name of the one night stand that produced him.

    So, the fatherless by design was not our doing. Yes, we made the decision to adopt him, but if we thought for one minute he couldn’t have as happy, healthy a childhood with us as with hetero, non-bio parents and grow to become a happy, healthy adult with us, we would have declined.

    I was asked to offer my viewpoint for scrutinization, so this is it. It is IMPORTANT for kids to have a genetic link to those who raise them, but not essential. Plenty of people in the world can attest to that. It is ESSENTIAL for kids to have unconditional love, guidance, support and security. These things can be given to a child by biological parents, non-biological parents, same-sex parents.

    Will our son wonder all his life about his bio parents? Perhaps. Will he wonder if he was loved by those who raised him? Never.

  43. Jennifer S said,

    January 27, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Chairm, if you wanted to debate this issue, you should have been a witness for the defense in the Prop 8 trial. Actually, the answers to your questions were provided by a defense witness, Mr. Blankenhorn today. If you are really interested, just read the details on one of the blogs that is following the trial in detail.
    Their witness also agreed (copied from prop8trialtracker):
    1. Same sex marriage would meet the stated needs and desires of g and l who want to marry. In so doing it would improve the happiness and well being of many gay and lesbian and individuals, couples and family member.

    2. Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children.

    3. Extending the right to marry to ss couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbian would choose to enter into a commitment relationships.

    4. Same sex marriage would make more gays and lesbians enter committed relationships.

    5. Decrease promiscuity.

    6. Same sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and will increase the worth and validity of intimate relationships.

  44. Lisa~ said,

    January 28, 2010 at 12:27 am


    Wouldn’t that make him fatherless by your design? If having a mom and a dad is ideal then what you say :”but if we thought for one minute he couldn’t have as happy, healthy a childhood with us as with hetero, non-bio parents and grow to become a happy, healthy adult with us, we would have declined. ” isn’t true. You chose to leave him fatherless for your own selfish reasons.

  45. Jennifer S said,

    January 28, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Chairm, you asked, “A lot of stuff already happens outside of marriage, which is one of your points, right?”

    Answer: No, I did not say “a lot of stuff already happens outside of marriage”. I was talking about children. Specifically, some children are born by women who are not married at either the time of conception and/or time of birth.

    The point: Procreation happens. Women (and men) do not need a certificate of marriage before they have children. Additionally, I did not address the factors, reasons, or motivation of the women (and men) involved in procreation outside marriage.

    Charme, you then asked, “Now you say we should bring that stuff inside the bounds of marriage because it already is happening outside of marriage.”

    Answer, No, I did not say, “we should bring that stuff inside the bounds of marriage because it already is happening outside of marriage.” Again, I was referring to children not that “stuff”. I was not implying children should only be born by women who are married (either to a man or woman).

    Most sociologists and “scholars” agree that marriage helps bring some stability to the married partners. It is unfortunate that marriage is successful about 50% of the time. But what I find totally ironic is that proponents for “traditional” marriage want to deny the benefits of marriage, including the additional stability for the relationship, to same-sex couples. States have said that it is in society’s interest and thus the government’s interest to promote long stable relationships. If they only want to promote stable relationships for heterosexuals there appears to be inherent discrimination or at least some bias toward G&L to deny them the right to marry a partner of their own sex.

    Chairm, you said in comment #17 “Exceptions are exceptions and ought to be seen and treated as such.” If I were to agree with you, I would propose that procreation and/or adoption of children is an exception in same-sex relationships and for same-sex marriages. Yet proponents for “traditional” marriage attempt to use the exception to prohibit all same-sex marriages.

    I appreciate your math and conclusions based on your guesstimate of children of G&L (comment #27. But your conclusions are no where near the estimates provided by veracious organizations such as Child Welfare League of America. Marci provided a link in comment 32. They also debunk many of the opinions you have posted. I respectfully suggest you visit their very extensive site.

    I do agree with you on at least one point. Prospective adoptive parents have their backgrounds, abilities, beliefs and motivations thoroughly examined. I agree that government should. However, there are only a few questions asked of couples to obtain a marriage license usually limited to their current marital status, famlily relationship if any, age and if the parties lack capacity to consent to the marriage because of mental incapacity or infirmity. And, there are no questions asked of a woman or man before they reproduce. By stating these last two facts, I do not imply that government should become involved or more involved in any additional way.

    The reality is, some G&L will have children. You may not like it. It may be a sin according to your religion. But, there is no law that would prohibit G&L having children. So what would be best for those children: remove the child from their biological parent’s home, live with one of their biological parents, live with unmarried SS couple, or live with married SS couple with all the benefits a marriage can provide the children? While none of these options match your ideal view of marriage and parenting of children, the real world answer for me is quite clear.

  46. Chairm said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    Marci, thanks for adding your response to my comment.

    To clarify, did you mean to say that the new default that would replace the marital presumption of paternity is: Children have a birthright to unconditional love, guidance, support and security?

    If yes, then …

    Mom and grandmom households raise millions of children. Should they also be eligible to marry? or are there other ways to provide the essentials of your proposed default?

    A large portion of children in fostercare, due to tragedy or dire circumstances, live in humanely founded group homes. Indeed, adoption is not always in the best interest of orphaned children. Alumni from orphanages can attest to rich experiences with generous fulfillment of your default (if that is your default). Would that make these eligible for marital status?

    I guess I am wondering if you are making a connection between your essentials and your view of what society may license as marriage.

  47. Chairm said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Jennifer S, based on your comments, it appears that you do propose the following as indispensible to your viewpoint:

    Are you also saying that if something can occur outside of marriage, then, it, too, is not essential? You used the example of procreation.

    1. It is not a legal requirement, anyplace that SSM has been enacted or imposed, that same-sex couples have children.

    2. Same-sex couples can and do attain children outside of SSM even where SSM is available.

  48. Chairm said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Jennifer, I have read the transcript from the court. You have instead relied on liveblogging of someone biased toward SSM.

    Whatever SSM is, you still have not said. But if licensing gayness would provide benefits to some members of the gay identity group, then, that confirms what I’ve said earlier in this discussion about your supposed priority quesiton.

    How it could serve as an effective mechanism that would have such a wide effect on the adult homosexual population is unexplained and is highly speculative — since participation rates are very, very, very low in same-sex householding (a much broader category than SSM, Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, or other registered relationships). SSM is proving to be a poor vehicle for making the changes — all speculative — in the list your culled from the pro-SSM liveblogging.

  49. Chairm said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Jennifer, for the sake of this discussion, and for the benefit of readers, just state the statistics you say are opposed to my comments and which debunk what I have said here. Thanks.

    * * *

    According to the testimony in the trial, same-sex relationships of the plaintiffs are long-lasting and stable — without the proposed merger of SSM with marriage.

    If it can be done outside of such a merger, according to the rules of argumentation you have invoked, then, it is not essential.

    When I stated your rules above, I did say that you used procreation as an example. If your thinking applies to procreation, then, it applies to other stuff, unless you can refine the rules you have invoked.

    I see by your latest comment that you have not refined but repeated what has already been noted about the points you raised.

    Now, if stablity of relationships is the purpose of this proposed SSM merger, then, justify the eligibility criteria you have just cited. Are not related people entitled to stability? Especially those raising children?

    Remember, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior so you can’t now revive the opposite-sexed sexual basis for marriage. That sexual basis is intrinsic to the core meaning of marriage, which you reject, and you have argued that this sexual basis must be abolished — in the law, yes, but also in the culture in general.

    By the way, you talk of procreation — any and all kinds — whereas we have been emphasizing Responsible Procreation. If you are unaware of the significant difference, just ask and I’ll explain it again. Hint: when people enter the social instution they say, I do, to the marital presumption of paternity the sexual basis of which is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements.

  50. Chairm said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Typo correction:

    Remember, there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior so you can’t now revive the opposite-sexed sexual basis for marriage as a proxy for a supposed same-sex sexual basis for SSM.

  51. Chairm said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    BB, if we are straying from the topic you intended with your blogpost, let me know and I’ll step-off here. Cheerio.

  52. Lisa~ said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Homosexual relationships and “marriage” is kinda like the newest drug on the market. Everyone brags about it and says it’s the best, then after a few months they find out that its killing people. They didnt test it long enough to see if it actually was beneficial. The makers of the drug didn’t really care if it were tested long enough all they cared about was their profits. Then when people start getting hurt they say well there was some itty bitty fine print that said it could harm you so we arent responsible. BS. Mom and Dad households is the tried and true way to raise children and if it aint broke then dont “fix” it with some half _@ssed version!

  53. marci said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Chairm, you looking at SSM as a replacement for traditional man/woman marriage. It isn’t. It is in addition to, an inclusion of. And if you are implying I would fall in love with my grandmother and want to marry her, that’s gross. Same as if I said you could be in love with your grandfather and want to marry him and raise kids. Yuck.

    The fact that you compare my relationship to my partner as the same as me with my grandma, is, forgive the bluntness, ignorant and fallacious.

    You keep talking about default to the presumption of paternity. Default, by definition means most common position. Of course SSM is not a default. It is alternative, occurring in much smaller numbers as is gay people raising kids. We are very small in number. Which is why the whole ‘gays will ruin marriage’ is way beyond me.

    We discussed orphanages already too. Orphanages don’t choose or create children to raise. You draw a comparison to adoption and orphanages? Straight and gay adopters would be offended.

  54. marci said,

    January 28, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Chairm, the fact that people risk their careers, familial relationships, even their emotional and physical well-being to follow their hearts to the people they love and want to build relationships with is proof enough that not only is homosexuality not just some choice, but for most, immutable. I’ve known I was different since I was 8. I’ve dated more men than women, but when I finally had the courage to date women, I never went back. I’d never felt so complete and happy.

    You are insisting that marriage is only about procreation, thus you need man/woman. You ignore the other factors in a marriage that are no less important, and more poignantly, don’t require the two to be a man or a woman.

    I would never want to marry my sister, mother, father, etc… I don’t want lots of husbands or wives. Nor do any other homosexual who has found a sexually, emotionally, mentally compatible partner they fell in love with.

    Let me ask you a direct question, Chairm. Have you ever been friends with a gay couple? Have you spoken at length with anyone who is gay? In person?

  55. marci said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Wow, Lisa, your analogy would be laughable if it weren’t what you actually believe! First, drugs are things people take to either get better or to harm themselves. Gay people who want to marry the person they love, only want to marry the person they love. That ‘bragging’ you are talking about is actually discussion on why gay people should have the right to marry. It is not a new thing, only new to you, because we are starting to get serious recognition nationally. I’m not sure who we are harming or who is profiting. Well, I know who is profiting… Churches who ask for money to fight against us and the lawyers on both sides.

    And my idea of half-@ssed child rearing is when STRAIGHT OR GAY couples make kids and forget that they should be their first priority.

  56. Lisa~ said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Marci, It was analogy. I used drugs cause there isnt anything else on earth to compare homosexuality to.

    As for half-@ssed. That is exactly what it is when two people of the same sex try to raise a kid instead of having a mom and a dad. No matter how many lesbians you put in a house together there will never be the benefits like that of a mom and a dad. And the kid will be missing half of what he needs.

    And the only “serious recognition” I have seen is that of wild, uncontrolled, life threatening, animalistic, INTOLERANT behavior from the gay side.

  57. Eric H said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Please Chairm, STEP-OFF. WTF are you trying to say anyway? Your circular arguments are just that. Why can’t you just state your beliefs like Jennifer. Perhaps you could win some points in a HS debating class, but argumentative ramblings mean very little here. I also took the advice of Marci (and Jennifer) and spent about 2 hours visiting the suggested website. They were correct. It is amazing how facts will debunk bias speculations.

    Jennifer reminded you and I will again, you stated much earlier, “Exceptions are exceptions and ought to be seen and treated as such.” It is therefore very telling on you that you continue to use exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions when you attempt to justify your beliefs.

    My advice to Jennifer, do not spoon feed Chairm. You do not have to play by his (and I use his word) rules. If he is truly interested, if he truly has an open mind, he will do the research by himself. His comments, attitude and tactics remind me of another person, Rick Delano, I have seen on dozens of blogs so I am surprised that he has not been here. OR could it be that Chairm is….

    Fellow readers, you may already know about Rick Delano. If not, just Google his name and you will be amazed at the number of different sites where he comments and comments and comments or should I say argues, argues, argues.

  58. marci said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    Watch out! Long and (most likely) final post! :)

    Yes, ultimately, our son is fatherless because we chose to adopt him. He’s got two loving, stable, committed moms instead. I would completely agree with your argument that the best way to raise a child is with bio mom and dad if I hadn’t been primarily raised by my adopted dad. I’d completely agree with your argument if I hadn’t watched my gay and lesbian friends raising some pretty great kids. Not having both genders represented in their parenting has been a very small issue compared to all the challenges and joys of childhood and raising kids. Lastly, I’d agree with you completely if homosexuality didn’t exist.

    As for my selfishness, my ‘sacrifice a child’s rights for my own happiness’, it isn’t just for myself and my child that I fight and debate this. I can’t imagine anyone telling, my child, or a gay adolescent that they will never be able to marry, never be able to have kids because God made them the way they are, and thus they will have to miss out on the most fundamental things in life. Being someone that has had to fight to be the person they truly are and to build a life with someone they truly love (and loves them) and has learned a lot about courage, honesty, empathy and determination, I feel pretty capable teaching a child what truly matters in life, whether that be a boy or girl.

    And don’t you dare say I must marry someone I could never be remotely in love with or emotionally connected to. It would be like you being forced to marry someone of the same gender. I’m sure you would say there is no way you could do this without it feeling foreign, unnatural and frightening. For every one of your friends who has claimed they have ‘changed’, I can contact thousands who were irreparably damaged by those ‘conversion therapy’ scams. There is not a d@mn thing wrong with being gay, no matter how much you want to say there is. If that was the case, you’d see acceptance of homosexuality either stay static or decrease in democratic societies. Neither has happened. In fact, it increases every day.

    Like it or not, rigid gender roles are no longer necessary in our society. Men don’t necessarily need to hunt and women don’t necessarily need to do the gathering. I know men that are way more talkative than me and me way more handy than them. And those are the straight ones. Yes, there are unique differences between women and men and don’t think I don’t recognize that. Do they trump any and all other things in child raising? Not in my experiences as a human, a parent and a teacher. What is essential is being a good human being to those around us and liking who you have become. Is it best that a child be raised by a man and a woman? If there are fundamental things that a child could not learn from either sex, yes. But I can’t think of any. When he needs to talk about things he can only talk to with a male? We’ll make sure that he chooses someone he can rely on and trust. No, it won’t be his dad, but it’ll be someone he can choose.

    As a former third grade through middle school teacher for 13 years, I’ve seen many different kids and parents. One thing that has remained absolutely consistent is this: Divorce and over-compensation for neglect is what is hurting our kids the most, not same-sex parenting. Out of the kids I saw as being well-raised and truly put as first priority, they had a parent who was home when they got home from school and both parents were present and appropriately involved in their life. Both types included gay and straight families, as I’ve had both over the years.

    In closing, my partner and I had pretty much given up trying to adopt. In fact the day we got that fateful call from our lawyer, we had been planning to call her and tell her we were no longer looking to be parents. The road had been long and arduous, as any couple looking to adopt has most likely experienced. But she said she’d never had someone come in and specifically ask for a same-sex couple before, but she had that day. My partner and I took it at as a sign and decided to meet the birthmother. She herself was adopted and had left when she was 17, getting out of a bad childhood. She’s been traveling the country for almost 15 years. The culmination of her life experiences with both gay and straight people along the way made her conclude that a gay couple would be best in raising her son, because they’d treated her the best.

    Our son came to us from less than favorable circumstances. He won’t have a dad. He will have two parents that will be there for him, that want and will always want him, even though some say it is wrong to deny a boy a father and that we should have denied ourselves instead. Or if we wanted kids so bad, we should dissolve our 10 year old loving partnership, (we’d call it marriage, if we could legally do so.) even though we’ve been through more than most married heterosexual couples go through in a lifetime, and find a man who we’ll never be able to love or feel complete with to do the most important job a person can have. No thanks, I’d rather do it with someone I’ve committed my life to, the person who I am complete with, who I know will be the best parent she can be to the son we both have, because I chose who I fell in love with wisely.

    We all have our own opinions on how best to raise a child. It is heartening to see so many people still interested in putting children first, in front of careers, monetary things, and themselves. I know some here don’t believe I’m putting my son first, by adopting him with another woman as his other parent. That is their opinion based on their life experiences. Mine is based on my life experiences. I plan on using mine to the best of my ability to do right by my son as will his other mom, but it will ultimately be his own life experiences that will shape him into who he will be, no matter who raises him.

  59. Lisa~ said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:29 pm


    God made them the way they are,??

    Why is it that the bible says that it is an abomination to lay with a man the way you would lay with a wife and that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of heaven and why did God destroy a whole city for its homosexual behavior if he made you that way?

  60. Marty said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    “He won’t have a dad. ”

    Why? Because you wont give him one. Why? Because you have trouble loving a man.

    What a strange lesson to teach a little boy.

    Cruel and unusual, by any measure.

  61. marci said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    Don’t know Lisa. Why did he say you can’t eat shellfish on Friday? I don’t presume to know the reasons God did what he did or does what he does, or if this was what he said or what the writers of the Bible felt. All I know is that I tried for many years to fall in love with and be completed by the opposite gender, and it happened with a woman for me. To pretend the other way and marry a man would be cruel to him and hell for me.

  62. Marty said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    In any case marci, men and women are NOT equal. Surely you agree — if they were you wouldn’t find the idea of marrying a man so abhorrent.

    Therefore, any union of two women will never be the equal of a union of two men, much less equal to a “man and wife”. So much for marriage “equality”.

    But if your gender bias is such that you simply cannot entertain the thought of having a husband, and giving your boy a father of his own, then you’re welcome to set up a second-class relationship. You can call it a marriage, a domestic partnership, or simply “playing house”.

    But it will never be equal. Separate never is.

  63. mlabot said,

    January 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Marci, you’re right it would be cruel to marry someone you didn’t love. It would be dishonest and selfish. It would be both dishonest and selfishly cruel to deprive a child of a father simply to suit your own bias. To put your self interests before the interests of a child who has no choice in the matter is wrong. I am against holding up this kind of selfish act as a norm we should all admire and ascribe to, no matter how much it satisfies your personal wants and desires.

    Forcing a child to live without a dad is not right, I don’t care who makes that choice for him. He is entitled to a dad. Anything less is less, and should not be held up as good and right. It may be good and right for you, it may fill your needs, but it won’t fill his.

  64. Marty said,

    January 28, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    That’s about right mlabot. marci is free to make the choices she has, there’s no law against it (although some of us consider it sexist and child abusive). Whether or not society wants to encourage it, and put a government Seal of Approval on it, is entirely another question.

  65. Troy said,

    January 28, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Thanks for the reply. I was indeed referring to myself as being sloppy about commenting and then disappearing. It looks like to me that you are agreeing with me concerning the lack of any evidence that my statements are not indeed facts. The link that you posted, “Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults” is unfortunately just a position statement which is not based on any solid research, just the desire of an organization to express that, based on their feelings, children are just as well off with two same sex parents as two opposite sex parents. Unfortunately the research done to date does not support this feeling. Research is very clear that the best situation for children is to be in the home with two biological, married parents. A child in a home with same sex parents is at an automatic disadvantage. I don’t think this is fair to the child.

  66. Ross said,

    January 28, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Mlabot: To put your self interests before the interests of a child who has no choice in the matter is wrong.

    And yet, L Marie, you actively vote against giving children of same sex couples the benefit of married parents….as defense witness Blackenhorn states, these children WOULD benefit if their parents were married.

    You’re putting your own selfish interests before the interests of those children. Hi, Pot. This is Kettle. You’re black

  67. Ross said,

    January 28, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    L Marie, on that note, how do you justify your actions in actively voting and campaigning to make the lives of children of same sex couples more difficult? What are they to you? Casualities of war?

  68. mlabot said,

    January 28, 2010 at 5:37 pm


    To encourage gays and lesbians to become parents, to set up the situation where children being motherless and fatherless is socially acceptable would only hurt more children. Calling a situation marriage does not make it marriage. Calling an apple an orange does not change its inherent characteristics one iota.

  69. LaVerne H said,

    January 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    I am usually a silent one and only read the opinion of others. As Jared Sparks said, “When you talk you repeat what you already know when you listen you often learn something.”

    Marci, I do not mean to step into a question directed to you by Lisa, but I want to seek clarification.

    Lisa, I read the “article” at the site you suggested. BUT, I am somewhat confused. You seem to support denying G&L their right to marry a person of their sex. The 2008 article appears to be an attempt to persuade CANADA not to adopt same-sex marriage because France does not have SSM.

    You do know that same sex marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005. Also, France adopted Pacte Civil de Solidarité in November, 1999 which afford the some rights and benefits of marriage to both SS and OS couples without actually calling the pack marriage.

    Thus, is it your belief that the US should follow the lead of France and pass its own equivalent of Pacte Civil de Solidarité or should the US have SSM like Canada?

    Just a personal observation: Two of France’s neighbors Belgium and Spain, do have SSM. Belgium had been giving G&L rights over the years so it was not much of a surprise when they voted to provide SSM in 2003. To me, Spain was a surprise change in 2005 as about 95% of the citizens are Catholics.

  70. Marty said,

    January 28, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    Ross: “as defense witness Blackenhorn states, these children WOULD benefit if their parents were married.”

    Yes, and they’d ALSO benefit from regular old opposite sex marriage. But noooo. that’s not gonna happen, because of some gender bias issues, right? So society has to change, to accept this gender bias thing. No point in expecting adults to do the right thing for their own kids — that’s simply too much to ask, right?


  71. Chairm said,

    January 28, 2010 at 11:36 pm


    Thanks for the direct response to my comment.

    1. The core meaning of marriage is being called bigoted; and in the name of merger marriage with SSM (again whatever that is you have yet to say) an alternative idea is proposed.

    2. The default position is that the husband is presumed the father of the children born to his wife during their marriage. That is the starting place, due to the sexual basis of marriage, and is not just an average. In fact it is very highly reliable in practice and is not just a theoretical projection.

    3. I asked if stability and other items you listed would be the new default position. You said no, it would be the basis for making exceptions. I accept that, as per previous remarks of mine.

    You responded with a visceral Yuk when you thought of grandmom-mom raising children in mutually loving and caring relationships. I said nothing abut sexual behavior. But that is what came to your mind and which prompted your Yuk reaction.

    Should society limit the goal you proposed — of stability — only on the basis of sexualized relationships where children are raised?

    There is a phenomenon known as Genetic Sexual Attraction. Related people can be drawn together by the very sort of longing and emotiona and sexual bonding that you described as meritorious in your idealized version of homosexual relationships.

    So, if we take your description at face value, and if we put aside gut reactions and moral judgements, what really would justify denying marital status to related people who would otherwise raise their children and fullfill the things you listed earlier?

    To be fair, I should provide my answer in terms of the core meaning of marriage.

    That core meaning is: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) responsible procreation, and 3) these, at the minimum, combined to form a coherent whole (i.e. a foundational social institution of civil society).

    Some related people can marry, but not all. Where a civilization draws the line depends on that society’s response to the significance of the core meaning of marriage.

    I think that this line is closely associated with the line regarding concurrent marriages, groups, and underaged scenarios also. When a society allows closely related people to be eligible, a clannish or tribalism becomes embedded and can distort equality and liberty (including sex equality and even the liberty to choose nonmarital arrangements, such as homosexual relationships). The empirical evidence, as per the anthropological record and historical record, supports the assessment that the sort of relationships and arrangements that are underaged, too-closely related, and polygamous or polyamorous families, undermine sex integration and responsible procreaton.

    Harms to society do occur when the social institution is used to innoculate this or that form of identity politics. We saw that in the US with white racialist identity politics. Other societies have experienced it in terms of ethnic, religious, and even sex identity politics. Mitigating such harms is made very difficult whenthe core meaningn of marriage is hijacked by group identity.

    Okay, so I thnk that in our society we recognize that marriage’s core is something we need to respond to — and that protecitng marriage’s opposite-sexed basis means affirming it. The marriage amendment in CA for example says “a man and a woman” so it rules out boys and girls, polygamy, polyamory, and due to the concerns for rresponsible procreation we also rule out incestuous marriages.

    Those incestuous marriages are presumptively incestuous sexually because of the sexual basis for consummation, annulment, adultery-divorce, and the marital presumption of paternity. That sexual basis is opposite-sexed. It is not sex-netural. It is not sexless. And I think the discussion abut procreation drives this sexual basis home: it is the aspect that is both private andn public. Society guard the privacy of the conjugal relaitonship but also openly acknowledges its very important public aspect.

    I don’t see much in the way of SSM argumentation that says, here is SSM’s sexual basis and here is the legal requirement and here is the societal significance such that this sexual basis merits special treatment over and above the rest of the types of relationships and arrangements that exist outside of marriage.

    By the way, the Yuk reaction you had, that is routinely dismissed as hateful when SSM supporters denounce the frank discussion of homosexuality that is prompted by the SSM campaign’s own emphasis on gayness and homosexuality. I am not accusing you of bigotry, but I acknowledge your honesty in that regard. The Yuk reaction maybe significant even it if it difficult to articulate its public meaning.

  72. January 29, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    I’m glad that you wisely recognize that your son needs male influences in his life. It’s seems as though you put a lot of thought into your decision.

    You’re probably also aware then that being homosexual parents increases the likelihood that your son will also be homosexual. Given the extensive studies and statistics on the dangers of being a homosexual male (to himself and to others), how do you justify putting your son at greater risk of becoming gay? If perchance he does become gay, do you understand that you may very well be contributing to these dire statistics? (http://unitedfamilies.org/downloads/Sex.pdf)

    – The rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men is 9x higher than among women and heterosexual men

    – 20-year-old gay men have a 50% chance of becoming HIV positive by age 55

    – Homosexuals have increased risk of Shigella, Entamoeba, Giardia, Hep A, Hep B, Syphilis, and HPV ending in anal cancer

    – 36% of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners and 68% did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.

    People who are promoting homosexuality and raising kids that are more likely to be homosexual need to start taking responsibility for the above statistics. These individuals should also be aware that the US spends more treating those disease than the top 2 killers, which affect the majority of Americans.

  73. Lisa~ said,

    January 29, 2010 at 3:33 pm


    They think they were born that way.

  74. January 29, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    I’m not saying anything about whether homosexuality is the result of genetics or influence (I actually believe it’s both). The statistical outcome is that her son is more likely to be homosexual either way. The numbers don’t lie. Marci has increased his chances of diseases and/or early death.

  75. Lawrence L said,

    January 30, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    It seems like a lot of people on both sides of this issue are believing their own propaganda.

    I know the following is just my opinion, but I base it on reviewing reports from reporters who attended the trial, not just blogger. It is my opinion that many, but not all, of the conjectures about G&L were not substantiated by experts or scholars at the recent Prop 8 trial. Perhaps if several defense “experts” had not bailed out before the trial started, some of these conjectures would or could have been proven. WHERE WERE YOU GUYS THEN? Isn’t it a little late to debate these issues here?

    While I do not mean to focus on cura_te_ipsum and Jennifer, it would be nice if stats stated as facts could be referenced to independent source data. For example, cura_te_ipsum at least referenced unitedfamilies.org. But at a minimum it is slanted to support marriage as currently defined in 45 states. From their site on page 3 they state: “The Guide has been designed to enable the average person to articulate pro-family positions on difficult topics and will be an indispensable tool in many situations…”. Many comments on this blog are taken directly from that site. When unitedfamilies.org does document other sources for their “facts”, most often it is to another slanted site such as http://www.pathinfo.org (page 10).

    Additionaly, when unitedfamilies posts state “facts” that appear to be documented by a US government agency, the “facts” are usually taken out of context. From page 15, “The total number of crimes in the U.S. in 2000 was 11.6 million. Roughly eight ten-thousandths (0.0008) of that number were found to be hate crimes of any type. Why is there so much emphasis on the few homosexual hate crimes? What about the 15,715 non-homosexual victims who were murdered in the year 2000?”

    Why unitedfamilies reference 2000 is not known. Their report was published in 2004. I do not know if they have updated their documents.

    But if you look at the most current data from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html) we find there were 7,783 total incidents of hate crimes. About 16% (1264) were against homosexuals and bi-sexuals. It has been noted here and elsewhere that G&L are 2-10% of the population with anti-ssm usually claiming it is 2%. Perhaps they should claim it is 10% so it would look like G&L were not singled out by hate crimes. In case you are interested without going direct to the FBI site, there were 33 hate crimes against heterosexuals. You draw your only conclusions, but as a whole, one could conclude that G&L are either not as hateful or do not act on their hate as often as heterosexuals. If you dig deeper into the reports you will find that there has to be specific factors for a crime to be documented as hate so many crimes that are motivated by hate could either not be proven or there were other factors that were primary to the crimes. And, in the vast majority of crimes, the sexual orientation is never obtained and/or documented. If you have ever been a victim of a crime, you know this is true. Thus, referencing the total number of crimes in the US to me is at a minimum silly and at the worst a “lie by stats”.

    While I am still trying to make up my own mind on how I might vote, there are certain factors I automatically discard as factors.

    a) Opinions based on religious beliefs. Yes, I agree with unitedfamilies site that states on page 3 “…do not use religious arguments to support our positions. This can be counterproductive when working to influence public policy makers who tend to base decisions on facts.”
    b) Opinions based on sources that are so biased to one side that any scrutiny will make their arguments simply fall apart.

    These are just suggestions so if I don’t see substantiated facts here, I will move on. I really expected more based on the title of this site.

    I really don’t give any time about Jennifer’s comment She did reference trial8tracker but when you visit that site it is so obviously pro-SSM that one does not need to dig much deeper. Some of that site was truly entertaining, however, and I am still researching the background of the “experts” used by the Plaintiffs.

    I would like to see Lisa or someone address LaVerne’s question. To follow up with a more specific question, could Spain’s approach to SSM work in the US? It obviously has provisions that neither side would like, but in my profession, that usually indicates a fair compromise.

    Finally, a couple of questions of my own, but just seeking clarification.

    Is seems there is a position that children should be born to into a family were their biological parents are married and that the parents should stay married until the children are adults. At least this is the ideal position being stated. Thus, are they advocating that if a homosexual should want children, they should marry a member of the opposite sex (either heterosexual or homosexual) and like a marriage of two heterosexual stay married until the children are adults? If that is the solution being advocated for homosexuals, isn’t that asking more of them than currently practiced by a majority of heterosexuals?

  76. beetlebabee said,

    January 30, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Jennifer S.,

    I could take your arguments much more seriously if you would simply be honest. Masquerading as other people(Lawrence L., LaVerne H., Eric H., etc.) in order to boost your sorry arguments doesn’t add to your credibility. It makes you rather into some kind of self propelling circus performance. No thanks.

  77. Lisa~ said,

    January 30, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Oh man busted!

  78. Marty said,

    January 30, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    I’m still not sure what sexual orientation even has to do with this whole debate. If you want to marry, fine — it’s simple, and available to everyone. EVERYONE. Regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. No one is being denied the right to marry.

    Yes, I understand that some people — for a variety of reasons — don’t want to marry under the current rules, be it age, consanguinity, quantity, or the simplest, most consistent, and longest standing requirement of all, the opposite sex male+female requirement.

    Which is fine, no one is demanding that anyone marry against their wishes. You can choose to marry, or you can choose not to marry. I have yet to see what “sexual orientation” has to do with anything here, except that some gay people who choose NOT to marry are suddenly insisting that they be treated like married couples!

    As if sexual orientation had ANYTHING to do with it?

  79. Rick DeLano said,

    January 30, 2010 at 10:11 pm

    I simply had to stop by and mention what a hilarious belly-laugh I got from reading Jennifer (Eric H) suggesting to Jennifer that Rick DeLano might be Chairm.

    Gotta love it!

    “Self-propelling circus performance” indeed!

    I mean, can you imagine actually sitting there and typing up these missives to one’s alter-egos?


  80. beetlebabee said,

    January 30, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    Rick! You’re practically famous. Glad to have you!

  81. Rick DeLano said,

    January 30, 2010 at 11:01 pm


    You *are* famous.

    The legendary James Troia screenshot “Tolerance Fail” is a true blogdom Hall-of-Famer :-)

  82. beetlebabee said,

    January 30, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    I have to admit, I was pretty pleased on that one. Did you see he did a total repeat about three weeks later. He and Ron must have some kind of troll chemistry because they started up with the exact same line of commenting again, complete with racial epithets, burning crosses and the entire display.

  83. Rick DeLano said,

    January 30, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    All they need is love………….

  84. January 30, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    Lawrence L,
    I said nothing about crimes. I was talking about health risks.
    If you want to ignore peer-reviewed medical journals just because of who is quoting them, that’s an issue you’ll have to come to terms with. I simply quoted the UFI because they included many of the HIV, etc. studies I was looking for in one convenient location. It would take pages to cite each journal and study one by one. Besides, the general public doesn’t usually have free online access to those anyway.
    If you would like to dispute what I actually stated and argue that there are no health risks with homosexuality, be my guest : )

  85. September light said,

    January 31, 2010 at 1:11 am

    Great post BB. I’ve been silently following this blog for the last year.

    Those of you who believe genetics have anything to do with being gay, please answer these two questions, please:

    1) Why not all identical twins are gay if one happens to be?

    2) Why some straight people become gay and some gay people become straight at some point in life?
    I could never change the color of my eyes if I wanted to, neither can my neighbor’s Down Syndrome son leave his condition behind no matter how much he would be willing to try. These two cases involve DNA; homosexuality does not.

    No, God didn’t make gays. Sin did/does. Sin is rebellion against God, who men naturally hate. So simple (and yet so complex for those who deny God). So for those whose only beliefs are science based (God created science as well … but I digress) above are my two very scientific questions for you.

  86. Rosss said,

    January 31, 2010 at 8:57 am

    September Light,

    1) I encourage you to look up studies involving homosexuality and twins. In cases of identical twins if one twin was gay the other twin had a high chance of being gay (I believe it was around 50 percent if I remember correctly). In fraternal twins the chance was higher than with regular siblings (I believe around 25-30 percent).

    2) Why are some people born left handed and then become right handed later on in life? Or even ambidexterous? Because that’s why its called a sexual ORIENTATION.

  87. beetlebabee said,

    January 31, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Rosss, the discrepancy between twins confirms both ideas, that no one is “born gay”, and that environment plays a significant role in the development of same sex attraction.

  88. Rosss said,

    February 1, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Beetle, it also confirms that people are born with a predispotition (orientation) because of the higher rates in twins….therefore it is hardly a complete CHOICE to be gay, as there are obviously biological factors that push people to be born on one side of the sexual orientation spectrum.

    Oh hey, where are those statistics on gays and lesbians voting FOR Prop 8? You said a large number did…still waiting for the study or exit polling to back it up.

  89. Chairm said,

    February 1, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    On that note, take three instances of recent (circa 2004-05) research by pro-gay sources and it appears that choice is a significant factor. The items are listed below.

    Items A and B taken together suggest that one-half of the homosexual adult population is comprised of choosers.

    Item C taken together with item A or B suggests that one in five of homosexual adults are choosers.

    Of course the measure of this depends on whether choice is made by behavior or by feelings. And, if extrapolated to all of society, there would be 50 million to 125 million American adults who are choosers of their sexual orientation.

    Kind makes all this talk of scientific certain of immutablity kind of bogus.


    About 2% of the adult population has been exclusively same-sexed in terms of sexual behavior during the past five years.

    “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources,” Demography, vol 37, No. 2 (May, 2000) 139-154.


    About 4% of the adult population is openly homosexual.

    “Census Snapshot”, The Williams Institute, December 2007.


    About 12% of gay men and 34% of lesbian women indicated choice in their sexual orientation.

    Testimony of the anti-8 expert witness, Prop 8 Trial 2010, regarding his own survey of gay men and lesbian women.

    In his pro-SSM argument, Ted Olson actually used the left-handed example that Ross just dismantled. Heh.

    * * *

    See discussion:

  90. beetlebabee said,

    February 2, 2010 at 6:09 pm


    We can all choose how we behave. Would you expect any different?

    Here are some statistics on the gay and lesbian vote FOR proposition 8. I know people with SSA who did not in any way support the attempt to neuter marriage. Their input was insightful.


    “According to the exit poll, 5% of voters in California were GLB voters and 95% were non-GLB (or “straight”) voters.

    This indicates that of all the votes cast on the marriage amendment, 44% were No votes cast by non-GLB people.

    But what about the GLB votes?

    The GLB sample is very small, however, the poll results suggest that of all the votes cast, 1% were Yes votes from GLB people and 4% were No votes cast by GLB people. The GLB voters may have split 1 Yes for every 4 No.

    The upshot is that it appears that GLB voters supplied about one-half of the margin of victory for the Yes side.”

  91. Ross said,

    February 6, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    Beetle, did you even READ the CNN exit poll the supposed “study” comes from.
    The 1 yes for every 4 No is a complete GUESS….how are those numbers “suggested”? No where on the poll does that number come from, because the GLB sample was too small.

    If those numbers WERE true they would be all over the media…a simple google search of various new stories comes up with nothing to support your bogus claims.

    Unless we are supposed to take opinieditorials as a more credible source than CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc etc.

  92. beetlebabee said,

    February 8, 2010 at 10:59 am

    Ross, I thought you might find that result a little disturbing. It shakes up your dogma doesn’t it? Like it or not, the information is out there. The gay population is not monolithic in its views on marriage. I don’t know why that would be a surprise to you. I know people with SSA who voted for prop 8 and I know people with SSA who simply didn’t vote on it at all because they weren’t sold on the whole need for the word “marriage”. They’re unique individuals, just like we all are. Honestly, the whole idea that you can’t hold a different view without being a bigot or homophobe is just a tool for those who want to coerce and intimidate. It’s not an accurate portrayal, even among LGBT circles.

  93. Rosss said,

    February 8, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Beetle: Disturbing? Did you even read what I wrote. Read the CNN exit poll yourself. The CNN exit poll does NOT say 1 yes per every 4 NO from GLBT voters. That statistic is made up………..you are basically reporting incorrect information

  94. beetlebabee said,

    February 8, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Rosss, you don’t have to like it, but the fact remains, a good part of the gay population in California in fact self reported in this exit poll that they did not support the gay marriage push. How many is irrelevant. It wasn’t just a few. I wonder how many blacks would have voted for slavery? Apparently not even your own base believes the rhetoric.

  95. Rosss said,

    February 8, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Beetle: Rosss, you don’t have to like it, but the fact remains, a good part of the gay population in California in fact self reported in this exit poll that they did not support the gay marriage push

    Again, WHAT exit poll are you talking about? The CNN exit poll does not, in fact, say that gays self reported Yes votes. It does not have a tally of yes/no votes for Gay voters.

    WHAT exit poll are you talking about?

  96. beetlebabee said,

    February 8, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    The exit Poll which reported that of the 551 respondents answered the question — “Are you gay, lesbian, or bisexual?” — 5% said yes and 95% said no.

    So 51.3% of the Yes side’s 52.2% came from the not-GLB, which leaves another 0.9% to be accounted from the 5% GLBT.

    The spread in the amendment overall vote was 4.4 percentage points (52.2 – 47.8 = 4.4)

    About 1% points came from within the GLB segment of the voters. If they had all gone NO, the result would have been closer — 51.3% to 48.9%.

    Here’s a direct link to the exit poll: http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/11/05/18/prop8.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: