Posted on 01/19/2010 1:03:58 PM PST by steve-b
The mayor of San Diego testified Tuesday that his views on same-sex marriage evolved after he learned one of his daughters was a lesbian.
Mayor Jerry Sanders took the witness stand on behalf of two same-sex couples suing to overturn Proposition 8...
"I had been prejudiced," he said. "I was saying one group of people did not deserve the same respect, did not deserve the same symbolism of marriage, and I was saying their marriages were less important than those of heterosexuals."...
Sanders, a Republican, now believes it's in the interest of government to support same-sex marriage. A former police chief, he cited examples of hate crimes against gays and of police officers being afraid to acknowledge they are gay....
Throughout the trial backers of the ban have tried to show the ballot measure was not motivated by deep-seated bias toward gays. Such "animus" would make it more difficult for the measure to pass constitutional muster.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
> The mayor of San Diego testified Tuesday that his views
> on same-sex marriage evolved after he learned one of his
> daughters was a lesbian.
This guy HAS to be a “Liberal”.
No prinicples, no backbone.
According to his logic, the next time I catch one of my children lying or stealing, I’ll have to change my views on lying and stealing.
Pathetic.
He’s a Republican.
Sanders is a McCainite Rino.
It takes great strength to tell your son or daughter that their behavior is not acceptable. But you must do it. They need you to fight for them. In many cases the desires are unwanted and can be changed.
> He’s a Republican.
He’s STILL a “LIberal”.
Because, just like a Liberal, his “principles” are determined situationally.
In the tax-funded, union-run, government indoctrination day camps, aka “public” schools, they have whole curricula based on “Situational Ethics”.
Wrong is wrong is WRONG!
It doesn’t MATTER if it’s one of your OWN that’s wrong, it’s STILL WRONG!!!!!
I don’t get how this is a trial about the legality of a state constitutional amendment, everyone is talking about their opinion and all that.
Republican doesn’t mean not liberal.
The man is a fool.
If his child was a child molester, would he advocated for pedophilliacs?
The gay community is very prejudiced against NAMBLA and does not feel marriage should be between a man and his pet or other animal.
If the Mayor found out his son was having sex with a pet rabbit, he’d want to legalize that too. How about if his daughter decided to be married to 4 other girls and a 3-year old? Hey lets legalize that.
morons.
This is why a lot of churchmembers become liberal. They go to church, and presumably understand the Bible’s views on sexual immorality until it’s one of their kids. Then they foolishly want to “change the rules” so their son or daughter does not feel bad about themselves.
Must have been no spiritual basis to his opposition to gay marriage. That’s where the discipline to say ‘No, this is wrong.’ comes from.
That’s not logic...it’s either emotion, or cowardice.
I apply that principle on Sarah Palin threads, and am greeted by deafening cries of "TROLL!"....
One would think that if his daughter is afflicted with this condition, he would be even more interested in making it clear that she needs help with her disordered tendencies. And that begins with acknowledging that they are disordered.
That would show his wisdom and his loving concern for her.
And we all need objective standards, and loving encouragment, in order to live the right way. Don’t we?
They seek to show that Proposition 8, like Colorado's Amendment 2, singles out a group of people for discrimination.
Justice Scalia tore the majority a new one in his dissent:
The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "`bare . . . desire to harm'" homosexuals, ante, at 13, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion's heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court.
In holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago, see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), and places the prestige of this institution behind the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias. Whether it is or not is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that "animosity" toward homosexuality, ante, at 13, is evil. I vigorously dissent.
Really? Sarah Palin has now pronounced the moral acceptance and goodness of pre-marital sex?
I must have missed that.
No Mr. Mayor, NOW you are prejudiced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.