No on California's Prop 8: Six Arguments in Favor of Marriage Equality

Prop 8 in California proposes to change the California State Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

That SOUNDS innocuous and simple, but what it really means is that people cannot marry their same-sex partners and have the same rights and responsibilities under the law as married heterosexuals. It's both a civil rights issue--equal *rights* under the law--and a civil liberties issue--it's none of government's business to say who should marry who.

Here's what some California moms have to say about why they're voting No on Prop 8:

Count me as one of those straight moms who's voting No on 8. I'll tell you why after the jump.

Six good reasons to vote NO on 8:

1. It's a civil rights issue: equal protection under the law is what the California Supreme Court affirmed earlier this year when they decided that "civil unions" essentially relegated married gay people to second class citizenship. Those in "civil unions" lack hospital visitation rights, in many cases spousal health benefits, spousal inheritance rights, and access to Medi-Cal and myriad other benefits that straight married people automatically enjoy under the law. When not also eligible for the same rights and responsibilities, same-sex long-term unions leave each partner exposed to the vagaries of law that doesn't recognize how socially, financially, and family-wise their lives have become entwined. It just takes one unsympathetic doctor or hospital administrator with "religious" or other "personal objections" to prevent a spouse from visiting a sick husband or wife in the hospital, for example. Why should one person's views keep another from visiting, making decisions for, or saying farewell to a hospitalized family member? Do we allow doctors to only treat white people or only Asian people, or other groups they may be partial to?

2. It's a civil liberties issue: the intrusion of government into personal affairs such as choice of life partner has a precedent--in legislation that prevented races from marrying. Anti-miscegenation laws, after Loving v. Virginia, were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Anti-miscegenation's basis was, very simply, racial discrimination. And defining marriage as between a woman and a man enshrines both heterosexism that already exists, and makes homophobia legal. Anti-miscegenation is wrong, anti-marriage equality is wrong. Government has no business in my bedroom or yours.

3. It's an economic issue: there's no denying that our economy has gotten tighter. The squeeze is on everyone, whether you're part of a huge hotel chain or a corner flower shop owner or restaurateur. In California, much of our economy is based on tourism. If we deny 10% of the state's population the right to marry, we are eliminating a substantial pool of people who will book banquet halls or caterers, have expensive invitations printed, set up registries, have wedding bouquets ordered, and then go on to celebrate their marriage in a honeymooon, or perhaps pool their hard-earned savings and--gasp! in this horrible economy?--buy a house together.

When people set up house and build lives together, it has an undeniable and beneficial impact on the economy. The Williams Institute has done a study on the economic impact of gay marriage in California (pdf):

A study released in June by UCLA's Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation and the Law estimated that gay men and lesbians who marry in California will spend $684 million in the state over the next three years, on everything from cakes to fancy locations for the ceremonies.

About half of the state's more than 102,000 gay and lesbian couples will marry during the next three years and more than 67,500 couples from other states will head to California to marry.

4. It's a life cycle issue: when spouses can marry, adopt, inherit, and make end-of-life decisions, we all benefit. Fewer children slip through legal cracks having to do with guardianship or custodial rights, fewer spouses are left out in the financial cold upon the death or disability of their partner, fewer elderly gays and lesbians are thrown on the mercies of public assistance when disease or infirmity strikes, fewer aging parents of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people will be left to struggle on their own. We should encourage social bonds where people make them, if they desire to do so. Allow people to take care of each other.

5. It's a freedom of choice issue: parents will still be able to teach their kids about health, family, and reproductive health issues if you vote No on 8.  Yes on 8 advocates would have you believe that schools will now teach all children about gay marriage. That's absolutely false.

State Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell has said publicly that if marriage equality is allowed to stand as ratified by the California State Supreme Court (our current situation), THERE WILL BE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE IN SCHOOL CURRICULUM. Currently any parent has the right to opt-out of public school instruction on health, families, or human sexuality and reproduction for their child, for any reason and at any time. Voting NO on Prop 8 means no changes in current policy; voting NO on Prop 8 means you still have the choice to teach your child in accord with your values and at your own pace.

6. It's a separation of church and state issue: the Mormon church has provided the deep pockets to put Prop 8 on the ballot. Numerous other religious organizations have tried to mobilize congregants to vote Yes on 8. Why the huge interest by *some* Christian churches--very conservative factions, as many other people of faith are NO on Prop 8--to re-write the California State Constitution? Our state constitution deserves the respect we'd give our national Constitution of the United States. We shouldn't make frivolous, obvious, or superficial amendments to it, and especially not through the chaotic referendum process. There should especially be a big bold line between church and state--otherwise we'll get caught up in WHOSE church's teachings will prevail. Do we want our own version of Sunni versus Shia here in the U.S.? Even within Christianity (or the Mormon church) there's differences in beliefs among various denominations. Leave churches, and religion, out of politics. It's how we keep the peace here in America.

This very second we have marriage equality in California. It's also been recognized in Massachussetts and Connecticut. Marriage between same-sex partners has been legal in 6 countries internationally, and so far none of those countries has self-destructed or gone nuts.

Why do we want to change our constitution to make marriage unequal? All around you are people who get married, take care of their kids or their parents, volunteer, are active in churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples, contribute to the economy through their work and lend a helping hand through support of charities. It just so happens some of these people are also gay or lesbian. This is what marriage equality currently looks like.

UPDATED TO ADD:

It works. The people who choose it seem to be happy. It takes nothing away from me or anyone else. It's a value of our culture that we seek to eliminate second-class citizenship for any minority group that experiences it: our proudest achievements are the strides racial minorities, gender minorities, and now sexual minorities have made toward freedom. That's what "equal protection under the law" means; that's what our Declaration of Independence says, it's a "self-evident" truth that we are all "created equal."

Marriage equality certainly isn't the cause of the 50% divorce rate among heterosexual married couples. And enacting a law won't change the divorce rate.

I say we stick with status quo--Vote No on Prop 8.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k. She thinks Halloween piñatas ROCK.

Comments

[OmegaMom]

Don't leave out the fact that all those gays and lesbians who got married after the Supreme Court decision will suddenly be thrust into legal limbo. The "pro-marriage" folks will, with a stroke of a pen, invalidate thousands of people's existing marriages. (Not my argument, it's from John Scalzi of Whatever, but it's a mighty infuriating thing to me!)

[Jen]

Thank you, I've been scouring Momocrats daily hoping for somebody to address this...I guess as a California homomcrat I'm getting a little desperate. My family is surrounded by YesOn8 signs. God I hope this thing doesn't pass, I just want this all to be over. Pass or fail we'll still be married in the eyes of everyone who matters to us, and we'll still have two beautiful daughters. But I'd really rather the issue was put to rest once and for all in CA. I have had it with being everybody's favorite punching bag at every election.

[adam]

I found these funny commercials on YouTube. Leave it to the tubes to bring the funny along with some great No on 8 messages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpxqXQAiyT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOnOA4wwC9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiFONnWGMIs

[Jeffrey Harmon]

While there are strong similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, believing that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race is a misconception.

If the state legalizes gay marriage, then suddenly marriage changes from a protected belief of a small minority, to the false impression that the state (which is an extension of the people) believes that it is morally acceptable to practice homosexuality.

As individuals, law abiding homosexuals should be entitled to every inalienable right held by any heterosexual; but as couples, gay relationships no longer hold an equal stance to the synergy of a heterosexual relationship. The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family.

The gay agenda wants to redefine marriage as simply commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals. If so then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children are what differentiate the marriage contract from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place.

The point, both legally and historically, the gay family can ONLY exist as a product of government policy and modern science, and a dependence on the natural family. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between gay partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is, by contrast, perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of recorded history. The natural family would continue whether the government or science became involved or not. Thus, we see that a homosexual relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims that we are endowed with unalienable rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". John Locke, called this "natural law". Natural law is not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human. Gays may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness, yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement, by its very nature, is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of both science and state we can see that the union of man and women, with their resulting children compared to the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit.

What about couples who are infertile? Many married heterosexuals choose not to have children, and others cannot because of medical problems or physical handicaps. But gays fought furiously to convince the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their books as a "disorder", or medical problem. The majority of the United States will now agree that homosexuality is not a medical problem or disorder. Even in perfect medical condition, a gay couple cannot procreate without the help of a third party. Therefore homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are inherently, and naturally, unequal. Gays should NOT shunned because of their beliefs and tendencies. Nor does this fact infringe on their God given rights. The argument is that the two relationships are very different from one another and for that reason they should be defined differently.

More here: http://jeffreyharmon.net/2006/11/02/gay-marriage-unequal-rights/

[cynematic]

Oh geez, Jeffrey, there's *more* of that?

I'll give you points for spelling and punctuation, but I really don't follow your "logic."

"Equal protection under the law" doesn't mean that government endorses or finds homosexuality "morally acceptable" any more than government endorses being non-white or finds being disabled "morally acceptable." It simply means you have access to the same legal protections as any other person and if your rights are infringed upon, you can use the law to seek redress.

I don't accept your premise that the purpose of marriage is procreation. Plenty of people marry without ever having children, and you yourself mention the voluntarily childless and the infertile. Since time began, people have also adopted children and incorporated them into families as well. Are adoptive families (straight or gay) "less" because they were formed without "natural" procreation?

I don't find your commentary persuasive, and I have to marvel at the energy and effort it took to say that heterosexual procreation is the sole *valid* way to make a family, and anything "less" should be treated as lesser. Obviously, I disagree with pretty much 99% of what you said, especially the elision of "natural" methods of creating families into "natural law."

[Kady]

Jeff,

Though I disagree with your conclusions, thank you for the intelligent dialogue, a far cry from the obnoxious trolly rants that we usually get from the other side at this blog.

First, your argument depends on the state's "keen interest in the bearing and rearing of children". I think that though many believe that the state should have such an interest, the system that we actually have is inconsistent on this point. Simplest example: the tax system. Although there are many child credits and deductions that are available to those who have children, what you see is that these credits disappear as the income of the family increases. At the higher income levels, when you compare a childless couple with a couple with children, the state actually makes it economically "preferable" to be a childless couple. Now, you might argue that this is because those with higher income have the ability to support their children without state support. Exactly. But that is why we should see the state's interest as encouraging its citizenry to support itself when possible, and in fact, encouraging those social units that allow the citizenry to support itself, with the state only stepping in to help those who cannot help themselves. Taxes are not the only example: the public school system, children benefits, etc... are all skewed towards the lower income spectrum.

If this is the case, then the state has every reason to encourage the union of gay couples. Commitment between individuals, whether hetero or homosexual, always reduces the reliance on state support. Couples have greater resources, fewer costs. When one of the partners is sick, there is someone to take care of him. When one dies, his assets immediately passes to his partner to support that partner through the remainder of his life. The unit is usually stronger than the one. This is the same reason that the state has a keen interest in supporting families, which is an even larger unit of individuals. Furthermore, the fact that committed homosexual couples can be further encouraged to adopt children means that the state is even further benefited by widening the circle of self-sufficiency.

As for John Locke's "natural law", I do not believe that the inalienable right to "life" can be conclusively interpreted as an inalienable right to "create life". In fact, I believe the more traditional understanding is the strictly construed inalienable right to live.

Finally, as a semi-libertarian, I would personally like to see the state get out of the marriage business altogether (both hetero and homosexual marriages). I think there is a reasonable argument that the institution of "marriage" is religious in origination and should remain religious in practice. This way, every church can "marry" those that they choose to (or exclude those that they choose to). That being said, the state should then enter the business of "unions", where they grant every couple, gay or straight, the right to enter a legally binding union, with certain legal benefits and obligations, backed by the state, encouraging the aforementioned ends of greater self-reliance.

[Janis]

"The answer lies in procreation—the primary responsibility of a family."

Jeffrey, I guess I'd better tell my husband that we somehow managed to neglect our primary responsibility to have children. I wonder if being childless makes our 22 year (heterosexual) union a sham? And here I was thinking that my marriage was based on commitment, honesty, affection, and warmth between two loving individuals.

The way I read it, your definition of family is surprisingly narrow. And your last paragraph, where you segue from childless heterosexuals to homosexuality not being a medical disorder. WTF? Is heterosexual infertility some kind of "hall pass" to keep me from being subjected to the inequality that homosexual couples are subject to?

NIce try, but your homophobia is showing.

[defiantmuse]

Defeating Prop 8 is very important to me. My father and his partner were finally married June of this year after 14 years together. My dad never thought he would see the day where he could be legally married. They have their marriage certificate framed and on the wall in their living room. Every single time I walk past it I smile and have hope that we, as a nation, are finally evolving into something I can be proud of.

And Jeffrey? Um. Wow. Props for writing well and attempting to have a rational discussion but I don't follow your logic at all. And what Janis said, "And your last paragraph, where you segue from childless heterosexuals to homosexuality not being a medical disorder. WTF?" Word!

My (male) partner and I made a very conscious decision NOT to be married, even when we found out we were going to have a child. And now as we begin to plan for a second child to expand our family, we still have no plans to marry. I have too many issues with the institution of marriage to want to enter into such a union. Although I fully support the rights of people who do want the legal status and the protections that come with it, I myself don't find it necessary. But does that somehow negate that my family is just that? A family? So you are saying marriage is only for straight people who want to have kids? What about all the straight people who can't have or don't want to have children?

[happybell]

Umm, Jeff, would it be easier if the State took away the title "marriage"??

Would it be any different for you if instead of people (hetero and homosexuals) getting married, they got "civily unioned"?

If everybody got "civily unioned", and "getting married" were something that only happens at church/temple/sinagoge/mesquite/etc, would it make a difference?

If "civil unions" were the only thing that the State provides, and "marriage" were only provided at religious organizations, would that make you happy?

Would you feel your "union" is less because it's called a union and not a marriage under the law?

[happybell]

sorry, it's synagogue...should start proofreading before pressing post"....

[Cain Hamm]

I've seen a few postings on LDS blogs that they plan to distribute YES ON 8 literature to kids TOMORROW ON HALLOWEEN. Please see this before voting on Prop 8!

They claim they want to isolate and insulate kids, and now millions of California kids will be returning home to ask mom and dad about "sodomy" or whatever propaganda the mormons plan to distribute. I'm working on a response to this that I'm hoping I can get to "go viral" tonight. Moms are pretty good about spreading Halloween horror stories via email. http://RavagedFaces.com/

I'm also amused at how many "YES ON 8" folks have their Halloween plans on their blogs and webpages. Apparently, glorifying Satan is A-OK, but allowing your neighbors to live in peace even if you disagree with them isn't. Some "religion!"

[Sara Callow]

As the numerous other commenters who have responded to all of Jeffrey's claims have demonstrated, there is little logical basis for Proposition 8. I have yet to hear a clear argument in favor of it, that at it's base is not religious in nature.

I think that partly due to it's lack of a basis in sound reason and logic, this is a very explosive and divisive issue. I also have a gay father, and take the issue extremely personally. And I haven't met anyone who hasn't already made up their mind. I worry that after the election (and Prop 8 fails!) I won't be able to forgive and forget those neighbors who displayed their "Yes on 8" paraphenalia so proudly.

Like defiantmuse, my husband and I have debated what to do about our marriage should Prop 8 pass. We would not want to be members of a discriminatory institution, and would feel like our marriage had then been defined by a religious system whose values are diametrically opposed to our own.

I agree that as a nation, we are hung up on the word "marriage" and that to eliminate that word entirely from the civil relationship would be a pragmatic solution... leaving churches to handle the "marriage" part. Though even easier would be if churches who oppose gay marriage came up with their own new term, and marketed it to the faithful as a separate and preferable union. "After you recieve your civil marriage, come be spiritually and eternally linked" or some other such nonsense.

Read my personal story of why I'm against Prop 8 here:

http://brokencorset.com/2008/10/26/proposition-8-this-time-its-personal/

And my take on my own marriage as a result, here:

http://brokencorset.com/2008/05/31/brenda-and-eddie-reprised-revised/

[cynematic]

Cain Hamm, you've touched on something few others have: the very people who are All Worked Up about children supposedly learning about homosexuality and "catching" it like it's a communicable disease are instead THE SELF-SAME ONES PLASTERING IT ALL OVER TV COMMERCIALS EVERYWHERE. Baffling. Then again, hypocrites lack a crucial self-perception gene.

I can't imagine anything wingnuttier than homophobes handing out Yes on 8 literature to kids. And the Yes on 8 people are complaining that gay marriage will be taught in schools?

Oh, the lies, distortions and hypocrisy.

[OC Surfer]

The real issue is gay marriage will deny people freedom of speech since they can be sued (or jailed) as being "hateful" for opposing gay marriage on moral grounds (which has already happened in Canada and Sweden), churches or other organizations will be sued for not performing same-sex marriages. Charities organizations like Catholic Charities have already shut down their adoption services in Massachusetts. Gay marriage will be taught in public school as early as the first grade without parental consent. And the list goes on and on.

Most importantly, with gay marriage, you are denying children the opportunity and right to ever having both a father and a mother. I guess in the gay community, children rights are not important.

If civil unions need to be strenghten to ensure hosptial visition rights, spousal inheritance rights, and access to Medi-Cal, etc, etc, then strengthen civil unions.

Btw, before anyone labels me as "full of hate", a "bigot", or "intolerant" like the No on 8 crowd throws around, meanwhile my friends have already been fired from their jobs because they support Prop 8, and cars have been vandalized with Yes on 8 bumper stickers,I have many friends that are gay, and I fully support civil unions.

So I support Yes On 8!
www.preservingmarriage.org

P.S. Being Mormon myself, I have never heard anyone at church wanting to distribute Yes on 8 material at Halloween.

[Janis]

"Most importantly, with gay marriage, you are denying children the opportunity and right to ever having both a father and a mother. "

Okay, at this point, if you were really making an effort to understand, you would know that your statement is a poor argument. According to the latest US Census information, only 61% of American children live with both biological parents. And because you think children deserve both a mother and a father, you're okay with discriminating against families just because the parents are same-sex? You want those kids to grow up being taught by people like you that their parents' unions somehow don't count, are second-rate at best, and that it is okay to trivialize and marginalize their parents relationships?

I am wondering what you would say to my brother-in-law and his partner (who have been married, at least in our family's eyes, for 25 years) about their daughters who they conceived with lesbian friends who are also in a stable, loving, long-term union. Their daughters have two mothers and two fathers who are very active and very present in their children's lives.

As a married heterosexual woman, who also happens to be childless, I also take exception with your equating denial of marital rights with preserving the rights of children. Are you saying that you'd be okay with gay marriage so long as no children were involved to be denied their "right to ever having both a father and a mother"?

And yet the other homophobe's argument here is that homosexuals can't procreate?

Sheesh! Maybe you people need to just stay the hell out of our bedrooms.

As for your claim that you have friends who were fired for their support of Prop 8, I flat out do not believe you.

[Jen]

O.k. OC, I won't call you a bigot or full of hate, but you are full of something.

#1. We are not Canada or Sweden and I can hardly think of anything more offensive and hateful coming from the pulpit than the drivel we've heard over the past few months. Nobody's been sued yet, and Prop H8 won't change that because that's not the issue on the ballot. This is AMERICA, but your freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism nor is it the freedom to incite violence and hatred against a minority group. Continue to preach your gospel of hypocrisy, you're safe. Congratulations, btw, Jesus must be very proud of you.

#2. The Catholic Charities in MA were force BY THE VATICAN to stop their adoption services after the board of Catholic Charities Boston voted unanimously to continue considering same-sex households for adoptions. In five years, CC only placed 5 of 136 children with same-sex couples, and those children were older and/or had special needs. I guess they should have just waited for YOU TO ADOPT them OC.

#3. I didn't realize that Mormon's were exempt from the Ten Commandments -- thou shalt not lie, heard of it OC? For the one-millionth time, GAY MARRIAGE WILL NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS! It is not a part of CA standards (standards such as these are decided on the local level anyway) and CA has one of the most comprehensive "right of withdrawal" laws on the books. No such family or sex education can be instructed without PRIOR PARENTAL CONSENT. Do you understand what that means? Did I use small enough words for you? No? Okay, here's a MORMON BYU Professor rebutting everything you have to say:
http://www.noonprop8.com/downloads/Thurston-Memo.pdf

#4. Gay marriage isn't going to change any child's chances of having a mother and a father because the last time I checked, there wasn't a huge line of non-hateful, non-bigots like yourself clamoring to adopt It may hurt a child's chances of having any loving parent which I guess is o.k. with you. And while we're at it, the rights of children are pretty damn important to this gay -- MY CHILDREN. How dare you infer that I don't care about my children's rights, you ignorant troll!

#5. Finally, as to all of you poor, sad, helpless, Christian victims ... GOOD! Hope you like it! I hope you are enjoying a taste of the hatred, the vile, nasty, heartless cruelty that you and your ilk have dealt to homosexuals for far too many years. Get used to it! We're not sitting in the back of your bus anymore. You want respect for your religious views -- start living by them! Quit getting divorced, cheating on your spouses, abusing and neglecting your children, and in general doing every nasty thing at, above or beyond the rate of non-Christians and then come and tell me that you're different and that this country should aspire to live by your values.

Remember OC, Mormon's are a minority too. You're being used by the ultra-right evangelicals who are clinging for dear life to the bully pulpit of power they have enjoyed in this country for far too long. On November 5, don't expect any thanks from them...you're still a cult as far as they're concerned and when they come after you...and they will (anyone see a Palin vs. Romney match-up in the near future?)-- don't knock on this gay door for help.

[lisa]

Very well done! I've added a link back to this page on my Arguments Against California Prop 8 page on Squidoo.

http://www.squidoo.com/no-california-prop-8-video-ads

Here's hoping California does the right thing on Tuesday!

[Terry]

Thank you so much for your comments and the thought you have so obviously put into your six arguments. I am a Utah "recovering" Mormon who has been fighting against Prop 8. I only wish I was a California voter so my voice could be heard. I've been documenting (as much as I could up with) the Mormon church's fight against equality and welcome all visitors to my web site: http://gayinaredstate.com Any comments will be welcome. Thank you MOMocrats!

[kelly]

It's clear, reading the second post by cynematic, that his or her motivation is to concur with the Mormon Church, and therefore he/she bends logic to meet that goal, rather than to exercise intellectual honesty. And though this is being written 2 days after the election, there is one point that I haven't heard anyone mention yet, and therefore I would like to add it to the discussion. That is, that upon witnessing the "yes on 8" signs in their neighborhoods, and seeing the proposition pass, thousands of California children (and millions of our nation's children) have suffered a disheartening blow to their self-esteem, and a deflation of their hope for their own futures; a cruel result of the thoughtlessness of those who profess in their push to institutionalize their dehumanization and disdain of others, to be protecting children. These are the children who are gay - no one turns gay at 18, and by the time they are 18 most of these children will already have suffered the damage of these people in many ways, at many times, whether consciously or subconsciously. Whenever the issue of children being taught about gay marriage in school (however absurd), I would bring this up to show the person I'm addressing what indefensible damage he is causing.

[Lawyer Mama]

Um, kelly, did you even READ Cyn's post??? She voted against Prop. 8. And that's what the whole blog post is about. Duh.

And I'm sorry, Jeffrey, but I'm not giving you points for anything. Your arguments are twisted to the point where they are nearly illogical. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are documents whose meanings have changed with time. If they didn't, our society would never evolve. The meanings change as society changes. Either way they can't be used to justify bigotry, fear and hatred.

[student101]

i have a question..im not really sure who wrote this blog??
i wanted to use your argument for a an example of my class presentation, but i want to be sure to cite and reference you.

[SEO]

SEO, Web Marketing, Internet Marketing, Online Marketing, Web Design, SEO Company, Web Traffic, Low cost SEO, Low Price SEO, Online Advertising, Web Advertising, Internet Advertising, Search Engine Optimisation, Search Engine Optimization, SEO Firm, SEO New Zealand, Discount SEO, Cheap SEO, Affordable SEO

[SEO]

Low cost SEO, web marketing, internet marketing, web design & online advertising. Best SEO company for traffic.

[Jackson Allen]

Seems to be a similar trend in Australia too...