Post User Polls

Do you agree with court's decision to overturn ban on gay marriage?

A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that the state's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to equal protection, the first step in a legal struggle that most expect will end at the Supreme Court.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," wrote Judge Vaughn R. Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. "Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples."

Do you agree with Judge Walker? Or did he overstep his court's bounds by overruling the existing ban? Weigh in below.

By Cameron Smith  |  August 4, 2010; 6:19 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Is Gulf oil spill nightmare really over? | Next: Should Virginia be in the liquor business?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



It's a bigoted and ridiculous law that should have never made it out of the sewer where it was born. Props to the judge.

Posted by: alarico | August 4, 2010 6:55 PM

Our nation is build on the basic tenent that marriage is between a man and a woman. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked that same sex marriage would ever be considered acceptable or legal in this nation. Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family unit. I disagree with the Judge's ruling and pray it is overturned. The gay-lesbian lobby is aimed at legitimizing thier personal sexual perversion and making it a protected civil right. God made marriage to be a life long joining of a man and a woman with the intent to procreate and bring forth godly offspring.

Posted by: homeinhawaii | August 4, 2010 7:07 PM

Our nation is built on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as well as equal protection under the law.

Enough said.

Posted by: pam8 | August 4, 2010 7:13 PM

Goverment needs to officially change to cival unions and get out of the marriage business. Let the churches perform marriage cermonies. If two people wish to form a cival union, fine; if they find a church that will wed them, fine, just keep the two seperate.

Posted by: je121819 | August 4, 2010 7:15 PM

Our nation is built on the tenets of freedom, not same sex marriage. Many folks in the early days of his country did not marry....God didn't make marriage....it was only created to prove ownership and inheritance. It is a legal contract, not a religious ordinance. Check your history.

Posted by: g123beck | August 4, 2010 7:15 PM

Our nation is build on the basic tenent that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Posted by: homeinhawaii


Funny, I thought it was built on the basic tenants of freedom and respect. If what you say is representative of what conservatives really think the basis of this country is, that goes a long way towards understanding your otherwise anti-American sentiments.

Posted by: washpost18 | August 4, 2010 7:18 PM

Look at the bright side. If this judge's ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, at the rate that gay men enter and leave their relationships, California can have a huge surplus in the General Fund in ten years; if the state charges $100.00 for each divorce.

Posted by: sperrico | August 4, 2010 7:28 PM

Marriage had nothing to do with how our Country was built. It isn't mentioned in any of the documents that form the foundation for our country. This ruling upholds the ideal that the Judicial system is there to protect the few from the Tyranny of the Majority - that is something you will find in the documents our country was founded on.

Posted by: bs2004 | August 4, 2010 7:32 PM

Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.

Posted by: berg1928 | August 4, 2010 7:32 PM

Equal protection under the law. 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No excuse for government discrimination.

Posted by: Rhea1 | August 4, 2010 7:39 PM

Just another ruling from a "couples only" bigot.

Don't these gay people have any new ideas?

So pitiful.

Posted by: muawiyah | August 4, 2010 7:39 PM

Re the comment by Berg1928 -- The "logic" of your comment would also require anyone who is heterosexual to recuse him/herself.

More to the point, Judge Walker, who was nominated first by President Reagan and then again by President George H.W. Bush when Reagan's term expired before the Senate confirmed Walker's appointment, is well known for his libertarian views, and his decision reflects those views. That is similar to the way that decisions and dissents written by Justices Scalia and Thomas relating to the issue of abortion reflect their strong adherence to the views of the current day Catholic church.

Posted by: calbengoshi | August 4, 2010 7:41 PM

To the person in Hawaii who says that our founding fathers wouldn't approve of same sex marriage: would they approve of ending slavery? interracial marriage? Divorce at 54%? Admission of racial equality? Allowing Indians citizenship (1924)? etc etc. etc. Do you want an 18th century country or a country that forever progresses forward?

Posted by: tpalmer641 | August 4, 2010 7:43 PM

A previous comment: "Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself."

Any judge is going to be either homosexual or heterosexual--either way he/she can be accused of bias on the same grounds. There is no more reason a gay judge should not decide the case than a straight one; or do you favor a law banning gay judges just as you favor one banning gay marriages?

It is exactly this sort of thinking--that gay people a different, inferior, less worthy more "biased"--that should be kept out of government and law.

Thanks for making the point.

Posted by: BTinSF | August 4, 2010 7:45 PM

This as a gender equality issue. In other words one should not be denied rights because of one's gender or the gender of one's partner. Historically this ruling is akin to the 1948 California Supreme Court ruling of Perez vs. Sharp. The court ruled that the California anti-miscegenation statute violated the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.

Posted by: r90095-b | August 4, 2010 7:46 PM

So the judge is homosexual, and therefore prejudiced. Would your opinion be different if a straight judge had upheld the referendum overruling the law? Wouldn't that have been prejudiced, too?

I am 67 years old, white, straight [married almost 40 years, with adult children] and an attorney and law professor who is sick of this debate. The Constitution says what it says: it doesn't exempt sexual preference from its protections.

Get used to it. If the Mormons want to secede, again, our army is still bigger than theirs!

Posted by: thrh | August 4, 2010 7:48 PM

But marriage has something to do with how our society runs. Our country is stands on the foundation of strong traditional families. Disrupting the proven, healthy structure of a heterosexual couples and their children will cause instability and will not provide the best environment for children to grow up in.

Posted by: washingtonpost89 | August 4, 2010 7:48 PM

TPALMER641 ~ forcing citizenship (and the taxes that go with it) was not an unmixed blessing on Native Americans.

Frankly, we should revisit that ruling and get it rolled back.

This was a much better place before all of you people showed up.

Posted by: muawiyah | August 4, 2010 7:48 PM

Berg128 - using your logic, someone who is straight should have recused themselves too. Your logic being that sexual orientation has something to do with how one would rule on this case. Maybe they should have found a bisexual judge. Or asexual.

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | August 4, 2010 7:49 PM

Seriously, HomeinHawaii?? Why does YOUR religion get to tell everyone what they may and may not do? Why do you care if I raise a "godly" child, whatever the heck that is? Please, honey, go join a monastery or a nunnery if you need to live in a religious bubble but let the rest of us THE BLOODY H---L ALONE.

Posted by: 7900rmc | August 4, 2010 7:51 PM

"Our nation is build on the basic tenent that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Well, actually, our nation is "build" [sic] upon the basic "tenent" [sic] that the general populace is literate enough to choose their own form of government.

You just disproved it.

Posted by: thrh | August 4, 2010 7:53 PM

7900RMC BTW, in this country, if not yours, people are free to voice religious positions any time they want, anywhere they want.

You don't have to agree.

Posted by: muawiyah | August 4, 2010 7:56 PM

I am sick and tired of being ruled by judges in an oligarchy.
I do, however, take a moderate position on gay marriage - I think they should not be allowed to marry, but could get engaged.

Posted by: DorothyfromColumbus | August 4, 2010 8:11 PM

Interesting poll- I voted "no" and the results would not tally... Push the "yes" button that you agree with bench legislation and voila~ the vote registers... Thank heavens for the disclaimer that..."this is not a scientific poll."

Why was it put to a referendum if the result was this easy? Gays could have sued years ago to protect their civil rights and spared us all..

Posted by: PaLibertyBelle | August 4, 2010 8:13 PM

I've got news for the conservatives here ... straight couples aren't exactly saving the institution of marriage. There were 565,000 same-sex partner households in 2008 ... and TEN TIMES as many unmarried straight couples (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb10-ff18.html).

I'm straight and married. If two people want to marry, I say let them.

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | August 4, 2010 8:24 PM

berg1928: So what you are saying is that since Judge Walker is gay, he couldn't be trusted to rule properly or fairly? Presumably your logic extends to heterosexual judges ruling on heterosexual concerns (ie divorce, child custody, et cetera) or even to male judges versus female judges not being able to apply the law fairly. Basically your commend indicates that only a heterosexual judge should have heard this case. But if he or she struck it down, surely you would find another fault. Judge Walker's ruling is amazingly well documented, surprisingly footnoted, and incredibly well reasoned. Have you actually read it all the way through? If not, I encourage you to do so.

Posted by: mitchellowens | August 4, 2010 8:24 PM

The divorce rate among heteros is above 50% nationwide. Add another 25% for the wife beaters, cheaters and dysfunctional marriages and the entire "sanctity of marriage" argument goes out the window. If gays and lesbians don't care what happens in your bedroom, why do you care what happens in ours?

And this is the Holy Grail upon which our country was founded?

Posted by: ResidentSkeptic | August 4, 2010 8:28 PM

"Our nation is build on the basic tenet that marriage is between a man and a woman."

If our nation was built on this tenet, why is there no mention of marriage in any founding document? The basic tenet our nation was built on was freedom from oppression, not heterosexual marriage. Nobody fought and died during our revolutionary war to "protect marriage" in any form, or to protect heterosexuality. Whether or not they would have personally approved of gay marriage can't be proven, and is at any rate irrelevant. Equality under the law is however mentioned in our founding documents, and applies to everybody, not just heterosexuals.

Posted by: rdm539 | August 4, 2010 8:46 PM

Whatever the merits of opposite-gender parenting, that question has ZERO relevancy to same-sex marriage. I've heard too many ridiculous arguments that same-sex marriage will lead to children growing up without fathers. The only way that makes sense is if one assumes that millions of fathers in opposite-sex marriages to abandon their families and run off with gay lovers.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 4, 2010 9:02 PM

i wonder if the judge even ventured to distinguish homosexual marriage from bigamy or polygamy in the context of rational basis analysis. of course, that would asking a liberal to confront difficult facts. thus, im guessing the answer is no.

Posted by: dummypants | August 4, 2010 9:02 PM

The opponents of gay marriage seem to be fighting a battle that already is lost. Non-traditional families already exist. Unless we as a society are prepared to create a Gestapo to pull them apart, it is better to find a way to bring these families into the folds of the law. Gay couples will now have to deal with all the responsibilities of marriage whereas previously they did not. Isn't this what the conservatives want?

Posted by: AConcernedCitizen1 | August 4, 2010 9:04 PM

What an astonishing legal discovery! The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses outlaw the definition of marriage that has prevailed for our entire history. Who knew? Answer: A gay judge in California.

Here the people rule. The people are about to take this country back from the unelected judges who have taken it upon themselves to redefine our most basic institutions. The first step is sweeping out the Dem trash in November.

Posted by: eoniii | August 4, 2010 9:05 PM

It would have been better, in a country like ours, for the government to stay out of the marriage business, and leave completely in the non-governmental arena: a religious union or a business contract or a personal agreement. The states legitimate interest, in a minimalist state like ours, is only in child protection.

But since the government has gotten involved in marriage, and tied benefits to it as basic as taxes and non-governmental entities have tied rights as basic as hospital visitation to marriage, then the constitution should come down as hard as it can: everyone is in every respect the same in regards to it.

Posted by: Don19 | August 4, 2010 9:06 PM

Judge Walker made two very important points:

Point 1: Marriage is a civil construct
‎"Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law."

Translation: The definition of "marriage" differs and is distinct between how the government perceives it and how religious organizations perceive it. A Church is still free to forbid same-sex marriage. This is as it should be. However, and most importantly, the state cannot confer one set of rights to opposite-sex couples and a different set of rights to same-sex couples.

Point 2: Separate but equal domestic partnerships are illegal
‎"The evidence shows that domestic partnerships were created as an alternative to marriage that distinguish same-sex from opposite-sex couples...California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to same- sex couples."

Translation: the government must provide one construct (whatever we want to call it is irrelevant: "civil unions", "marriage", "domestic living agreement", whatever) for all couples.

This is a landmark case, obviously. But it is a plainly obvious conclusion for anyone who has respect for the Constitution.

Posted by: PDiddy | August 4, 2010 9:06 PM

What an astonishing legal discovery! The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses outlaw the definition of marriage that has prevailed for our entire history. Who knew? Answer: A gay judge in California.

Here the people rule. The people are about to take this country back from the unelected judges who have taken it upon themselves to redefine our most basic institutions. The first step is sweeping out the Dem trash in November.

Posted by: eoniii | August 4, 2010 9:06 PM

Posted by berg1928: Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.

Turn the table and the decision around, berg.
Judge John Doe is a heterosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.


Posted by: bdunn1 | August 4, 2010 9:13 PM

Marriage means husband and wife. 2+2=4. The sun shines in the daytime.

And judges are powerless to do anything about it.

Posted by: thebump | August 4, 2010 9:14 PM

We are in a period of moral decline according to most religious texts. Now, it's widely accepted and condoned when men marry men and women marry women. Things that were once sanctimonius and pure are no longer valid. This is a generation of where "wrong" is the new right. Bad times indeed....when 80% of the population feels like the ban should be overturned.

Posted by: shalshah | August 4, 2010 9:17 PM

This opinion is so over-the-top broad in its expansion of 14th Amendment protections and so absurd in its pop sociology that it presents an easy target at the Supreme Court, assuming it survives the Ninth Circus.

Gay rights advocates may rue bringing this specious case and the precedent it will create. I doubt Justice Kennedy will join them on this one.

Posted by: eoniii | August 4, 2010 9:19 PM

You can't repeal the most basic facts of life — not even if you wear a fancy black robe and chant magic incantations.

Posted by: thebump | August 4, 2010 9:21 PM

Throughout human history, the term marriage has always meant an union between a man and a woman. The scriptures of all religions have never stated otherwise. Deviant sexual behaviour cannot be condoned.

Posted by: kms123 | August 4, 2010 9:25 PM

Considering that over 50% of marriages between men and women end in divorce, I don't see how allowing gays to marry can in any way harm the so called institution of marriage. Marriage isn't about sex, it's about rights... human rights.

Posted by: bozhogg | August 4, 2010 9:26 PM

so whats next...
setting age limits to have sex unconstitutional?
any limits on who they have consensual sex with, unconstitutional...
cousin on cousin...
brother and sister...
nephew and aunt...
teacher and student...
open season on everybody...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 4, 2010 9:28 PM

Just want to add my opinion here--People should be allowed to marry whomever they want, as long as they are both of age. If you are against gay marriage, then don't practice it--but it's not your place to tell other people how to live. It's a simple human rights issue--people should be able to make their own decisions about who to marry--it's none of the government's business.

Posted by: july3 | August 4, 2010 9:31 PM

I thoroughly agree with Judge Walker’s ruling with the caveat that full equality for LGBT couples is rightfully guaranteed by our Constitution, but not by our religious institutions.

I unconditionally support the complete ‘separation of church and state' and as an observant Jew, I maintain a bifurcated view of LGBT marriages.

Traditional Halacha (Jewish Law) does not recognize LGBT marriages as licit.

I consider this distinction important and support 'both' viewpoints, each in its proper place.

May HaShem bless America.

Posted by: bloommarko4 | August 4, 2010 9:37 PM

WHAT THE HECK??? IT'S NOT "WE THE PEOPLE"
"IT'S NOW WE THE JUDGE"
THIS SAME SEX ARRANGEMENT CERTAINLY IS NOT MARRIAGE & IT DEFINATELY SHOULD NOT BE CALLED "MARRIAGE"
DO AS YOU PLEASE~~~~~~JUST DON'T FLAUNT IT FOR OTHERS. IT'S FAR TOO DISGUSTING !!

Posted by: icebluee67 | August 4, 2010 9:41 PM

ut marriage has something to do with how our society runs. Our country is stands on the foundation of strong traditional families. Disrupting the proven, healthy structure of a heterosexual couples and their children will cause instability and will not provide the best environment for children to grow up in.

Posted by: washingtonpost89 | August 4, 2010 7:48 PM
________________________________
And how does allowing gay marriage "disrupt" the "proven, healthy" structure of heterosexual couples, with their 50+% divorce rate? This is the stupidest argument that the opponents of gay marriage keep throwing up, with no explanation of HOW gay marriage in any way threatens straight marriage.

Straight, but not narrow.

Posted by: luridone | August 4, 2010 9:41 PM

The argument that gays should be satisfied with civil unions because it provides most of the same protections as marriage is akin to suggesting that blacks shouldn't care whether they are required to sit in the back of the bus, since all of the passengers will arrive at the same destination.

The argument that marriage is intended by God for couples that can and will procreate is equally absurd, for then the law should restrict couples from marrying if one or both members are infertile, or are beyond child-bearing age, or if they have refused to contractually agree to procreate.

The reason why people are so opposed to gay marriage is because the thought of homosexuals expressing physical affection for one another totally repulses them, and the notion that such a relationship could be officially sanctioned through marriage pours salt into the wound of their prejudice.

Those people who are so adamant that gays be denied the right to marry are the same types of people who would have expressed outrage in the 1950s and 1960s when the validity of interracial marriage was being debated. Hatred toward gays is simply their "flavor of the month".

Posted by: labman57 | August 4, 2010 9:42 PM

Marriage means husband and wife. 2+2=4. The sun shines in the daytime.

And judges are powerless to do anything about it.

Posted by: thebump | August 4, 2010 9:14 PM
__________________________
As far as marriage goes, you are 100%, absolutely wrong.

Posted by: luridone | August 4, 2010 9:44 PM

I guess I just don't understand why religious fanatics care whether or not civil law allows for marriage of gay couples. I mean, no proposed or existing law that allows gay marriage obligates a religious figure or institution to perform/officiate a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. These laws simply allow for gay couples to get married by a religious figure who approves of the union or a justice of the peace. In other words, legalization of gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on how one chooses to observe their religion or infringe on their way of life whatsoever.

Posted by: dcdrew19 | August 4, 2010 9:47 PM

Look at the bright side. If this judge's ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, at the rate that gay men enter and leave their relationships, California can have a huge surplus in the General Fund in ten years; if the state charges $100.00 for each divorce.

Posted by: sperrico | August 4, 2010 7:28 PM
______________________________
Thanks for providing more evidence for the ignorance and stupidity of opponents of gay marriage.

Maybe California should have been taxing straight divorces, given the rate of divorce among us.

Posted by: luridone | August 4, 2010 9:48 PM

iceblue said: WHAT THE HECK??? IT'S NOT "WE THE PEOPLE"
"IT'S NOW WE THE JUDGE"

D'oh! You're not serious, right? Yes, you are.

Posted by: bdunn1 | August 4, 2010 9:53 PM

Excellent decision. Those who have opposed gay marriage brought much of this on themselves. They ran campaigns (see, Michigan) for state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but pledged that wouldn't affect civil unions or the rights of public institutions (like universities) to provide same-sex partner benefits. To many (like me) at the time that sounded reasonable. But as soon as they secured passage with their lies, they turned around and went after civil unions, partner benefits and everything else they could think of that they had pledged not to touch. So tough you know what, backers of such lies. That turned me and many of my other straight friends into people who back gay marriage 100%. So spare us the sanctimonious you know what. You brought much of this on yourselves - and I'm glad you did, because ultimately it's the right thing. Congrats to my gay and lesbian friends, none of which have ever had anything to do with breaking up the heterosexual marriages I have seen dissolved.

Posted by: faygokid | August 4, 2010 9:55 PM

Well. . .it's about time, you know? I have lived to receive my monthly Social Security benefits and thought I would never live long enough for this fair decision to become reality.

Hallelujah. My children and grandchildren will live in a fairer society. What could be better than that?

Posted by: wwIIbaby | August 4, 2010 10:11 PM

My partner and I have been a couple for 39 years now, and next June we'll celebrate our THIRD wedding anniversary -- California, four months before the 2008 election that took away our right to do this. Want to tell me to my face that I'm damaging heterosexual marriage?

It really IS about time, yes.

Posted by: DaveinNorthridge | August 4, 2010 10:15 PM

There are reasonable policy arguments in favor of gay marriage, though IMO the traditionalists have the stronger position. However, it is tyranny for a judge to discover a constitutional right to gay marriage overlooked for generations and then to strike down traditional marriage laws adopted through the democratic process.

The left can have its way only by force, not by persuasion. The public hates the bastards.

Posted by: eoniii | August 4, 2010 10:19 PM

I don't care what the issue is...what bothers me most here is the people of California followed the law, collected signatures, put the issue on a ballot and had a vote BY THE PEOPLE and passed a law. The fact that a judge can overturn this based on the issue (Same sex marriage) and not the procedure (not having enough signatures, false signatures, not following procedure, etc.)is very troublesome. Personally, I don't care whether same sex couples want to marry or which states allow it - but I do care that a state law enacted by the people in an open forum can be overturned by an activist judge....we should all be worried...

Posted by: IrvFleckman | August 4, 2010 10:30 PM

If you don't like it, don't do it. But don't pretend it affects you in any way if others do. And don't pretend that just because the vote says most people want it, that makes it okay.

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | August 4, 2010 10:37 PM

Judge Walker laid bare the ridiculous arguments against gay marriage. There is no legal reason to discriminate against gays, only personal bias and religious dogma. Neither have any place in the US legal code.

Posted by: AxelDC | August 4, 2010 10:41 PM

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that WaPo readers prefer dictatorship from the bench to democracy.

Posted by: CharlesMcKay1 | August 4, 2010 10:49 PM

This latest decision of Judge Walker shows that we are the country without a freedom. Who is that person that can reject votes from the citizens of the U. S. of America? Only the person that is above the law of the Land.
Good Morning America, we have lost our freedom.
I have nothing Gays and Lesbians, only I would like that all of us respect the law of the Land, or we are the same as the Communist countries. One law for populis, another for elite.

Posted by: ranko | August 4, 2010 10:55 PM

This is not a victory for same sex folks nor a loss for people against same sex marriage. This is a loss for ALL americans. I know everyone wants to focus on the issue of same sex marriage when the real issue is whether a state and it's residents can enact a law with the majority of residents in favor of the law and then have it overturned by an activist judge. This is no different than if the ballot in CA had been put forth as a vote to legalize same sex marriage and it passed - then an activist judge (presumably a conservative judge) would overturn the will of the people because of his / her personal beliefs. I know the issue at hand is an emotional, personal decision for most people but let's not lose sight of the bigger issue - an activist judge using personal feelings to overturn the will of the people.

Posted by: IrvFleckman | August 4, 2010 11:00 PM

If this ruling stands, then any laws against polygamy shall be simultaneously stricken, by any legal logic. Since several of God's prophets were polygamists, this should hardly be more of a moral concern than homosexual marriage, which the bible proscribes.

Posted by: threedy | August 4, 2010 11:00 PM

Poor eoniii doesn't get it. It's about Human Rights. Your prejudices don't trump them.

For those of you who claim Judge Walker's homosexuality had some bearing, I would propose that would only be in recognizing the affronts to gays in our society.

Having served 24 months on one of his Grand Juries, this Flaming Liberal found that Conservative Republican Judge to be only interested in the proper application of The Law.

Posted by: gkam | August 4, 2010 11:01 PM

I love my home state, but California's got to dump their dependence on the ballot initiative. It's led not only to radical neighbor-vs.-neighbor property tax imbalances (Prop 13), but it also weakens the standing of their elected representatives (so why take voting for them seriously?).

Posted by: gfriday | August 4, 2010 11:11 PM

Well lets just abolish legal 'marriage' altogether. Lets just revert to the animal behavior phase of mankind's development, before someone thought that it would be a good idea for some community rules (law) to offer protection for children that were produced by the actions of one man and one woman.

I fail to see ANY justification for 'same sex marriage' other than an attempt by homosexuals, who produce no children - thus contribute absolutely nothing toward the survival of the human species - to somehow steal the legal and economic benefits hitherto awarded only to one man and one woman who were legally married. And try to base its legitimacy only on some evanescent 'sexual preference.'

Same-sex 'marriage' is a logical, and until this ruling, legal, absurdity.

Posted by: dave19 | August 4, 2010 11:12 PM

One writer comments on what the "FOUNDING FATHERS" would think of same sex marriage. Who would give a s**t what they thought. They talked alot about human rights and nearly all of them owned slaves. Most of the people that support this "hate" are the same people that support hating anyone not following their narrow religious beliefs. Dear "JESUS" protect us from your followers!

Posted by: misewicz | August 4, 2010 11:16 PM

It pretty clear the HomeInHawaii has never read the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers. That he thinks the Founding Fathers believed marriage was only between is a man and a woman demostrates that a lot of false notions are floating around in his head.

The Constitution and the Papers say nothing about what constitutes marriage.

And then there is IrvFleckman who doesn't understand what republican form of government means. Laws are made by legislative representatives we elect not by plebiscite. Therefore, a ballot proposition like California 8 can be overthrown by the judiciary.

The unfortunate thing is the California's legislature has been so emasculated that Californian's have turned to legislating by plebiscite. Essentially California's have trashed the republican form of government.

Posted by: pbarnett52 | August 4, 2010 11:16 PM

Those of you who believe this decision is an example of judicial tyranny haven't read the opinion. The judge didn't find some Constitutional right to homosexuality. It only held that if you have a law - here permitting marriage - it has to apply equally to everyone. Even the electorate cannot single out a specific group and tell them "these rights are for everyone else but not you.". The equal protection clause is in the Constitution. The judge simply applied the law.

Posted by: ga10s | August 4, 2010 11:16 PM

It's about the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Pretty simple stuff.

Posted by: dozas | August 4, 2010 11:19 PM

The conservatives here display a scary ignorance of the American system of laws. There are such things as unconstitutional laws. You know, how you guys characterize everything the Dems do? Judges have an obligation to strike down unconstitutional laws, even ones enacted by referendum. Why are conservatives for majority rule only when it's convenient? Argue on the merits of the case--to say judges can't overturn laws is just not correct.

Posted by: TonyQ82 | August 4, 2010 11:36 PM

If I hear the term "activist judge" applied to a jurist doing his/her job one more time, I may vomit.

This judge has studied the issue up and down, forward and back -- even conducting a trial to solicit opinion from the widest range of community members -- and concluded, on the basis of law, that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

We have different branches of government precisely to prevent injustice flowing from one segment of society (in this case via California's easily hijackable initiative process) from oppressing another segment of society.

Activist-schmactivist. Just because Prop 8 was a vote of the people doesn't necessarily make it right. The duly elected legislatures of the states who joined the Confederacy all voted to secede from the Union; I think we all know how that turned out, don't we?

Posted by: Kritz | August 4, 2010 11:37 PM

"I fail to see ANY justification for 'same sex marriage' other than an attempt by homosexuals, who produce no children - thus contribute absolutely nothing toward the survival of the human species"

If straight couples can get married without anyone asking if they plan to reproduce, then there's no reason gay couples can't get married too. Gay couples can and do have children. And you apparently haven't read the latest science on homosexuality, but that's not a surprise.

"to somehow steal the legal and economic benefits hitherto awarded only to one man and one woman who were legally married."

What is being stolen exactly? How will straight couples be affected in any way?

"And try to base its legitimacy only on some evanescent 'sexual preference.'"

You apparently haven't read the science around homosexuality from 20 years ago. It's not a choice, and if you think it is then your opinion on this issue is based on ignorance.

Posted by: TonyQ82 | August 4, 2010 11:42 PM

"It's about the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Pretty simple stuff."

Pretty simple indeed! I loved the judge's statement that our Constitutional form of government has a judiciary to keep in check the slight majority (52% in CA) who would keep the minority from their rights.

These hypocrite "Conservatives" who wave the Constitution around their heads like maniacs claiming that Liberals don't know its contents or believe in it as an almost sacred document. Yet they chose to ignore the parts they do not like. This same group of hypocrites has been doing the exact same thing with the Bible forever. Chant what they like and forget what makes them uncomfortable.

Well, forget you, hypocrites! The judiciary has spoken. Even The Supremes will go along with this District judge. How could Justice Scalia, an unabashed Constitutionalist, not uphold the rights of the individual, the rights of the minority oppressed by a slim majority?

I plan to take my gay homosexual lover and get married as soon as possible. We will claim all the rights given freely to straights and enjoy them with wild abandon! Take that homophobic hypocrites! Thank God the younger generation has the common sense and sensitivity to swear off the bigotry of their elders. In 20 years, this will be the law of all the land.

We are everywhere...we are your brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, teachers and preachers, politicians and pundits, newspeople and billionaires. Embrace us, we don't have cooties much less a disease you can catch (BTW, many many more straights are getting AIDs these days by a long shot).

We are here and we are not going anywhere! We demand our rights! Right now!

Posted by: Woodie731 | August 4, 2010 11:48 PM

What an astonishing legal discovery! The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses outlaw the definition of marriage that has prevailed for our entire history. Who knew? Answer: A gay judge in California.

Here the people rule. The people are about to take this country back from the unelected judges who have taken it upon themselves to redefine our most basic institutions. The first step is sweeping out the Dem trash in November.

Posted by: eoniii | August 4, 2010 9:05 PM
___________________________________________
What is hysterically funny about these tea bagger/Republican posts is that now they are screeching about how our system is democracy! Not 10 minutes ago, on any other issue, these wingnuts are ranting about how our system is a "republic". Which is it morons?

Anyway, it's been a long tradition in this country that the courts have stepped in to squelch unconstitutional restrictions on freedom. You know, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, instances like that. Back when those cases were decided the same regressive, fearful and bigoted voices railed against desegregation in our schools and inter-racial marriage. Same fearful, hateful small voices now.

Posted by: Observer001 | August 4, 2010 11:50 PM

Folks that are claiming we have lost our freedom due to this Judge's ruling are absolutly right. You have lost the freedom to openly discriminate against others. The Righteous Flock want only one thing. To claim they are better than everyone else by virtue of their belief in their God. Therefore giving them the right to rule over others and sit in judgement on others. Your fear of Gays and Lesbians only proves to me how weak you truly are. You fear that which you do not understand. I will defend your right to live your cowardly lives. Just don't try to infect me with you disgusting weakness.

Posted by: 1inthemiddle | August 4, 2010 11:52 PM

People keep speaking of "our" founding fathers and how shocked they would be by Gay Marriage. They would be shocked by: inter-racial marriage, Blacks voting, women voting, non-landed gentry voting, our international affairs, large standing army, fiscal irresponsibility and Indian savages intermixing with us. They were men of their time. Our time would send them cowering.

Posted by: rcvinson64 | August 4, 2010 11:56 PM

I don't care what the issue is...what bothers me most here is the people of California followed the law, collected signatures, put the issue on a ballot and had a vote BY THE PEOPLE and passed a law. The fact that a judge can overturn this based on the issue (Same sex marriage) and not the procedure (not having enough signatures, false signatures, not following procedure, etc.)is very troublesome. Personally, I don't care whether same sex couples want to marry or which states allow it - but I do care that a state law enacted by the people in an open forum can be overturned by an activist judge....we should all be worried...

Posted by: IrvFleckman | August 4, 2010 10:30 PM
___________________________________
So, the fact that the majority favored discrimination against blacks, anti-miscegenation laws, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. means that the courts shouldn't have overturned those laws? The purpose of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Following procedures does not justify discrimination and persecution. I personally am thankful for judges who will uphold the rights of all against such tyranny.

Posted by: luridone | August 4, 2010 11:58 PM

Homophobia is intolerance. Same-sex marriage is a right. Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled correctly in the case regarding the passage of proposition 8.

Posted by: LibertyForAll | August 4, 2010 11:59 PM

Laws against same-sex polygamy between consenting adults violates the right to equal protection too.

Posted by: politbureau | August 5, 2010 12:00 AM

Who are these Christians? Feed them to the lions!

Posted by: weetabixjihad | August 5, 2010 12:02 AM

Kritz, an activist judge is one who discovers new rights in the Constitution that just happen to match his personal policy preferences. Do you really think the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions? Do you really think the pronouncements of the gay "expert witnesses" that the judge parroted in his decision were anything more substantial than conventional liberal opinion?

This judge acted as an unelected super legislature overruling the will of millions of California voters. The Constitution is meaningless if a judge can define "equal protection" and "due process" any way he chooses, the people be damned.

This judge thinks he's a philosopher king whose role is to decide what is just and fair for unenlightened society, but the result is the overthrow of the rule of law by the rule of judges.

Posted by: eoniii | August 5, 2010 12:04 AM

I'm curious: if marriage is for the procreation of children and if only two people who can procreate together qualify for marriage then-what about infertile couples? or women beyond childbearing age who want to enter into a heterosexual marriage? Should they be denied marriage? Some of the prop 8 arguments during this trial seemed to indicate that they shouldn't be allowed marriage. They made a very strong case that it should be about procreation.
As a 50-year old woman, I was stunned that I might not be able to marry a man because of my inability to have a child.

Posted by: thinkingthinking | August 5, 2010 12:13 AM

Freedom, real freedom, includes the freedom to make mistakes. You don't have to agree with the concept of Gay or interracial marriages, to recognize that they have very little affect on anyone but the people getting married.

Who is to say that Bristol Palin should or should not marry Levi Johnson? That's easy. Levi and Bristol should decide.

Somehow we'll all muddle through.

Posted by: rwolf01 | August 5, 2010 12:16 AM

OK....let's see if this logic fits.

Equal protection means women must be drafted if we go to war and serve on the front lines in the same capacity as men.

Equal protection means that fathers have the same right to force an abortion on children that they have parented in the same manner that women have. They also have the same right to protect their fetus (child) that the mother has.

Equal protection means that men have equal access to their children post divorce and should not be forced to pay alimony to a woman.

Equal protection means that pedophiles who claim that they were "born that way" should be allowed to enter into predatory sexual relationships in the same manner that homosexuals claim that they were born that way.

Why don't we be honest and take the name of God off our money, off the walls of the Capitol and the Supreme Court. The homosexual SF judge does not believe that Godly principles matter. It's apparent that our judges and current President do not believe in Him nor His Scripture.

All the more reason we need a US Constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman; this is proof positive that states cannot determine their own destiny.

Posted by: Medicolegal | August 5, 2010 12:19 AM

i want to marry my dog. why are you restricting my rights?


Posted by: skeptic11 | August 5, 2010 12:20 AM

BERG1928 - Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.

If I take this line of thinking further, then all straight judges should recuse themselves, as well. Who would that leave to rule on this issue?

BERG1928 is obviously a bigot, in that he/she demonstrates an unsupported belief that being gay somehow makes an individual less able to think and act objectively on issues of sexual orientation. At the same time, BERG1928, who I assume is straight, likely believes his/her views on sexual orientation are purely the result of rational thought.

Posted by: williamhn | August 5, 2010 12:23 AM

What an astonishing legal discovery! The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses outlaw the definition of marriage that has prevailed for our entire history. Who knew? Answer: A gay judge in California.

Here the people rule. The people are about to take this country back from the unelected judges who have taken it upon themselves to redefine our most basic institutions. The first step is sweeping out the Dem trash in November.

Posted by: eoniii | August 4, 2010 9:05 PM
___________________________________________
What is hysterically funny about these tea bagger/Republican posts is that now they are screeching about how our system is democracy! Not 10 minutes ago, on any other issue, these wingnuts are ranting about how our system is a "republic". Which is it morons?

Anyway, it's been a long tradition in this country that the courts have stepped in to squelch unconstitutional restrictions on freedom. You know, Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, instances like that. Back when those cases were decided the same regressive, fearful and bigoted voices railed against desegregation in our schools and inter-racial marriage. Same fearful, hateful small voices now.

Posted by: Observer001 | August 4, 2010 11:50 PM
-----------------------------------------
The Brown and Loving decisions are consistent with the text and intent of the 14th Amendment. Racial discrimination was precisely the evil it was enacted to prevent. Any reasonable person can see that it is an incredible legal stretch to hold that equal protection outlaws the traditional definition of marriage.

If you want to change the definition of marriage that has prevailed since time immemorial, maybe you should persuade the voters instead of getting one judge to rule it unconstitutional. The SCOTUS won't affirm this ridiculous activist decision.

Posted by: eoniii | August 5, 2010 12:26 AM

At least when the Muslims take over, this gay-marriage nonsense will stop.

Posted by: pgr88 | August 5, 2010 12:28 AM

OK....let's see if this logic fits.

Equal protection means women must be drafted if we go to war and serve on the front lines in the same capacity as men.

Equal protection means that fathers have the same right to force an abortion on children that they have parented in the same manner that women have. They also have the same right to protect their fetus (child) that the mother has.

Equal protection means that men have equal access to their children post divorce and should not be forced to pay alimony to a woman.

Equal protection means that pedophiles who claim that they were "born that way" should be allowed to enter into predatory sexual relationships in the same manner that homosexuals claim that they were born that way.

Why don't we be honest and take the name of God off our money, off the walls of the Capitol and the Supreme Court. The homosexual SF judge does not believe that Godly principles matter. It's apparent that our judges and current President do not believe in Him nor His Scripture.

All the more reason we need a US Constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman; this is proof positive that states cannot determine their own destiny.

Posted by: Medicolegal
******************************************
The law is ultimately what the people decide they want it to be. Your scare scare tactics don't cut it. No one is going to force anyone to do anything, and no one is going to give pedophiles access to children.

From the looks of this poll, your chances of getting a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriages are slim and none.

Just get over it. Nobody is forcing YOU to do anything. Just mind your own business. And keep your god to yourself. I've got one already and I don't like yours.

Posted by: st50taw | August 5, 2010 12:33 AM

The US Government should only sanction and recognize civil unions which occur at the time the marriage licenses are issued and signed in front of the government civil servant. Religious representatives should no longer be authorized to sanction government civil unions. "Marriages" sanctioned by religious organizations should not be recognized as legally binding from a government perspective. The twain should not meet from now on. If you do not get a civil union signed in front of the gov't civil servant then you get none of the gov't benefits such as social security. If a corporation wants to recognize a religious marriage as well as the civil union that is up to them.

Having said that I do not have a problem with same sex marriage and fully agree with the Judge Walker`s analysis. His arguments against prohibition of same-sex marriage are the same ones I have been using myself for years. If the act of having children is the prerequisite for "marriage" then all couples too old to have children, making the choice to not have children or unable to have children (and not wanting to adopt) should not be allowed to "be married" either. The anti-same-sex marriage crowd do not follow their arguments to their logical conclusion.

Posted by: KarenLS | August 5, 2010 12:40 AM

Our founding fathers did not intend for this country to be a democracy where the general public is able to vote on major issues. They designed a government that is a republic, where the people elect representatives to make these decisions for them. Originally, the Constitution did not even allow the populace to vote for President; it was the state's representatives. Therefore, those who criticize the judicial or legislative branches for taking action that is against the 'will of the people' do not understand what the hell they are talking about. Our three branches of government were set up precisely to prevent the will of the majority from being imposed unjustly.

Posted by: msr0013 | August 5, 2010 12:56 AM

@homeinhawaii

Sorry for your discontent with the human race.

We all are different, but the same and you can't differentiate from the comparison.

hat's off to a total bigot.

Posted by: smtpgirl08 | August 5, 2010 1:08 AM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. What a gay couple does behind closed door is their business. That union between them isn't marriage. Many years ago the majority would have called the union of same sex couples perversion. How in God's name now called marriage? Come on people get real.

Posted by: almelbe | August 5, 2010 1:11 AM

To put it frankly:
Can priests now marry their altarboys?
Or animal-lovers their sheep, dogs, cows, whatever?
Necrophiliacs their beloved corpses?
And Sadists bring their beloved in chains to the altar?

Posted by: jboost45 | August 5, 2010 1:12 AM

We've got to remember that subservient women and slavery used to be traditions too.

Posted by: DGSPAMMAIL | August 5, 2010 1:13 AM

skeptic11: "i want to marry my dog. why are you restricting my rights?"
--------------------------------------------------------

Go ahead, we're not restricting you.

It's better than you two still living in sin.


Posted by: gkam | August 5, 2010 1:18 AM

@ jboost45:
Come on, how could anybody ever marry an animal or a corpse...don't both parties involved in a marriage have to express their intent to marry. Explain to me how a cow (or a corpse) can express its intent to marry, and apply for a marriage license? Just ridiculous.....

Posted by: msr0013 | August 5, 2010 1:23 AM

If marriage is only between a man and a woman and is a religious institution - why the tax breaks? Where is the separation of church and state? Right wingers make no sense to me. Great decision by the judge.

Posted by: tylerdurden1 | August 5, 2010 1:35 AM

Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.

POSTED BY: BERG1928 | AUGUST 4, 2010 7:32 PM

I love morons like this!!! So should women recuse themselves over abortion issues? Or Catholics over freedom of religion issues? Yeah, just dumb. Almost as dumb as the argument that marriage is about procreation -- which shockingly, was a major part of the defense.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | August 5, 2010 1:38 AM

November 7, 12:11 PMLA Race Relations Examiner Morris O'Kelly

So we know it’s not about “rights” in the sense of privilege or legal access. Please stop calling this a “civil rights” issue.
Respectfully, it is not.
Rights have to do with access and privileges; not titles of unions.

Posted by: JasonCampbellisnotproblem | August 5, 2010 1:47 AM

I think the real divisive issue here isnt so much marriage, as it's homosexual couples raising children.

But as for the marriage issue, the matter should be left to the electorate in each state to decide as they see fit. Nothing in the constitution itself, nor in the known intentions of its authors, supports the notion of an alleged "right" to legalizing homosexual union, and nor does the constitution oppose such union. A resolution must be found elsewhere. Hence the courts must thus butt out, and only the people can decide.

All manner of rights are conditional, even indeed, in some states, the right to life. If the right to life is conditional, there can be no argument that the right to marriage is unconditional.

Full stop.

Posted by: lowfinance | August 5, 2010 1:57 AM

a judge rules that prop 8 vote is unconstitutional and what does the washington post do? have a poll about it. isn't that the point? a person's civil rights should not be put up for a vote.

Posted by: tonebobb | August 5, 2010 2:04 AM

Equality has finally arrived for our gay Americans. They work with you each day and when they die, their life partner is eliminated from receiving their equal, just and legal rights.

This is America, it is about equal rights. I am so pround of America, we are all equal.

Fox news and the racist, bigoted Republicans are stroking their narrow minded idiotic base to send money and fight justice and equality.

Limbaugh, Bck, Hannity and the rest of the money sucking talk show host are sick and deminted.

Equal at last, equal at last, oh my god almighty equal at last.

Posted by: COWENS99 | August 5, 2010 3:02 AM

Equality has finally arrived for our gay Americans. They work with you each day and when they die, their life partner is eliminated from receiving their equal, just and legal rights.

This is America, it is about equal rights. I am so pround of America, we are all equal.

Fox news and the racist, bigoted Republicans are stroking their narrow minded idiotic base to send money and fight justice and equality.

Limbaugh, Bck, Hannity and the rest of the money sucking talk show host are sick and deminted.

Equal at last, equal at last, oh my god almighty equal at last.

Posted by: COWENS99 | August 5, 2010 3:03 AM

So the judge should have recused himself because he is gay?

Then should straight judges recuse themselves too?

Posted by: peter18 | August 5, 2010 3:16 AM

God save us all from crazy religious radicals who presume to speak for God. Talk about perverse! Those people are seriously evil, there's not much question about that.

That little voice speaking to you telling you to use the bible to hate? That's not God talking you brainless fools.

Posted by: Nymous | August 5, 2010 3:35 AM

Dear Home In Hawaii:

Hi. You live in a beautiful place. By the way, it is "tenet" not "tenent."

"Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:8

I think somewhere it also says "judge not, lest ye be judged" or similar.

C'mon, worry about something that is actually a problem, like say, global warming. Why should you care if my middle aged lover and I get married, or don't? We've been together twenty years. I don't really see our relationship as threatening the bedrock tenets of our society. She was there for me as I cared for my Dad, who just died. We will care for her elderly mother together. Um, isn't that what you kinda want from folks in your society?

Mahalo.

Posted by: Otney | August 5, 2010 3:40 AM

I think it might be easier to go off of the 130+ page document explaining the judge's explanation for his ruling rather than assuming he ruled the way he did because he was homosexual.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - to straight people, apparently. No, that isn't how this country should work. A homosexual couple should have the exact same rights, responsibilities, privileges, and and level of equality as any straight couple. Besides, it's not as if gay marriage is forced on anyone. Straight people are in no way forced to get gay married. Considering the divorce rate in this country, I question if many people should even get married at all.

While I'm all for the will of the people, I would remind people that sometimes the people are stupid. Slavery? Jim Crow? Women's suffrage? These were all things that frankly were enforced by the majority. The abolition movement took nearly a century to abolish slavery, and even then African Americans had to deal with institutionalized discrimination for another 90 or so years after that. It took the loud rabble rousing of the fringe to get any sort of movement in the mainstream. This isn't any different.

Posted by: fenzilla | August 5, 2010 3:45 AM

Why are the conservatives here so excited at the prospect of twisting the interpretation of the repeal of Prop. 8 to allow for legalization of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality? Tired of living as criminals or something?

Posted by: washpost18 | August 5, 2010 3:46 AM

To those harping on the "polygamy and/or bestiality" line of illogic: the judge only ruled that the Clifornia marriage law (which specifies that marriage is between TWO PEOPLE) cannot exclude same-sex couples as that is a violation of the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law).

Laws prohibiting polygamy and bestiality had nothing to do with this ruling. Further, it strikes me as the wildest paranoia to think allowing two adults to CONSENT to marriage will lead to permitting relations with animals WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF CONSENTING. What would they (the animals) do? Set their paw prints on the legal documents?

Posted by: ExPat2 | August 5, 2010 5:13 AM

To dummypants:
Bigamy and polygamy are different things. Bigamy involves a violation of the marriage contract, so this ruling would have nothing to do with it. It is not clear if laws prohibiting polygamy would be affected. The origination of a law against polygamy at the federal level was an attack on the LDS Church. Since Utah was a territory at the time, Congress regulated marriage there in Congress there was a strong bias against Mormons.

What many of the posts here forget is that the ruling was not some abstract decision but was based on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. If this judge or any other believes a provision of law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment they are bound to strike it down as unconstitutional. This is a legal issue, not a moral or religious one.

We have attached many legal privileges to marriage and are bound to follow the rule of law in applying them. That is the heart of the matter. I have no idea what the Supreme Court will decide in this matter, but the conservative majority on the Court has shown a strong tendency to find their personal religious and moral preferences in the Constitution, so I am not optimistic for those who oppose this ban. The end of this process may be that gays and lesbians find out they have no protection under the law.

Posted by: fcodispoti | August 5, 2010 5:16 AM

"contribute absolutely nothing toward the survival of the human species"

Others here have mentioned that we don't deny legal marriage to straight couples who can't reproduce or who choose not to. The reproduction argument also falsely implies that individuals have an obligation to society to reproduce. If that is the case, then why not simply make reproduction a legal obligation, like jury duty? The legalization of same-sex marriage does nothing to hinder reproduction. It's not like straight couples would see gay couples getting married and decide not to have kids.

About the notion that this decision "subverts the will of the people" - below is an ad from Ireland that refutes that notion. I know of no straight person in America who would like having to ask 300 million people for permission to get married.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

Posted by: Carstonio | August 5, 2010 6:16 AM

Observing the act from a constitutional viewpoint instead if a religious viewpoint was a correct viewpoint. Californian's should be ashamed of attempting to take away the rights of equal human beings, no matter their personal preferences.

After all, as a Buddhist, I am taught to view all life as equal, men, women, children, animals, trees, all equally deserving of respect and dignity.

Patrick

Posted by: patmatthews | August 5, 2010 6:17 AM

It isn't God I have a problem with, it's the fan club that bothers me. When will they learn?

Posted by: edeckel | August 5, 2010 6:27 AM

It's amazing that homophobes always go for polygamy. Where has it been shown that people are born polygamists? Polygamists are not born where they must express their sexuality only with multiple wives.

It's especially ironic since nearly every polygamous culture is extremely homophobic. Mormons spend millions against gay marriage while still practicing eternal polygamy in their temples. Muslims stone gays and can have 4 wives. Ancient Jews stoned gays and ancient Chinese were equally homophobic.

Show me a polygamous culture and I'll show you a theocracy dominated by men who demean women and fear gays. Show me a culture that embraces gays and I'll show you one of freedom and democracy. Canada, Belgium, then Netherlands and Scandinavia have been leaders in gay rights and are hardly the Stalinistic societies filled with polygamists that the antigay forces would have you believe.

>If this ruling stands, then any laws >against polygamy shall be simultaneously >stricken, by any legal logic. \

Posted by: threedy | August 4, 2010 11:00 PM

Posted by: AxelDC | August 5, 2010 6:32 AM

"Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.

Posted by: berg1928 | August 4, 2010 7:32 PM"

berg1928 ... or is it "borg..." as in part of the bigoted "amerikan taliban" collective ... you express your ignorance and bigotry in at least two specific ways ... #1. It is NOT "Judge Vaughn", it IS Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ! ... and #2. Both sides in the suit had the opportunity to demand/request he recuse himself at the onset ... that neither side chose to do so is a testament to his well-deserved reputation as a through, fair-minded, outstanding jurist, a fact further evidenced by his opinion in this case.

Now please go home and look for your pointy white hood and sheet robe with tea bags stapled to them and leave important things to adults !

Posted by: oldlemming | August 5, 2010 6:32 AM

Kudos to Judge Walker, and to Attorneys Olson and Boies; and to common sense, which isn't so common these days in America.

Onward to full civil and marriage equality rights in 21st century America.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.

And to the anti-marriage folks, it's simply un-America to put up civil rights to popular votes.

And in CT where we legalized marriage equality in 2008, I perform non-religious civil marriage ceremonies for couples all the time, many of whom have been together for 20, 30 and 45 years.....

Posted by: cornetmustich | August 5, 2010 6:34 AM

"Our nation is build on the basic tenent that marriage is between a man and a woman. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked that same sex marriage would ever be considered acceptable or legal in this nation."

The founding fathers would have been shocked by black people being full citizens. They would have been shocked by women being able to vote. What they DID was pave the way for both - THAT's the greatness of them!

Have heterosexual marriages and families in ANY way been disrupted by thousands of gay couples in California? No! What are people so scared of, really? They refuse to use their brains and think!


Posted by: asoders22 | August 5, 2010 6:44 AM

since when did gay marraige become a civil rights issue? the people voted and now a judge oversteps the boundaries of his role and we have a fiasco that will cause the masses against this ruling to get involved and inflame the whole mess. I will join the Mormon church and ask for multiple marraige laws to be changed so i can have 5 working wifes and can travel and golf like O'bama. as a matter of fact, that new ruling might open up some good opportunities both here and in W.VA.

Posted by: doyouktt | August 5, 2010 6:50 AM

The US of A was NOT founded on heterosexual marriage.

A little reading in history will underscore the kind of changes that have occurred: 14th Amendment with full (if denied) rights for former slaves as citizens, later, the popular election of Senators, women's right to vote. Democracy is an evolving disposition and recognition of rights. As homosexuality has left the closet to be an accepted way of living one's life, its people too should receive civil justice.

Remember that, in the 19th century when the US of A was an agrarian nation, the children of a divorce stayed with the father--to work the farm; it was only later that they were saddled on women. Society changes as its members learn more facts about matters, especially sexual matters--1960: the pill and the end of "the double standard"; the scientific basis for recognizing that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle" "choice"; the acceptance of the uselessness of an outdated "morality."

Let us be grateful that, legally at least for the moment, all of our fellow citizens have rights equal to our own.

Posted by: mini2 | August 5, 2010 7:00 AM

Marriage means husband and wife, as any seven year old anywhere on the planet can tell you.

You can't repeal the most basic facts of life — not even if you wear a fancy black robe and chant magic incantations.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 7:04 AM

ince when did gay marraige become a civil rights issue? the people voted and now a judge oversteps the boundaries of his role and we have a fiasco that will cause the masses against this ruling to get involved and inflame the whole mess. I will join the Mormon church and ask for multiple marraige laws to be changed so i can have 5 working wifes and can travel and golf like O'bama. as a matter of fact, that new ruling might open up some good opportunities both here and in W.VA.
_________________________________________________________________

This is a perfect example of ignorance of basic American history and civics at work.

The fundemental job of the courts in the US is to protect the rights of the people. Marriage has been a fundemental right recognized by the SC for well over 100 years. Until you can demonstrate how depriving someone of this right prevents harm from being done it is the job of the courts to protect the minority from the majority. This is the absolute foundation stone of our Constitution. Only a great fool would insist on taking a hammer and chisel to that stone to carve in it their prejudice.

Posted by: kchses1 | August 5, 2010 7:04 AM

"It's especially ironic since nearly every polygamous culture is extremely homophobic...
Show me a polygamous culture and I'll show you a theocracy dominated by men who demean women and fear gays. "

I don't know about polygamy, but I've noticed a very strong correlation between homophobia and sexism. Almost everyone I've encountered who believes that homosexuality is wrong also believes that the genders should follow rigidly defined roles and personalities. And their definitions of those roles almost always involve women in subservient roles. That leads me to suspect that their real problem with homosexuality is their perception that gay men are not "acting like real men."

Posted by: Carstonio | August 5, 2010 7:06 AM

This ruling shows the courts no longer care about the rights of the people to self-govern. If we need a rational basis now for laws, most of our current laws and regulations should be invalid! The peoples right to petition cannot be challenged by the federal courts. This is the definition of tyranny. One judge overrules the will of the voters. I agree that the voters are acting out of bigotry. I think they were when they banned affirmative action a few years ago.

If the government limited its powers, the marriage debate would go away. We all recognize that the result of the marriage argument is to what extent the government will force people to accept a lifestyle that many see as immoral. Most companies could care less whether someone is gay. But what about the Boy Scouts. Should they be allowed to discriminate against gay men? Or Blacks for that matter? Yes, that is the ugly side of freedom of association.

Posted by: ajeffrey | August 5, 2010 7:21 AM

This is really a generational issue: Boomers are uncomfortable with homosexuality. Generation X and beyond are not. At least that's what the polling data show: under 50 support gay rights and gay marriage, above 50 doesn't.

Posted by: DJMonet | August 5, 2010 7:22 AM

This is just more liberal judicial interference with the state's citizenry decision on the subject. If we are to be ruled by a small percentage over the desires of the large majority we are not a democracy at all. Obama's trying to do the same thing nationally. Such a sad time in our glorious history.....

Posted by: GordonShumway | August 5, 2010 7:38 AM

homosexuals should not marry. however, i wish cali would hurry and pass the law so they can get out DC!

Posted by: nivla | August 5, 2010 7:45 AM

Posted by: berg1928 | August 4, 2010 7:32 PM

Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.

------------------------

In your typical homophobic fashion, your twisted logic defies any kind of rational explanation. By extension, a heterosexual judge would also have to recuse himself as well. Nice going, dumbo.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | August 5, 2010 7:56 AM

Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.
Posted by: berg1928

In that case, heterosexual judges should also have recused themselves.

Posted by: lepidopteryx | August 5, 2010 8:02 AM

i will side with the 7 MILLION voters.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 5, 2010 8:08 AM

Civil rights should NEVER EVER be up to a vote of a majority - that is tyranny by the majority over a minority. It's not rocket science.

Posted by: wooflix | August 5, 2010 8:08 AM

Letting the majority "vote" on whether or not to grant "rights" to a minority group is asinine. You don't vote on rights...that's why they are protected by the Constitution. This is also one of the reasons we have courts and judges, people who look at the Constitution and the FACTS in order to make a ruling.

This judge made the appropriate ruling. It is unconstitutional for the voters of a state to tell others that they cannot have equal rights based on moral disapproval. There is no rational reason to deny loving couples the rights (and responsibilities) of marriage.

Posted by: starrsitter | August 5, 2010 8:10 AM

As a confident heterosexual, I do not feel threatened by gay people and believe they should enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else. The homophobes on this board, like homophobes everywhere, have no confidence in their own sexuality and are simply afraid of the temptation. Larry Craig, the Rev. Haggard and on and on...

Posted by: mack1 | August 5, 2010 8:14 AM

to those posters slamming the judge, like dummypants, calling him a homo, an activist judge---surprise, as another poster said here, and I googled, sure enough, this judge was nominated by St. Ron and confirmed under Poppy Bush. So go give Bush41 heck for putting an "activist" judge on the bench.
Here in Canada, we've had nation wide legalized same sex marriage for about 6-7 years. We haven't received any plagues from the heavens, our divorce rate of hetros hasn't gone through the roof, and in fact we've survived the global recession better than just about every country.
A gay couple moved into our neighbourhood a couple years before the law. They bought a rundown house that had been occupied by a couple who's many kids terrorized neighbourhood pets and were suspected of vandalism. The new couple did amazing renovations and their place is now the jewel of the neighbourhood. Their wedding was a 'hood event and alot of fun. So here's a great example of a gay couple moving in and raising property values, and when they adopted a little girl, the 'hood had a baby shower.
By the way, there are many old and set in their ways people in the hood who have accepted this couple well. Good on them, and good for all!
and quit with the kneejerk hyperbole!

Posted by: katem1 | August 5, 2010 8:20 AM

Do married gay guys consider consider `themselves both husbands, or does one play the wife? Does a domineering gay guy play the husband and a submissive gay fellow accept the role as his wife?
Does the level of male dominance dictate the role played-out by male gays?

Posted by: sperrico | August 5, 2010 8:21 AM

This has nothing to do with equal rights. There is no individual right to redefine marriage.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 8:22 AM

Posted by: IrvFleckman
"...the real issue is whether a state and it's residents can enact a law with the majority of residents in favor of the law and then have it overturned by an activist judge. This is no different than if the ballot in CA had been put forth as a vote to legalize same sex marriage and it passed - then an activist judge (presumably a conservative judge) would overturn the will of the people because of his / her personal beliefs."
So...first, your definition of activist is "disagrees with your idea of fair." Second, by your logic, California could vote that people with red hair and green eyes may not marry, own property or have bank accounts, and so long as the people vote for it, that's ok. Third, do you really not understand how this works? The process wasn't challenged - the law itself was declared unconstitutional (just as my example above would be). This judge did his job whether you agree or not. Many judges in state courts have heard similar cases, and most did not rule this way, but some did (of course, this was regarding their state constitutions). If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. In the meantime, like the judge asked of the proponents of prop 8, I've yet to see how same sex marriage has ANY impact on other marriages and families. ONE DOES NOT CHANGE THE OTHER.

Posted by: t8tet8te | August 5, 2010 8:24 AM

It's curious that so many people think that the rights of a minority should be dependent on whether a majority vote to allow them. For information, in 1967, interracial marriage was barred in nearly half the stages, in many cases as the results of votes by people who were allowed to vote. Probably, most people today would consider that to be wrong and that the Supreme Court was right to rule those state laws unconstitutional. Nonetheless, as recently as 2004, 40% of Alabama voters voted to keep the bars on interracial marriage in the Alabama state constitution.

It's not Judge Vaughn's fault that the bigots were not able to produce a single credible witness to defend their view and that one of the witnesses that they did produce came to agree that the only real basis for barring same-sex marriage was bias.

And it's worth noting how many of the politician opponents of same-sex marriage are themselves multiply married.

Following the "logic" of Berg and his fellow travellers, all heterosexual members of the 9th Circuit Court and of the U.S. Supreme Court who may rule on this case and all those who may be Catholic or belong to fundamentalist sects should recuse themselves as well. But I think that if one leaves out gay judges and straight ones for fear of bias, that's not going to leave very many people.

Posted by: edallan | August 5, 2010 8:25 AM

HOMEINHAWAII SAID - "Our nation is build on the basic tenent that marriage is between a man and a woman"

Actually, our nation, like all nations at the time were built around the idea that marriage was a social contract between two families, necessary often to keep the peace and procreation was a way for families to increase their labor, which was necessary for an agriculture based economy.

2/3 of the CURRENT world views marriage much in the same way but with the added bonus of multiple partners.

Stop with the inaccurate and misleading characterizations of what YOU THINK marriage is vs. what it has been as an historical relationship. Look around, we no longer live in an agrarian world so stop thinking that way!

Posted by: gene11 | August 5, 2010 8:31 AM

This isn't about protecting values with the conservatives. It's about them not wanting to treat people that they see as inferior to them as equals.

"It makes me feel icky" is not a basis of law.

Posted by: cao091402 | August 5, 2010 8:42 AM

Do married gay guys consider consider `themselves both husbands, or does one play the wife? Does a domineering gay guy play the husband and a submissive gay fellow accept the role as his wife?
Does the level of male dominance dictate the role played-out by male gays?

Posted by: sperrico | August 5, 2010 8:21 AM

Hey Wide Stance, ask yourself why you're so curious about all this.

Posted by: mack1 | August 5, 2010 8:44 AM

The institution of marriage has been slowly unraveling for years. Another nail in the coffin. It's only a matter of time until people will marry their parakeets. After all, "who are you to judge how I love"?

Posted by: mike27 | August 5, 2010 8:52 AM

"result of the marriage argument is to what extent the government will force people to accept a lifestyle that many see as immoral"

"Forced to accept"? I've never heard of gay shotgun weddings where police were dragging straight people to the courthouse to enter into same-sex marriages.

And the idea that homosexuality is immoral has no basis. Morality is about the consequences of one's actions on others, and homosexuality poses no intrinsic harm to straights.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 5, 2010 8:54 AM

"Lets just revert to the animal behavior phase of mankind's development..."

Actually, you're the one wanting to revert to an "animalistic" definition of marriage, making it all about genitals and breeding rather than spiritual and emotional connections between people.

"I fail to see ANY justification for 'same sex marriage' other than an attempt by homosexuals, who produce no children - thus contribute absolutely nothing toward the survival of the human species -"

Because the ONLY valuable thing a person can contribute to the survival of the human species is children? There are many other benefits to society from marriage, both gay and straight, including encouragement of stable, responsible behavior and of monogamy, which limits the spread of STDs.

Not to mention that many hetero married couples produce no children (and were known to be incapable of producing children when the marriage took place), and many gay couples raise and care for children that either they helped produce through nontraditional means, or who were abandoned by their hetero parents.

"to somehow steal the legal and economic benefits hitherto awarded only to one man and one woman who were legally married."

"Steal" implies that we hetero couples lose our benefits when gay couples get them. No, in fact, we don't.

And the encouragement of stable monogamous relationships is a benefit for society, well worth all the legal and economic benefits society gives to marriage. (In fact, most of those benefits - like health coverage for spouses and kids, like automatic inheritance and custody assumptions - actually have cost-saving value for society as a whole.)

"This has nothing to do with equal rights. There is no individual right to redefine marriage."

There is no individual right to tell another couple how their marriage should be "defined", and what it should mean to them, and how it should be structured. The only rights government has to limit marriage come into play when limits are necessary for the protection of those excluded (children, animals, others deemed unable or incompetent to enter into any legal contract), not to protect someone's cherished idea of "what marriage should be". Government may not step in and impose my definition of marriage - which excludes genital-obsessed breeding arrangements like yours, because of their disrespect and disdain for the spiritual and emotional connection that is the main purpose of marriage in my view - on your "marriage", neither may it tell me or my friends that we must abide by your cheap, shallow, "insert tab A into slot B to produce child C" definition.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 8:56 AM

Marriage is a sacrament. The courts have violated separation of church and state. Civil unions are not sacramental and the court can make any ruling it sees fit.

And making gay marriage legal just demonstrates that natural law and the law of the land can be in divergence.

Posted by: agapn9 | August 5, 2010 9:00 AM

It's curious that so many people think that the rights of a minority should be dependent on whether a majority vote to allow them.

Nobody thinks that. The issue is the definition of marriage. It has nothing to do with individual rights.

interracial marriage was barred in nearly half the stages [sic]

It's a bogus analogy. Interracial marriage always existed. The fact that husband and wife are of different races in no way changes the essential meaning of marriage as the union of husband and wife.

On the other hand, same-sex so-called "marriage" has never existed and would have to be created out of thin air by repudiating the fundamental definition of marriage shared by virtually all of the seven billion members of the human race.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 9:01 AM

Why does this matter? Why does anyone need to make their relationship "legitimate" by having a law or piece of paper? If they are seeking public approval for their way of life in a free country, then I would say they have issues with their own sexuality and harbor some guilt or resentment for their choices. If; as most will say "that's not the case with me", then what is it? Is there a financial motive? Biologically there can be no offspring. At his point again I ask "Why?".
I don't understand this need for government approval by law. Just live your lives if being together is what you truly want.

Posted by: jake91760 | August 5, 2010 9:05 AM

Using the bible, and saying "god will be angry" is not a legal, or rational arguement. It's time to bring this nation into the 21st century.

Posted by: jckdoors | August 5, 2010 9:05 AM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If the law allows civil arrangements for homosexuals so be it; the civil government can make whatever laws it wants. This does not, however, make it moral. Just another indication of the degeneration of this society. We are sinking into an immoral abyss and will reap the consequences.

Posted by: schmitt_fam | August 5, 2010 9:07 AM

This has nothing to do with equal rights. There is no individual right to redefine marriage.

Posted by: thebump |

--------------------------------------------------------------

Then it follows that there is no individual right to define marriage in the first place. Where does that leave you then? Ignorant. Home-field advantage for conservatives.

Posted by: washpost18 | August 5, 2010 9:08 AM

Posted by medicolegal:

"OK....let's see if this logic fits.

Equal protection means women must be drafted if we go to war and serve on the front lines in the same capacity as men."
======================
Sure, why not? I'm a woman and I've always believed this.


"Equal protection means that fathers have the same right to force an abortion on children that they have parented in the same manner that women have. They also have the same right to protect their fetus (child) that the mother has."
============================
Um, no, because it is the woman's body. If men could carry children, they would (and should) have the same control. They DO have control over what they do with their genitalia, because that is part of THEIR bodies.


"Equal protection means that men have equal access to their children post divorce and should not be forced to pay alimony to a woman."
=============================
Yes, men should have equal access to their children. I support this and deplore the tendency of courts to favor mothers.

I believe men should only be "forced" to pay alimony when the division of property/income supports it. Women are also "forced" to pay alimony when their earning potential exceeds that of their husbands.


"Equal protection means that pedophiles who claim that they were "born that way" should be allowed to enter into predatory sexual relationships in the same manner that homosexuals claim that they were born that way."
=========================
No, because that clearly violates the rights of the children, who can't give consent. Perhaps you've heard the expression "your rights end where my nose begins." No one has the "right" to force himself on someone else.


"Why don't we be honest and take the name of God off our money, off the walls of the Capitol and the Supreme Court."
=================================
No argument here.


"All the more reason we need a US Constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman; this is proof positive that states cannot determine their own destiny."
===============================
Most of your allies are insisting that this is a "states' rights" issue. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: carlaclaws | August 5, 2010 9:09 AM

"You can't repeal the most basic facts of life — not even if you wear a fancy black robe and chant magic incantations."

Then you don't have to worry, do you? Even if gays have the legal civil right to marriage, even if they marry, you don't have to acknowledge it.

Just like I don't have to acknowledge any genital-focused breeding arrangement you enter into as a real "marriage." Right?

"Good Morning America, we have lost our freedom."

Your freedom to tell other people that they may not marry because you disapprove of their spouse? You never legitimately had that.

"I have nothing Gays and Lesbians, only I would like that all of us respect the law of the Land, or we are the same as the Communist countries."

And the law of the land is the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection for all and protects minority civil rights from being vetoed by a majority of any size whatsoever.

"The institution of marriage has been slowly unraveling for years. Another nail in the coffin. It's only a matter of time until people will marry their parakeets."

Oh woe! Oh despair! Allowing people who really want to be married to marry is KILLING the institution of marriage! Straight people will desert their marriages in droves! (Because gay marriage is so much more attractive than hetero marriage, you think?)

You act as though the only reason people marry is because government tells them how and who to marry. You act as though heterosexual marriage had no intrinsic value, no benefits for the people who choose freely to enter them, and that if we let up ONE INCH on special privileges for heterosexual marriages, that somehow the whole marriage situation will explode and no heteros will want to marry anymore. Ridiculous. Do you love your spouse so little, if you have one? If you don't, do you think so little of the institution of marriage?

Heck, even if people who wanted to marry their parakeets were allowed to, the vast majority of us would go on marrying human beings without a qualm, and the "institution of marriage" would be just fine. But government DOES have a legitimate right to ban marriage for animals and children, because they are not developmentally or intellectually capable of consenting to any legal contract, particularly a lifelong one. Government bans the marriage of children and animals not to protect some "traditional definition" of marriage (heck, child marriage is quite traditional in many cultures, including European and Euro-American cultures), but to protect the children and animals concerned from being coerced into a contract they cannot properly understand or give informed consent to.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 9:10 AM

I have to laugh at this comment:

"Our nation is build on the basic tenent that marriage is between a man and a woman. Our Founding Fathers would be shocked that same sex marriage would ever be considered acceptable or legal in this nation. Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family unit."

First, IF our nation was built on that precise tenant, show me where it is written! If anything, in 1776, marriage was between a WHITE land owning male and the woman who would never be anything more than a HOMEMAKER.

And people who claim that same-sex marriage has never before existed has no knowledge whatsoever of world history. It's not the gay couples’s fault we have so many uneducated, illiterate people in this country who don’t have knowledge of world history or understand what 'equal protection' and 'due process' means in our US Constitution. Our founding fathers may not have been able to foresee the issues we would face in 2010, but they did have enough sense to write our Constitution in a way that it would address current problems through the ages. That's why our country has been around so long.

Posted by: chaddsford1971 | August 5, 2010 9:11 AM

"Government may not step in and impose my definition of marriage"

Yet that is exactly what this judge has done by substituting his own personal definition for the one common to humanity, as explicitly endorsed by the people of California.

You are right that marriage is not a creation of the state. It is a social institution predicated on the union of husband and wife. (Most of the earth's inhabitants would find it preposterous that we even have to have this conversation.)

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 9:13 AM

"If the right to life is conditional, there can be no argument that the right to marriage is unconditional."

The right to life is conditional in that your right to live does not override another person's right to refuse you the use of their body parts even if you need them to preserve your life.

Similarly, the right to marriage is conditional in that it does not override another person's right to refuse to marry you. (Or, in the case of children, animals, and others who can't legally enter into any contract, that person's/creature's right not to be coerced or pressured into a contract to which they cannot give informed consent.)

However, the courts may not take away a person's right to life simply because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Neither should one's right to enter into a legal, civil contract of marriage with another consenting adult be taken away for those reasons.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 9:16 AM

To IrvFleckman: The point is that the "people" should NEVER be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority in the first place. That's why minority rights must be protected by our courts.

Posted by: shooter1 | August 5, 2010 9:21 AM

i ... couldn't care less.

Posted by: Waffle1 | August 5, 2010 9:23 AM

The wear truth about the SF judge that passed the ruling on gay marriage and that the press does not want to tell you.
Read it at the front section of "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" of http://www.robbingamerica.com

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | August 5, 2010 9:25 AM

"Yet that is exactly what this judge has done by substituting his own personal definition for the one common to humanity, as explicitly endorsed by the people of California."

Not common to me - am I not human? Not endorsed by all the people of California - a good many voted against prop 8. Are they not human? Not common to those nations around the world that have legalized same-sex marriage, or to those cultures that have recognized it for generations - are they not human?

And I don't see you being forced at gunpoint to enter into a same-sex marriage against your will, or even to be forced to tell same-sex married people that you consider them your equals in marriage.

Am I forced to accept your definition of marriage as a genital-focused breeding arrangement because you are still allowed to choose your consenting adult spouse as you please? Do I have to accept that the serial "trophy wife" style of monogamy is as appropriate or true as permanent marriage, because Gingrich and Giuliani and Limbaugh are allowed to dump spouses and remarry whenever it suits them?

Define marriage as you please, for yourself. But do not presume to tell others what marriage should be for them.

"(Most of the earth's inhabitants would find it preposterous that we even have to have this conversation)"

Many of Earth's cultures define marriage in quite different ways, actually. The only aspect of marriage that anthropologists have found to apply (probably) universally cross-culturally is that marriage involves the acquisition of in-laws. Other than that, marriage varies pretty widely around the globe.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 9:26 AM

A previous post said: "Our Founding Fathers would be shocked that same sex marriage would ever be considered acceptable or legal in this nation."

Our founding fathers would also be shocked that the government stopped enslaving blacks and slaughtering the natives. That seemed fairly acceptable back then.

Posted by: calkid22002 | August 5, 2010 9:27 AM

Everyone on this post is glamoring for the government to stay out of the marriage business yet, these same people do not take that view when the government is so involved in our health care. I guess they only want the government to stay out of selective arguments or disagreements.

Posted by: whineridentifier | August 5, 2010 9:28 AM

Sorry for my typo, Bump. The issue is whether gay people should have the same right to the benefits and responsibility of civil marriage as straight people. Judge Walker rightly determined that there is no rational reason that they should not. ("Because" is not a rational reason, nor is "tradition" or "it's against my religion.")

Interracial SEX has always existed. Interracial legally recognized MARRIAGE was barred in many states, and various other states had passed laws that barred interracial marriage for people who came from states that barred interracial marriage. This is the notorious 1917 law that Mitt Romney, practitioner of a faith that historically (until it became inconvenient) rejected the equality of blacks and supported polygmay, invoked to bar same-sex marriage for people not resident of Massachusetts.

The difference between civil marriage and domestic partnership is approximately analogous to the difference between being a spouse and being a concubine.

Is the essential meaning of "marriage" really the "union of husband and wife," whether or not the wife (or the husband, or both) wanted to be united, or is it the "union of two consenting adults who wish to be committed to one another"?

And how does the legal civil marriage of two gay people affect your own personal marriage in any way? (This is not a rhetorical question. I don't recall any straight person ever answering this in any way other than "I don't approve" or "I feel uncomfortable explaining to my children that it is possible for two people to fall in love with one another and want to spend their lives together."

Posted by: edallan | August 5, 2010 9:30 AM

"Marriage is a sacrament. The courts have violated separation of church and state."

No, civil marriage is a civil contract. Religious marriage is a sacrament.

Allowing civil gay marriage is no more a violation of the separation of church and state than allowing interfaith marriage or remarriage post-divorce was.

Banning gay marriage violates separation of church and state, because it means that no matter what religion you are, even if you are a member of one of the religions that cherish and celebrate gay marriages, you must abide by the religious laws of those faiths who view marriage as more about genitals than love, more about breeding than commitment and companionship, more about maintaining strict gender roles than about providing mutual care and support.

By your logic, the fact that it is legal to buy and consume pork violates the separation of church and state, as it forces Jews and Muslims to "accept" and "tolerate" pork-eating.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 9:31 AM

The California Court was a small step forward for equality. The real challenge lies ahead in the conservative robert's Court.

Posted by: m1kem1lls | August 5, 2010 9:33 AM

We are telling the American people that their
vote doesn't count !This sounds like Iran,
a dictatorship.You are giving freedom to some
by taking away the freedom of others? A
sad day in" America"?

Posted by: rpauley2000 | August 5, 2010 9:33 AM

"We are sinking into an immoral abyss and will reap the consequences."

Oh, woe! Oh terrible immorality! People are allowed to form loving, monogamous commitments for life with others who _have the same genitals_! Oh, how will we ever survive intact!

Honestly. Any moral code that judges a marriage not by its level of commitment and devotion, but by the dangly bits the partners have, is not really moral or sensible. Any code that deems it immoral to encourage monogamy and lifelong commitment for some people because they fall in love with members of their own sex is not rational, not moral. Anyone who thinks we're "falling into an immoral abyss," because we treat the encouragement of lifelong love and devotion as a more important priority than the enforcement of mindless "tradition" and strict, confining gender roles, has no idea about what real morality is.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 9:34 AM

Not quite sure where this ends. If mariage is a right granted to any citizen of whatever gender or combination of genders, and therefore cannot be denied to any adult, how do laws in opposition to polygamy and incest stand?

If the argument against polygamy is that it can result in spousal abuse, so too can marriages between a man and a woman. If the argument against incest is that the offspring of such relationships can be born with serious birth defects, so too can the relationship between a man and a woman with no blood relationship.

If the argument is that we restrict polygamy and incest on the basis of the fact that they might have a higher statistical probability of producing negative outcomes such as spousal abuse or handicapped children, respectively, are we then to restrict all marriages on the basis of their statistical probability of success? If so, how does that square with the constitutional right to wed?

Do we really want to go down this trail? Has anybody really thought these questions through, or is the society so caught up in its abstract notions of equality and its romanticism over love that we have opted not to think through the implications of our own logic.

Hard cases make bad law - and vice versa.

Posted by: ffrey63 | August 5, 2010 9:34 AM

The public has spoken, no same sex marriages. The courts have overturned this law and the courts should not make the laws, only enforce them. In Colorado, several years ago, a issue came up in the election about gays. The libs thought they had it won but the vote turned against them. They immediately went to the courts and you know the rest of the story, it was overturned. If the libs don't like the outcome of a vote, they go to the lib courts and get it overturned. So much for the voice of the people, rather the courts legislating the laws. We should have civil unions and not marriage between same sexes. But no, they want to push the issue not because they want the same rights as the married couple (man and woman), because they want to be recognized as an agitator.

Posted by: dy19spider57 | August 5, 2010 9:36 AM

It was a sad and morally indefensible law, and I was ashamed that an allegedly enlighten state's voters would actually vote to deny a segment of Americans one of their most basic rights. However, I not sure of the basis for the ruling under the US Constitution. They never passed the Equal Rights Amendment, and as far as I know no federal court has extended Constitutional rights to this issue. Perhaps they should but there is no way the Highly politicized US Supreme Court is going to uphold this decision.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | August 5, 2010 9:37 AM

I'm so surprised by how many people don't understand the way our government works! That they are "very troubled" that a judge can declare something unconstitutional against the will of the majority. To further the point, don't these people remember learning, at the very least, about Rosa Parks? Remember? That nice lady who said she wasn't going to sit in the back of the bus anymore even though all the mean white people thought she should? Judges stay out of lawmaking processes unless a case is brought before them. I.e., the Supreme Court can't say, "oooo! Let's do a trial about gun rights!" No, a trial has to come to them. This specific case was handled within the normal and legal workings of our government. The opinion of the majority has not been "highjacked." This is what checks and balances are all about -- the Founding Fathers planned it this way: If the majority is creating a situation that is untenable, that violates the rights of a minority, our judicial system can be utilized to correct the bias. Homosexuals are one of the last groups to have their rights publicly voted upon, and still we have not learned: Rights are not granted by the majority. Rights are inherent in our existence. I am, therefore I can. People who hate gays, who find them to be religiously immoral, are protected under the constitution to express these views. Imagine the tables turned: Gay rights have been in place since the beginning of time, and any opinion against that is silenced, punished, and condemned. It is an equally illegitimate situation, and neither extremes are acceptable. I'm gonna get me a big ole lesbo wedding, and you can sit at home and complain about it. And THAT'S the American Way!

Posted by: ScoutOut | August 5, 2010 9:39 AM

"We are telling the American people that their
vote doesn't count !"

We are telling the American people that they have no right to vote away others' civil rights, yes. That is true.

As I have no right to vote on your choice of consenting adult spouse, profession, state of residence, college, religion, place of worship, on how many children you have or what you teach them or how you raise them (unless abuse is involved), etc.

"This sounds like Iran,
a dictatorship."

Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, let alone gay marriage. You would be perfectly free in Iran to veto another person's gay marriage.

"You are giving freedom to some
by taking away the freedom of others?"

Isn't that what you're doing? Claiming for yourself the freedom to make personal decisions for others by taking away their freedom to make their personal decisions for themselves?

Why is your freedom to tell others what to do more important than their freedom to live as they please?

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 9:39 AM

I have a question, if you support the Gay Marriage Ban based on Religious Principles, I suppose you are completely fine with the attempted attempts to impose Sharia Law in the USA based on the religious principles of 1.5 billion Muslims, 4-10 million of which are Americans? How about Old Testament law, which makes Sharia law look enlightened.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | August 5, 2010 9:44 AM

We are telling the American people that their
vote doesn't count !This sounds like Iran,
a dictatorship.You are giving freedom to some
by taking away the freedom of others? A
sad day in" America"?
Posted by: rpauley2000
______________
The role of the courts in not to follow public opinion, but define law. Slavery was "legal" by majority, not giving women the right to vote for 40 years after the suffridge movement began was "legal" by majority, seperate but equal was "legal" by majority. Do you thinking Loving V Virgina would have been decided outside or the courts? The constitution and are better instincts as human should always trump mob rule. To allow basic right to marry another consenting adult, pay taxes as a couple, raise chldren in a loving home and share your estate with a family = That is a GREAT day in America.

Posted by: cadam72 | August 5, 2010 9:45 AM

Is marriage a civil right, or a social definition? That is really the main question. If it is the latter, society in CA defined it as a union between a man and a woman. If it is the former, then the definition of marriage could be broadened to a point that is no longer recognizable. The ramifications of changing something so basic go far beyond religion. Thoughtful discussion, and differing opinions, do not signify hatred, but a concern over the effects of changing society as we have always known and defined it.

Posted by: jillf73 | August 5, 2010 9:45 AM

"Other than that, marriage varies pretty widely around the globe."

And yet a survey of the earth's seven billion inhabitants would show all but universal support for the proposition that marriage means husband and wife.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 9:47 AM

Whether you agree or disagree with the Judge's ruling - I wholeheartily agree - this has to be the dumbest line I've seen in awhile: "Or did he overstep his court's bounds by overruling the existing ban?" How could the Judge have overstepped his bounds by making a ruling? Making rulings invovling cases is by definition what a judge and a court does. Has Americans grown so stupid that they don't understand that making decisions based on law and precedence is what a judge does. ALl this silly blather about strict Constitutionalism is just that. Our Constitution is an open framework. If it wasn't then the courts would have to strike down every driving law and/or law governing the internet - after all the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution never had in mind cars or computers because they didn't exist at the time.

Posted by: dre7861 | August 5, 2010 9:48 AM

Amazing! Here in the posts of others, I have read various ideas of what the country was founded on, read that the judge is gay and many other interesting untruths or facts that don't matter. Bottom line is folks that once the state took unto itself, that act of marrying citizens that act had to be applied to all citizens EQUALLY. Gay and lesbians are citizens, though those opposed to them want to go back to treating them as criminals. The Bible has proscriptions in the old testament against same sex behavior but it also has many other tings in it that we don't follow, such as Jewish dietary proscriptions. The United States cannot run its affairs based on the old testament of one religion, in a nation where all religions are declared constitutionally protected. We need to stop the religiously inspired nuttiness and confine it to the churches and synagogues and Mosques that it belongs to.

BTW, there were many things the nation was founded on and a vast land grab was one of them but we don't ever talk about that and the fact that many of the so-called founding fathers were heavy investors in lands west of the Alleghenies, that were still occupied by native Americans at the time of the revolution. The British government was trying to prevent settlement west of the mountains. You can't sell land to people if they can't legally live there. After the revolution, this was no longer an issue. Oh those founding fathers!!!! How about some supreme court decisions based on this form of original intent. Read your history, it is all there for you to see, warts and all assuming that you want to and that you don't just want to make up what suits you as many poster here are doing, once again for political reasons.

Posted by: robertmerry | August 5, 2010 9:52 AM

"Is marriage a civil right, or a social definition? That is really the main question."

And it was answered by Loving vs. VA, which overturned VA's "social definition" of marriage to exclude interracial marriage.

"If it is the former, then the definition of marriage could be broadened to a point that is no longer recognizable."

Could be, but doesn't have to be. How does allowing gay people to enter into the same legal contract, with the same clearly recognizable rights and responsibilities, make marriage "no longer recognizable," or require us to change anything else we have a rational reason not to change?

"Thoughtful discussion, and differing opinions, do not signify hatred, but a concern over the effects of changing society as we have always known and defined it. "

You've already missed that boat. The big change to marriage - of which gay marriage is only a symptom - has already happened. The traditional form of marriage, as an economic and breeding arrangement made by the families involved, in which one party was owned by the other party just as property is owned, has been replaced by a love-based egalitarian contract entered into by the couple involved, of their own free choice. That was a million times bigger change to marriage, and to society, than gay marriage. Personally, I'm glad of it. But it's already happened, and legal gay marriage is just the tip of that iceberg.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 9:53 AM

We are ALL AMERICANS! In the United States of American Constitution, its citizens have the right of the pursuit of happiness. This isn't a moral dilemma. It's about two people who care deeply for each other and want to express that emotion thru marriage. What does that have to do with anyone else? Let people live their lives as they see fit UNDER USA LAWS! Not religious text.

Posted by: roscoemann71 | August 5, 2010 9:54 AM

Throughout history many innocent people have been slaughtered when government and religion are joined as one. The christian extremists in this county who wish to take away the rights of others are no different than the extremists in control of Iran, Yemen, etc.

The United States of America was based upon religious freedom as well as the freedom from religion among other freedoms.

The government MUST get out of the marriage business all together and let the religions rule this. If We the People want government to control our civil unions instead of a church, then the government should issue civil partnership contracts. If you really like to be controlled by others, you can get both.

Posted by: skramsv | August 5, 2010 9:58 AM

"If mariage is a right granted to any citizen of whatever gender or combination of genders, and therefore cannot be denied to any adult,"

Does not follow. Marriage may be denied to any adult deemed legally incompetent to enter into a legal contract.

"how do laws in opposition to polygamy and incest stand?"

If they stand only on "tradition", as you seem to imply, and there is no rational reason for the bans, then they will fall. If there are rational reasons to ban polygamy and incestuous marriage, they will stand. I'm not afraid of either alternative. But allowing gay marriage has no effect whatsoever on whether or not there are rational reasons to ban polygamy and incestuous marriage - UNLESS the only reason we ban those is because "tradition" says so, and that's not a good enough reason for the law.

Besides, barring polygamy does not bar anyone from having a marriage with someone they can love. It just means "one to a customer at a time", which is a different sort of statement than "you get one, but you can't."

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 9:58 AM

GAY BEHAVIOR IS A DISEASE just like pornography or pedophilia. It should be cured and not to be spread around.

Soon these sick idiots will legalize marriage with dogs.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 10:00 AM

POSTED BY: BERG1928 Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself.

So, heterosexual judges should also recuse themselves?

Posted by: jgisler | August 5, 2010 10:00 AM

You can't repeal the most basic facts of life — not even if you wear a fancy black robe and chant magic incantations.
Posted by: thebump
____________
You are right! Credible scientists have found that over 50 mammals and birds have some small homosexual population and the study was in the journal NATURE.So if God created the % in other species with no harm to them is seeems like you can't repeal the facts of life.

Posted by: cadam72 | August 5, 2010 10:01 AM

Cadam72,

The same scientists said that you came from chimps.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 10:05 AM

Whether you agree or don't agree, Prop 8 was put to the people of California for vote. The majority of the voters voted against gay marriage. Why is this still an issue? It wasn't a court ruling that passed Prop 8, it was the people.

Posted by: dcamjones | August 5, 2010 10:08 AM

"And yet a survey of the earth's seven billion inhabitants would show all but universal support for the proposition that marriage means husband and wife."

No, it wouldn't. Really, it wouldn't.

Some cultures would argue for polygamy, some for polyandry, at least one I know of (the Nayar of India) for both. Plenty have room for same-sex marriage (many traditional cultures do, as well as many more modern nations who are legalizing it right and left). Many would argue that marriage must include either or both families as well, not just the individual couple. Some argue that marriage means husband and wife and kids, and that any marriage that does not produce kids should be annulled after a period of time. Some say that marriage is a trivial matter concerning only a temporary liaison with whomever you choose to have a sexual relationship with at any given time, and that the real important relationship is between mother, her children, and her clan, especially her brothers (who are to her children what fathers are in our culture).

And the idea that nothing should change in any human culture unless the majority of people everywhere want it to is just ridiculous. Otherwise, England should never have been allowed to ban slavery, since the world as a whole defined slavery as "clearly acceptable" at the time.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 10:08 AM

"The same scientists said that you came from chimps."

No, that we and chimps share a common ancestor. And if we don't, how do you explain the fact that we share a great deal of DNA, along with morphological and behavioral characteristics, with chimps, more than with any other living creature?

Oh, right. You can't possibly believe it, because you can't accept your descent from a creature more intelligent and sociable than yourself. Understandable.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 10:10 AM

"The majority of the voters voted against gay marriage. Why is this still an issue? It wasn't a court ruling that passed Prop 8, it was the people."

The majority of Virginians voted against interracial marriage before Loving vs. VA overturned it.

"The people" do not have the right to vote away fellow citizens' civil rights, even if those citizens are a minority.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 10:11 AM

I think gay people should have the right to marry and be miserable just like the rest of us.

Posted by: jp1943 | August 5, 2010 10:16 AM

The problem with this "common ancestor" theory is that they don't know from what ancestor it came from.

Probably from cat and chicken as in catken.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 10:16 AM

'And it was answered by Loving vs. VA, which overturned VA's "social definition" of marriage to exclude interracial marriage.'

Absolute nonsense. Loving did not redefine marriage. The essential, universal and eternal meaning of marriage as the union of husband and wife was never at issue.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 10:17 AM

"This was a much better place before all of you people showed up."
Posted by: muawiyah | August 4, 2010 7:48 PM

Don't know about you, but I was born here. Born, by the way, of a married man and woman, both citizens.

Posted by: Davidd1 | August 5, 2010 10:19 AM

I support the decision. However, gay people need a victory at the polls as well as in the court room.

Posted by: ffoulks | August 5, 2010 10:19 AM

It is not up to voters to decide whether a minority population of U.S. citizens have equal rights such as marriage. In 1957 do you think any U.S. state would have voted to allow black people to marry whites? The civil rights of gays and lesbians are not up for a vote.

As for the church, it is amazing how much money that the Mormons spent to pass Prop. 8 and the Catholic church spent to kill gay marriage in Maine and elsewhere. How about helping the poor and needy around the country and the world? I always ask those opposed to gay rights..how does this impact you? Mind your own business and stop hating!

Posted by: EricinMD | August 5, 2010 10:25 AM

ORDER AND DISORDER.

Two screwdrivers are not meant for each other. The right pair is a screw and a screwdriver.

That is what we call ORDER.

If the mind is sick, a screwdriver is partnered with another screwdriver.

That is what we call DISORDER.

Why can't gays accept that they are SICK AND NEED TO BE CURED?

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 10:26 AM

To Skeptic11: because we don't know if your dog wants to marry YOU. If your dog does want to marry you, I see no problem with it.

Posted by: shooter1 | August 5, 2010 10:29 AM

...
God made marriage to be a life long joining of a man and a woman with the intent to procreate and bring forth godly offspring.

Posted by: homeinhawaii | August 4, 2010 7:07 PM
------------------------

And therefore all barren couples should be barred from marriage!

Posted by: jiben2 | August 5, 2010 10:29 AM

OK, our country was founded on 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for land-owning white males. 1/3 of the country was slaves; our founding fathers would have been appalled at the thought of them being freed, citizens, having the vote, or being able to marry into the white race. As for women, no vote, few rights, etc. To say that this ruling or this law is 'not what the founding fathers meant' just isn't relevant. The question is what is right and just, and getting rid of Prop 8 and allowing people of majority age to marry each other is right and just. One other thing. I would dare say that in many sections of this country, if a referendum was put to the people to approve of interracial marriages, it would be rejected. Certainly it would have been rejected in all of the Old South at the time, and I'm not sure how much mores have changed. Our democracy is rule by the majority, but with the protection of the minority. That's why we have the three branches of government, to try to balance all of this.

Posted by: owenaja | August 5, 2010 10:36 AM

If it's now legal in California for same-sex marriages, then it must also be legal in California for human-animal "marriage". I suppose many will want to "marry" their dogs or other animals ...

Natural Law DICTATES that only opposite sexes can marry. That's why there are *two* different sexes in the first place!

Posted by: Truth-Be-Told | August 5, 2010 10:37 AM

It's a bigoted and ridiculous law that should have never made it out of the sewer where it was born. Props to the judge.
Posted by: alarico | August 4, 2010 6:55 PM
///////////////////////////////////////

Yes, the ban on gay marriage is "bigoted and ridiculous", but it is also constitutional and should have been upheld. States do have the right to affirm or disaffirm gay marriages.

A better solution would simply be to marry in a state allowing the generation of such marriages, then assume the "full faith and credit clause" that would make all other states recognize your marriage.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | August 5, 2010 10:37 AM

We are telling the American people that their
vote doesn't count !This sounds like Iran,
a dictatorship.You are giving freedom to some
by taking away the freedom of others? A
sad day in" America"?

Posted by: rpauley2000 |


Nobody in America has much interest in protecting your right to be a bigoted twatwaffle at the expense of the rights of others. Find another argument or explain what "freedom" it is you're losing.

Posted by: washpost18 | August 5, 2010 10:44 AM

I believe that everyone has a choice of what they want to do with their lives. I am a christian, and although I do not personally agree with homosexual marriages I am not homophobic and nor do I wish to force my religious views on anyone else. God gives us (christians) a choice in everything we do, so who am I to tell anyone they can't marry the person they love and want to be with? It is not up to me or anyone else to say someone is "sick and needs to be cured". Hate is a common sickness in our communities that needs to be cured. Accept others for who they are, and if you don't agree with what lifestyle they choose that's fine; because most likely there are things about you they could say need to be changed.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 10:47 AM

So where does it end? Will churches/synagouges/mosques who have established that homosexuality is outside of their belief and tenet be made to perform marriages and sacrament that they find blasphemous? Why do I feel like that is the next war to be waged?

Further, will this end the use of the example that blacks and gays are equal in their pursuit of civil rights? I find it particularly offensive to those who have never been mistaken for being anything other than black, who have never had a closet to hide in or be hidden away, those who could never, ever pass due to an unchangable condition of their skin color and genetic heritage because to be black it to truly have been born that way with no negotiable external identifiers that can be changed, and whose blackness was not a personal characteristic made public but rather a public identifier that could not ever be kept secret or personal?

I implore the lobby and the community to find another argument, only because this particular one doesn't pass the litmus test. If my mom is gay, it doesn't necessarily mean that I will be gay, but if my mom is black, or hispanic, or asian, or whatever, it is most certain that I will share her heritage...this argument is offensive and has been exploited...no problem with the end result, HUGE BEEF with the argument.

Posted by: interfaithkid79 | August 5, 2010 10:55 AM

RealTexan1:
A better solution would simply be to marry in a state allowing the generation of such marriages, then assume the "full faith and credit clause" that would make all other states recognize your marriage.

-----------------------------

Yes, but Congress and President Clinton passed DOMA, which nullifies the full faith clause. DOMA needs to go!

Posted by: jake14 | August 5, 2010 10:57 AM

So where does it end? Will churches/synagouges/mosques who have established that homosexuality is outside of their belief and tenet be made to perform marriages and sacrament that they find blasphemous? Why do I feel like that is the next war to be waged?

--------

I agree with you here, if ministers or priests find it offensive (which many do) I do not think it is any way fair for them to be forced to marry a same-sex couple. There are alot of churches that do offer that, but to make it mandatory for all is ridiculous. They would be taking it from one extreme to the other.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 11:00 AM

I am for gay marriage as a new idea, but trying to apply the Constitution to it is disingenuous. The Constitution provides equal rights to individuals, not relationship types. For example, I have a child, a brother, a neighbor, etc. Each one of these is a relationship type. You have to suspend logic to say "Marriage is a right that everyone should have including gays". Gays have all kinds of rights, but marrying to each other is an entirely new type of relationship. Unfortunately, we do not have legal tools to recognized new relationship types, therefore we have lie and attach it to old categories in order to make it legal!

Posted by: Max4 | August 5, 2010 11:05 AM

I just love all the self-described Christians who spew hatred against people who just want to marry each other.

Get a life.

Posted by: Student_Of_Irony | August 5, 2010 11:09 AM

An activist ruling by an activist judge. The "in-your-face" gays would be well served to restrain themselves from rushing into sham marriages, as this is only the beginning of the battle.

Posted by: blushark1 | August 5, 2010 11:10 AM

I just love all the self-described Christians who spew hatred against people who just want to marry each other.
Get a life.

----

I haven't seen one self proclaimed Christian on here spew any hatred. That's in your head.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 11:13 AM

Why can't gays just accept that they are SICK in the mind?

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 11:16 AM

This decision calls this California constitutional amendment what it is--an assault on equal protection--and it does so on the finding of fact. Bravo!

U.S. history is rife with instances of the courts stepping in to protect minority rights from the majority (e.g. Brown vs Board of Education) and, let's not forget, they have also stepped in to reinforce majority-approved denial of those protections (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson).

Minority rights are rarely supported by majority rule. This one of the reasons Article Three of the United States Constitution exists and is one of the keys to why our constitution has worked so well for so long. And the federal courts are the only place that can judge whether state and federal laws are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. Yet when a ruling goes against a particular group, members of that group often proclaim the decision as some sort of tyranny.

I hope this case is re-enforced in the circuit and Supreme courts. It will end one of many remaining injustices against minorities in this country.

Posted by: halfsquatch | August 5, 2010 11:20 AM

I am not gay. I've never been gay. I love my wife. And I do not have a wide stance.

My wife makes a good point: why is it that the folks who profess to want to "defend marriage" are concentrating on Gay marriage instead of trying to ban divorce? There are a heck of a lot more marriages destroyed by divorce than will ever be affected by Gay marriages.

Posted by: PrattleinSeattle | August 5, 2010 11:24 AM

A poll is a poll and you can find one to support or deny every point of view but, no pun, over 87% of ALL Americans are against gay marriage. So how is it that an overwhelming minority are set on destroying marriage? I know full well that not all hetero marriages work, but, again no pun, this is using to the law to go after rights that are not in the stated interests of the nation. I guess this shows what can happen if you are dateless in high school! Some change huh!

Posted by: KBlit | August 5, 2010 11:26 AM

To DIAMCOLEMAN, what about the rest of it? Tell me your thoughts on the below:

Further, will this end the use of the example that blacks and gays are equal in their pursuit of civil rights? I find it particularly offensive to those who have never been mistaken for being anything other than black, who have never had a closet to hide in or be hidden away, those who could never, ever pass due to an unchangable condition of their skin color and genetic heritage because to be black is to truly have been born that way with no negotiable external identifiers that can be changed, and whose blackness was not a personal characteristic made public but rather a public identifier that could not ever be kept secret or personal?

I implore the lobby and the community to find another argument, only because this particular one doesn't pass the litmus test. If my mom is gay, it doesn't necessarily mean that I will be gay, but if my mom is black, or hispanic, or asian, or whatever, it is most certain that I will share her heritage...this argument is offensive and has been exploited...no problem with the end result, HUGE BEEF with the argument.

Posted by: interfaithkid79 | August 5, 2010 11:26 AM

I'm married, and I do not feel that a Gay marriage is a threat to my marriage. The only threat I'm facing is the who.. my husband is seeing.

Posted by: LyndaLBD | August 5, 2010 11:27 AM

This is not about minority rights. It's about a contagious DISEASE or a behavioral DISORDER in which sick people want to legalize.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 11:28 AM

Prop 8 should have been upheld - if we can vote to circumvent the equal protection clause - think of the possibilities. We could vote to make guns illegal - how cool would that be? We could vote to allow slavery - hurrah. We could vote to outlaw people from stapling teabags to their hats - wonderful. Just think .......

Posted by: rspecht52 | August 5, 2010 11:29 AM

Marriage is for the sake of the children, giving them a proper patriarchial name. So why not allow gays to have civil unions that will allow them partner benefits? They are fighting for those benefits.

Posted by: LyndaLBD | August 5, 2010 11:31 AM

The Founding Fathers did their thinking in an age when blacks were not considered to be human beings, and women were the chattel of men and could neither own property nor vote. They lived in an age in which many people still believed in witches, the moon was thought to be made of green cheese, the trip from Boston to Philadelphia could take 10 days, and California, where yesterday's ruling was handed down, was largely controlled by Spain. And we should care what the Founding Fathers would say about marriage between gays why?

Posted by: bdcolen1 | August 5, 2010 11:32 AM

"at the rate that gay men enter and leave their relationships, California can have a huge surplus in the General Fund in ten years; if the state charges $100.00 for each divorce."

No more so than straight men. In fact, most of the gay men that I know have been in committed relationships for about as long as I've been married (and that's since 1994)

Posted by: Athena4 | August 5, 2010 11:32 AM

By the way, speaking of the individual in fighting against divorce, what do I do about a cheating husband who won't stop???

Posted by: LyndaLBD | August 5, 2010 11:33 AM

Definitiondefinitiondefinition!

The meaning of words changes; look at the 22-volume Oxford English Dictionary which is based "on historical principles." Anyone who has tried to read Shakespeare without a gloss recognizes this, so much the more for Chaucer. Two of the greatest English minds, Jonathan Swift and Samuel Johnson, tried to fix the English language. Johnson, in the preface to his great Dictionary, wrote: "Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design, require that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition. With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify. . . . [So] may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language. . . ."

Thus, what we witness in this generation is the evolution and alteration of the significance of the word "marriage," taken out of the hands of the "embalmers."

Amen to that.

Posted by: mini2 | August 5, 2010 11:36 AM

Prop 8 was approved by 52 percent of voters in November 2008, overturning a state Supreme Court ruling six months earlier that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians. The voters will be heard again in November.

Posted by: blhfish | August 5, 2010 11:38 AM

Genesis 2:22-24
22And the rib or part of his side which the Lord God had taken from the man He built up and made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23Then Adam said, This [creature] is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of a man.
24Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Hebrews 13:4
4Let marriage be held in honor (esteemed worthy, precious, of great price, and especially dear) in all things. And thus let the marriage bed be undefiled (kept undishonored); for God will judge and punish the unchaste [all guilty of sexual vice] and adulterous.

God’s simplicity view of the law.

Posted by: wvskin | August 5, 2010 11:39 AM

TO interfaithkid79:

I often find it annoying that people compare blacks and civil rights to gays fighting for their right to marry. I don't understand how you could begin to compare the two! Blacks have been fighting for equal rights for a very long times and the persecution we faced was far greater than anything I have seen or read about gays. I did not choose the color of my skin and many say that 'i did not choose my sexual orientation' but honestly, you were not born gay as I was born black. I agree that the community find a new argument, this topic will only lead to more seperation.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 11:41 AM

wvskin | August 5, 2010 11:39 AM - sorry pal - your imaginary god only makes laws for people who do not think for themselves

Posted by: rspecht52 | August 5, 2010 11:43 AM

- sorry pal - your imaginary god only makes laws for people who do not think for themselves

----

So does the government make laws for people who does not think for themselves?
Idiotic statement.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 11:45 AM

Look at the bright side. If this judge's ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, at the rate that gay men enter and leave their relationships, California can have a huge surplus in the General Fund in ten years; if the state charges $100.00 for each divorce.
_________________________________________________

Then Gay men would be on the same par as straight men with there many, many divorces that they have, with in the first 10 years of marriage.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 11:45 AM

This poll proves how Left Wing and out of the mainstream that the WAPO and its readers are.... Gays have no right to the privileges of marriage - period. Next thing you know, we'll be giving marriage rights to co-habitants and blood relatives. This ruling is an outrage and Obama is exactly right to be against Gay marriage - it's the one thing he got right.

Posted by: Capitalismworks | August 5, 2010 11:49 AM

God made marriage to be a life long joining of a man and a woman with the intent to procreate and bring forth godly offspring.

Posted by: homeinhawaii | August 4, 2010 7:07 PM

Really? I'm a woman who married--then divorced--a man. Neither of us are religious and we had ZERO intent to have children, godly or otherwise. Nobody ever asked us about our religious beliefs nor how we felt about birthin' babies. They just took our money & signed on the dotted line.

The divorce was all about who had the rights to what property. We were not chastised for failure to procreate nor did anyone ask if we prayed for forgiveness to any deity, real or imagined. The court took their fees and signed the paperwork. Period.

The "godly" argument doesn't hold water.

Posted by: NoVA_Cheesehead | August 5, 2010 11:50 AM

I can't believe what I'm reading.

Scripture ?

Let's have a little time out, on that one, because the LAST time I checked, the LAWS of the United States Of America are based on a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, and not the very old, very questionable, very re-interpretable BIBLE?

It is ludicrous, yeah, ludicrous that ANY of the bible be used to defend a secular issue, or to denigrate a secular issue.

Grow up, look around.

You're as bad as the Taliban, with all your "additional" laws that only exist in that other document, the bible.

Until the Bible is adopted as the law of the land, which it clearly isn't, people opposed to the decision yesterday have NO traction in legal terms when citing a 2000 year old document that ISN'T EVEN RELEVANT.

How long will it take for you to realize this country is not Afghanistan, where religious extremism and dogmatic insistence to the point of dictating biblical LAW - implied or explicit - has taken hold - and what's more the USA is fighting against the SAME kind of duplicitous B.S. that the religious right is attempting with this issue?

Get a GRIP, people; this is NOT ROME, or some sort of sacred state, no matter how much you think it is.

Posted by: pgibson1 | August 5, 2010 11:51 AM

Steve and Mike want to get married. They argue that it's none of anybody's business if they get married. They then insist "the people" - in the form of the state - issue them a marriage license and grant them the benefits of marriage. Because it's none of the people's business. Either it's the people's business - in which case Prop 8 is not only legal, but ethical and moral - or it's not the people's business, and Mike and Steve have no business demanding a "right" to marry. Or you could have the situation we now have. Hypocrisy.

Posted by: huguenotklj | August 5, 2010 11:53 AM

Blacks have been fighting for equal rights for a very long times and the persecution we faced was far greater than anything I have seen or read about gays.

From my reading, no one is arguing that gays have suffered just as much as blacks from persecution. The issue here is that a minority is a minority regardless of how it is constituted, and the principle in this case is protection of the rights of people who belong to a minority. I know blacks who are strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. I find it said that they don't seem to recognize that the civil rights battles were over principles that apply to all minorities, including gays.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 5, 2010 11:57 AM

"but honestly, you were not born gay as I was born black."

Wrong. I was born gay EXACTLY as you were born black.

Posted by: markiejoe | August 5, 2010 11:57 AM

We were not chastised for failure to procreate nor did anyone ask if we prayed for forgiveness to any deity, real or imagined. The court took their fees and signed the paperwork. Period.
The "godly" argument doesn't hold water.
----

Of course you would say that here on earth. But if you paid attention to scripture (which you most likely should if you insist on making these kind of statements) you would know that your judgment will be in heaven after the rapture.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:00 PM

The public has spoken, no same sex marriages. The courts have overturned this law and the courts should not make the laws, only enforce them. In Colorado, several years ago, a issue came up in the election about gays. The libs thought they had it won but the vote turned against them. They immediately went to the courts and you know the rest of the story, it was overturned. If the libs don't like the outcome of a vote, they go to the lib courts and get it overturned. So much for the voice of the people, rather the courts legislating the laws. We should have civil unions and not marriage between same sexes. But no, they want to push the issue not because they want the same rights as the married couple (man and woman), because they want to be recognized as an agitator.
_________________________________________________

Sorry but the rights afforded to all Americans, by our Constitution, are not debatable. By your logic I could accuse you of the same thing. You don't care about my rights, you just want to be recognized as an agitator.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 12:00 PM

Our nation is build on the basic tenent that marriage is between a man and a woman. ....

Posted by: homeinhawaii
=================
DUDE which country?

ISA

Posted by: vettessman | August 5, 2010 12:02 PM

Of course you would say that here on earth. But if you paid attention to scripture (which you most likely should if you insist on making these kind of statements) you would know that your judgment will be in heaven after the rapture.
______________________________________________ Huh? No where in the Bible does it talk about "THE" rapture. What Bible are you talking about?

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 12:03 PM

Wrong. I was born gay EXACTLY as you were born black.

-----


I seriously find a hard time believing that. I think being gay is a choice but that's my personal opinion, so hey I could be mistaken. All I know is, if you are a child of a gay mother you won't necessarily be gay, but if you are the child of a black woman- you will always be black.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:03 PM

Thanks! I believe that this argument is one of the many reasons that the black community in california supported Prop 8 with such zeal, not because they don't necessarily like gay people or are ridiculously homophobic, but that the main tenet of the civil rights argument is offensive to the majority of that minority group. Its very insensitive to say the least, and as a historian and behaviorist...it just doesn't stand up, it's way more divisive than unifying on this particular issue.

Posted by: interfaithkid79 | August 5, 2010 12:05 PM

Huh? No where in the Bible does it talk about "THE" rapture. What Bible are you talking about?

----

The rapture is in the book of revelations where Jesus returns and all christians and those who sleep (the dead) will be caught up in the sky. smh oh my goodness, please tell me you are not a christian.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:06 PM

Gaya are often abused at a very young age. Oftentimes, they can't remember this episode in their lives.

It's a contagious DISEASE passed on early in their lives.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 12:08 PM

TO interfaithkid79:

I often find it annoying that people compare blacks and civil rights to gays fighting for their right to marry. I don't understand how you could begin to compare the two! Blacks have been fighting for equal rights for a very long times and the persecution we faced was far greater than anything I have seen or read about gays. I did not choose the color of my skin and many say that 'i did not choose my sexual orientation' but honestly, you were not born gay as I was born black. I agree that the community find a new argument, this topic will only lead to more seperation.
________________________________________________
Sexual orientation has never been a choice. Yes I was born gay just as much as you were born black. We have been fighting for our rights as long as Gays and Lesbians have been on this earth, and I have got to tell you, we have been here since the beginning of time.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 12:08 PM

Gaya are often abused at a very young age. Oftentimes, they can't remember this episode in their lives.
It's a contagious DISEASE passed on early in their lives.


----

That is the most ignorant thing I have ever read.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:08 PM

Regardless of whether or not one supports Proposition 8, something is seriously wrong when one federal judge can arbitrarily disenfranchise voters who expressed their will in a statewide referendum. Federal judges are to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.

It's time to remind the federal judiciary that the United States is a democratic republic, not a judicial oligarchy.

Posted by: austinrl | August 5, 2010 12:09 PM

Sexual orientation has never been a choice. Yes I was born gay just as much as you were born black. We have been fighting for our rights as long as Gays and Lesbians have been on this earth, and I have got to tell you, we have been here since the beginning of time.

----

If you say so.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:09 PM

Gays are often abused at a very young age. Oftentimes, they can't remember this episode in their lives.

It's a contagious DISEASE passed on early in their lives.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 12:10 PM

Our nation is built on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as well as equal protection under the law.
Enough said.
Posted by: pam8
==========================================

Equal protection of what exactly, sexual abnormality? Is that the protections our constitution was written to protect? Really?

I am sorry, but this just opens to door for any other person who has abnormal behavior to fight for protections (i.e beatiality). Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, it is caused by a dysfunction in the brain.

This is a scary day for our country when we start writting laws allowing individuals with mental dysfunctions protections. Soon we will have all sort of groups parading around the country screaming for their rights and protections. Certains laws are put in place to protect against the abnormalities. The moment we forget this, or ignore it, our society will speed toward its own demise!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 5, 2010 12:10 PM

"Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself."

POSTED BY: BERG1928

That is irrelevant and a descent into base tribalism. Using your logic, white judges would have recuse themselves every time there was a civil rights case alleging discrimination by/against whites.

Further, one of the arguments made by Prop 8 supporters is that same-sex marriage affects heterosexual relationships. So, wouldn't a heterosexual judge also have to recuse him/herself? Clearly then, we need emotionally and biologically asexual judges to properly decide this issue...

Posted by: smpierre | August 5, 2010 12:11 PM

don't care what the issue is...what bothers me most here is the people of California followed the law, collected signatures, put the issue on a ballot and had a vote BY THE PEOPLE and passed a law. The fact that a judge can overturn this based on the issue (Same sex marriage) and not the procedure (not having enough signatures, false signatures, not following procedure, etc.)is very troublesome. Personally, I don't care whether same sex couples want to marry or which states allow it - but I do care that a state law enacted by the people in an open forum can be overturned by an activist judge....we should all be worried...
Posted by: IrvFleckman | August 4, 2010 10:30 PM
----------------
So IrvFleckman I have a question.

If I and a group of my friends here in DC collected enough signatures to create a ballot initiative that said white people can not go out after sunset and that initiative passed. Would have a problem with a judge ruling on issue (white people having a sunset curfew) and finding it unconstitutional?

Following the logic of your post, as long as my friends and I followed all of the proper procedures, the courts would be powerless to address even the most blatant unfairness in the law, because we the people approved it.

Come on man. Really???

Posted by: blakgayman | August 5, 2010 12:12 PM

By your logic, if it were a choice to being Gay and Lesbian, then when did you make you choice to be straight?

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 12:13 PM

"This is a scary day for our country when we start writting laws allowing individuals with mental dysfunctions protections. Soon we will have all sort of groups parading around the country screaming for their rights and protections. Certains laws are put in place to protect against the abnormalities. The moment we forget this, or ignore it, our society will speed toward its own demise!"

POSTED BY: SANMATEO1850

Wow, it's pretty apparent you've never actually met a gay person in your life and are basing your opinions on caricatures you see on TV or hear from the radio or pulpit.

Posted by: smpierre | August 5, 2010 12:14 PM

A homosexual judge invalidates 7 million voters to assuage his desires......

Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia.

Homosexuality was rightly classed as a mental illness until a 3 to 2 vote by the governing body of American psychiatry in the early 1970's at a convention where no papers on related topics were presented...a "global warming" bit of political science...

Posted by: georgedixon1 | August 5, 2010 12:14 PM

By your logic, if it were a choice to being Gay and Lesbian, then when did you make you choice to be straight?

----

When I decided I, unlike some of best my friends, am not sexually attracted to girls. End of story.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:15 PM

Sexual orientation has never been a choice. Yes I was born gay just as much as you were born black. We have been fighting for our rights as long as Gays and Lesbians have been on this earth, and I have got to tell you, we have been here since the beginning of time.
----
If you say so.
Posted by: diamcoleman

==========================================

I just think it is funny. A group of people with abnormal brain functionality claiming they have protections under the constitution and are allowed to exercise their right to be abnormal.

We are on a slippery sloap here people. The moment we allow one group of people that have an obvious brain dysfunction the right to act out their desires, we set the precident that other groups should be allowed to act out their's as well. Just imagine all of the other types of people who have abnormal brain function and feel they are acting normally..

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 5, 2010 12:16 PM

All the participants in this discussion are already committed. We gay people should ignore the trolls and start talking about the next step. As someone pointed out, this fight is not over.

Posted by: ffoulks | August 5, 2010 12:16 PM

I just think it is funny. A group of people with abnormal brain functionality claiming they have protections under the constitution and are allowed to exercise their right to be abnormal.
We are on a slippery sloap here people. The moment we allow one group of people that have an obvious brain dysfunction the right to act out their desires, we set the precident that other groups should be allowed to act out their's as well. Just imagine all of the other types of people who have abnormal brain function and feel they are acting normally..
----

I do NOT agree with you whatsoever.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:17 PM

Of course you would say that here on earth. But if you paid attention to scripture (which you most likely should if you insist on making these kind of statements) you would know that your judgment will be in heaven after the rapture.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:00 PM

But I do insist, as is my 1st Amendment right. Any consequence of that is between me and any deity I may or may not encounter upon death. My fate has no bearing on anyone or anything else in this life or any other. Your soul isn't going to lose Afterlife Points and be kept from heaven because of what I said.

Posted by: NoVA_Cheesehead | August 5, 2010 12:17 PM

Gays are often abused at a very young age. Oftentimes, they can't remember this episode in their lives.

It's a contagious DISEASE passed on early in their lives.

Posted by: spidermean2 | August 5, 2010 12:10 PM
___________________________________________
Where is the science to back up what you just wrote. Oh that's right you just pulled it from your back side. When did you decide to be straight?

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 12:17 PM

In the United States, we have separationof Church and State. In my opinion, this founding tenet of our nation is largely responsible for our internal stability as a nation. It is critical to keep religion and state separated.

I support the right of each church, synagogue, mosque, and temple to decide whether or not it wishes to bless same-sex unions. No church should be forced to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

However, it is absolutely wrong for our state governments (or federal government) to limit legal marriage to opposite sex unions. This causes inequal treatment under law.

All the arguments I have heard against marriage rights for same sex couples are either religious, or based in cultural traditions derived from religion. That has NO PLACE in public policy.

All couples, regardless of the genders of the persons involved, should stand equal in the eyes of the law. It is not government's job to legislate on the basis of perceived "sin." Leave that to God.

Legal marriage is the province of government, and should therefore be available to all couples.

Churches should be free to make their own decisions regarding whose unions to sanctify, and should not be forced to marry same sex couples if it violates their tenets.

Keep church and state separate. It is the foundation of our stability as a nation.

Posted by: lilifreak | August 5, 2010 12:17 PM

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that bigots who profess the sanctity of our Constitution prefer to throw it away whenever it goes against their bigotry.

You can't take away the rights of the people by winning a vote on it. That's one of the express reasons we have a Constitution. The rights of the people does not include the right to take away other people's rights. I don't care if you get 90% of America to vote 'yes' to it.

How about, given the growing number of persons who say they're atheist or not affiliated with a religion, they one day get enough people to vote to forbid Christians from holding elected office? If a judge overturned that on Constitutional grounds (as a judge should), would you religious homophobes cry out about activist judges overruling the democratic will of the people?

Think about it. Just for once _try_ to think.

Posted by: hitpoints | August 5, 2010 12:18 PM

Why do we insist on mixing and confusing the civil and religious elements of this? All civil benefits (ie taxes) for two people in a committed relationship should be based on civil unions. Remove reference to marriage & husband & wife from our civil laws. Makr marriage a purely religious or personal belief based situation. Anyone may marry anyone they want, but with no consequences in civil law. Any church can marry womever they want or refuse whomever they want. Those wanting benefits or status of a civil union may enter into such a union under the laws of their state, which, of course, must be constitutional.

Posted by: delawarevoter | August 5, 2010 12:19 PM

But I do insist, as is my 1st Amendment right. Any consequence of that is between me and any deity I may or may not encounter upon death. My fate has no bearing on anyone or anything else in this life or any other. Your soul isn't going to lose Afterlife Points and be kept from heaven because of what I said.
-----
Well that's true.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:20 PM

"I guess I shouldn't be surprised that bigots who profess the sanctity of our Constitution prefer to throw it away whenever it goes against their bigotry."

Undoubtedly, the same people running around screaming about how "teh gays" will destroy everything are also the same ones wanting to "reform" the 14th Amendment to protect America against the existentialist threat of "anchor babies" and to prevent an Islamic community center from being built because it will show Islam's "victory" over America.

It's all BS. If the media wasn't so ridiculously cowardly, they would call out all of these things for what they are: bigotry. But, no, it's impolitic to accuse one half of our political establishment of being bigots, apparently.

Posted by: smpierre | August 5, 2010 12:22 PM

sanmateo1850 wrote: "The moment we allow one group of people that have an obvious brain dysfunction the right to act out their desires, we set the precident that other groups should be allowed to act out their's as well."


Sanmateo would prefer they have to wear pink triangles or get lobotomies. We've seen this before, not going back.

Posted by: hitpoints | August 5, 2010 12:23 PM

"Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself."

Using your "logic," a heterosexual would have to recuse himself as well. Are there any asexual judges out there to decide cases like this?

Posted by: fingersfly | August 5, 2010 12:26 PM

Prop 8 was approved by 52 percent of voters in November 2008, overturning a state Supreme Court ruling six months earlier that extended marital rights to gays and lesbians. The voters will be heard again in November.

Posted by: blhfish | August 5, 2010 12:28 PM

I just think it is funny. A group of people with abnormal brain functionality claiming they have protections under the constitution and are allowed to exercise their right to be abnormal.
We are on a slippery sloap here people. The moment we allow one group of people that have an obvious brain dysfunction the right to act out their desires, we set the precident that other groups should be allowed to act out their's as well. Just imagine all of the other types of people who have abnormal brain function and feel they are acting normally..
----
________________________________________________
Once again Rights are not Debatable! So according to your flawed logic, people with handy caps who are not "Normal" like you, should have no rights... You and Hitler had a lot in common.
Just for your information being Gay or Lesbian, does not mean we have abnormal brains. Yet you are a very good example of the uninformed, who have no bases for there arguments, just superstition and and antiquated ideas to back up your position.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 12:30 PM

HITPOINTS says: Just for once _try_ to think.

Try following your own advice. Your analogy is bogus because [a] the prohibition on religious tests for public office is an explicit unambiguous written provision of the Constitution, whereas the putative "right" in this case is not in the Constitution and has never before been asserted by a federal court; and [b] contrary to this judge's fevered imagination, there is no "right" to make up your own definition of marriage.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 12:40 PM

"Federal judges are to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench."

No matter which side of the argument you fall on, this is clearly "interpreting" what the Equal Protection clause means. Inter-racial marriage prohibitions were accepted years ago, but clearly violate the Equal Protection clause of the constitution.

Posted by: amaikovich | August 5, 2010 12:43 PM

News flash: Federal judge rules that arithmetic discriminates against the innumerate, decrees that 2+2 adds up to whatever the hell you feel like at the moment.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 12:44 PM

This poll proves how Left Wing and out of the mainstream that the WAPO and its readers are....

Posted by: Capitalismworks |

--------------------------------------------------------

*chuckle*

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/

Yes -- Prop. 8 violates the Constitution. 64% (150,400 votes)
No -- Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don't care what the judge thinks about the Constitution. 31% (72,330 votes)
I'm not sure but shouldn't the voters views count for something? 4% (10,267 votes)
Other (leave a comment). 1% (1,496 votes)
Total Votes: 234,493

This poll proves how Left Wing and out of the mainstream that the Faux and its readers are....nope, makes as little sense when I say it as when (the jobless?) Capitalismworks does.

Posted by: washpost18 | August 5, 2010 12:46 PM

churches...should not be forced to marry same sex couples if it violates their tenets.

While I agree, the churches' objection doesn't make sense. A clergy member who officiates at a same-sex wedding isn't required to become gay, and he isn't tainted by performing that function. I might understand the objection if the wedding ceremonies included human sacrifices or something.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 5, 2010 12:48 PM

I'm glad this disscussion is over. Don't we have better things to do?

Posted by: SomorPlz | August 5, 2010 12:48 PM

While I agree, the churches' objection doesn't make sense. A clergy member who officiates at a same-sex wedding isn't required to become gay, and he isn't tainted by performing that function. I might understand the objection if the wedding ceremonies included human sacrifices or something.

----
In scripture, same-sex marriage is seen as an abomination unto the Lord. So marrying a same-sex couple would be against what they preach. It would make them a hypocrite in the eyes of God and the church.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:53 PM

1.Scanning the comments, it seems that most people have a problem with gay marriage based on religious grounds. As a gay Catholic, I understand that. But what I don't understand is why people think it is okay to impose your own -- or anyone else's -- religious views on others. It seems as though we need to teach civics once again. This country was founded on principles of religious freedom, including freedom from religion. (And, as at least some other posters have noted, there's nothing about marriage in the constitution.)


2. I would like those people who oppose gay marriage because it threatens the "institution of marriage" to support a ban on divorce. Period. For no reason. If you're truly concerned about the institution of marriage (and/or the sanctity of marriage), why aren't you protesting the fact that every state and the federal government permit divorce? Isn't that also against God's will? I'm guessing that a lot of posters who oppose gay marriage aren't too interested in protesting divorce because they themselves have violated God's law and taken more than one spouse.

3. I would also think that the posters who are against gay marriage would take offense if the government had told them that they couldn't marry the partner of their choice. For at least some posters, I would think that this would hit at least a little close to home since slaves didn't have the same right to marry as free white people and even after slavery many states prohibited white/black marriages, including 16 states in 1967. Yes, when he was born, the parents of the President of the United States couldn't get married in nearly 1/3 of the states of which he is now President. (And yet he still is not in favor of gay marriage; sigh)

4. Anyway - last comment - seems like way too many people could also use a course in manners and polite conversation (not to mention spelling and grammar) - in that way, this country is, indeed, falling apart.

Cheers to all, and best wishes for the love of God to fill the hearts of all those who hate.

Posted by: jeffdc1 | August 5, 2010 12:56 PM

Ok, thebump, since you cannot see the similarity in the example I gave of majority taking away rights of the minority, let's try another one easier for you: (by the way, you proved my point: a popular vote cannot override the Constitution's protections, regardless if it's the "people's will").

Imagine an increasingly secular America voting in a state ballot to forbid civil marriage between Christians.

That does not go against the First Amendment, as it is not prohibiting the free exercise of their religion. A civil marriage and recognition of marriage by the government is not an expression of religion. Christians would still be free to worship.

Or if you insist that government-sanctioned marriage is an expression of religion that can't be infringed upon, then what in the Constitution would explicitly stop voters from denying blacks the right to marry?

Posted by: hitpoints | August 5, 2010 12:57 PM

Did this judge get his law degree off the back cover of a matchbook? The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not refer to sexual preferences. The people of California were usurped by an activist judge and the Governor of the state applauded rejection of his constituents' mandate. California is indeed the land of fruit and nuts.

Posted by: pielusztcontractor | August 5, 2010 12:58 PM

By your logic, if it were a choice to being Gay and Lesbian, then when did you make you choice to be straight?

----

When I decided I, unlike some of best my friends, am not sexually attracted to girls. End of story.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:15 PM
_____________________________________________________
WOW! we have something in common, I decided that I, unlike some of my best friends, that I am not sexually attracted to men. End Of Story!

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 12:59 PM

"homeinhawaii" is wrong about one thing, and right about one thing.

Wrong-- Our nation was not "built on the basic tenet that marriage is between a man and a woman." In fact, our nation was built on the basic tenet of liberty and justice for all. There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage.

Right-- Government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. That's for religions to handle.

Posted by: chipgower | August 5, 2010 12:59 PM

homeinhawaii -- Your comments are religious beliefs. In America, you have every right to live according to those beliefs but the American Constitution protects the rest of us from you compelling us to live according to your beliefs.

It may be true that the founding fathers would be shocked by gay marriage. I don't know. But that doesn't matter. They would be shocked by many things that are perfectly legal today: from interracial marriage to rock and roll to Hawaii being a state.

Posted by: egc52556 | August 5, 2010 1:01 PM

WOW! we have something in common, I decided that I, unlike some of my best friends, that I am not sexually attracted to men. End Of Story!

----

So being gay is a choice then?
That's all I was trying to say. Thanks for clearing that up!

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:02 PM

«Remove reference to marriage & husband & wife from our civil laws. Makr marriage a purely religious or personal belief based situation. Anyone may marry anyone they want, but with no consequences in civil law. Any church can marry womever they want or refuse whomever they want. Those wanting benefits or status of a civil union may enter into such a union under the laws of their state, which, of course, must be constitutional.»

«Posted by: delawarevoter | August 5, 2010 12:19 PM»

O Delaware voter, what about third parties?

If «Any church can marry whomever they want or refuse whomever they want», then any mosque can marry whomever they want or refuse whomever they want. The mosque, suppose Raheem is married to Zainab, and the mosque marries Raheem also to Aisha, which is allowed by religious law (but not Christian religious law!).

Now suppose Raheem works for Consolidated Industries, Incorporated, which pays for health insurance for Raheem and Zainab and their (Zainab's) children. The law, should the law compel Consolidated Industries, Incorporated, also to pay for health insurance for Aisha and her children by Raheem? Bible-believing Christian, suppose the owner of Consolidated Industries, Incorporated, is a Bible-believing Christian for whom Raheem's marriage to Aisha is «adultery», ¿should the state force this owner to pay to subsidize what he believes to be adultery? Huh?

Unconstitutional, if the age-old Western restriction of marriage to «one man, one woman» is discriminatory and must be discarded, the age-old Western tradition (but not Eastern tradition!) restricting marriage to only two people, ¿is this restriction not also discriminatory, should not this age-old Western tradition also be discarded? Huh?

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | August 5, 2010 1:04 PM

...HUH?

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:07 PM

This whole "Our founding fathers wouldn't approve of same-sex marriage" thing is ludicrous. Our founding fathers wouldn't have approved of freeing the slaves, or interracial marriage, or giving women the right to vote. Do people really think we should be governing ourselves based on the way people lived in 1776?

Posted by: obtusegoose | August 5, 2010 1:11 PM

This has nothing to do with God, or anyone's faith. Faith has no place in local, state, or national lawmaking. This was a discriminatory law which its supporters justify only by saying "marriage is between a man and a woman."

Wrong: marriage is between a person and another individual of legal age whom that person decides to marry. That's all we need to know.

If a man wants to marry a man, no voter or government in this country can tell him he can't do just that. If you do, you're infringing on his right to equal protection under the law.

Posted by: brian71490 | August 5, 2010 1:11 PM

pielusztcontractor seems a tad confused. The key phrase in the 14th is nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, what about the phrase "any" makes you able to exclude people based on does not refer to sexual preferences"? Are you thank grammatically impaired? ANY!

I expect that we're slowly moving towards polyandrous relations being included in civil marriage laws. Why shouldn't any group of consenting adults have the joy of enriching lawyers in divorce court? Your religious preferences and rights say you can limit who your religion recognizes in marriage within your religious institution. That, however, does not give you any ability to prevent other consenting adults from expressing different views or making different marriage contracts.

That you think you have some weird "right" to remove right from citizens you don't like is clearly unconstitutional. The 14th says "any". It's clear.

Posted by: groucho42 | August 5, 2010 1:12 PM

So being gay is a choice then?

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:02 PM
____________________

So you really think that being gay is a choice? Then, presumably, you could choose to be gay, right? I doubt that. Given the level of vitriol, not to mention threats of violence and plain old ridicule, have you ever wondered why teenagers -- in your view -- choose to be gay? Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier for them to choose to be straight? Sadly, way too many gay teenagers kill themselves because they know they're gay and they know they can't choose to be straight and they know that they have parents with views like yours who will disown them. So rather than live with all that - and rather than just choosing to be straight - they kill themselves. If you believe that all to be true, I feel very, very sorry for you. But I will pray that at some point in your life God's love enters your heart.

Posted by: jeffdc1 | August 5, 2010 1:14 PM

I support the voters.

I think the popular vote should stand.

When a judge overturns 7 million votes, you have tyranny.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 5, 2010 1:15 PM

God made marriage to be a life long joining of a man and a woman with the intent to procreate and bring forth godly offspring.

Posted by: homeinhawaii

I'm a heterosexual married woman. My husband and I do not have kids, nor do we intend to. Am I thus as evil as "teh gays" for my perversion of the meaning of marriage? I certainly didn't sign up for the "godly offspring" part.

Posted by: FAC33 | August 5, 2010 1:16 PM

HITPOINTS, I agree that equal protection generally precludes the states from racial or religious discrimination in the recognition of marriages. I do not agree that it empowers a federal judge to disregard the plain meaning of the word marriage and promulgate his own dubious definition.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 1:16 PM

"Equal protection means women must be drafted if we go to war and serve on the front lines in the same capacity as men."

Yes. Not that either should be forced to go to war against their will, but if men are to be drafted, it's only correct to include suitable Americans of all genders.

"Equal protection means that fathers have the same right to force an abortion on children that they have parented in the same manner that women have."

Absolutely. A man should have full rights to remove any fetus that his body is carrying and supporting.

"Equal protection means that men have equal access to their children post divorce and should not be forced to pay alimony to a woman."

I agree. Parental rights should be looked at without the gender of the parents taken into consideration in the decision.

"Equal protection means that pedophiles who claim that they were "born that way" should be allowed to enter into predatory sexual relationships in the same manner that homosexuals claim that they were born that way."

Marriage is a partnership between two consenting adults. A child is not a consenting adult. Neither is a dog or a turtle or an ottoman.

"Why don't we be honest and take the name of God off our money, off the walls of the Capitol and the Supreme Court."

Please do.

"The homosexual SF judge does not believe that Godly principles matter. It's apparent that our judges and current President do not believe in Him nor His Scripture."

Good. I don't care if you believe in Jesus or Allah or Thor or Invisible Pink Unicorns or Jedi Knights - Your personal superstitions and mythology should have no impact on laws in the real world.

"All the more reason we need a US Constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman"

Perhaps we should go old school, and celebrate marriage as it was meant - a property exchange of a woman from her father to her new owner/husband. Marriage has evloved over the years, and it continues to do so. I doubt even the strictist fundamentalists would want to enter a marriage contract from 2000 years ago. How many cattle are you worth?

Posted by: Catherine17 | August 5, 2010 1:18 PM

The concept that all people in this country are treated equally under law is the bedrock that this country was founded on. The idea that rights may be subject to a vote is the first step on the slippery slope to GOP totalitarianism and Teabaggery.

Posted by: oldguy9 | August 5, 2010 1:23 PM

berg192 posted

"Judge Vaughn is a homosexual. Did anyone think for even a moment that he would rule otherwise? He should have recused himself."

By your logic, every judge would have to recuse themselves. A heterosexual man/woman can be said to have just as large a conflict of interest...especially if that person happens to be homophobic. Your reasoning is just as specious as the reasoning behind enacting Proposition 8 in the first place. How about learning to be an American?

Posted by: mupright_2000 | August 5, 2010 1:23 PM

FAC33: My husband and I do not have kids, nor do we intend to. Am I thus as evil as "teh [sic] gays" for my perversion of the meaning of marriage?

Something for you to think about.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 1:23 PM

So you really think that being gay is a choice? Then, presumably, you could choose to be gay, right? I doubt that. Given the level of vitriol, not to mention threats of violence and plain old ridicule, have you ever wondered why teenagers -- in your view -- choose to be gay? Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier for them to choose to be straight? Sadly, way too many gay teenagers kill themselves because they know they're gay and they know they can't choose to be straight and they know that they have parents with views like yours who will disown them. So rather than live with all that - and rather than just choosing to be straight - they kill themselves. If you believe that all to be true, I feel very, very sorry for you. But I will pray that at some point in your life God's love enters your heart.
----
Woah. You took what I said completely out of context. I have no problems with anyone who chooses to be gay but, as I said before, it is MY opinion that is a choice. That doesn't make it right but it is what I believe because it is what I have been taught. And as far as the love of God entering my heart, I already have the love of God in my heart- I believe what I believe and I am open minded enough to accept that people are going to do whatever they want to do no matter what. So my hope for you is that you realize not everyone is going to agree with you and that doesn't make them hateful, it just means you have to learn to agree to disagree.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:24 PM

Do people on the Yes on 8 side realize that two virtual strangers (man/woman) can meet at the court house and get married? The state and the government don't care if the couple are in love with each other, or if they are ever going to have children. Is it starting to sink in? CIVIL marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Do not confuse it with a marriage ceremony that is "performed" at a church. They are not the same thing.

Posted by: obtusegoose | August 5, 2010 1:24 PM

WOW! we have something in common, I decided that I, unlike some of my best friends, that I am not sexually attracted to men. End Of Story!

----

So being gay is a choice then?
That's all I was trying to say. Thanks for clearing that up!

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:02 PM
_________________________________________________________
So you are gay and you decided to be straight! Then I guess that makes it a choice for you. Me! I was born a lesbian.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 1:25 PM

So you are gay and you decided to be straight! Then I guess that makes it a choice for you. Me! I was born a lesbian.

---

If you say so.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:26 PM

"When a judge overturns 7 million votes, you have tyranny."

I agree!

After all, when the vast majority of the people around the world thought slavery was natural and responsible, that tiny minority that fought to treat humans as humans were demanding tyranny, weren't they?

When a judge struck down Separate But Equal, when the majorities in the areas where it was implemented believed blacks were inferior and shouldn't mingle with whites, that was tyranny!

There's no case to ever be made that the majority could be mistaken, wrong or discriminatory!

Oh, wait, never mind...

Posted by: groucho42 | August 5, 2010 1:27 PM

This is a great victory for equality and church-state separation. My faith (Chistian - yes, we are not all bigotted) believes in marriage equality and should not be penalized for blessing the recognition of two people's love for each other. Love is love! The Court got it right in the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, and they got it right again in overturning Prop 8. Justice does prevail!

Posted by: StevenDC | August 5, 2010 1:27 PM

Some posters see this decision as moral progress in the tradition of equal rights for blacks and the right to vote for women. What they overlook is that these earlier changes occurred constitutionally through the amendment process. If gay rights advocates want the Constitution to guarantee gay marriage, they should persuade their fellow citizens to amend the Constitution.

A decree by a federal judge that the 14th Amendment proscribes the traditional definition of marriage exemplifies judicial tyranny. In our system, the policy preference of one judge does not override the votes of seven million free citizens.

Posted by: eoniii | August 5, 2010 1:29 PM

To Diamcoleman - No one is trying to force clergy to marry people who do not follow the tenets of that particular church. Do you understand the difference between legally married and a "wedding." Legal marriage which conveys actual legal rights takes place through the government which is supposed to allow for religious freedom. A marriage is at a church and conveys no rights. I don't care if a church will only marry brunettes who like cats - but I'll be damned if I'm going to continue to listen to religious zealots preach to me about what a marriage is and what it isn't. I don't see huge protests about allowing convicted spouse abusers remarry yet spousal abuse weakens marriage. I don't see people trying to pass laws preventing cheaters from remarrying, yet again - that weakens marriage.

Posted by: kathrynpl | August 5, 2010 1:29 PM


Genesis 2:22-24
22And the rib or part of his side which the Lord God had taken from the man He built up and made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23Then Adam said, This [creature] is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of a man.
24Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Hebrews 13:4
4Let marriage be held in honor (esteemed worthy, precious, of great price, and especially dear) in all things. And thus let the marriage bed be undefiled (kept undishonored); for God will judge and punish the unchaste [all guilty of sexual vice] and adulterous.
Hebrews 4:11-13
11Let us therefore be zealous and exert ourselves and strive diligently to enter that rest [of God, to know and experience it for ourselves], that no one may fall or perish by the same kind of unbelief and disobedience [into which those in the wilderness fell].
12For the Word that God speaks is alive and full of power [making it active, operative, energizing, and effective]; it is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating to the dividing line of the breath of life (soul) and [the immortal] spirit, and of joints and marrow [of the deepest parts of our nature], exposing and sifting and analyzing and judging the very thoughts and purposes of the heart.
13And not a creature exists that is concealed from His sight, but all things are open and exposed, naked and defenseless to the eyes of Him with Whom we must give account.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, 10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
Mark 2:17
17And when Jesus heard it, He said to them, Those who are strong and well have no need of a physician, but those who are weak and sick; I came not to call the righteous ones to repentance, but sinners (the erring ones and all those not free from sin).
God’s simplicity view of earthly law.

Posted by: wvskin | August 5, 2010 1:30 PM

To Diamcoleman - No one is trying to force clergy to marry people who do not follow the tenets of that particular church. Do you understand the difference between legally married and a "wedding." Legal marriage which conveys actual legal rights takes place through the government which is supposed to allow for religious freedom. A marriage is at a church and conveys no rights. I don't care if a church will only marry brunettes who like cats - but I'll be damned if I'm going to continue to listen to religious zealots preach to me about what a marriage is and what it isn't. I don't see huge protests about allowing convicted spouse abusers remarry yet spousal abuse weakens marriage. I don't see people trying to pass laws preventing cheaters from remarrying, yet again - that weakens marriage.

----

This really should not be directed towards me because nothing I said even hints at what you are talking about. But ummm alright.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:32 PM

God also frowns on divorce.

Mark 10:2-9

2And some Pharisees came up, and, in order to test Him and try to find a weakness in Him, asked, Is it lawful for a man to dismiss and repudiate and divorce his wife?
3He answered them, What did Moses command you?
4They replied, Moses allowed a man to write a bill of divorce and to put her away.
5But Jesus said to them, Because of your hardness of heart [your condition of insensibility to the call of God] he wrote you this precept in your Law.
6But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.
7For this reason a man shall leave [behind] his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and cleave closely to her permanently,
8And the two shall become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9What therefore God has united (joined together), let not man separate or divide.

Posted by: wvskin | August 5, 2010 1:33 PM

One further point - Do people really believe that if it weren't for gay marriage all those gay people would get up, find themselves a nice person of the opposite sex to marry, and pop out a decent handful of kids? In many cases, we are talking about couples who have been living as if they were married for years and years. The only difference is that they will now have the same right to make it official as any other couple in California.

Their marriage is not hurting you, any more than the fact that somewhere up in Canada, Neil and John are celebrating their fifth wedding anniversary is hurting your heterosexual marriage. It has no effect on your life whatsoever.

Posted by: Catherine17 | August 5, 2010 1:35 PM

This is not about marriage, it is about voting and democracy, it is about a small group of people imposing their will upon the majority. The people of California voted AGAINST same sex marriage, twice. Each time the whiny babies supporting same sex marriage threw a tantrum( litigation). If this is a democracy, where the weight of the vote dictates, why are judges throwing out the peoples vote( don't give me the civil rights argument)When the people vote they have had their say and it should be accepted as is. Be patient and change peoples mind, this is a secular nation( based on Judeo-Christian values)if the people say yes, then yes it is, even if I am not for it. Shame on the same sex marriage supporters for going about this in the way of a whiny malcontent.Good bye freedom.

Posted by: svengerald | August 5, 2010 1:35 PM

Then there's diamcoleman. Another person who thinks science should be ignored when faith disagrees.

Genetics provides direction. However, it isn't consistent. That most people have a genetic direction to heterosexuality doesn't mean all do. That asexual, bisexual and homosexual people exist through genetic changes is not surprise and is not new.

I'm straight and I know there's no choice. I also know that changes in our genetic structures can make other decisions. Yes, for reproduction of species (higher level, lets ignore non-sexual species), heterosexuality is the genetic norm. To deny genetic variation is ignorance.

If you were "gay" and decided to be "straight", then one of three things happened:
1) You're heterosexual but became curious and tried homosexuality for a while, but you didn't like it, confirming your heterosexuality.
2) You're bisexual but your religion forced you to make a choice.
3) You're homosexual but fake heterosexuality because your religion forces you to do it.

Yes, in all three options, you made a choice. That, however, does nothing to change your underlying genetic markers for interest in one or both genders.

That your religious fanaticism demands others make the same choice you did is ignorance. The odds are you are in category 2 or 3, and you're fooling yourself. Others shouldn't have to do so because "misery loves company".

Posted by: groucho42 | August 5, 2010 1:35 PM

If the government should not impose its will and make any law regarding marriage, where can the legal foundation exist for cousins not to marry? Where is the legal foundation to oppose polygamy? Both fall under the "I should be able to marry whomever I wish" idea. If a lesbian marriage requires two women and a homosexual marriage requires two men, how will a bisexual marriage be defined? If you marry same sex or different sex, you are essentially refuting your identification as bisexual. Or do we make modifications for bisexuals so they can marry a man and a woman? Isn't that the same as polygamy? And how do we define who a transgender marries? How did our society get to the point that the marriage rights of someone who is so mentally ill that they use modern medicine to desecrate their bodies trump the definition of marriage for ALL of humanity up to this point. Cave men had to have intercourse with a cave woman which we presume involved a relationship to ensure the child survived. Nothing has changed. Lesbian couples can only have a child with the sperm of someone outside of their union. Homosexuals can only have a child by exploiting a poor woman to bear a child and donate her egg for money. It sickens me to think that judges uses their position to impose their personal views on all of society. I do not feel gay people should be discriminated against. Buy whichever house you desire and work in whatever field you train for. But don't expect me or the vast majority of Americans to consider your idea of commitment as a defintion for our society. After all, AIDS would not be spreading through the gay community at the current rate if there was any semblance of monogamous relationships in their community. It was not too long ago that our community police had to patrol the local park nightly so that homosexual men didn't use it for a meet and more than greet in public view. This is not a normal display of a committed, monogamous relationship and should not be accommodated and encouraged. Being gay is not an inherited trait that one can not help, it is a choice. Everyone who claims to be gay was brought into this world by one man and one woman. Period. No exceptions.

Posted by: debbieh1 | August 5, 2010 1:37 PM

Then there's diamcoleman. Another person who thinks science should be ignored when faith disagrees.
Genetics provides direction. However, it isn't consistent. That most people have a genetic direction to heterosexuality doesn't mean all do. That asexual, bisexual and homosexual people exist through genetic changes is not surprise and is not new.
I'm straight and I know there's no choice. I also know that changes in our genetic structures can make other decisions. Yes, for reproduction of species (higher level, lets ignore non-sexual species), heterosexuality is the genetic norm. To deny genetic variation is ignorance.
If you were "gay" and decided to be "straight", then one of three things happened:
1) You're heterosexual but became curious and tried homosexuality for a while, but you didn't like it, confirming your heterosexuality.
2) You're bisexual but your religion forced you to make a choice.
3) You're homosexual but fake heterosexuality because your religion forces you to do it.
Yes, in all three options, you made a choice. That, however, does nothing to change your underlying genetic markers for interest in one or both genders.
That your religious fanaticism demands others make the same choice you did is ignorance. The odds are you are in category 2 or 3, and you're fooling yourself. Others shouldn't have to do so because "misery loves company".

---

Umm excuse me, but I never said I was gay and then decided to be straight. The girl I was having a conversation with tried to imply I was once gay and then turned straight. My religion does not force me to do anything and I have never experimented with bisexuality. Just wanted to clarify a few things before you went on another rant. You may continue..

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:37 PM

"Disrupting the proven, healthy structure of a heterosexual couples and their children will cause instability and will not provide the best environment for children to grow up in."

What the hell does anyone else's relationship have with your ability to be a good parent? That is so dumb.

50% of all marriages fail. Add in the unhappy ones on top and I'd say straight people don't need any help from gay folks causing "instability" and a "bad environment" for kids to grow up in.

Posted by: sohanshop | August 5, 2010 1:38 PM

So you are gay and you decided to be straight! Then I guess that makes it a choice for you. Me! I was born a lesbian.

---

If you say so.
_____________________________________________
I do say, and I should know because I am a lesbian.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 1:38 PM

Oh and yes, I believe that science should be ignored each and every time faith disagrees :)

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:39 PM

"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not refer to sexual preferences"

It refers to any person within a state's jurisdiction being guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. The laws in this case are not "sexual preference" laws, but marriage laws.

Gay people are part of "any persons".

Posted by: hitpoints | August 5, 2010 1:40 PM

I do say, and I should know because I am a lesbian.

-----

And I say because I am straight. Your point?

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:40 PM

Woah. You took what I said completely out of context. I have no problems with anyone who chooses to be gay but, as I said before, it is MY opinion that is a choice. That doesn't make it right but it is what I believe because it is what I have been taught. And as far as the love of God entering my heart, I already have the love of God in my heart- I believe what I believe and I am open minded enough to accept that people are going to do whatever they want to do no matter what. So my hope for you is that you realize not everyone is going to agree with you and that doesn't make them hateful, it just means you have to learn to agree to disagree.
___

It was clear from your post that you believe what you believe "because it is what [you] have been taught." What I asked you to do was to question whether what you've been taught makes any sense. And that you failed to do. Gay teenager who kill themselves rather than stay in the closet or come out and have their families, friends and church disown them presumably -- under what you've been taught -- simply choose to be straight. If it were that easy, why don't they? That's the inconsistency between what you've been taught and facts. I am all for tolerating other people's beliefs when they are grounded in reality. But saying that people choose to be gay is like saying blacks are lazy or women are weak. All are stereotypes that don't withstand scrutiny when facts are considered.

Posted by: jeffdc1 | August 5, 2010 1:40 PM

@CATKEN1, even in the case of polygamy or polyandry, marriage still means the union of husband and wife. A man's wives do not marry each other.

And the existence of a handful of bizarre practices in tiny obscure primitive groups does not in any way change the truth of the matter: in terms of numbers, virtually all of the world's seven billion souls agree that marriage essentially and inarguably means husband and wife.

Seven billion people — of every nation, class, society, culture, ethnicity, race, faith, ideology and creed — can't be wrong.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 1:41 PM

Of course it should be overturned...everyone deserves the chance to be miserable!

Posted by: marriop | August 5, 2010 1:43 PM

That's the inconsistency between what you've been taught and facts. I am all for tolerating other people's beliefs when they are grounded in reality. But saying that people choose to be gay is like saying blacks are lazy or women are weak. All are stereotypes that don't withstand scrutiny when facts are considered.
---
Well that is true I will admit. But honestly, you say your all for tolerating other people's beliefs when they are 'grounded in reality' but you have no right to say that because that very well may be someone elses reality. If you are taught to believe something every day of your life you most likely will, whether it is right or wrong.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:44 PM

Anyone who has searched for lovely phrases about marriage from the New Testament (say, to put into vows) will discover that there is very little on the subject there. On the subject of homosexual behavior, St. Paul says a lot, but he is against any sexual acts much of the time. The latter exhortations are usually ignored.

If the Christians who go nuts on the idea of gay marriage would review their bible, most would conclude that all forms of marriage are left to the state to regulate. That marriages but not annulments or divorces are so often conducted in churches suggests that all parties know that they need all the help they can get to keep the union together.

From a Christian perspective, gay marriage is a legal issue, not a moral one. Even more than that, it is a matter of human rights.

Posted by: leroyad | August 5, 2010 1:45 PM

someone such as wvskin had to pop up with the typical illogic of "My book is right because my book tells me it's right!"

Posted by: groucho42 | August 5, 2010 1:45 PM

Do you ask your neighbors their favorite sexual position or whether they do anal or oral?

If you want to know so much about gay sexual practices, go to the library and check out a book.

>Do married gay guys consider consider >`themselves both husbands, or does one play >the wife? Does a domineering gay guy play >the husband and a submissive gay fellow >accept the role as his wife?
>Does the level of male dominance dictate >the role played-out by male gays?

Posted by: sperrico | August 5, 2010 8:21 AM

Posted by: AxelDC | August 5, 2010 1:48 PM

It would make them a hypocrite in the eyes of God and the church.

That wouldn't be the case if the clergy member didn't read scripture that way - plenty of Christians have no issue with either homosexuality or gay marriage.

This is from the evangelical Christian who maintains the Slacktivist blog: "If your reading of the Bible leads you to assert that homosexuality is a choice when it is not, then you're reading it wrong. If your reading of the Bible leads you to claim that 'ex-gay ministries' are effective, rather than delusional and abusive, then you're reading it wrong. If your reading of the Bible leads you to claim that the happiness of a loving, committed same-sex relationship is an intrinsically, irredeemably abhorrent thing, then you're reading it wrong."

I don't belong to any religion, so I'm not arguing for the correctness of any particular reading of the Bible or Koran or Talmud or any other religion's scripture. I'm pointing out that different members of a religion read their scripture in different ways. I'm suggesting that people who have religious objections to homosexuality could simply live their individual lives accordingly, without treating everyone else as if they have to live the same way.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 5, 2010 1:50 PM

I do say, and I should know because I am a lesbian.

-----

And I say because I am straight. Your point?
_____________________________________________

No, you are the one who said sexually was a choice, so your choice was to put away your feeling for other men and chose to be straight.

So what is your point?

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 1:50 PM

"And the existence of a handful of bizarre practices in tiny obscure primitive groups does not in any way change the truth of the matter" shows thebump doesn't understand humanity or history. History shows that polygamy has been the norm for much of history. Senior wives, junior wives. In fact, the Torah, the basis for the three main western religions, has some interesting examples. The implicitly accepted mistress culture of most western societies still keeps in in a fashion. Islam officially keeps it in a much stronger fashion.

And, more importantly, you keep ignoring the main point: Democracy does not mean some "right" for the majority to remove rights from the minority. That's what you demand and it's unconstitutional.

Posted by: groucho42 | August 5, 2010 1:52 PM

That wouldn't be the case if the clergy member didn't read scripture that way - plenty of Christians have no issue with either homosexuality or gay marriage.

----

True, and I am saying this from a Christian stand point, that would be taking what the Lord says and taking it out of context which the church would most likely recognize unless they all believe in what their pastor is preaching. Mostly all Christian teachers, whether it is Baptist, evangelical, etc. read the scripture the same.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:53 PM

Just more pandering to perverts.

Posted by: LarryG62 | August 5, 2010 1:53 PM

The ruling is here: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf

All of you who are arguing that the judge was capricious, or biased, or that the decision was not made on Constitutional grounds, needs to read it. The conclusion begins on page 109 (of the document - it's page 111 within the PDF reader).

Posted by: hitpoints | August 5, 2010 1:54 PM

No, you are the one who said sexually was a choice, so your choice was to put away your feeling for other men and chose to be straight.
So what is your point?

---

Well first off I am female, so in this case it would be me putting aside my feelings for other females.
I was raised in a home where I would be kicked out if I ever even uttered the word lesbian, so I guess this would be the first time admitting that I have struggled with it for a very long time and my family has made it known for me and my siblings that anyone who is gay chose to be that way, so when i say it is a choice i am simply repeating what was so repetitive in my child hood.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:56 PM

@CATKEN1, even in the case of polygamy or polyandry, marriage still means the union of husband and wife. A man's wives do not marry each other.

And the existence of a handful of bizarre practices in tiny obscure primitive groups does not in any way change the truth of the matter: in terms of numbers, virtually all of the world's seven billion souls agree that marriage essentially and inarguably means husband and wife.

Seven billion people — of every nation, class, society, culture, ethnicity, race, faith, ideology and creed — can't be wrong.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 1:41 PM
--------------------------------------------So you have seven billion people in your back pocket? That's assumption and not a fact.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 1:56 PM

The decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage is a violation of government by the people, for the people and of the people. The U.S. Constitution if interpreted correctly support Proposition 8, of Californian law definition of Marriage.
District Court Judge Walker did not justify his decision to the majority of American people. He said it is only on moral and religious basis that same-sex couples differ from opposite sex couples.
Same-sex couples do not have a constitution right to a marriage license when in our democratic process by the people, for the people, and of the people disagree with their perceived civil right. The people are the basis for the Constitution.
It is not a constitutional right to subvert the institutions of marriage by a legal requirement to license same-sex couples. Marriage by law is when two people are joined together in a union of legal obligations to each other and their children.
In this union, they are considered as a family in relation to natural birth of children between a man and a woman and parental responsibility of nurturing and caring for their offspring. The children benefit from a male and female natural role model.
On religious bases, people who believe in God are reminded of this scripture written by an apostle of Jesus, “how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These are they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.”
Why would some one with the Spirit of God want a marriage license with another person of the same-sex? When does the sensual desire and ungodly lust [unnatural lust] between human animals of the same-sex. The anatomy for sex is not natural.

Posted by: klausdmk | August 5, 2010 1:59 PM

If these Religious Conservatives want to protect and defend the tradition of marriage, why don't they fight to BAN divorce? History has shown over and over again that religious conservatives are on the wrong side of every social issue: slavery, woman's suffrage, integration, civil rights, interracial marriage, ADA. Just one more issue that religion will have to make excuses for in the future. I've been stunned in the last few days hearing intelligent Republican friends and family, attacking Gays, Muslims, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks. Who the heck does the Grand Old Party think is gonna vote for them? The ignorance is stunning!

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican | August 5, 2010 1:59 PM

Well that is true I will admit. But honestly, you say your all for tolerating other people's beliefs when they are 'grounded in reality' but you have no right to say that because that very well may be someone elses reality. If you are taught to believe something every day of your life you most likely will, whether it is right or wrong.
Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 1:44 PM
______________________

I know, all too well, the power of being told something every day of your life and believing in it whether it is right or wrong. For me, it was growing up gay in a home and church that told me that gay was wrong, either explicitly (church) or implicitly (home). And I think many people in this country know the power of being told something every day of their lives and having it define (for at least a time) their beliefs and thoughts -- how many people were raised in the South in the 50s, 60s and 70s (at least) and taught by word and/or deed that whites were superior to blacks? While some do doubt maintain those beliefs to this day, I hope and pray that the vast majority of people who were raised to think like that have abandoned such views -- even though they were "taught to believe something every day of [their lives]." They chose to stop believing because they realized that it was wrong. And for me -- and I know others will disagree -- I think they changed their minds because God's love filled their hearts and drove out the hatred and intolerance they had been taught. And that's why I will pray that God's love will enter your heart -- to a greater extent than it already has -- because I think that you, too, will realize once that happens that what you've been taught every day of your life isn't right.

We may continue to disagree on this, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this civilly with you (on a string of some very nasty posts).

Posted by: jeffdc1 | August 5, 2010 2:01 PM

'Democracy does not mean some "right" for the majority to remove rights from the minority.'

Of course not. But there is no "right" to redefine marriage. Marriage means husband and wife, as any seven year old in any culture anywhere on the planet can tell you.

As for polygamy, as noted previously, the relationship still is between husband and wife. A man's wives are not married to each other.

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 2:03 PM

@klausdmk

Why can't monogamous gays get married and be miserable just like the rest of America? Jesus is a lover, where do you get all this hate and judgment? Very twisted thinking!

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican | August 5, 2010 2:03 PM

klausdmk wrote: "Same-sex couples do not have a constitution right to a marriage license when in our democratic process by the people, for the people, and of the people disagree with their perceived civil right. The people are the basis for the Constitution. "

So if our democratic process by the people, for the people, and of the people, disagree with the perceived civil rights of black people...? Then what?

Posted by: hitpoints | August 5, 2010 2:05 PM

I know, all too well, the power of being told something every day of your life and believing in it whether it is right or wrong. For me, it was growing up gay in a home and church that told me that gay was wrong, either explicitly (church) or implicitly (home). And I think many people in this country know the power of being told something every day of their lives and having it define (for at least a time) their beliefs and thoughts -- how many people were raised in the South in the 50s, 60s and 70s (at least) and taught by word and/or deed that whites were superior to blacks? While some do doubt maintain those beliefs to this day, I hope and pray that the vast majority of people who were raised to think like that have abandoned such views -- even though they were "taught to believe something every day of [their lives]." They chose to stop believing because they realized that it was wrong. And for me -- and I know others will disagree -- I think they changed their minds because God's love filled their hearts and drove out the hatred and intolerance they had been taught. And that's why I will pray that God's love will enter your heart -- to a greater extent than it already has -- because I think that you, too, will realize once that happens that what you've been taught every day of your life isn't right.
We may continue to disagree on this, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this civilly with you (on a string of some very nasty posts).

---

Well thank you, I hope it enters my heart in a greater extent than it already has as well:) I can relate as well to growing up, and continuing to grow up seeing as I am only sixteen, in a home where even uttering the word lesbian would result in living on the streets. I'm afraid that admitting to myself that i have struggled with my sexuality will make it more real and then I would eventually have to be honest with my family about who I really am. Every single christian part of me conflicts with living that lifestyle and I have reached a place where I would rather try and drive it away than ever embrace it. I appreciate your kind words and your attempts to enlighten me on what I am lacking.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 2:07 PM

NALLCANDO: "So you have seven billion people in your back pocket? That's assumption and not a fact."

Want to bet?

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 2:07 PM

I was just scrolling through the comments, and these so called Christians seem to forget that we don't live in a Religious Theocracy like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. We live in a Republic, the United States in America. As long as people are working hard, paying taxes, and getting by, they have every right to equal protection under the law. This is the land of mind your own P's and Q's.

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican | August 5, 2010 2:08 PM

Voters everywhere have rejected this outrageous PUSH to sanction and EMBRACE the alternative sexual preferences of those of a small minority of such persuasion that insist they are "normal." And the explosion in incidence of AIDS/HIV? To be a focus of "human sexuality" in our systems of early education? Just dandy!

Given the choices of Obama for positions of authority within his staff, cabinet and government agencies, everyone should take time for an audible GASP that the Democratic lemmings are all set to settle Obama's nominee for the US Supreme Court on that bench; particularly since she is known partial to that "cause."

Looks like Ms Obama and the girls are doing an "around the world" version of "life while in the life" of the POTUS? Perhaps this is an indication they realize their time is limited?

Posted by: SavvyRead | August 5, 2010 2:10 PM

When Prop. 8 appeared on the ballot, the majority of the financial support came - not from Californians, but from a religious organization in another state. That was infuriating enough, but made worse by confusing wording on the ballot.
Kudos to Judge Walker for an extremely well written and thorough ruling.
Bigotry of any kind in this country is an abomination, and I am very happy with this ruling. It has been humiliating to live with the fact that Prop. 8 passed on a night that was otherwise filled with celebration.

Posted by: klemmbooks | August 5, 2010 2:12 PM

Several things here. The first, the word homosexual did not even exist prior to 1868 and the first time the word was used in a version of the Bible was in 1946 (RSV)

Second? The Book of Leviticus was the Holiness code of the ancient Israelites. If you are not an Israelite, then what are you doing demanding that Christians comply with legalisms that are not germane to the topic The Apostle Paul said that he "...died to the law with Christ Jesus, as if salvation could be gained through the law, then Christ died for nothing."

Third? We are dealing with individual morality here and there are no legal requirements that anyone who is not a self professed Christian comply with Christian tenets of sexuality. Despite what the proponents of Proposition 8 have stated, there are no reasons, other than individual choices to subscribe to a particular religious creed, for anyone to comply with your beliefs or self-imposed restrictions.

Freedom of religion means that no one has to comply with my beliefs or anyone else's. However, the U.S. Constitution and applicable amendments do insure everyone equal protection under the laws of the land. Morality, that does not involve any tangible harm to anyone, can not be claimed as being in anyway harmful to the culture in general. The proponents of Prop 8 seem to speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They can not point out any tangible harm that same sex marriage has done to any of them. While they claim that a "civil union" has all the rights and privileges as marriage, it does not. Those who claim that homosexuality will be taught in schools need to consider that heterosexual marriage was taught to me below the age of 8 - and I had no choice but to be there for the teaching. Doesn't equity and integrity require that a publicly funded school teach about all of the demographics in a culture? I am a lot more concerned, as a Christian, about my grandchildren being taught about "creationism" as it requires the framing of evangelical, fundamental literalism to be an acceptable answer, denies me my right to teach my children from the historical-critical school of biblical interpretation and my congregationalist perspective of my faith. In the same way, teaching heterosexuality as the only normative lifestyle denies much of my biblical beliefs. Am I not allowed to have my own religious beliefs? Why must I bow to a religious movement that essentially began in 1911?

Individual morality between consenting adults can never be legislated unless we want to wind up in a theocracy. I believe God has the ability to watch out for himself and does not need Christian to define His world and authority. Scripture may be inerrant, but those who interpret it are all too fallible. You can assume that you have created God in your own image when God hates the same people you do!

Posted by: joaniehook | August 5, 2010 2:13 PM

Why can't Spidermean2 accept that he IS gay?

Posted by: shooter1 | August 5, 2010 2:13 PM

Interesting to see the naysayers here posting the same ridiculous ideas that the judge demolished in his opinion. Dogs will now be allowed to marry! Children will catch "the Gay"! It's against God's law as expressed by men in the Bible! Which says it's okay to stone a woman to death, so why don't y'all move to Iran? What are you so afraid of? That your wife will run off with her secret female lover? Marriage is good for society. People who love one another should be allowed to make formal pledges and get all the same rights, no matter how God made them. And He did make us all, you know. Just as we are.

Posted by: greyK | August 5, 2010 2:14 PM

@SavvyRead

huh? LOLZ

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican | August 5, 2010 2:16 PM

One thought I had is how sad it is that the Mormons did not choose to spend the tens of millions of dollars to help the poor and needy, but instead used it to express a political opinion. Think of how many starving people could have been fed with that kind of money.

Posted by: Alaskan1982 | August 5, 2010 2:17 PM

How did we all get so warped? We just can't destroy America fast enough.

Posted by: Pat31 | August 5, 2010 2:27 PM

I cannot understand why religious fanatics are so concerned about what other people do when it comes to marriage, etc. Nobody is being forced into a gay marriage. It's simply a ritual that involves two consenting adults. And, if those two adults happen to be males or females, so be it. It certainly has no effect - positive or negative - on me, which would be the only reason to concern myself in the decision. If these religious fanatics would follow the tenets of their religion that mandate helping the poor and underprivileged in society with as much vigor as they oppose gay marriage, poverty would be a thing of the past in this country.

Posted by: Caliguy55 | August 5, 2010 2:33 PM

If these religious fanatics would follow the tenets of their religion that mandate helping the poor and underprivileged in society with as much vigor as they oppose gay marriage, poverty would be a thing of the past in this country.
----

Everything you were saying made sense until this chunk of foolishness.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 2:35 PM

The citizens of Cali voted against gay marriage... what cant you idiots understand? THE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST IT.

Posted by: trey_trey | August 5, 2010 2:36 PM

The mental picture of two homosexual men having sex is revolting to most non homosexuals.

Posted by: Pat31 | August 5, 2010 2:36 PM

No, you are the one who said sexually was a choice, so your choice was to put away your feeling for other men and chose to be straight.
So what is your point?

---

Well first off I am female, so in this case it would be me putting aside my feelings for other females.
I was raised in a home where I would be kicked out if I ever even uttered the word lesbian, so I guess this would be the first time admitting that I have struggled with it for a very long time and my family has made it known for me and my siblings that anyone who is gay chose to be that way, so when i say it is a choice i am simply repeating what was so repetitive in my child hood.
_________________________________________

If this is something you have struggled with, then you know it is not a choice. You should define yourself and not let others or your family do that for you. I was luckier than you, my parents knew from almost the beginning of my life that I was different. They love and respect who and what I am and they are my strongest advocates. My sexuality is such a small part of my life, that I am almost clueless as why other people have such a problem with it. I do not intruded in to other citizens sexuality and have trouble understanding why they feel they can intrude into mine. As long as I am not hurting anyone and I am not, why hurt me? I am very sorry that you were brought up so different, to be made to dislike who you may be, but that does not mean you have to stay there. You are the only one in-charge of making yourself happy, and that is the choice.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 2:37 PM

I'm still waiting for The Bump (or anyone else) to explain to me how her/his marriage has been negatively affected in any way by the marriage of any gay couple, of Bigot and Mrs. Harry Jackson, of President and Mrs. George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush, of Ozzie and Harriet, or of Newt Gingrich, Robert Barr, Rush Limbaugh and any of their multiple wives.

Posted by: edallan | August 5, 2010 2:38 PM

sanmateo1850 wrote: "The moment we allow one group of people that have an obvious brain dysfunction the right to act out their desires, we set the precident that other groups should be allowed to act out their's as well."

Sanmateo would prefer they have to wear pink triangles or get lobotomies. We've seen this before, not going back.
Posted by: hitpoints
===========================================

NO, I am not saying that. I just think we need more laws to protect people from these types of abnormal behavior. Sort of like how we have laws against murder, and lock up serial killers. The laws are there to protect people from behavior that is detrimental to society. And guess what, homosexuality is detrimental to a normal functioning society. Just look what happened to Rome. They allowed legal homosexual marriages, and look at where that got them. They were once the most powerful nation on the planet, now they are dead. Is that what we want for the United States? To cease to exist, but only in history books?

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 5, 2010 2:38 PM

"The citizens of Cali voted against gay marriage... what cant you idiots understand? THE PEOPLE VOTED AGAINST IT."

Which one of your civil rights should we vote on next?

I say let's vote on your right to free speech and when that surely passes you can just be quiet and accept it. I mean, we voted on it and all.

Posted by: HillmanDC | August 5, 2010 2:40 PM

If this is something you have struggled with, then you know it is not a choice. You should define yourself and not let others or your family do that for you. I was luckier than you, my parents knew from almost the beginning of my life that I was different. They love and respect who and what I am and they are my strongest advocates. My sexuality is such a small part of my life, that I am almost clueless as why other people have such a problem with it. I do not intruded in to other citizens sexuality and have trouble understanding why they feel they can intrude into mine. As long as I am not hurting anyone and I am not, why hurt me? I am very sorry that you were brought up so different, to be made to dislike who you may be, but that does not mean you have to stay there. You are the only one in-charge of making yourself happy, and that is the choice.

----

Well you are very lucky, I on the other hand don't really have a choice (well I do but it is a very hurtful one). I can choose to try and ignore it, or i can admit it, embrace it and ultimately lose my family. So you see, it is not so much as a choice for me and others in similar situations where it is for you. The best I can do is try and find happiness, or contentment, in something else. Because it won't be from embracing who i am.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 2:41 PM

Huh? No where in the Bible does it talk about "THE" rapture. What Bible are you talking about?

----

The rapture is in the book of revelations where Jesus returns and all christians and those who sleep (the dead) will be caught up in the sky. smh oh my goodness, please tell me you are not a christian.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:06 PM
__________________________________________

Where does the word Rapture appear in the Bible and please do not give me your interpretation of what is in the Bible?

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 2:41 PM

Poor thebump, keeps indicating a complete lack of logic. "Of course not. But there is no 'right' to redefine marriage."

Of course there is. As pointed out, throughout history its regularly meant different things. Even in the US, it used to mean "between heterosexual couples of the same race." That's been redefined.

We no longer believe in the biblical definition of marriage: A husband owning his wives (note the plural). The constitution does not define marriage, so your definition of it is not binding. All the constitution says is ALL citizens are equal. If heterosexuals can marry, the 14th amendment says homosexuals have an equal right to access of that law. You can't argue that, so you stick with your own personal interpretation of marriage and demand it must be law. Sad.

"As for polygamy, as noted previously, the relationship still is between husband and wife." No, "wives". You are redefining marriage, as you claim we can't do. You destroy your own argument and don't realize it. Sadder.


Posted by: groucho42 | August 5, 2010 2:44 PM

Very simple... its a matter of law, and constitutionally protected freedoms.

It is not a matter of opinion, so even the act of polling for views is offensive and un-American.

Americans don't legislate bigotry. At least not any more...

Posted by: OldUncleTom | August 5, 2010 2:44 PM

Where does the word Rapture appear in the Bible and please do not give me your interpretation of what is in the Bible?
--------

I have no desire to answer idiotic questions, google it.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 2:46 PM

Note that trey_trey must ignore all the posts previous to his rant that point out the majority isn't right or that the majority has no "right" to remove equal protection under the constitution. The only response they have is "I like it so it must be true!" That's the extent of the "modern" right wing of politics.

Posted by: groucho42 | August 5, 2010 2:47 PM

NALLCANDO: "So you have seven billion people in your back pocket? That's assumption and not a fact."

Want to bet?

Posted by: thebump | August 5, 2010 2:07 PM
______________________________________________ Yeah how many people do you have in your back pocket, I am willing to bet there are none.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 2:48 PM

My civil rights (and yours) are too important to be subject to a vote.

Shall we reinstate slavery?
Miscegenation laws?
Jim Crow?
black votes counting as a fraction of white man's vote?
Expelling Mexican American citizens w/o due process?
Imprisoning Japanese Americans?
Shall I go on? (and on and on)

The courts serve as a check on the folly of the voting public.

They serve as a check on politicians pandering to the demand for bread and circuses.

They serve as a check on the lobbyists who try to buy what they want through the legislatures and ballot box.

Thank God for the courts!

Posted by: courry | August 5, 2010 2:51 PM

Very simple... its a matter of law, and constitutionally protected freedoms.
It is not a matter of opinion, so even the act of polling for views is offensive and un-American.
Americans don't legislate bigotry. At least not any more...
===========================================

Bigotry is a matter of opinion. And Americans legislate based on opinion, not a matter of law. Laws are interpreted by judges, and decisions made based on their interpretations, or opinions of what the law implies.

So guess what, in this case, the judge isn't interpreting the law as it is intended. The equal protection of Americans in the constitution wasn't written as equal protection for homosexual marriage. All our Founding Fathers knew homosexual relationships were not something normal people engages in. They understood that this sort of behavior would be detrimental to building the nation. Any change in this will be disasterous for the United States.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 5, 2010 2:52 PM

Well you are very lucky, I on the other hand don't really have a choice (well I do but it is a very hurtful one). I can choose to try and ignore it, or i can admit it, embrace it and ultimately lose my family. So you see, it is not so much as a choice for me and others in similar situations where it is for you. The best I can do is try and find happiness, or contentment, in something else. Because it won't be from embracing who i am.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 2:41 PM ______
____________________________________________________

I feel very sorry for you. I have heard your very story from many of my friends. Yet if that is your choice then it is what it is, until you decide to do different.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 2:54 PM

For those who offer the claim that a gay judge should have recused himself from a gay-related issue: by the same logic straight judges should not rule on cases involving heterosexual relations. Is that the idea? Or is this just one more demonstration of the bigotry underlying such illogicality?

Posted by: orray | August 5, 2010 3:00 PM

So guess what, in this case, the judge isn't interpreting the law as it is intended. The equal protection of Americans in the constitution wasn't written as equal protection for homosexual marriage. All our Founding Fathers knew homosexual relationships were not something normal people engages in. They understood that this sort of behavior would be detrimental to building the nation. Any change in this will be disasterous for the United States.
________________________________________________________

Really and where is your historical proof of those grand statements. Jesus not once spoke against Homosexuality and it was going on during his time on earth. What do the Christians say about this, they say Jesus didn't have time to write about everything. I give you the same answer, Our forefathers did not think it was such a big deal, so they didn't mention it specifically.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 3:02 PM

Really and where is your historical proof of those grand statements. Jesus not once spoke against Homosexuality and it was going on during his time on earth. What do the Christians say about this, they say Jesus didn't have time to write about everything. I give you the same answer, Our forefathers did not think it was such a big deal, so they didn't mention it specifically.
---
Not true.
Homosexuality is said to be an abomination unto the Lord and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 18:16-19:29 )

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 3:06 PM

Not true.
Homosexuality is said to be an abomination unto the Lord and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is proof of that. (Genesis 18:16-19:29 )

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 3:07 PM

Gay judge has proven record of impartiality
ON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER
February 09, 2010
Vaughn Walker almost lost his chance to reach the federal bench because of claims that he was anti-gay and hostile to civil rights. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. His first appointment, from President Ronald Reagan in 1987, stalled out in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
His nomination was renewed by President George H.W. Bush in early 1989.

Posted by: Pat31 | August 5, 2010 3:11 PM

Not true.
Homosexuality is said to be an abomination unto the Lord and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is proof of that. (Genesis 18:16-19:29 )

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 3:07 PM
_____________________________________________________

Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus preached against Homosexuals?

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 3:16 PM

"So guess what, in this case, the judge isn't interpreting the law as it is intended. The equal protection of Americans in the constitution wasn't written as equal protection for homosexual marriage. All our Founding Fathers knew homosexual relationships were not something normal people engages in. They understood that this sort of behavior would be detrimental to building the nation. Any change in this will be disasterous for the United States."

------

Do you and others who scream "original intent" recognize that two whole Amendments of the ten Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights state explicitly that the rights laid out are the MINIMUM rights that people in America have?

Apart from the absence of any "proof" as to "All our Founding Fathers knew homosexual relationships were not something normal people engages in. They understood that this sort of behavior would be detrimental to building the nation." you surely are aware that if George Washington had insisted on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the Continental Army, we would very likely all be speaking English and singing "God Save the Queen" rather than "America" (aka "My Country, 'Tis of Thee").

You know, "you people" can't really just go around making things up as you go along. (Well, obviously you CAN, because you do, but you shouldn't.)

Posted by: edallan | August 5, 2010 3:21 PM

Do you and others who scream "original intent" recognize that two whole Amendments of the ten Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights state explicitly that the rights laid out are the MINIMUM rights that people in America have?

Apart from the absence of any "proof" as to "All our Founding Fathers knew homosexual relationships were not something normal people engages in. They understood that this sort of behavior would be detrimental to building the nation." you surely are aware that if George Washington had insisted on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the Continental Army, we would very likely all be speaking English and singing "God Save the Queen" rather than "America" (aka "My Country, 'Tis of Thee").

You know, "you people" can't really just go around making things up as you go along. (Well, obviously you CAN, because you do, but you shouldn't.)
________________________________________________

My point exactly! where is your Historical Proof that this was our forefathers intent?

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 3:25 PM

@homeinhawaii:
"God made marriage to be a life long joining of a man and a woman with the intent to procreate and bring forth godly offspring."
-------------------------------------------
I'm a 55 year-old woman who married last year for the first time. I'm long past child-bearing years; should I have not been allowed to marry? If you feel it's ok that I did, thanks, and how does that affect your argument?

Posted by: lafred | August 5, 2010 3:34 PM

To all of you who scream "fixed" or "activist judge" or "the people have spoken!",

Have you even read the ruling? C'mon try it.... It's only 136 pages and double spaced. I got through it in a couple of hours.

Legally, marriage has been evolving continuously over the last 100 years or so, mostly in response to the end of slavery and the relatively recent legal discovery that women are actually people. (who knew? :)

The judge went out of his way to let the Pro Prop 8 crowd make their case, but they had to do it within the framework of settled law.

Our laws are based on a secular and practical state interest, so they had to show that same sex marriages are bad in some practical way; that they undermine traditional marriages or put children at risk, or cause noise pollution. Something. Anything. They couldn't do it.

Seriously, read the ruling. It's a great civics lesson. Our courts are actually in pretty good hands. This is what justice looks like.

Posted by: rwolf01 | August 5, 2010 3:37 PM

to diamcoleman

I hope you find peace in your life sooner rather than later. Sadly, I don't think you will until you figure out and accept your sexuality. Living a straight life for whatever reason -- fear of the reaction of their family, friends or church, or desire to "fit in," or feeling that the gay people they see on TV aren't anything like them -- doesn't make anyone straight if the person is gay. And while a church may teach that living a homosexual life (i.e., having a relationship with a person of the same sex) is against that church's teaching, to paraphrase Bono, "Well the God I believe in loves his gay children, too, Mister!" (Bullet the Blue Sky by U2).

Coming out is never easy. Never. Some people lose family and friends. But once a person comes out, it feels like the weight of the world has been lifted from your soul as you can finally be honest with yourself (and your God) as to who you are (and who he made when he created you). It is the most liberating experience any gay person ever has in his or her life. And for every gay person that you see that you don't think you have anything in common with, there are dozens more that you will connect with who will become not only your friends, but your family. Hang in there. God will always love you no matter what. Remember that.

Posted by: jeffdc1 | August 5, 2010 3:40 PM

Washington had insisted on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the Continental Army, we would very likely all be speaking English and singing "God Save the Queen" rather than "America" (aka "My Country, 'Tis of Thee").
______________________________________________

By the way our anthem is not "America" so we really do not sing it. It is the Star Bangle banner.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 3:40 PM

Star spangle banner Sorry msp.

Posted by: nallcando | August 5, 2010 3:41 PM

"This is a scary day for our country when we start writting laws allowing individuals with mental dysfunctions protections. Soon we will have all sort of groups parading around the country screaming for their rights and protections. Certains laws are put in place to protect against the abnormalities. The moment we forget this, or ignore it, our society will speed toward its own demise!"
POSTED BY: SANMATEO1850

------
Maybe Sanmateo1850 has a point. If I as a gay man have a mental dysfunction, then my right to marry the person of my choice is protected under the americans with disabilities act.

This mental dysfunction thing could work out very well for the LGBT community. Now that we have been "diagnosed" here are some of the benefits:

*All comapnies that employ more than 50 people must make their businesses "gay-accessible"

* All restaurants and hotels must maintain a gay-freindly environment.

* All apartment buildings and large office buildings must make provisions to accomodate "the gay"

* All churches must have gay accessibles ramps and seating to accomodate any LGBT person who might walk in off the street.

Careful what you wish for Sanmateo you might just get it!

Posted by: blakgayman | August 5, 2010 3:52 PM

God also frowns on divorce.

Mark 10:2-9
POSTED BY: WVSKIN | AUGUST 5, 2010 1:33 PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Ah, Voltaire would be pleased. Another person making "god" in his/her own image.

Posted by: mini2 | August 5, 2010 3:54 PM

"Our Founding Fathers would be shocked that same sex marriage would ever be considered acceptable or legal in this nation."
The Founding Fathers would be shocked that women wear pants, that we drive cars and fly airplanes, that I can type my response to this article from the tenth floor of an office building and have it show up at the Washington Post. Heck they'd probably be shocked at the Washington Post. Is that really how we should run our society and our laws -- not do anything the Founding Fathers may be shocked by? Absurd.

Posted by: Kath1115 | August 5, 2010 3:55 PM

to diamcoleman
I hope you find peace in your life sooner rather than later. Sadly, I don't think you will until you figure out and accept your sexuality. Living a straight life for whatever reason -- fear of the reaction of their family, friends or church, or desire to "fit in," or feeling that the gay people they see on TV aren't anything like them -- doesn't make anyone straight if the person is gay. And while a church may teach that living a homosexual life (i.e., having a relationship with a person of the same sex) is against that church's teaching, to paraphrase Bono, "Well the God I believe in loves his gay children, too, Mister!" (Bullet the Blue Sky by U2).
Coming out is never easy. Never. Some people lose family and friends. But once a person comes out, it feels like the weight of the world has been lifted from your soul as you can finally be honest with yourself (and your God) as to who you are (and who he made when he created you). It is the most liberating experience any gay person ever has in his or her life. And for every gay person that you see that you don't think you have anything in common with, there are dozens more that you will connect with who will become not only your friends, but your family. Hang in there. God will always love you no matter what. Remember that.
----

I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. I wish you nothing but happiness and blessings for the rest of your life.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 3:57 PM

Why should the gay and lesbian people out there be immune from the "we've been together too long already, you need to marry me" argument?

on a serious note, I am a conservative, but I just don't understand how anyone can be ignorant enough to believe that the legal contract that is a marriage has ever been legally limited to a man and a woman by united states government documents.

That is why the separation of church and state exist, so I can't be forced to live by the laws of a church of mindless followers like the poster from hawaii.

Posted by: jbs550 | August 5, 2010 4:02 PM

I can't see this ending well for our side, frankly, if and when this case reaches the Supreme Court.

The present court would almost certainly vote 5-4 that this is a states' rights issue, and Scalia would write a concurring opinion just so he could call gays and lesbians abominations in the eyes of his god.

Posted by: brickerd | August 5, 2010 4:02 PM

Where does the word Rapture appear in the Bible and please do not give me your interpretation of what is in the Bible?
--------

I have no desire to answer idiotic questions, google it.

Posted by: diamcoleman |

--------------------------------------------------------------

No, your problem is you can't admit to being an idiot. You brought it up, you've been quick to fire off a slew of other bible verses in the vain hope it supports your desire for legislatively protected bigotry, but you can't man-up and answer a simple question posed to you. The bible makes no mention of "the Rapture"
Apparently what we have here is another faux-Xtian.

Posted by: washpost18 | August 5, 2010 4:05 PM


I can't see this ending well for our side, frankly, if and when this case reaches the Supreme Court.

The present court would almost certainly vote 5-4 that this is a states' rights issue, and Scalia would write a concurring opinion just so he could call gays and lesbians abominations in the eyes of his god.

Posted by: brickerd

-----------------------------------------------------------

It's more likely that SCotUS will decline to take up the case since there isn't an obvious error in the application law that would survive the appeal.

Posted by: washpost18 | August 5, 2010 4:08 PM

The rapture is in the book of revelations where Jesus returns and all christians and those who sleep (the dead) will be caught up in the sky. smh oh my goodness, please tell me you are not a christian.

Posted by: diamcoleman | August 5, 2010 12:06 PM
------
I was raised in a Christian religion that does not believe in the Rapture. They teach Judgment Day.

They also don't believe that women have the right to speak for themselves or vote on Church matters. Google "St John's Baraboo principal." I used to go there until I was old enough to choose for myself. I stopped believing at the age of 8 when I learned that a little girl wasn't as good as a little boy just because of who she was at birth. I knew I didn't choose to be born a girl, so how could anyone choose their eye color or sexual preference?

Religion is free to teach what it wants but I'm grateful I am free to choose a different path.

And no, black-skinned parents don't *always* give birth to black-skinned children. Google "Nmachi Ihegboro"

Posted by: NoVA_Cheesehead | August 5, 2010 4:08 PM

I came across the video of a gay march parade that took place in Jerusalem last week. the Marchers were not received very kindly by the onlookers or police. apparently gays can serve openly in the military in Isreal but Marches.....Raw Video: Gay Pride in Central Jerusalem
Thousands of members of Israel's homosexual and lesbian communities and their supporters held a 'Gay Pride' parade through central Jerusalem
http://www.newslook.com/videos/235161-raw-video-gay-pride-in-central-jerusalem?autoplay=true

Posted by: dbmetzger | August 5, 2010 4:09 PM

Can somebody please explain to me how a homosexual couple being legally wed somehow damages the heterosexual marriage I currently enjoy(the majority of the time)with my wife? I'm failing to grasp the logic of the "sanctity of marriage" arguement.

Posted by: rcupps | August 5, 2010 4:10 PM

THIS DECISION TO OVERTURN PROPOSITION
EIGHT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS BUT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
AS THE FEDERAL JUDGE STATED TO THE PRESS
HIS DECISION CAME FROM U.S. JUDICIARY RULES THAT CLEARLY STATE THAT NO STATE SHALL PASS A LAW THAT PROVIDES RIGHTS TO ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE WHILE TAKING AWAY RIGHTS FOR ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE. IN OTHER WORDS
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY HAS WON AGAIN FOR EVERYBODY!

Posted by: nojh | August 5, 2010 4:11 PM

Civil Unions can be structured to give the same rights as Marriage, this issue has nothing to do with Civil Rights. Should we change the definition of Lesbian because a man and woman want to be called a Lesbian?

Posted by: cbk1 | August 5, 2010 4:16 PM

Judge Vaughn R. Walker to California voters: Screw YOU!!!

Posted by: DRoman1 | August 5, 2010 4:31 PM

This is a scary day for our country when we start writting laws allowing individuals with mental dysfunctions protections. Soon we will have all sort of groups parading around the country screaming for their rights and protections. Certains laws are put in place to protect against the abnormalities. The moment we forget this, or ignore it, our society will speed toward its own demise!"
POSTED BY: SANMATEO1850
------
Maybe Sanmateo1850 has a point. If I as a gay man have a mental dysfunction, then my right to marry the person of my choice is protected under the americans with disabilities act.
This mental dysfunction thing could work out very well for the LGBT community. Now that we have been "diagnosed" here are some of the benefits:
*All comapnies that employ more than 50 people must make their businesses "gay-accessible"
* All restaurants and hotels must maintain a gay-freindly environment.
* All apartment buildings and large office buildings must make provisions to accomodate "the gay"
* All churches must have gay accessibles ramps and seating to accomodate any LGBT person who might walk in off the street.
Careful what you wish for Sanmateo you might just get it!
===========================================

Based on this ruling, that is exactly what happened! That is why I am opposed!

What's next, people will want to marry their pets? Or what about pedafiles being allowed to marry children? In my mind there is NO difference. As the psychologist say, is it not a disease, it is just their sexual orientation.

We need more law preventing these people from imposing their abnormal lifestyle on the rest of us. These people should be locked up in special hospitals until they find a way to correct their brains.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 5, 2010 4:33 PM

Posted by: shalshah | August 4, 2010 9:17 PM

We are in a period of moral decline according to most religious texts. Now, it's widely accepted and condoned when men marry men and women marry women. Things that were once sanctimonius and pure are no longer valid. This is a generation of where "wrong" is the new right. Bad times indeed....when 80% of the population feels like the ban should be overturned.

---------------------------------------

It's hard not to feel morally superior to fearful bullies and bigots who apparently have no clue about their country's language, laws and history.

Still, I can't help but love shalshah's ironically wrong word choice (and, still, misspelled) of "sanctimonius" in describing her/his nostalgically lugubrious feelings about about the state of our times.

Rock on with your illiteracy!

Posted by: JuanitaHigginbotham | August 5, 2010 4:41 PM

Dear Hallcando,

"God Save the Queen" and "America" use the same melody -- that's the point.

Posted by: edallan | August 5, 2010 4:42 PM

In the name of tolerance, the god of the left, would it be possible to allow just this one traditional value to remain intact? There is only one reason to demand a redefinition of a longstanding word, and that is simply, "You got it, I want it, too." Just as an imam who truly wished to heal would build his mosque elsewhere, gays who would acknowledge all that straights have heretofore accepted (remember, it was, and in many parts of the world continues to be, considered a perversion), and accept "civil union" as the term applied to their contract. But, much like the purpose of the mosque at ground zero, the true purpose is a power grab. To all whose blood pressure is now elevated to stroke level, cool the rage - I won't be revisiting this site to read your infantile rantings.

Posted by: craigincol | August 5, 2010 4:59 PM

Prop 9: Marriage shall be restricted to those who can pass a virginity test, men & women, and who have never participated in the Old Testament abominations of eating shellfish & pork products nor ever worn mixed fabrics.

I almost forgot. All divorces will be nullified and Newt Gingrich must go back to ex-wife #1.

Please note heavy use of sarcasm.

Posted by: hootie1fan | August 5, 2010 5:09 PM

Losing one battle after the next, the Summer of GOP Discontent, continues... ;^)

- Balkingpoints / www

Posted by: RField7 | August 5, 2010 5:11 PM

The courts & the law aren’t there to only protect those we have the warm fuzzies for.

Posted by: hootie1fan | August 5, 2010 5:11 PM

It's not about gays/bible/god/culture, It's about:

(a) Who gets the right to expand the definition of marriage, which has always been and currently is, a social construct.

(b) Which special interest groups are included in the "new" definition of marriage. On what basis are groups not included denied inclusion while violating "equal protection".

(c) If ans to (a) is courts, then "equal protection" trumps "general welfare", as decided by the legislature, which means the legislature loses the right to define social constructs which actively suspends "equal protection" for "general welfare".

So liberals better hope that the Supreme Court slaps down this dangerous precedent otherwise they will end up undoing most of their judicial achivements of the last century and can kiss schemes like progressive income tax and affirmative action goodbye.

Posted by: NoWeCant | August 5, 2010 5:14 PM

To sanmateo1850: Explain to me exactly how homosexual marriage harms society?? All I hear are vague unsubstantiated comments by you and others that it will somehow wreck havoc on the rest of us - HOW? Gay relationships with children ALREADY exist - don't you think it would be better for those children have a sense of security because of the legitimacy of their parents' relationship?

And to IrvFleckman and others who say we are in dire straits because a judge ruled against the wishes of a number Californians - I guess you would be all for the Nuremburg Laws which led to the annihilation of European Jews. If just one "activist judge" had stood up against those maybe the concentration camps would never have been built. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

Posted by: margaretpierson | August 5, 2010 5:16 PM

this ruling just debased my marriage by equating it with that of homos. i have just been discriminated against. i should sue.

Posted by: submarinerssn774 | August 5, 2010 5:18 PM

I find it funny that several people mentioned that we are now in "a period of decline". I wonder if the same people were as disgusted when children were beaten for peacefully protesting during the civil rights struggle of the sixties. When were we as a country so "moral"?

Posted by: megmorrison05 | August 5, 2010 5:18 PM

homo marriage and normal marriage ain't that same and saying so over and over won't make it so. it will NEVER be the SAME. this country MUST find a way to differentiate between the two or everything we've worked for is over. "kids" of homos MUST know its different, so that they can have the choice to grow up NORMAL and not think its OK.

Posted by: submarinerssn774 | August 5, 2010 5:24 PM

The paramount point of the decision, if you read it, is that:

It does not matter whether you, or I, as individual voters agree or disagree. It is a matter of fact, precedent, US law, and state's interest. Prop 8 did not have a iota of justification.

Read it and weep Prop 8ers. And those who, in the future, want to put Props on the ballot, consult a lawyer first - not last.

Posted by: merrill1 | August 5, 2010 5:25 PM

I think Marge Simpson (Yes, The Simpsons truly are timeless) pretty much summarized the opinion of those that are so outrages with the ruling, "Call me a killjoy, but if this is not to my taste, no one else should be able to enjoy it."

Posted by: DCProgressive | August 5, 2010 5:28 PM

To sanmateo1850: Explain to me exactly how homosexual marriage harms society?? All I hear are vague unsubstantiated comments by you and others that it will somehow wreck havoc on the rest of us - HOW? Gay relationships with children ALREADY exist - don't you think it would be better for those children have a sense of security because of the legitimacy of their parents' relationship?

Posted by: margaretpierson
===========================================

It harms society by allowing people with abnormal brain function to express their desires. What if we let pedafiles express their desires? It is just their sexual orientation after all, right?

Just because homosexuals operate seemingly normal lives, let it not fool us into thinking they do not suffer from abnormal brain activity.

As for the children. Does the state allow mentally challenged parents care for their children? Do we not question whether the child is receiving proper care from individuals who suffer from abnormal brain functionality.

The harm again is allowing people who have an obvious dysfunctional brain to express their desires, and worst of all, allow them to care for the most impressionable, children.

We must protect children, and our society, from those who have these dysfunctions and abnormal brain activity. It will only lead to more problems if not managed carefully.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 5, 2010 5:33 PM

"at the rate that gay men enter and leave their relationships..." To Sperrico -- Excuse me? When did you last talk to a gay couple? Of all the gay and straight couples we know, only two straight couples are still together; all the gay couples have been in relationships from between 5 to 35 years and are all going strong. We happen to have been together for 28. As a teenager I wasn't any more promiscuous than my brother -- and, unlike him, I didn't get anyone pregnant. So talk to a gay couple before you pass judgment.

In any event, a calm, intelligent discussion on gay marriage will never happen until opponents understand that being gay is not a choice, you are born this way -- and again, if you say it is a choice, when was the last time you asked someone who's gay?

Posted by: JeffH3 | August 5, 2010 5:33 PM

If the government is concerned with saving the institution of marraige then it should not stop at half measures like banning gay marraige. Let's do it up right and ban DIVORCE! You signed up for life, you're in it for life!

Posted by: EKruse | August 5, 2010 5:39 PM

The judge said that homosexual marriage will not negatively impact heterosexual marriage. He forgot to mention that it will very definitely impact the family unit, a mother and a father for children. I am a single parent who successfully adopted two children. However, the best family for children are a mother and a father. Anything else is second best. As a woman, I could never teach my son to be a man no matter how I tried. My daughter was raised without a father, and as she grew, she was unable to gauge a man's character because she never had a father. I tried even when she was a child to warn her about being naive, but she had to learn some bitter lessons. What I am saying is that of course there are exceptions to a family unit, divorce, separation and even death. However, those are exceptions not the norm. Civilization was based on the family unit, we are destroying ourselves.

Posted by: Listening2 | August 5, 2010 5:44 PM

In any event, a calm, intelligent discussion on gay marriage will never happen until opponents understand that being gay is not a choice, you are born this way -- and again, if you say it is a choice, when was the last time you asked someone who's gay?
Posted by: JeffH3
===========================================

Some of us do understand that you did not have a choice in being gay. But what the gays refuse to understand, and why society passes laws against them, is that their biological make up is abnormal. The gays brain functions differently than a normal heterosexual person. As a result, normal functioning people need to put in place laws that protect society from this abnormal behavior.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 5, 2010 5:45 PM

I agree with the Judges ruling simply because of the equal rights clause in the constitution.
I would also agree with an amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
This nation needs to codify the rights of a gay union so they have the same rights as a man/woman marriage.

Posted by: jslivesay | August 5, 2010 5:47 PM

All hail the Liberal Culture of Death! Why should I embrace a lifestyle that, on average, takes 20 years off of a fellow human being's life?

Before the Militants forced emptyheads to become PC, it was called G.R.I.D.S.

Still waiting for the "Heterosexual Outbreak"....waiting....waiting....waiting.

Posted by: ANTILIB | August 5, 2010 5:54 PM

Why are you having a poll? The vote was already taken and the majority should rule.

Posted by: delusional1 | August 5, 2010 5:59 PM

This is not about marriage, it is about voting and democracy, it is about a small group of people imposing their will upon the majority...

So if the majority was to vote to overturn Civil Rights, that would be okay because it was the will of the majority? We have checks and balances generally and courts specifically to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Yes the will of the people should be respected in a democracy but when it comes to civil rights, the courts have a duty to protect Liberty and Justice for ALL.

When 50% of marriages end in divorce, how can denying 100,000s of people the right to marry help the institution of marriage?

We are talking about civil marriages not religious marriages. The State must create Equal Protection Under the Law. Maybe all Civil Marriages should be redefined as Civil Unions and only religious institutions should be allowed to marry. This would give LGBT couples full equality and allow religious groups to make their marriages more-special than a certificate from a justice of the peace.

Posted by: grl7 | August 5, 2010 6:01 PM

Gay people should be allowed the same rights as heterosexual people.
Now if we can just get strait men to stop beating their wives, and abandoning their children.
Remember the BTK serial killer who was a heterosexual church going family man who killed for sport?.

Posted by: JillCalifornia | August 5, 2010 6:11 PM

I am very tired of hearing the absurd argument that gay marriage will contribute to the "downfall of the American family." How about all the philandering heterosexual married people that disrespect their spouses and families? From prominent preachers to assorted members of the government, there are plenty of hypocritical cheating, abusive heterosexuals that have done more to undermine the American Family than any homosexual (male or female) I have known. That excuse is absurd and just doesn't apply anymore. It's time to give EVERYONE the opportunity to enjoy (for better or for worse) the experience of being married. 'nuff said!

Posted by: kathymce | August 5, 2010 6:11 PM

I love the people who rant how the vote of the people should overrule the decision of a judge ragarding the 14th amendment, but when it comes to gun rights, the will of the people that have voted for gun restrictions mean nothing against the sacred 2nd ammendment and the judges that have made decisions based on it. I'm so tired of people making up facts and convictions to suit what they believe.

Posted by: dwhitebread | August 5, 2010 6:25 PM

I understand the judge is openly gay and should have recused himself.

Posted by: gfafblifr | August 5, 2010 6:30 PM

You can expect him to recuse himself when all heterosexual judges recuse themselves.

I'm sick of the hate being spewed by the christian conservatives. They don't deserve to be called christian because they are bigoted, a very unchristian attribute.

Posted by: pam8 | August 5, 2010 7:17 PM

From the same cited source, I understand that GFAFBLIFR is the judge's jilted former lover and should recuse himself from commenting on the judge.

That's like saying no White judge should have been able to rule on Brown v Board of Ed.

Our founding fathers would mess their knickers if they saw devices that took words typed in, say, East Syracuse NY and made them visible to people all over the world. So everyone who's commented on this story is an insult to their memory.

Despite the rants of Social Luddites, the founding fathers would be most aghast at the attempts by the right to stick government's nose into our bedrooms and what passes for religion these days.

Posted by: Clarkpark | August 5, 2010 7:18 PM

The secret behind Judge Walker's ruling and why the press is not talking about it.
Read it at the section of "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" at http://www.robbingamerica.com

Posted by: JohnGalt9 | August 5, 2010 7:55 PM

"He forgot to mention that it will very definitely impact the family unit, a mother and a father for children."

1. Your kids had issues, yes - that does not mean that was because they didn't have a father (did you not try to provide them with ANY male role models? A grandpa, an uncle, a cousin, a family friend, a teacher?). Nor does it mean that gay people's kids, being raised in a two-parent family, will have like problems. In fact, they don't appear to - all studies so far done on the topic show healthy kids in healthy families.

2. Barring gay marriage does not ensure that kids get heterosexual parents. Allowing gay marriages will not ensure that a bunch of kids will be snatched from a Cleaver-like family to be given over to "the EVIL GAYS". It just ensures that the kids of gay parents, who do exist and will exist regardless of laws on gay marriage, have less security, less stability, and less legal protections for their families. What you're saying to those kids is, "I don't like your family structure, so I'm going to make your life even harder and more insecure because I don't approve of your parents' choices." How lovely of you. When you were raising those kids, what would you have said to someone who tried to disrupt your family and hurt what legal security and protections your kids had growing up, just because they disapproved of adoption by single parents and wanted to punish you (and them) for your unconventional family structure?

3. While we allow alcoholics, drug addicts, violent felons, and even child abusers, molesters and murderers to marry at will, without a qualm or a restriction, it seems a bit foolish to bar gay people from marriage on the grounds that they _might_ be _possibly_ less than absolutely ideal as parents. In your opinion.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 7:58 PM

Enough with the opining about homosexuality. This debate is, or should be, about marriage: specifically, about whether the state has a compelling, rationalist basis for privileging marriage as marriage has been defined for the past ~5,000 years of recorded history.

My thoughts on some of the more common themes expressed in the opinions above:

1) THE MARRIAGE PRIVILEGE IS INHERENTLY DISCRIMINATORY: Yes, it is. So what? Society makes decisions all the time that some social goods are worth privileging. For example, we have elite universities that are taxpayer-supported and yet are not open to all students. They discriminate against those with lower grades. But what, critics ask, about people who can't help it? Who simply were not born with the same academic ability? Why should they have to settle for a lesser, nonflagship, nonelite school?

The human race decided eons ago that one arrangement, marriage, was better -- not just "different," actually better -- for the ordering of kinship ties and of society as a whole.

Is that societal end still served? I think it's pretty obvious that it is, just as it's better for all of us to have and pay for a place like MIT even if not everyone gets to go. I find persuasive the overwhelming body of research that shows that being raised by their married, biological parents is by far the best arrangement for kids.

2) BUT SOME MARRIAGES ARE HORRIBLE. AND KIDS GET RAISED ALL THE TIME BY SINGLE PARENTS, AND STEP PARENTS, AND GAY LOVERS: Yes, they do. But why privilege second-best, if the whole point is to encourage the best? And more importantly, notice the whole tone of that line of argument which is essentially: Kids are resilient. Adults have needs.

3) BUT NOT ALL MARRIAGES PRODUCE KIDS, AND NOT ALL KIDS ARE THE PRODUCTS OF MARRIAGE, THEREFORE THIS WHOLE LINKAGE IS SPECIOUS: All children are the product of the union of male and female, virtually all of them (for statistical purposes of counting) conceived the old-fashioned way. Marriage exists to promote stability in the only kind of human relationship from which new human life can be created. This is not true of every marriage, and indeed is untrue of some. But it *is* true of the institution as a whole. And even marriages of older people promote this social stability in two main ways: (a) if he is faithful to his wedding vows, the husband (who unlike his wife is still fertile) will refrain from fathering out-of-wedlock children; and (b) any children they adopt will have both a father and a mother.

4) ALL OF THAT NOTWITHSTANDING, AT THE END OF THE DAY, DENYING GAY MARRIAGE IS A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: Actually, the opposite is true. All Americans already enjoyed the same right to marry: Find a consenting person, of legal age, not too closely related to you, not already married, and of the opposite sex, and go to town. What's that, you say? You're not attracted to the opposite sex? That's OK. Attraction has never been mandatory. What, you love another? Happens all the time. You don't want to get married? No one has a gun to your head.

The particulars (age of consent, degrees of consanguinity) have varied from state to state, and century to century. But none of us has ever had the right to marry anyone we want. None of us -- until now -- has ever claimed a "right" to marry someone simply because we feel like it.

If the rationalist underpinnings of marriage's links to procreation are cut away, it will be interesting indeed to see on what basis any strictures survive. The predictions of plural marriage, bestiality, etc are not paranoid ravings or cynical scare tactics. They flow inevitably from the logic of gay marriage and proponents of gay marriage better be prepared to answer them. (And an animal's consent is not pertinent, btw, in a society that eats meat.)

5) WHY SHOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO STRAIGHT PEOPLE WHETHER MARRIAGE IS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE GAYS. I CANNOT IMAGINE NOT GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE GAY PEOPLE ARE, THEREFORE THE WHOLE IDEA IS RIDICULOUS AND BIGOTED. Economists hear this argument all the time. "I would never stop working just because my taxes went up, it's absurd to think that a small tax hike is going to hurt the economy!" That ignores that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some highly paid consultant who just can't justify sacrificing precious leisure time if he's only going to be making 60 cents on the dollar. Nevertheless the result is: less economic activity. Similarly, you -- self-satisfied, firmly socialized, middle-class, expensively educated *you* -- may not be the marginal marriage candidate. The marginal marriage candidate may be some high school drop out from Wasilla. But what's "ridiculous" is pretending that the institution of marriage will not suffer any consequences in the wake of major social change.

The same arguments were made when divorce laws were liberalized and when welfare benefits were extended to unwed mothers. "It's ridiculous to think that divorce rates will be a problem. Marriage is a bedrock of our society! The only couples who will get divorced will be those with terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!"

"Being a single mother is brutal! It's ridiculous to think that anyone would have a baby without a husband just because she could get welfare benefits."

Like the gay marriage, the earlier bright ideas about redefining marriage looked only at individual behaviors and took the institution as a given. They assumed that the historic cultural encouragement to marry, arrayed against the new financial freedoms not to, would sort themselves out on the basis of what would be best in each individual case. They failed to see that the two had a complex dynamic interplay, and that when you changed one, you changed the other.

Certainly no one predicted a day when 40% of American babies would be born out of wedlock, or half of marriages would end in divorce.

Similarly the pro-gay-marriage arguments I have read either say that (a) it's just somehow ridiculous to think that any baleful consequences could possibly befall marriage as a normative institution (I am not interested here in individual unions) merely because we have done away with its defining feature; or (b) marriage should NOT exist as a normative social institution anyway but only as a delivery channel for the state to dole out health insurance and other benefits; (c) that the whole institution is a tired old whore that has outlived its usefulness; or (d) that even if it is useful -- especially if it is useful -- marriage must be redefined to include gays, even if doing so moots that very usefulness.

I reject all of those arguments.

So do a majority of other Americans. We are called "voters" but the official word, effective today, is that we do not matter.

Posted by: Jakarta | August 5, 2010 8:03 PM

"What's next, people will want to marry their pets? Or what about pedafiles being allowed to marry children? In my mind there is NO difference. "

Because you have NO concept of the importance of informed consent with respect to marriage or the sexual act, apparently. To my mind, that makes you a scary, sick person. Can I then prevent you from marrying?

"In the name of tolerance, the god of the left, would it be possible to allow just this one traditional value to remain intact?"

You mean the traditional value of poking your nose into your neighbor's business and demanding the right to control their private life? No, sorry, not unless you're willing to allow us to do it to you. (In which case, you are ineligible for marriage as of now. Anyone who defines marriage as a matter of genitals and chromosomes over love and commitment is not fit to marry.)

"There is only one reason to demand a redefinition of a longstanding word, and that is simply, "You got it, I want it, too.""

Because marriage in and of itself has no value other than status? Because the only purpose for marriage is to have government tell you you're better than someone else? How shallow.

And why, in America, should you have special privileged status that others may not have?

"Just as an imam who truly wished to heal would build his mosque elsewhere, gays who would acknowledge all that straights have heretofore accepted (remember, it was, and in many parts of the world continues to be, considered a perversion), and accept "civil union" as the term applied to their contract"

Yes, second-class people like Muslims and gays should be humbly grateful that the superior majority tolerates us at all, and submissively take our second-class status and kiss your boots for your condescension in allowing it...no, sorry. Not going to work. Separate is never equal. Separate names for the same relationship just point out inequality and give special status to some at the expense of others. And "consideration for others" does not equal "yes, master, you may tell me how to live, what choices to make, and what to do with my life, my property, and my marriage, while you are completely free to do as you please however it may offend me."

Muslims are Americans, too, and have the right to use their own property as they see fit, and to build their mosques and worship as they see fit, just as you do. Gays are Americans, too, and have the right to choose their spouses as they see fit, just as you do. Live with it.

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 8:10 PM

"Some of us do understand that you did not have a choice in being gay. But what the gays refuse to understand, and why society passes laws against them, is that their biological make up is abnormal. The gays brain functions differently than a normal heterosexual person. As a result, normal functioning people need to put in place laws that protect society from this abnormal behavior. "

Your bigotry and obsession with others' sexuality is abnormal, too.

And I have never heard it said that one's civil rights and ability to make one's own life choices in this country is conditional upon one only making "normal" choices (by whose definition of normal?). Society only needs to be protected from abnormal behavior that hurts people, like pedophilia or rape. Gay marriages hurt no one, except people who are mentally ill enough to fret excessively over how other people live their lives.

Sheesh. By your standards, we ought to ban left-handedness, because that, too, is an "abnormal" brain wiring. So is genius, in whatever form. What you call "abnormal" I call "simple human variety, the spice of life."

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 8:15 PM

No Jakarta, your opinion "matters" only when you vote for your representatives. They make the laws, not you and your neighbors. The decision in Prop 8 points out why. Prop 8 proponents could not mount a single sustainable argument. They could not raise three willing expert witnesses to appear on their behalf and argue any merit of Prop 8. They had no facts, scientific studies, compelling statistics, historical precedent, or case law to support their argument. The case rested entirely upon personal opinion. THAT is why voters don't make law, and that is why your opinion does not matter.

Posted by: merrill1 | August 5, 2010 8:35 PM

"But why privilege second-best, if the whole point is to encourage the best?"

Because you have not proven that heterosexual parents are superior to gay parents. Or that even if they are, in general, that individual kids would always automatically be better off with heterosexual parents. We don't base custody rulings on "what's best for all kids, on average," we base them on "what's best for THIS kid."

Because punishing gay parents by denying them marriage only hurts their kids. You don't make gay people give up having kids by denying them marriage - and if you do, you punish the kids further by denying them existence, or keeping them in the much more problematic foster care system instead of a loving adoptive family. You just keep those kids from having the basic protection of a stable family rooted in legally married parents.

Nor does barring gay marriage promote "ideal" heterosexual parenting, as heterosexuals simply do not make their choices about having kids based on whether or not government tells them that their marriage is better than someone else's, and worthy of special privilege. No, not even marginal cases (and if they are, marginal cases should not be having kids in the first place). Barring gay marriage does NOTHING to help my child or support my heterosexual family.

And if allowing gay marriage is "privileging second-best", what do you call it when the state allows and sanctions the marriage of alcoholics, drug abusers, destitute homeless folks, violent felons, and even child abusers, molesters and murderers? Are they better than gay parents? Should we treat them as more "ideal" than loving, secure, healthy gay parents?

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 8:36 PM


"All Americans already enjoyed the same right to marry: "

That was the exact argument overturned in Loving vs. VA. Richard and Mildred Loving, after all, had the same rights as anyone else in VA, to marry someone of the same race. Spouses are not interchangeable, and you may not pass laws denying some people the right to marry the consenting adult they love and have chosen.

"merely because we have done away with its defining feature"

If you define marriage by genitals and breeding ability, you are too shallow to marry.

The social changes you cite as having "changed" marriage have done so, sometimes for the better. I like the current chosen egalitarian love-match far better than the old near-mandatory property arrangement, and while there are social problems attached, there were more attached to the original system. (Try being inescapably tied to an abuser, or a spouse who drinks away all the money you'd earned to feed your kids.)

But the negative impacts have mainly come from making marriage less socially necessary, more soluble, less automatically sought after. Gay people seeking to marry are making marriage MORE important by their example, showing that they VALUE and CHERISH the institution, and that it still is worth seeking out. Gay parents, by fighting for marriage, are saying that it's important to be married when you have kids. (And the choice for their kids is not married gay parents vs. married hetero parents, it's married gay parents vs. unmarried gay parents. Do you think unmarried gay parents are better for kids than married ones?)

Your argument is like saying, "We added a huge tax hike, and the economy went under! Now we can't make any possible changes to the tax structure, ever again, because any change might send the economy under again! No, not a tax cut, are you crazy? Changes to the institution of "tax" always hurt the economy!"

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 8:36 PM

"Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right.To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy -- namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages."

Posted by: dweeber | August 5, 2010 8:38 PM

"We are called "voters" but the official word, effective today, is that we do not matter."

No, you do not matter when it comes to your neighbors making their own personal choices about their own private lives.

Would you like someone else's opinion to matter - to be allowed legally to override yours - when it comes to picking YOUR spouse, or YOUR profession, or YOUR place of residence, or YOUR choices about whether and when to have children, or about how to raise them (assuming no abuse is involved)?

What if the majority of voters decide that it's healthier for society in general if you are told what profession you must follow from an early age? What if the majority of voters want to tell you that it's better for society if you move someplace other than the place you have chosen to live? Is that OK with you, too? Will you respect other people's wishes with respect to your personal life and personal choices, to the point of letting them override your own?

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 8:41 PM

"If the rationalist underpinnings of marriage's links to procreation are cut away, it will be interesting indeed to see on what basis any strictures survive. The predictions of plural marriage, bestiality, etc are not paranoid ravings or cynical scare tactics. "

Because you really believe that there's no reason to prohibit plural marriage or bestiality other than "it's traditional?"

And we certainly don't ban plural marriage because it interferes with procreation. Polygynous marriage lets men procreate far more than monogamous marriage does. If the sole reason to promote marriage were to encourage procreation, we ought to be encouraging men to take multiple wives.

You speak, by the way, as though we awarded marriage as a Good Conduct medal to encourage parents to breed and raise kids. Instead, those benefits of marriage that are aimed at parents are geared towards protecting and supporting the kids, not rewarding the parents. All kids need that support and security, and all kids deserve it, not just the ones lucky enough to be born into and raised by your "ideal" family in the "ideal" way (perhaps they need it least of all...).

Posted by: Catken1 | August 5, 2010 8:49 PM

Actually, young voters don't give a darn about gay marriages. They don't understand why there's such a fuss. It's the old folks who have their knickers in knots over it. Just like gays in the military. Old codgers get set in their ways and think the world's going to come to an end if anything in society changes.

Posted by: pam8 | August 5, 2010 8:52 PM

The world is laughing at us, thanks

Homo's and Lesbian's of the Gay community are proud today, 1 step back for mom and dad.

The only prob I see, if they want to addopt children, cuz they cant make a family of thier own. its when the kid gets beat up everyday at school, and when hes old enough to figure out what the state did, he will sue the state and prob both dad and dad, or mom and mom.
I KNOW I WOULD !!!

I can see it now, little timmy comes home from school and says moms... where is dad...the state did what... calling my lawer this is f**cked up.

Posted by: GoArizonaGo | August 5, 2010 9:15 PM

Well if they must they must but lets send all same sex couples to cal.to live and get married and make them stay there so when Jesus comes back he wont have any trouble finding them and casting them into the lakes of fire to suffer ever more

Posted by: br5491 | August 5, 2010 9:30 PM

Dont send them to Cali, we are over run with Illegals, got no room for them here

Posted by: GoArizonaGo | August 5, 2010 10:10 PM

IN twenty years, as soon as the baby boomer generation dies out, no one is going to care
except conservative Christians. Hopefully the right wing supreme court will not make same sex couples wait that long to marry.

Posted by: igsoper | August 6, 2010 12:38 AM

California will soon have an initiative which will make it unlawful for republicans to reproduce. It looks like it's going to pass.

Posted by: igsoper | August 6, 2010 12:48 AM

"Our Founding Fathers would be shocked that same sex marriage would ever be considered acceptable or legal in this nation."

They would also be shocked that blacks and whites marry too, but should we make that illegal just because the founding fathers would be "shocked"? The same argument could also be used to ban bikinis, skirts above the knees and women working outside the home because the founding fathers would be shocked.

Oh puleaze! Join the 21st century, wouldja?

Posted by: meowomon | August 6, 2010 4:10 AM

"Our Founding Fathers would be shocked that same sex marriage would ever be considered acceptable or legal in this nation."

Don't forget slavery which was "tradition" since biblical days if not before!

Posted by: LZambeni | August 6, 2010 5:51 AM

To inject a little humor into this discussion. Kinky Friedman, who at one time was running for Governor of Texas, was asked his opinion on gay marriage, and he responded:

"I am in support of gay marriage. I want them to be as miserable as the rest of us."

Posted by: ttuck256 | August 6, 2010 10:20 AM

Equating gay marriage to the struggles against slavery is like saying illegals are not criminals if you want to use analogies.

Posted by: zcxnissan | August 8, 2010 1:05 AM

Rather, zcxnissan, equating homosexuals to illegal immigrants is the height of ignorance and hate. Please, take an English course past Jr. High level and study analogies.

Posted by: groucho42 | August 8, 2010 1:36 PM

To HOMEINHAWAI: Our Founding Fathers would have been also shocked to see that interracial marriages are allowed. We evolve and change, and move towards a fulfillment of the vision of our Constitution that all men are women are equal under the law. This includes gays, lesbians, transgender, and transexual people. Don't like it? Renounce your US citizenship and move to a country where bigotry still rules.

Posted by: AJBF | August 16, 2010 11:06 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company