Court agrees to hear same-sex marriage case

The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Proposition 8, the ballot measure approved earlier this month that banned same-sex marriage. But it also denied a request to put the ban on hold until it considers the challenge. From the court:

The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8. The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

The Times' Maura Dolan has a full story on Proposition 8 and the California Supreme Court.

Comments

[Bill Bauer]

California is blessed with a really impressive and intelligent Supreme Court. Shame on those pro-H8 persons who even suggest recalling these Justices.

[pitbullstew]

sorry, its double talk is it, prop 8, in efect or not? just like the prop yes means no, and no means yes...same here in this article?

[xaiver]

shame on bill in creating more hate. by not respecting the peoples vote

[SS]

Why don't we review blacks and whites ability to get married while we're at it...or women's right to vote. How did these things slip past us and become legal?

[Gary Wood]

Next stop, overturning 8. Way to go Justice!!!!!!!!

[Chad Everhart]

I moved to California 4 years ago to get away from those who wear white hooded robes, and burning crosses, yet, the KKK supporters of YES ON 8 shows even California is racist...
Stop the hate, we let women vote, we let a black man become president, we let animals have rights....
why is gay rights banned after all we have done in US history?
Its about equal rights, ...
The USA is said to be a Melting pot, full of freedom... But thats only for those that are NOT gay????
The USA needs to get over its hate once & for all !!!!!!
STOP LISTENING TO THE CHURCH !!! THIS IS ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS!!!!

[Noah]

It's really sad that bible preaching, bigoted people feel the need to invade the rights of others that are different than they are. They have become the "Invasion of the Rights of the People".

[Daniel C]

This is great news! , goes to show that they are considering this, now its up to those incredibly talented lawyers to work their magic, i Have faith in them.

[John K.]

I'd hate to rain on the parade, but the only justice who voted to dismiss the lawsuits was one of the justices in the majority in the first marriage case. That probably means a justice that voted against granting same-sex marriage in the first place now has to come over to our side to overturn Prop. 8. My optimism is gone.

[Dan]

vote is over. move on. I voted for Yes on 4 (parental notification of abortion) - if failed. I thought it was critically important but you don't see me running around and protesting and boycotting the business of people in the majority. the people in this state voted against my will and I am moving on. Please stop trying to force your lifestyle or preferences on the rest of us. you are in the minority - if you care about it that much - perhaps move to a place where you are in the majority (Mass, Conn).

in the meantime, we await your protest outside a mosque, sinagogue or (gasp) Baptist church in south central. but we know you cowards won't do that. it's too politically incorrect. you'll go back and attack the Mormons (of all people) because they funded the campaign and it's not politically incorrect... yet. do you realize that if it were $'s that was all that was required to convince someone of an ideology - you would have won the vote. that's right - check your facts - No on 8 raised $2 million more $'s than yes. Yet you go after Mormons who represent 2% of the electorate in California - half of which we all know are probably children (Mormans tend to have bigger families). do you think their money convinced 5.7million people on this issue? or even the half million that won the vote? you're in denial. go back and yell at their building in Westwood and send some more packages with powder to them - that will help your cause. absolute genius.

stop looking for a scapegoat. you lost. deal with your feelings of anger or sadness - don't try to push them on someone else.

you keep complaining that you want the same rights as everyone else. guess what - you have the same rights. we can both marry someone of the opposite sex. the irony in all of this is that marriage is not a right - it's a contract or license. so you've chosen the wrong argument. you are choosing to change the definition of our license. it's like going to a licensed toe surgeon and arguing that you should be able to change the definition of his/her license to a knee surgeon. How about this? create your OWN license!! oh yeah, you already have them. Civil unions and partnerships. Your hero Elton John gets it. he said:

"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm

He gets it!! Now if it's RIGHTS you want - FOCUS on RIGHTS - not on marriage. I think the majority of us Yes on 8 folks are ready and willing to help you get any rights that are not equal. I heard mention of gays wanting more ability to make medical decisions for their partners, for example. That's a right you should have. We want to help simplify and clarify any and all ambiguity in the law. But don't try to come in and re-define the license and commitment we hold so dear.

[G. Daniel Gunter]

My husband & I were married Sept 19th. I can not beleive I have to wait until March to hear if a vote by alot of misinformed people are going ruin smothing that I hold very important to me. I did not marry all those people I married the person I love. I should be the only person that decides if I want to be married to him or not.

[J Marks]

This same court established last May that we are a protected class as are racial minorities. And marriage is an inherent characteristic of this class in that our marriages are the only natural type we can have.

Opposite sex marriage is as unnatural to us as same sex marriage is to non-gays. Often older generation gays were forced by culture into opposite sex marriages, I know of many. They are almost invariably unfair to the spouse who becomes an indirect victim of the anti gay culture.

[Satan]

I'm so glad I have been able to destroy the family structure with Birth Control, Abortion, and now Gay Rights.

Once I am able to destroy the family and morals of this country, I will have a party in Hell for all of them.

[rubyred]

Even in a Democracy there MUST be sets of rules!!! Without them we would all be killed...No rights have been taken away...i agree w/Sir Elton that civil marriage seems suitable in place of marriage for all..Our Constitution already grants all couples every right...no rights have been taken away...hip hip hurrah for the Courts ruling...

[westminsterabs]

SS said: "Why don't we review blacks and whites ability to get married . . . ? "

Painfully obvious answer: because marriage between blacks and whites does not involve a fundamental *redefinition* of marriage the way same-sex "marriage" does.

The frequently-made point that marriage has seen many variations (racial restrictions, polygamy, age of consent, dowry customs, etc.) by no means overturns this basic observation, since the fact that marriage unites the complementary sexes has been a conspicuously *constant* feature throughout all these variations. That the variations have occurred only serves to highlight what a constant, core element of marriage the opposite-sex aspect of it has been. Only in recent years has it been otherwise, and that not by common cultural consent, but by judicial fiat.

[corntrader19]

This is getting old. Enough already! the voters have spoken. How many times are they going to have to go through this? The Supreme Court should refuse to hear this case.

[Mary Ann Stadler]

Questions:

Does the will of the people in passing Prop. 8 mean anything? If not, why bother to vote?

Did God make a mistake when he formed male and female anatomy?

[corntrader19]

Stop confusing "love" with sodomy! It's not the same thing. No matter how much you argue about it, the truth will always be the same. Quit attacking people of faith because you don't like the outcome. There are people that don't believe the bible that still know sodomy is wrong. Anyone can see that a man and a woman were made to be connected. That's why God said "The two shall become one flesh." Stop blaming the bible and Christians for your evil lifestyle!

[Common Sense]

Here's the deal, California - you all fight for democracy, and then when democratic vote doesn't go your way, you whine about how unfair it is and try to overturn something that people VOTED on. If you don't like the democratic process, go somewhere else.

[Heather Powell]

If this gets overturned then what good is our vote? Electoral votes decide the president not our vote. We can hope they side the the popular vote but that doesn't mean they will. The election was already decided before the polls were closed. The United States are divided and going to hell in a handbasket.

[susan]

The No on 8 people have made it clear that the only "acceptable" decision will be to overturn the will of the majority on this, or else, recalling them, more strikes and tying up traffic/ guerrila protests, who knows.

But the judges must stay firm and do what they must under the law; caving in to public pressure one way or the other, without legal basis, would be wrong. It's then the perogative of the No on 8 people to lobby against these judges when their tenure is up -- but with 12 year terms, ARE any of them up for vote soon? If so, it could be a long time before they carry out their threat.

They'll probably just galvanize more people FOR 8/ against gay marriage by their actions, but just like with those who would vote down (or in) judges based on their views on abortion rights, PEACEFUL lobbying for or against them is a right. Anything more violent or disruptive to people than that, and they'll risk turning more people against them than for. As they've done with the deliberate rush-hour traffic bottlenecks in L A recently.

[Debra Keller]

It seems that the people of religion that are standing on the sacred sanctimony of "marriage" have already tarnished that "word" with record divorce rates and infidelity. The same Book that some hold as a weapon against issues that don't grow congregations, could just as easily be used against them. Isn't divorce a sin? How can the Catholic church just change that rule when for years they preached about it as a sin? Isn't infidelity a sin? Isn't hatred against fellow man a sin? Isn't judgement of others a sin? Could it be that the book teaches love, respect, and tolerance of people and their hearts? Maybe the word "Marriage" should be left to those that choose to use it, abuse it, and then try to defend it. Personally, I would like the opportunity to have a ceremony of love and commitment, with the understanding that it is recognized by our governments, families, health facilities, places of employment, and our fellow citizens.

[Wayne Peterkin]

How in the hell can a court review and/or approve a constitutional ammendment? The whole reason an ammendment was necessary was to get around a bad court ruling in the past! Is there no end to the power of the courts to override the will of the people?

[David McAfee]

It's not about equal rights, it is about morality.

The gay lesbian movement along with the liberal media has been pushing immorality on this country for far too long. You may deny what the Bible has to say about the sin of homosexuality, you may even try to pervert what it says, but rest assured...judgment day is coming and your sin will find you out.

1 Cor 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor {the} covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Acts 17:30-31 - "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent,
31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
(NAS)

[Stephen]

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." - Thomas Jefferson

[Trask]

When are people going to get it that they can have "sacred marriage" and "holy matrimony" and just let gays have a civil marriage?

Oh, and in the United States democracy does not mean majority rule so get a grip on that. We have a constitutional democracy laid out in such a way so civil rights are not put to a simple majority vote.

I'd like to see all these Christianist voters go nuts if they were not in the majority anymore. If you think that doesn't happen take a look at France which is thisclose to a Moslem majority.

[Trask]

David, you DO realize don't you that the word "Homosexual" was not even created until the 20th century, right? Seems to me the biases of man have been injected into your holy book. Ya think?

[Sal]

Matt 22:21 -

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Don't force churches to marry same-sex couples, and do not prohibit the State and its citizens from allowing same-sex couples to wed.

[dave]

To David McAfee and his Biblical selections:

Let's substitute your words for these, and see how it plays out:

The right wing Christian movement along with right wing talk radio have been pushing intolerance and inequality on this country for far too long. You may deny what the Bible has to say about the sin of inhospitality and intolerance, you may even try to pervert what it says, but rest assured, judgment day is coming and your sin will find you out.

Matt 23:13 - "How terrible it will be for you, Pharisees and scribes, you dogmatic hypocrites! For you will not allow your fellow men entrance to the kingdom of heaven. You will not go in yourselves, yet you also do not allow those who wish to go in, to do so."

Matt 7:1 "Judge not, lest the Father in heaven judge you also."

[LaLa]

Does anyone else notice that the wack-job rightwingers ALL say "get over it", the will of the people...blah, blah, blah....the majority has spoken, etc. etc. etc. ?

Don't break your arms slappin' yourselves on the backs, folks...52% to 48% - not the widest of margins, eh? Ya'll are LOSING ground, and fast. People are starting to see what a bully, bigot & fearmonger religion is. Since the dark ages people have been haunted, hunted, tortured, demeaned, dehumanized and even killed in the name of religion. Remember the inquisition? Yeah, because "they" were not like "us" - so let's make 'em change to be like us. Or kill 'em. Two thousand years. I think hate's reign is about up.

Trouble is, there are more & more educated and free-thinking people on this earth each day, and eventually, their propagation rate will overtake the propagation of new little religious zealots. If I were you, I'd start lacing up my track shoes right now, 'cuz you're gonna need em shortly.

[Zach]

To summarize the same old arguments:

"The Majority has spoken! That's how the vote works! If not, why vote?"

No, that's not how it works.The majority has checks and balances just like any party that has power in our country. Go cry to the founding fathers if you don't like that mob rule doesn't rule the day. And just because it doesn't, doesn't mean that voting is pointless. We PARTICIPATE in democracy, we don't OWN it, especially when the voice of the people is a quivering, barely decisive 52%!

"It's a moral issue! God said so!"

Those are YOUR morals, the government doesn't have to abide by them, only allow you to (so don't get a gay marriage if you don't want one, no one's going to force you). It also doesn't require God's blessing to create a marriage contract. You go to your church for that, and this has no bearing on the churches. No, they can't be forced to gay marry because a government can't force a church to do anything under the Separation of Church and State.

"The gays are cowardly, only protesting in front of certain places!"

I know the right-wing pundits made a lot of noise about this, but if you actually listen to what the people DOING the protesting have to say about it, there's plenty of good reasons. Mormon churches are protested because they bankrolled the Yes on 8 campaign, telling their faithful to donate and skirting the Separation of Church and State. The Catholic Church walked that line, too, in telling their people how to vote. Why not protest in South Central? Because protesting institutions, not people, is the point. Unless the gays in South Central...and there ARE gays in South Central...want to protest, one probably won't happen there.

And if those protests are turning your support against gay marriage, you probably need to think a little beyond yourself. Our Constitution and our laws are a little more important than your passing likes and dislikes.

[Kamei]

Its just like democrats/liberals to insist on forcing ideas on the populous. They call themselves open minded and fair. Well there was an election and PROP 8 passed by popular vote, now live with it. The people have spoken.
As far as the person that equated PROP 8 supporters to the KKK. Well I guess I am the first African-American KKK member then...

[Sean]

Seriously????
The people have voted!!! The majority has spoken!!! I mean, come on. I have read the words racism and hate...Ridiculous! I have read about how we have voted in a black president. Again, the majority voted. Whether or not you support gay marriage, THE MAJORITY OF THE CALIFORNIANS SPOKE!!! DEMOCRACY SPOKE!!! Let's get real folks.

[LaLa]

Here's a bible quote for all you religicons....from the God's Word Translation (1995)

MARK 10:11 He answers, "anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." 10:12 "And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Now. Instead of spending all your time, money and passion on vilifying a certain segment of the population, might not your resources be better spent tidying up your OWN house in God's name?

Remember that chucking stones while living in a glass mansion just isn't the smartest move to make.

[CJ]

Extreme comments (from both sides) and specific legal language in Prop 8 notwithstanding, I think this fight is about tolerance. Just like people of faith tolerate atheists/agnostics/those of "conflicting" faiths, and conservative, clean-cut folks tolerate the presence of heavy metal listening, tattooed types, the gay community just wants tolerance. It's not about forcing lifestyles or anything on anyone. It's not about having to agree with or fitting with one's religious notion of right or wrong. Like poster Dan said, it's not about the word or institution of marriage, it's getting the exact same protection, benefits, and rights that all other humans enjoy, including all the LEGAL protections that marriage ensures.

Unfortunately, the truth is, civil unions/domestic partnerships don't provide all of those protections. Anywhere in CA that a legal document (insurance, employment contract, etc.) refers only to "marriage" or "spouse," that organization has grounds for denying protection to those in domestic partnerships. It's illegal, but companies still do it. You could sue, but it's costly and likely to be a lengthy battle. And there's the crux of the matter-- unless they are called by the same thing, marriages and domestic partnerships are not the same. So the church says, "marriage is ours." Fine, then take the wording out of the constitution and just use domestic partnerships for all legal matters.

But unlike what Dan said, I don't think a lot of those who voted yes on 8 want those same protections for gay people. They don't want tolerance. They just want gay people to go away. "Move to a place where you are a majority (Mass, Conn)." "Evil lifestyle." Quoting the Bible. "It's not about equal rights, it's about morality." If these people were asked to vote on whether being gay was a crime punishable with jail time, they would probably vote yes, too.

And that's where this has become an equal rights issue. A civil rights issue. An issue about the separation of church and state. An issue worth fighting over for eternity (though hopefully not that long).

And I am a straight female, btw.

[atty79]

The problem is education. The only way we are going to win on this issue is to do those things that led to our country's very founding. Educate. The US wasn't formed by the backwards conservatives and the zealots of before. It was by education. New ideas on republics and self-government.

We need to pass amendments in all the states requiring every citizen to get a college education or else serve in the military. We need to make college free. Only after people can think for themselves, rather than let the church think for them, will this country be free of the oppression and chains of ignorant, hateful faiths. We need to take our country back. The modern day snake-oil salesmen need to be stopped! Education is the key.

[Abner]

animals. We must protect the BASIC fabric of society. By definition, marriage is the social institution under which a MAN and WOMAN establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Gay and lesbian unions DO NOT fall in that category. Finally, the Constitution was NOT changed by the passage of Proposition 8 since it never had the words gay or homosexual in the first place. One more thing, homosexuals cannot be a minority because being a minority is NOT something you can CHOOSE to become. You cannot become a minority BY CHOICE.

[tregnier2795]

I find it quite interesting that people will try to legistlate "morality." If the bible was true, than what about that whole "free will" God apparantly gave us? Shouldn't that mean we can do whatever we want but we'll pay? I mean seriously. Lets get real.

I went to Catholic school for most of my education. In the 8th grade, I started realizing how bigoted people really are. I had friends preaching to me about the "sinful sodomists!" The most outspoken of which had a homosexual aunt. Of course, he didn't tell her his hatfull, unbalanced veiws. No, he was going to see if she "would turn to God on her own."

That's the kind of crap the Christian Right is pushing. Unless you're wealthy, conservative, white, and a Judeo-Christian, guess what? You're not only making strange, sinfull decisions, you'll go to hell for 'em to!

Now, the govt. in America is not by majority. If 51% votes 'yes' on an issue and 49% vote 'no' should the 'yes' have their will felt and the other near-half not? No. Don't force your beleifs on anyone, your "morality" on anyone, and most certainly your hate and bigotry on anyone. Don't legistlate it.

If you're concerned about our country's "morals" and the freedom we give "sinners," then go to Montana and live in seclusion with your bible or leave the country. But wait, then you'll have to go to some "socialist, 3rd world country, like Europe."

Please, stop using your religion as a way to oppress those that are different from you. It just makes our free country less free.

[Heather]

I am a person of faith. I am a Republican. I am a member of the NRA. The people who have said that they are any of these things have frankly made me ashamed. Marriage is a government contract, it has been since the beginning of time. No religion "owns" marriage. There is a separation between church and state, that's a Republican virtue that Reagan Democrats now known as the Religious right seem to forget. I hate to say that I agree with Elton John but I do--we should adopt the British way and remove the word marriage for everyone and require everyone (gay, straight) to go down to the registrar to get their civil union. Because as it stands now gays do not have equal rights with domestic partnership-- all they want to do is get married to their partner. Shame on anyone who claims they believes that yes on 8 is a religious argument-- its 100% bias against homosexuals. God is about love not hate, and I think that's something we can all agree on.

[rholcwl]

If the California Supreme Court wanted same-sex marriage decided by popular vote, why did they allow 30,000 same-sex couples, including friends of mine, the right to marry before November 4th, after declaring that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional in May? Now, are they going to take that right away?
I predict that unless the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8 in March,2009, a full scale riot will erupt, during which people will be injured or even killed.

[cp]

This topic is pathetic. If Californians voted in favor of a ban then let the Democratic process work as intended. What's next... a re-vote of the presdiential election? I suppose that unless every american agrees with the concept of gay marriage, this topic will continue. How can only 10% of the US population dictate to the rest of those in America who see marriage as defined by thousands of years of humans living on earth? This is about the democracy of voting. Why does the Gay Community keep bashing anyone who disagrees with their point of view.

[Tasha]

For all those that keep saying God this and God that...what about for all of us that don't believe in it. And your god has nothing to do with state. Think of all the wars and murders and hate propogated in the name of religion. Exactly how much death have gays incited? Religion creates a nasty "Us and Them" scenerio, and if you're in the "Them" then either you need to be saved, or you're going straight to hell. I just don't understand the hypocrisy, since when did "love thy neighbour" become, "go away you perverted immoral evil gays"?

And you're all talking about how the people have spoken, and if they don't like a democratic society then to go somewhere else. Guess what? This IS democracy! They are completely within their rights as citizens to try to overturn the vote, especially when its constitutional. If YOU don't like that, then maybe you should go somewhere else.

[Bruce]

Elton John, not being from around here, probabaly doesn't realize that California domestic partnershios are not recognized by the federal government or by most other states. Make them truly equal, and it would be less of a problem. Until then, don't try to confust the issue by saying that "it's just a word".

[cheerfulray]

Marriage is a religious institution, and I say we get rid of it altogether, or else make churches taxable. People of faith are welcome to their faith, but leave it at home, folks.

[JRTruth]

WHO DEFINED MARRIAGE AS 1 MAN AND 1 WOMAN ANYWAY?

WHY STOP THERE, LET'S REALLY REDEFINE MARRIAGE. AFTERALL, WE ARE A FREE SOCIETY THAT DOESN'T NEED STANDARDS, DEFINITIONS, ETC, RIGHT?

PHASE 1 - 1 MAN / WOMAN AND 1 MAN / WOMAN

PHASE II - MULTIPLE MEN / WOMEN AND MULTIPLE MEN / WOMEN

PHASE III - 1 MAN / WOMEN AND 1 ANIMAL

PHASE IV - MULTIPLE MEN / WOMEN AND MULTIPLE ANIMALS

PHASE V - 1 MAN / WOMEN AND 1 PLANT

PHASE VI - MULTIPLE MEN / WOMEN AND MULTIPLE PLANTS / ANIMALS

PHASE VII - AT THIS POINT, WHO CARES. THE DEFINITION OF MARIAGE WILL HAVE BEEN SO BASTARDIZED, ANYTHING WILL COUNT AS BEING MARRIED...

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT PEOPLE VOTED. LIKE IT OR HATE IT, PROP 8 PASSED.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT LIBERAL JUDGES WHO'S ONLY REAL JOB IS TO INTERPRET LAW, DECIDE TO CREATE THEIR OWN LAWS. THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM, THE JUDICIARY OVERSTEPPING THEIR BOUNDRIES.

NO STATE IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE THE PEOPLE OR THEIR LEGISLATURES PASSED A LAW REDFINING MARRIAGE. ONLY LIBERAL JUDGES HAVE DONE SO.

THINK ABOUT IT...

[WarEagle]

The court had better understand that the PEOPLE run the state and not the court. If this court overturns the will of the people a second time I suspect a few judges will have a great deal of time on their hands when facing early retirement.

I also suspect the next proposition on the ballot in California will be to rein in the jurisdiction of the court and make it clear to the next batch of judges just where their powers start and end.

And then the people will pass Prop 8 all over again.

[Benjamin]

California voters have clearly voted to amend the California constitution. That ammendment clearly defines marriage as being between only one man and one woman. This Amendment overturns the May 2008 California Supreme Court decision that temporarily redefined marriage in California. California voters have the power to amend the state Constitution via Referendum and they have done so. The State Supreme Court must abide by the law and validate the will of the people or instead rule against Prop 8 and invalidate any and all Amendments to the California Constitution the were made Constitutional via referendum. If the Court does such an insane thing it will have repercussions with voters that will last decades.

[cad]

So where is this tolerance that the gay community is always talking about? Seems it is not required of them. Forcing people out of their jobs because they supported Prop 8? Picketing churches? Why? It was not only church members who donated to and voted yes on 8. It was the MAJORITY of Californians. If they want to be angry with anyone, they should be angry with the judges who stepped outside the boundary of their job description and gave them the right to marry in the first place. They knew that it was a ballot initiative and the people would soon decide. The 2 other states that voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman are not experiencing the upheaval CA is. Better to have never been given the right in the first place then to have it given then taken away. This is the fault of the renegade judges.
This is not as issue of whether gay marriage is right or wrong. It is not a civil rights issue. It is about redefining marriage. I believe we shoud not change its definition. Once we do, why can't it be redefined again and again? There will always be a special interest group looking to redefine it. Why can't marriage be between 3 or 4 consenting individuals? "I love them both the same, so why can't I marry them both?" Seem crazy? Not really ...there are people who woudl love to have poligamy legalized. Where would it end, really?
Californians should be thankful that they were able to use our democratic process, unlike those of us in Massachusetts where there were 700,000 signatures on a petition to have a marriage amendment on our ballot 2 years ago. Our legislators did not head the voice of the people and voted to take away our right to vote on this issue. If ever there should have been an upheaval it should have been at that time - when the right of the people to vote was taken away by a few individuals.

[Emily]

well, didn't read through all these so maybe i am repeating what someone else said but as my neighbor who is black put it, "we (black people) overcame oppression and can now drink from the same water fountain and use the same bathroom, why should I say these people can't get married?". so why not? gay couples, especially men are most likely to adopt a child that straight people decided they couldn't or wouldn't take care of. the average marriage is only two years. but i bet if you looked at how long gay and lesbians stay together they would put straight people to shame. not to mention the fact that this country was founded on "ALL men (and women) be treated EQUAL" and "SEPARATION of church and state" Prop 8 goes against our United States Constitution and cannot be upheld in any US court system.

[Liberal hater]

Liberals are uneducated, idiotic morons. Only a fool would celebrate this kind of judicial activism. And that pro-h8 sign is so gay just like all you perverted, nasty sodomites who will one day burn in hell. Good riddance to you freaks. And take your black robe S.O.B. judges with you.

If they overturn prop8 the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold prop8. Can you liberals count to 5- Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy. That's all it will take to put an end queer, disgusting marriage,

Thank me very much.

[Jim Sindell]

I'm betting the LA TImes will have the following headline in 2009 about this topic: "Justices Rule in favor of Propostion 8. Recall of Judges filed by gay/lebian groups." Can we say sore losers?

[Lanovaz]

The Supreme Court must get involved; here is my editorial entitled "Tyranny of the Majority: Plato on Proposition 8." The artwork is mine.

http://www.lanovaz.org/daniel/tinyurl/prop8

[Randy]

Marriage has been defined by the state, courts, and voters as legal if you are over 18 or have the consent of your parents and are over 16. Civil rights are not given to people as a result of reaching an age of majority. You can vote, drink beer, smoke, drive, and MARRY based on age and regulation, not civil rights. If we were forcing children to work in sweatshops we would be violating their rights. Defining marriage as a licensed act between adults is not harmful and defining marriage between men and women is not harmful either. When the State of California defines marriage, it is business as usual and no harm done.

[Randy]

Weird, when Zach and Dan post it looks like they're using a lot more characters than I'm able to ever fit in to a post. Is this my imagination? I'm not willing to take the time to count each character, I'm just wonder if there is a trick to it.

Hmm, let's see here's something I posted on Newsweek
If marriage is a civil right, then children have that right. So a child of any age would have the right to marry without the consent of a parent. Civil rights cannot be granted only when a person reaches a legal age. It would be ludicrous to argue that a child of an ethnic minority can be forced to labor in a sweatshop before they reach an age when their civil rights are bestowed. That was one of the first issues the industrial revolution raised. This claim of a right to marry is a fabrication. There is obviously government regulation of marriage defined by the democratic process.

and here's something I read that I think is right on

Posted By: emilyam @ 11/17/2008 8:48:03 PM
Comment: Popular vote for Barack Obama: 52.7%
Popular vote against Obama: 46.0%
The media calls this win a landslide.

Yes On Prop 8: 52.2% of the votes
No On Prop 8: 47.8% of the votes
The media calls this win a "narrow margin."

What a ridiculous double standard. These are both solid wins. You don't see McCain's supporters taking to the streets or boycotting business owners who supported Obama's campaign.

Very interesting indeed.

How many characters is that?

[Randy]

Crazy!! I think there's been a change in the protocol for discussing the Supreme Court consideration of prop 8. Cool!! an expansion of the posting limitation.

[Christina]

Prop 8 is an Amendment to the California Consitution. It is therefore Constitutional by its very nature under the CA Consitution. The CA Consitution give the CA court no right or review or approval process of state constitutional amendments. Only the US Supreme Court can take this case and rule on its constitutionality under the US Consitution.

If you believe in Democracy you have to accept that sometimes you lose, that is just the way it goes. Please behave like calm rational people and accept that.

I profoundly disagree with the people who voted down the parential notification proposition but you don't see me clammoring to the court that it is unfair even though I think it is unjust. I realize that in a democracy sometimes I lose and that is a lesson you need to learn too!

[YesOn8]

The hatred and bigotry from the No on 8 crowd since November 4th proves that this is not about tolerance or fairness.
The voters of California acted to repair a loophole in their Constitution. Now the judges must abide by the will of We The People.

[Kevin]

Why not 3 consenting adults? Or 10? Someone who believes same-sex marriage is okay should also believe that polygamy is okay. If you don't believe polygamy is okay, than on what grounds do believe polygamy is not okay? Seriously, answer that before you are in favor of same-sex marriages. I believe that same-sex marriage is not okay for the same reason I believe polygamy is not okay. It is an immoral practice. If you say that laws should have nothing to do with morality than I disagree. Laws are an extension of societal values and beliefs upon which this country was founded. Society has functioned and must continue to function in marriages that are defined as one man and one woman. Yes the divorce rates are high, but that means traditional marriage must be supported even more - instead being dealt another blow with a redefinition of it.

[Rich]

The State should not be licensing marriage which is a religious practice and as such for the State to make laws governing said practice would violate the intent of separation of Church and State. Though not Law, as fundamental as equality.

[Nancy Vega]

All you Yes on 8 people are IDIOTS! Makes me wonder how many of you graduated or went on to college.

Those of you stating “Get over it”. Let me ask you, when the courts do overturn this (I believe they will because it discriminates), will you then “Get over it”?

1st - Separation of Church and State
Do you see the big picture? It’s the churches involvement in government legislation. Religious organizations donating money to the Yes on 8 prop is the problem. It is the Propaganda and Lies the churches told about the Gay community. If these religious organizations get their tax-exemptions pulled it serves them right. Maybe they need to be taught a lesson to keep their noses out of where they don’t belong.

Our California Supreme court made a marvelous decision in May to end discrimination.
For those of you screaming “Radical Judges”, you might want to rethink or should I say think about that statement. If it wasn’t for the great judges we have, we would still probably have slavery, women wouldn’t have rights, and interracial couples wouldn’t be able to marry. Thanks right, and all this was a few decades ago.

I keep hearing whining (boo whoo). If this gets overturned then what good is our vote?
The people do have a right to vote. They don’t have the right to take away a minority groups rights. Last time I checked in the State & Federal Constitution, it was unconstitutional to discriminate against a group of people. Everyone is EQUAL. Our judicial system is set up to make sure a majority doesn’t suppress minority of people especially when it comes to taking away fundamental rights.

Wake up people! Take a History class or Political Science class, educate yourself!

[Nancy Vega]

2nd - In plain English, it discriminates against a whole class of American Citizens.

Back in the day, way back, some folks actually thought it was okay to keep not only African Slaves, but white men, women and children as Indentured Servants. Until the 1900’s the majority thought it was okay that women had no human rights. Today, the Gay & Lesbian community is dealing with the same trials and tribulations of discrimination.

Prop 8 backers, are primarily made up of religious believers trying to stop same-sex marriage because they believe only a man and woman should marry.

No one is saying or asking them to accept it within their religious realm. By the same token, they shouldn't demand that a part or the rest of society accept any form of your religious doctrine unwillingly. Meaning, live and let live. Society is diverse and not everyone believes the very same way. You may or may not agree with gay marriage and that’s okay. Discrimination though is not okay, at least not in this country. Taking away someone’s constitutional right is just plain UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Yes on 8 supporters & churches want to enshrine their doctrines into civil law. Period. They want political power; they want society to bow to their narrow-minded little fourth-century ideas. This instance - Prop 8 in California, Prop 102 in AZ - showed churches working to deprive a whole class of citizens from a civil right: the right to engage in a civil contract of matrimony. Gay & Lesbians want the right to marry in the civil community apart from the religious communities.
I’m sure the Gay & Lesbians don’t want to have stupid phony little church weddings anyway (They're too eccentric, stylish for that). I mean come on…ever been to a straight club and a gay club. They don’t compare (some straight people actually prefer to go to gay clubs). I’m sure their weddings won’t be anything like a boring straight wedding.

[Nancy Vega]

3rd – For all you Bible freaks
I think you missed one of the most fundamental messages of Christianity, which is to be non-judgmental to your fellow human beings. Don’t feel authorized to pass judgment. The Bible states, “Due on to others as you would have done upon you.”

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. -Romans 14:10

How can you promote your religion, convince people that your way is the way, if you do not offer them the freedom and very liberties that you have. In the bible it states to love thy neighbor and do not judge. According to your scriptures, god states Christ will be the judge. No where in the bible does it state to take it upon oneself to judge.

And if marriage is soooo sacred, why are half your members divorced and remarried? Or why do your children have half sisters and brothers from different fathers and mothers? Why are your ministers preaching to discriminate against your fellow man? Why are your (straight) priests molesting little boys and girls?

And by the way, Sodom and Gomorrah
Was about how a straight man (Lot) drank wine and had incestual sex with his two virgin daughters in which he impregnated them both and their sons became rulers. Conveniently, somehow, Lot was to drunk to remember anything. And it was the daughters that wanted to have sex with their father because there were no other men around (yeah I bet, likely story). And this is the man your god saved, one who has children with his own daughters. But destroys cities.

God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its wickedness. Not homosexuality. It wasn’t until later that it was translated to homosexuality.

And since were talking about following the bible, why don’t we follow these bible laws?
How should parents treat a stubborn and rebellious son?
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them; Then shall his father and mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Thanks right.... take him in the front yard and have a stoning block party.

What happens if you are not a virgin on your wedding night?

"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her . . . and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid . . . and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die . . ." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

Which foods does the bible expressly forbid you to eat?
Pork. --"And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)
Shellfish. --"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you . . . ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination." (Leviticus 11:10-11)
Rabbit. --"And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the hare . . . he is unclean unto you." (Leviticus 11:5-6)
We got a lot of sinners out there don’t we? All you bacon and pork chop eaters out there, lets not forget about those lobster and shrimp lovers. I guess no more aphrodisiac oysters for you men out there.

How many regular sexual partners did King Solomon have?
"But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites . . . And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines." (I Kings 11:1-3)
Notice that this lifestyle is never denounced by God, Jesus, or the biblical writers. Solomon, supposedly an ancestor of Jesus, was praised by Jesus: "all his glory" (Matthew 6:29), "wisdom of Solomon" (Matthew 12:42). Jesus compared himself (not so humbly) to Solomon's greatness: "a greater than Solomon is here." (Luke 11:31)

What Christmas tradition is expressly forbidden in the bible? - Xmas Trees
"Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. . . . They are altogether brutish and foolish." (Jeremiah 10:2-8)

Many other Christmas traditions have their roots in pagan practices, such as the holly wreath, a fertility symbol. Even the date of Christmas, near the winter solstice, is linked to sun worship. Modern Christians have stolen Christmas from the pagans. Sinners...you are all sinners!

According to Jesus, how should Christian disciples treat their parents?
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) The word "hate" here is miseo, the Greek word for "hate," from which we get the prefix in "misanthropy" and "misogyny." The same writer uses miseo in such verses as: "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you." (Luke 6:22)
The concept of devaluing your family is reflected by Matthew: "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38)
Why not love your family first? This sounds like something an uneasy dictator would say. Talk about family values.

According to Jesus, how should slaves be treated?
--Jesus never denounced slavery: he endorsed it! He incorporated it into his teachings as if it were the most natural order (which it was for the biblical writers who didn't know any better).
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." (Luke 12:47-48)
The Bible nowhere states that slavery is wrong. Slavery is ordained by the Bible: "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever." (Leviticus 25:45-46) "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." (Exodus 21:2,7) "Servants [slaves], obey in all things your masters." (Colossians 3:22)
All you african americans that just love your god almighty. WOW! Where are you when those scriptures are read in church? Does it hit home just a little bit? The bible says slavery is okay and your okay with that?

[jim]

Sexual preference is NOT a minority status.

The vote was NOT a BAN on GAY MARRIAGE, it simply defined marriage between a man and a woman.

There is already a legal entity called "CIVIL UNION" that deals with same sex marriage.

It is NOT the job of the Supreme court to INTERPRET the law, it is their job to ENFORCE the law. Thats why we have 3 branches (legislative, executive and judicial). They overstepped their bounds overturning a law that was already voted on by the people.

Why dont you WHINERS spend more energy on making this world a better place instead of b*****g about it.

[Uncle_vito]

At least the court upheld the stay in gay marriages.

The way that the lawyers work, gays will not be able to get married for years since it will take that long for the case to be heard.

I think this case should go to the federal supreme court. If prop 8 is upheld, this will be 'end of story' forever. About time.

Vito

[Mr.G.............]

Whats the point in holding elections????? Our system is nothing more than a big JOKE...

[Jeff]

This is unfortunately the way the liberals work. They follow the system until it doesn't go their way. Then it's time to change it. Voting on Prop 8 is OK until they don't get the answer they want. Then majority rule becomes inconvenient and it's time to go crying to the courts.

Determining the Presidency by electoral vote is fine - until Al loses. Then it's inconvenient and it's time to go crying to the courts.

A liberal designed ballot and approved ballot in Florida in that same election is okay - until the "wrong" decision is made by the voters. Then the ballot is "confusing" and it's time to cry for a do-over.

Californians have already made their opinion known TWICE on this issue. How many Al Gore recounts do we need?

The whole thing is like a parent (the liberals) letting a child (the voters) make a decision, hoping they'll choose correctly. If they don't however, they're told that they'll have to do it the other way, "because I said so".

[Very simple]

Oh please, this has nothing to do with the "way liberals work." It has to do with the way the State and US Constitution works, namely equal protection. If you think you can define minority rights by a simple majority, perhaps you should start reading the Amendments for once

[Very simple]

The Bible advocates killing gays, subjugation of women, and slavery. I don't want any Bible-thumper defining rights in this country

[Tina]

At the College there were three discusting students. They were wearing big ear rings. They die their hair pink, red and yellow. Holding a sign NO on prosition 8. I was thinking: Where in a hell those guys think are coming from? The only thing could be possible that they are abandone or are coming from a prostitute and don't have family. I don't want this to continue to happen.
I thank to God that He gave me a father and mother to pro-create me, my brother and sister.
I would like every body to have a family as I do to live happy and to be treated with respect and dignity. Bless God and to your parents. Thanks to them we are alive. Must be very sad to have a gay brother or son.
I vote YES on Prop 8. Tina

[Mike L]

First lets call the "Gay" movement by its correct name, "Gender Challenged" They are a very small minority of people who suffer from a genetic birth defect. They are incapable of reproducing their own kind on a consistent basis. They call heterosexuals "breeders". Sounds more like a space alien race using a host to produce its offspring. Their lifestyle has been looked upon as unnatural by every major civilization on the planet, and it punishable by death in many. I feel sorry for the GC's because in their twisted view of reality, they so badly want to be normal they must force other to agree, or like a downed or autistic child they throw temper tantrums. We must all face the fact, "Gays" are not normal. They are not special. They are not right. Yes we must protect their rights as humans, but we must not bow to their twisted demands they be made to feel "normal" by law. Please someone out there show me a gay family with two or three generations of gay parents and gay grandparents, with no outside " breeders" help. Show me a gay family tree, show me a country that is 95% homosexual. Show me this and I will stand with them saying what they want is normal and just. In a few short years, when genetic mapping is done, a pregnant woman will have a scan and the parents will accept which defects are ok and which are not. Do you really think for one minute upon learning their child will be a homosexual they will continue on with that pregnancy? If so will the child be treated like any other child with a genetic defect? What is the point of a Gay marriage, if not merely trying to pretend they are normal. That they, like the emperor, have new cloths. For now we are stuck with many many horrible birth defects and one by one they will be corrected. This one too will someday be a thing of the past. Let us not change laws and social customs to appease a small group of people who are on the way out anyway.

[Tom N-V]

If you let the church rule you will end up with the dark ages.

We must have separation of church and state.

We must not allow a tyranny of the barley majority. This is after they won by inciting fear about what may be taught in school.

I pay taxes and I deserve to stay married to my partner of 14 years. Being gay is not a choice. I struggled for 5 years, praying to God to change me. Later, I talked to more level headed clergy and realized it must not be the issue some make it out to be. Better for Gays to marry than pretend to be strait and end up having high risk sex with strangers. Then they go home to their wives, because that is what really happened in the past and continues to happen in some places where the narrow minds rule.

This really is a civil rights issue.

Tom in Long Beach

[Robere']

Boy the sodomites are getting nasty! Maybe it's time for them to head back into the closet.

[Stephen]

Courts have historically been in the vanguard of civil rights. People follow, typically a generation later. Politicians follow the votes. When we allow the majority to trample on a minority we have Japanese-Americans sent to concentration camps and Jim Crow laws. Religious freedom? Do what you want in your own churches, homes and minds. Civil rights are civil rights. Your churches may erect any rules regarding marriage that they wish. And any who wish to marry in your church must follow them. No one else must. All civil benefits are civil rights.

The lies and hypocricy displayed by the yes on hate=8 side in order to win the passage should illustrate that their brand of religion is not spiritual. Tax all churches who donated to yes.

[Zach]

No, Randy, children do not have the right to marry, I don't much care where you read it. Firstly, children's civil rights are generally limited across the board until they come of age. Secondly, the right to marry has been verified by the California Supreme Court, but a fundamental characteristic of marriage is that it is a legal contract, and so thirdly, a minor cannot give consent to that without REDEFINING the contract to allow for people who cannot give consent. Those are real components of the issue found in the law, unlike the fake "One man one woman" component that the Yes on 8 people are trying to ADD (under the pretense of it just being previously unwritten, which is never a valid legal argument).

By the way, Obama's election was a landslide in ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes. There is a difference between that and the POPULAR vote. Interesting, huh?

[Lee]

Do we see all the alcoholics out protesting that their civil rights have been or are being taken away? Alcoholics represent better than 28% of the population here in California and they are the most oppressed minority in the state. They should be the ones screaming for us to protect their civil rights. Most come from family trees that can trace an alcoholic back 5, 10, 20 generations. Look at the names we call them, drunks, sots, winos, bar flys and worse. These are citizens too, many many famous and productive ones. Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantel, Hemmingway, Poe, U.S. Grant and more. We sanction them, we oppress them, we ridicule them and no one does a thing about it. We say they have a disease and need help, while ignoring that the "Gay" movement decries this behavior by society when pointed at them. Why is that? What happens next if all the alcoholics no longer accept that they are sick and need help? What if they stand like the Gays and proclaim they are normal and you are taking away their rights? Will it become hate speech to call an alcoholic and alcoholic, or a drunk? Will they become the p.c. term "Mellows", and if so will the "Gays" help them gain public acceptance? Why are millions upon millions of American citizens told they have a disease and yet the "Gay" community feels its normal and above it all? Just a few thoughts...

[Very simple]

To Mike L:
Do you know there are many examples of gay animals, e.g., penguins, monkeys, dolphins, etc? Do a little research before you spout and try to define what is "normal" on millions of tax-paying citizens (who ironically also tend to pay more taxes than those who try to impose their religious systems on others)

[Darren]

"Civil rights are civil rights..."

Exactly...!! Where did Prop 8 take any rights away from the gay community? It didn't. Those in same-sex relationships still have the "civil rights" as per the law. I've heard the argument that "marriage" is a religious right, and its very apparent that the vast majority of the gay community do not want to be labeled as "religious"...

[Zach]

Darren, Prop 8 denies gays the civil rights of fairness under the law, in that marriage laws do not provide equally to them, and protection from discrimination since their orientation is being used to deny benefits. And this has nothing to do with "religious rights" unless you're in a church. Civil marriage a contract with benefits offered by the government as far as Prop 8 is concerned, and to deny benefits to anyone you need a better reason than "Well, they're just different."

[echo1]

Darren, you need to go back and read the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This is why Prop 8 will fall.

[Darren]

Zach, the ONLY difference is that same-sex unions cannot be called "marriage"...period. "Civil Union" provides the same benefits, terms, and the "better or worse" that a marriage does. That does plenty for those whom ARE different.

Those of us supporting Prop 8 want our "rights" protected also, and that being to continue to defining marriage as it always has been...between a man and a woman. Not to mention the religious "rights" to use our Christian Houses of Worship to wed those couples that conform to Christianity.

Satan will not win this fight…

[Dan]

Lee you are right, why are we even dealing with the Gays? Why have we ever allowed such a group to gain so much power? Could it be Tim Gill, the Gay software activist who has spent over $150 million dollars of his own money to promote the "Gay"agenda? Every time you buy a Quark product for your Apple or Mac you support the Gays.. Here is more about Mr. Gill..Gill’s principal interest is gay equality. His foundations have given about $115 million to charities. His serious involvement in politics is a more recent development, though geared toward the same goal. In 2000, he gave $300,000 in political donations, which grew to $800,000 in 2002, $5 million in 2004, and a staggering $15 million last year, almost all of it to state and local campaigns. Gill, who considers himself a “pathological introvert,” normally shuns media attention, but he agreed to meet with me in his Denver office last November, on the eve of the election, to explain what he is trying to accomplish.

To learn more about him go here http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200703/tim-gill you will find his famous quote "They wont know what hit them" straight Americans.

[ForTheRetards]

Stupid citizens, you call marriage a right. Bad news you sods: If you have to get a license for it, then it is not a right. Your feeble brains need a few examples? Here's the LEGAL definition;
"The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort." How about the half-wit Merriam Webster def.: "Main Entry: 1li·cense
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French licence, from Latin licentia, from licent-, licens, present participle of licēre to be permitted
Date: 14th century
1 a: permission to act b: freedom of action
2 a: a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful..."
Then finally we even have the PERVERT definition just for you sodomites: "3 a: freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility b: disregard for standards of personal conduct : licentiousness"! If THIS is the one you're seeking, well then, you should have it of course.

[So Tired]

To Zach:
"By the way, Obama's election was a landslide in ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes. There is a difference between that and the POPULAR vote. Interesting, huh?"

Ridiculous comparison. If you want to look at it that way, since ALL of California's ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes go to the MAJORITY, then Prop 8 would have passed unanimously. HUGE landslide.

Randy was talking about the actual percentages involved with the POPULAR VOTE which compares to the vote for PROP 8. He stated as much which implies that he does know the difference.

[ChallengeThis]

Ok sodomites, you want inclusion under the equal rights doctrine? Then do this FIRST; since CHOICE of behavior is NOWHERE present, or ever considered for protected class status, from the federal 14th Amendment forward in ANY Constitution, CONCLUSIVELY PROVE your case SCIENTIFICALLY under the rules of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt that you kind are uncontrollably genetically predisposed from birth to your sodomite inclinations, ad nausea and that such behaviors should therefore QUALIFY you kind into that 'golden' protected class status in the first instance! Prove before the law that you are NOT SIMPLY genetically mutated "after the fact" as the RESULT of psychological trauma and/or environmental/behavioral influences.
There’s your assignment, have it handed in to the ‘professors’ of the CA Supreme Court anytime before March 2009.

[Matt]

From what I can tell neither the pro or con prop8 people on this board have one ounce of brains between them. When someone like Lee or Dan bring up valid real world points of view the conversation drifts back to religion or feelings or rights or Obama or some other pointless stream of dribble. Why do we keep letting the Gays believe they are normal, they are genetic mishaps. Why do we keep thinking that the church has the answers, they don't. It comes down to the fact out of every 3 residents in California have a drinking problem according to society, gay or straight, why is that? As Lee pointed out without "breeders" the gays would die out, and when designer children are finally here homosexuals will no longer be an issue. Remember they only exist as long as heterosexuals allow them to be. Alcoholics on the other had are fruitful and multiply. So why are they sick and homosexuals normal and can demand rights? Will someone from either side answer any of these questions? what about this Tim Gill guy and why doesnt the news ever talk about him? To put it bluntly, neither side has the brains to tell the other what to do,your so blinded by your nothingness....

[Zach]

That was Randy's ridiculous comparison, Tired; my point was a rebuttal. Get that straight. If anyone calls Obama's vote a "landslide," they're looking at his electoral college results. So to bring his popular vote percentages into it shows that Randy didn't really understand that in the first place, and my point was then that what Randy really ends up comparing is a "landslide" electoral vote for Obama with a "slim majority" popular vote for Prop 8, and that's apples and oranges. Since they're not the same thing, the double standard he suggests is wrong.

Darren, Christians do not "own" the word marriage, it's not exclusively a Christian tradition. But IF they ever did control it, they lost the right to define it when they let it out of the church and let government use it to denote a contract it also offered. If religious people want it back, they ought to lobby the government to call ALL marriages civil unions and let only those performed in a church be called marriage. I doubt anyone would oppose that, because then everything would be equal. Since that's not the case now, we have a problem. You have the right to believe marriage is between a man and a woman and live by it, but that right does not mean that OTHERS cannot contradict your belief in how they live. Those people who are "different" don't have to settle for what rights the majority says are "plenty." That's not how America works.

Prop 8 has nothing to do with churches, and maybe you should be more concerned with Satan sneaking into the back door of your church while you're worrying about such earthly things as government marriage!

[ChallengeThis]

What a wake-up call Dan. Thanks for the Atlantic Monthly link on 'Gill the Gay'. How dangerous their seedy agenda has become. I wonder if this raises the stakes in the pending CA Supreme Court decision. This pervert has the cash to make anyone's mouth move in the way it serves the diabolical homo agenda. This must be watched and further tracked.
Sadly, Gill has sold his interest in Quark, however, this still doesn't preclude Quark softwares inclusion in boycotts that must be laid on the table (I say pursued and enacted). Since the "money talks", those who still hang on to a higher moral purpose for humanity MUST evaluate every manner of their own cash flow that contributes to "gay" support industries, "gay" services right on down to choosing the waitperson who serves your table at a restaurant. There are alternatives to EVERYTHING you consume. Forget Apple/MAC/Quark/ etc. find other vendors. You have the absolute RIGHT to ask for a different waiter in a restaurant if it they appear 'flaming out' gay. Understand, this is all out spiritual and moral warfare, that forces everyone into participation by default.

[Nancy Vega]

This is the last thing i have to say in this blog, i'm bored with the Yes on 8 supporters arguments. Same old crap. I just wanted to say to the Yes 8 supporters.........Thank you, Thank you, Thank you......if it wasn't for your disgusting views, people (Straight, Gay, Lesbian, Black, White) wouldn't have united together as they have in the past couple of weeks. You wanted a fight, will sisters & brothers you got it! You started the next Gay Revolution Movement!

By the way, did 8 supporters read my bible qoutes? Or are we going to pretend they don't exist?

[ChallengeThis]

Hey Linda Vega, moron laureate:
Let’s address your (educated?) genius point by point, HOPEFULLY in less column space!
First, THERE IS NO TRUE "Separation of Church and State"!
Your comments on the California Supreme Court decision display the intellect of a retard in the court of jurisprudence.
"...Last time I checked in the State & Federal Constitution, it was unconstitutional to discriminate against a group of people..." Like I state above (Challenge This) QUALIFY this so-called "group" as a defined class BEFORE you get that backdoor ass!
2nd Display of Diminished Mental Capacity
In plain English, it discriminates against a whole class of American Citizens. (Refer to the foregoing AGAIN!) YOU seem to enjoy the status of being stuck in a circular rut.
"Today, the Gay & Lesbian community is dealing with the same trials and tribulations of discrimination." Well then, name one period in history when sodomite degenerates were accepted into any mainstream society! (I DO hope to grab for the tail end of the Roman epoch) Because we all know what happened to Rome as a direct consequence of their depraved behavior!
3rd Display of Diminished Mental Capacity
And by the way, Sodom and Gomorrah... Lot, etc. If I remember that story IT WAS THE DAUGHTERS (Women) that hatched that plot. And for further study referencing sodomite behavior, read:
Lev. 18:22; Romans 1:24-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:1-2; Matthew 19:4; Mark
10:6.
Couple more points for your education;
Sodomites have an average of 500 different sexual partners, those with AIDS average 1,000 in their lifetime; some reported as many as 20,000 such encounters - CDC 1982 study. According to a survey conducted by sods themselves, 75% admit having had sex with 16- to 19-year old boys. ("Gay Report," 1979) And 20% admit having had sex with ANIMALS. ("Are Gay Rights Right?" by Roger J. Magnuson, 1990)!
They don't have intentions to teach your children to become perverts? Here's some truth to ponder; ...homosexuals intend to infiltrate classrooms and, through the Gay Teachers Association, tell kids that "gay is proud"? ("BILL of RIGHTS," GAY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, July 1977) ....One activist told a group of teachers: "It is absurd to hire a teacher and then say, But don't bring yourself to work. Don't bring your values or worldview into the classroom. ("Gay Community News," April 23, 1983).
Born that way? NO WAY; "...Homosexuals have been known to change..." ("International Journal of Psychiatry," March 1972, p. 119), proves it's not genetic.
Like with the demise of Rome, sods are a danger to the well-being of a progressive society!

[westminsterabs]

Zach said: . . . You have the right to believe marriage is between a man and a woman and live by it, but that right does not mean that OTHERS cannot contradict your belief in how they live. . . .

Zach, people can live in ways that contradict Darren's beliefs all they want, but whether society should license any particular living arrangement as a "marriage" is another question. You speak as if the man-woman definition of marriage were some parochial view of Darren's and other Christians', when in fact it is rooted in a fundamental, pan-cultural, millennia-old custom which recognizes the uniqueness of the one kind of relationship that is typically procreative. This is the institution which has attained, on the strength of its own merits, the "dignity" which a handful of foolish and indulgent judges have decided to award to same-sex unions by a wave of their judicial wand.

(Everyone should realize that the Calif. Supreme Court's May ruling made the "dignity" attending the concept of "marriage" the key issue, and acknowledged that "the current California statutes grant same-sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law.")

It is odd that they found, in essence, that in order for same-sex unions to have sufficient "dignity," a word which never referred to such unions must now be redefined to do so. Imagine if blacks had insisted that they would never really be equal until they were actually called "whites," since that word had all the "dignity" associated with it. Somehow the thought doesn’t seem to have occurred to them.

This idea of according "dignity" by judicially commandeering a word so that it now refers to what it never did before reeks of the worst excesses of the self-esteem movement: changing standards in order to appease those whose feelings are hurt by them, and basically disregarding the question of whether it is really in the best interest of society to do so.

BTW, before you bother bringing up the "marriage has always been changing" argument, please see the post at Nov. 19, 3:20 pm above.

People of all persuasions are indeed entitled to the dignity that inherently belongs to human beings, as creatures bearing the image of God. But let the traditional definition of marriage, and whatever particular dignity attends it, remain intact, and let other arrangements attain culturally-conferred dignity on their own merits as society "evolves," as we are so incessantly informed it is doing. Much of current society is convinced that the ongoing abandonment of traditional sexual mores is a matter of inevitable social “progress,” even as such people cite the attendant deterioration of the institution of marriage (widespread infidelity, divorce, etc.) as a reason not to bother to defend it against redefinition.

Whatever our societal conceits, surely it is myopic to behave as if all civilizations have had NO GOOD REASON for their understanding the core concept of marriage as being the union of man and woman, and to undo the core definition of marriage in order to "spread the wealth" of its "dignity" (attained under the traditional definition) around.

[ChallengeThis]

Oh Dear, my sincere apologies to "Hey Linda Vega, moron laureate:" In my zeal to save space I omitted to address her first comment, "THERE IS NO TRUE "Separation of Church and State"!" The fact that near 99.98% of every so-called 'church' in Amerika stupidly operates under the tax PRIVLEGE of Title 26, sec. 501, they do so under very stringent conditions even as to the type and extent of content they disseminate. Therefore, they are in effect merely an extension of (what is actually) the MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, a.k.a. the "United States of America" and subject to any penalties thereof. This completely challenges the notion of "Separation". If these so-called ambassadors of God took heed to their 'own' Bible' ("...man cannot serve both God and mammon...") they would not trust the lawyers and look to Title 26, sec 508 instead. Learn to INQUIRE first, and then learn to COMPREHEND. Until then you remain, a "moron laureate". Hey, at least that's a much classier title than "sodomite."