Kenneth Starr to defend gay marriage ban before state Supreme Court

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court.

Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state.

The briefs are in response to a spate of legal challenges filed by gay rights advocates, including the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Opponents of the proposition argued that it amounted to a constitutional revision instead of a more limited amendment.

A revision of the state constitution can only go before voters after a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention. Proposition 8 was put on the ballot after a signature drive. The case poses a series of provocative legal challenges.

The first among them is that California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who opposed Proposition 8 but is legally bound to defend the state’s laws, must now weigh in on the challenge. Brown has in recent days been called upon to declare it a revision. In the past, he has said he plans to “defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.”

But he has also said he believes that the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between June and November should remain valid.

Because it did not trust Brown to mount a staunch defense of the proposition, the group Protect Marriage intervened in the case and filed its own brief. It argues that the same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Brown’s briefs are due later today.

The court could hear oral arguments as soon as March.

-- Jessica Garrison

Photo: Don Kelsen / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[corinne]

I can't believe this country is still having this debate. With technology, where none of these comments will disappear after everyone comes to their senses, some people are going to regret the prejudice and hateful words they are saying. How sad that the next, more accepting generation will read this and judge us as we judge slave owners and racists.

[Katja]

Mike - you may be surprised to find that the Constitution protects the right of an American citizen to make choices that are deemed "sins" under the Bible, or by Jesus. You have no right to use the civil laws to enforce your religion's idea of "sin," any more than a Jew or a Muslim has the right to make pork consumption illegal on the grounds that it is sinful according to the laws of their faith. The Bible may not say that you have to tolerate sin, but the Constitution does, and this nation is governed by the Constitution. If you wish to live by the Bible and not the Constitution, and to force your neighbors to do likewise, then please go form a theocracy somewhere else. This is a free republic, and most of us would like to keep it that way.

To oppose proposition 8 is not to say that God is a liar, any more than a Jew is calling God a liar by allowing his Gentile neighbor the legal right to eat a pork chop, or allowing his Hindu neighbor the legal right to pray to Ganesh and Lakshmi and Shiva. But opposing prop 8 is to say that God's law is for God to enforce, not the courts or the civil government. Or don't you believe your God is up to that task?

[Katja]

"I am game. Give me a good argument why the traditional view of marriage should be abolished and a new one should be held."

It already has been. Did you get or give a dowry when you married? Was your marriage arranged by your parents for economic or social reasons? Or did you choose your partner in the newfangled way for love, something your great-grandparents would have thought of as "irresponsible"? If you are a woman, are you the property of your father, if unwed, and your husband, if wed? If you are a man, are you allowed to beat your wife and kids?

Gay marriage is a symptom, not the cause, of the great change in marriage from a partnership for economic, social and breeding purposes, in which one partner owns another, to the relationship of equals for the purpose of love, friendship, and companionship. In the previous tradition, there was some reason to exclude gay people, as breeding and the enforcement of gender roles were more important to the definition of marriage than was love and companionship. In modern marriage, love and companionship matter more than gender roles or the ability to have children, then there is no reason to exclude gays- and if you argue that children and gender roles still matter more, you have to tell me why you would not divorce my friend from her husband, whom she married after her hysterectomy, or why you wouldn't divorce my parents, when my mother works and my dad does the cooking.

If you want to declare that "traditional" means "good", what is your justification for getting rid of all of the traditions that modern folk find appalling? Why is "traditional" solely equated with "heterosexual?" What is your justification for getting rid of the tradition of stoning non-virginal brides or throwing a girl who has premarital sex or is raped out of the family to become a prostitute on the streets, for example? Or the tradition of having spouses chosen by parents rather than each other? Or of viewing money and property as more important than love in selecting a marriage partner? How about the tradition that the wife and children are the property of the husband, and so is any income his wife may bring in to the family - so that even if he deserts them, and she works hard to earn money to care for her kids, he can come back and take her earnings away to get drunk with, and she has no recourse?

The new definition of marriage as a loving partnership for mutual support - a definition which leaves no justification for excluding gays, who also form loving partnerships and need mutual support - is superior to the other because it treats adults as adults who may make their own free choices. It encourages the raising of children in loving families rather than cold and uncaring ones, protects women and children from abuse, and ensures that even if a woman is deserted by her spouse, she may support herself and her children with the fruits of her own labor. It ensures that people are not trapped in unloving or cruel relationships against their will. I would not trade my own personal egalitarian love marriage for anything.

As for separation of church and state, I fail to see how you believe that principle supports prop 8, which imposes some people's religious beliefs on other people's marriages. Let me provide an example. The Catholic Church does not choose to marry previously divorced folks. Nonetheless, the civil marriage of previously divorced people - even practicing Catholics - is quite legal. The Church does not have to marry them, nor to recognize their marriages as "real" in a Catholic sense, but it may not prevent them from marrying in civil court or in another religion's church. The same ought to be true for gay people.

[Leanne Marchione]

IThe word marriage should be deleted from the law completely and that good hard working people who are living thier life be allowed to make thier own descision on thier partners. Don't bring the Bible in it , that is open to various interpetations anyway and I am pretty sure we or none of us are GOD , so stop judging everyone one else for the differences we all have. The constitution of California is the issue and not the Bible. OMG can't you think of anything elese that would be important to the state than this. Mind your own Business, teach aceptance - What good is going to come of this, really what good? tell me the changes that are going to be so significant to the people? Let's see we need a new type of racism to promote - Ken Starr is nothing but a trouble maker. Old out of touch and promotes hatered.
Has any of you considered that?

[Kaz Chehresa]

What a Nazi this Ken guy and those whom think like him. I don't understand I thought all humans evolved together. Apparently some still prefer living in a cave.

[Anne]

Roy Cohn. J. Edgar Hoover. The list goes on. Point made?

[christians r hypocrits]

So to all christians..........u guys r fake!!!!! u guys need to leave people alone!!!!! if i remember right Church and STATE are separate!!!!! so your religious views are nolinviod!!! you christians cant just mind your own buisness can you!! you guys think you are special or something......WELL YOUR NOT!!! my best-friends brother is special!!! doesn't say in the bible to like love each other for who they are not what they are!!! AND HERES A QUESTION FOR ALL CHRISTIANS............. doesnt god love everyone no matter who they are as long as they believe in them!!!! and so many christians say how merciful there god is yet they always throw god into hateful sits. when it suite their purpose!!!! hmmmm makes me wounder!!!! well all im going to say is im pagan and im gay!!!! so peace out and blessed be all of you!!!!

[drue hartwell]

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Ghandi.

Let's take away the Biblical aspect of this altogether. That is an endless fight and only leads to more hatred and anger on both sides and becomes the battle cry for ideals that are far from godlike.

Poplular vote would leave us with women still not having the right to vote. It would leave us with blacks and whites unable to marry. it would take away from us many, many rights that we have right now. So don't use the majority won argument either. This proposition should never have been allowed to even exist and that is the fight that needs to be won.

[Anna, Amsterdam]

My woman and I live together for 25 years now, through good times and bad times. Same sex couples I know have happy family's. In the Netherlands we got same sex marriage as a consequence of the law on equal rights. After several years nobody is complaining anymore about this. So if you give time to this practice of same sex marriage, the people get used to it and start to accept homosexuality being equal to heterosexuality. Religion has little to do with this. Christ preached love not hate. And hate is what I read from some christian people on this weblog. Who cares with whom I am happy with? It's not your business! Taking away human rights from people is a crime against humankind. Remember: "All men are born equal", the words of Martin Luther King.

[Mark]

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Meaning no laws shall be created to specifically cater the views of any religious establishment. And no laws shall be made to limit or deter their beliefs either.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out what the constitution says. The bible is what people seem to have trouble interpreting. They should all be put in a huge pile and burned.

[Mark]

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Meaning no laws shall be created to specifically cater the views of any religious establishment. And no laws shall be made to limit or deter their beliefs either.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out what the constitution says. The bible is what people seem to have trouble interpreting. They should all be put in a huge pile and burned.

[Mark]

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Meaning no laws shall be created to specifically cater the views of any religious establishment. And no laws shall be made to limit or deter their beliefs either.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out what the constitution says. The bible is what people seem to have trouble interpreting. They should all be put in a huge pile and burned.

[DYLAN]

Ok, Jesus and the Bible should not be in this discussion. Since WHEN does the bible decide laws? Church and State are two very different things. The Yes on 8 campaign used bible-thumping and scare tactics to try to make an argument, albeit, an argument that is terrible. I have YET to hear a decent argument FOR prop 8. Without using The Bible, Jesus, or the 'fact' that gay marriage would lead to pedophilia or beastiality, because that's just ridiculous. So please, start having a REAL discussion, and that means NO Bible or Jesus, because that has no standing in politics in this country.

[Shelly Thomas]

DJ, you're a bigot (and there are a lot more of us than you think). Anyone who supports prop 8 is at the very least ignorant (all 52% of you). The courts are there to protect the vulnerable minority from mob rule. They will decide in favor of the minority in March. My partner of 10 years and our 4 year old son will thank them.

Shelly

[Otto Von Auchvetter]

Bravo Ken Super Starr

[Patricia George]

Equality means equality. A century ago, bigots believed that interracial marriages were illegal because of their smug superiority. These bigots also believed that women should not vote. These bigots believed that Native Americans were inferior to the so called "white" race.

Though some believed in these practices and they were law at the time, these laws were overturned because of the founding fathers writing into our Bill of Rights and Constitution the idea that all men were created equal. Until human beings finally figure out we are all the same species, living on the same earthship together, dependent on one another, we are all the same under the mantle of skin, our species is doomed to fail.
Just because you bigots voted for a bill that is in direct contradiction to the basic tenet of the framework of our founding fathers, does not mean it is a law that should not be overturned. It must be overturned based on equality.

Keep church out of our government so we can all be safe in our beliefs. No more bigotry. Now is the time for equality for all. Grow up people.

[Carly Kirk]

'It's so DISGUSTED that America's liberals and democrats ALWAYS try to change the agreed-upon-play-rules after loss. Is it this nation is a nation of law?'
you know what I am so disgusted about?
that people actually took right OUT of the constitution. never in american history, has anyone every took rights out of the constitution.

[Carly Kirk]

Defeat this! Do NOT let Ken Starr divorce us! Dont let him take away the marriages of thousands of couple in love!
Tell the California Supreme Court not to divorce the thousands of people who married last summer! get your voices heard!
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/divorce

[Bryon Halsey]

In a world of injustice, famine, pollution and discord such as this, it is an embarrassment that a man with the influence of Mr. Starr finds it fruitful a mission to impose harm on a group of individuals who seek nothing more than the constituitonal rights afforded us all. Would his influence not be better served in attacking some of the larger GLOBAL issues mentioned above versus the attack on a homosexual's rights to live as every other human. How can you find harm in allowing people to love one another?

Until we grow tired of the fear-mongering bias, that has led us to believe that such aspirations of denying rights to those who are different is somehow betters us as a race, we are doomed.

[informed1*]

We are a diverse nation of myriad religions. Christianity is but one and is DEEPLY DIVIDED within. Some churches organized protests against newly legalized gay marriage ceremonies and supported Prop 8. Others embraced same-sex couples and offered to officiate at their wedding ceremonies. There exists divergent interpretations of the Bible, dissimilar concepts of what comprises a Christian, and contrasting perceptions of God.

What I am positive of is that the Bible admonishes us to treat others as we would like them to treat us. This means that if I want others to protect my rights, I must begin by protecting others. This means that if I expect to be worthy of another's compassion, I must begin by showing compassion. This means that if I want others to respect my faith, I must begin by respecting theirs. I am simply a Christian who believes in an empathetic God.

[Arcangel]

Gay marriage. The word of GOD says that it is a sin. When you are judged by Christ and he says well done you had better hope that he is talking agout you cremation. We have been taking GOD out of our Goverment and our lives. Now we want to give people of the same sex permission to say that it is alright to love each other. These people need to know that it is GODs permisssion that they need and I do not believe that they are going to get it. If they believe that their relationship is approved by GOD whay do they need his blessing.
Our country was founded on a sound principle of faith in god . Look at the founding doucments and even our money. I think that it is time to take back our country, time to go back to the bacis, to what worked worked for all not this group or that group. I pray that God will give you his grace so that you can see the mistake you are going to make.

[informed1*]

It truly saddens me that some of you are posting your regrets over voting against Prop 8, citing being turned off by post-election protests and "blacklisting" of Prop 8 supporters.

Did you consider that: There are MANY news reports regarding anti-gay-marriage protesters showing up at churches and other venues to disrupt these types of ceremonies after they became legal. There were MANY news reports regarding Prop 8 proponents tearing down signs and physically attacking No on 8 protesters, too. There are NO news reports, prior to Prop 8's passing however, of any pro-gay-marriage person tearing down anti-gay-marriage protester signs NOR of physically attacking these protesters for disrupting their marriage ceremonies.

Did you know that: Decades prior to Prop 8, companies -- Disney, Pepsi, Ford, etc. -- supporting gay rights were boycotted by the same entities who promoted Prop 8 or that these same entities, also, sent pre-election-day letters to No on 8 donors threatening to expose their identities. If not, it explains why many No on 8 protesters carry signs saying, "No More Mr Nice Guy", doesn't it?

It is truly heartbreakingly sad when good people are duped into letting truth take a back seat to a continuing propaganda of lies. The pure of heart would acknowledge, given all the facts, that both sides have behaved badly. One having done so for a much, much longer time than the other and, apparently, getting away with it again, too. Sad. Really, unspeakably sad.

[informed1*]

Two brothers visiting from a foreign country were BEATEN TO DEATH by a mob spewing anti-gay slurs at them because they were walking hand-in-hand; a man holding his wife's purse, while she assisted a handicapped person into the lady's room, was SHOT TO DEATH; a man, perceived to be gay, is verbally attacked by a woman and later SHOT TO DEATH by her boyfriend; etc. Remember Matthew Sheppard, Larry King . . . ?

Did you know suicide rates are so high there is an organization/website for youths? If not, you should know that a high number of teens kill themselves every year after realizing they are gay. Hence, the organization/website, named in remembrance of just such a youth, encourages OUR young -- after all, these are our brothers, sisters, children, friends -- to choose life.

If you believe that being gay is a choice, I must ask: Who logically would choose a lifestyle so reviled and frought with hardship? If it were a choice, would gay youths need to commit suicide? Why wouldn't they instead, as so many suggest, "just be heterosexual" or "marry [or fall in love with] someone of the opposite sex"?

Opponents of same-sex marriage comment Prop 8 is so much more than about marriage. They say that it is about protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage and enforcing non-acceptance of a lifestyle they consider "deviant". My issue with this argument is that there are compelling evidence being gay is NOT a "lifestyle", but rather an unalterable part of one's identity.

Who has more at stake is arguable: Those claiming to "defend" traditional marriage -- personal opinion or religious conviction -- as opposed to those who are compelled to defend themselves. Who is under siege is debatable: Those whose personal and/or religious convictions were deemed unconstitutional or those whose constitutional rights were revoked.

Empathy and compassion: Just a number of things strikingly missing from pro-Prop-8 postings, considering the citing of religious principals. Self-righteousness and judgment: Just a number of things strikingly evident in pro-Prop-8 postings, again, considering the citing of religious opinions. How are these in line with what the Bible teaches us? The answer: They are not.

[subwarrior]

Mr. O'Brien:
I am completely in harmony with you in your views on gay marriage. However, despite the ex post facto laws you cite, the court justices overrode the will of the California people with Prop 22. So if ex post facto relates to upholding gay marriages enacted since May 15th, wouldn't it also apply to upholding the voters overwhelming decision to make marriage between a man and a woman with prop 22 in 2000?

I am firmly advocating that every single one of the 18,000 gay "marriages" be immediately and forevermore revoked. The minute we relent and give them their "happiness", is the minute we sign our consent to being hounded, harassed, sued, and persecuted for speaking out against these abominable unions.

[Kevin O'Brien]

Dear Editor,

I voted "Yes" on Proposition 8, but in no way would I ever agree that the so-called marriages that were performed during the period it was legal in California should be invalidated or nullified. Those who are already married cannot demand that my church and pastor perform a wedding for them under threat of litigation regardless of the conflict with my values and those of others who attend the same church, so there is no reason to take from them the right they had for that short time.
In California law we have a prohibition against ex post facto laws, and this is the perfect application for that statute. Sadly there are many under the mistaken impression that this was a way to strike back at expanding gay rights. Wrong-o my uneducated friend. Nothing in the technical sense has changed.

Gays still have their right to civil union and registered domestic partnerships and all the rights and benefits granted under laws, ordinances and policies that go with them. They have lost nothing.

They can still have their commitment ceremonies and even call them a marriage, but they are not legally recognized with the same word. They just can no longer force their choices upon society by shopping around for activist judges who feel my moral convictions are wrong. I, like every person I have spoken with, do not care what goes on between two consenting adults behind closed doors. Just don't demand that I tell my children it is morally appropriate that my church has to solemnize a relationship at the point of a litigious pen.

Sadly, we now have Gloria Allred giving people false hope and demanding that the proposition be once again overturned. That cannot happen now. The judges involved overturned the previous will of the people because it was "unconstitutional." Now the Constitution itself has been changed through codified democracy and the will of the people stands firm. She can try the tired 14th Amendment suit against our entire State Constitution and the whole states rights thing, but if the United States Supreme Court were to decide in her favor it would set a national precedent and completely gut what democracy is all about, leaving every state in the country vulnerable to being legislated from one court in Washington D.C. Not likely. Attorney General Gerry Brown initially said he wouldl defend the proposition, but now that his true lying and infidel colors are out, he is rejecting the will of the people and failing to perform the job to which he was electected. It is time for Gerry Brown resign!

Proposition 8 followed the law, now everyone else must too. That especially includes barring any attempts to legislate after the fact and take away what individuals already have!

Sincerely,
Kevin M. O'Brien

[subwarrior]

Mr. Bates,

Your beliefs clearly demonstrate you are not worthy of the title of reverend. I am not sure who you lead, but if the blind lead the blind then I suppose you are qualified to lead others into the ditch after all. You are a sorry excuse for a religious leader and definitely ought not to use the name of Jesus at all. Unfamiliar with the very law you claim to support, you end up advocating what the entire bible calls an abomination, and then heighten your ignorance by spicing it up with words like love, and having the audacity to say, much less think, that Christ would ever endorse this vile behavior. It is truly written, "By their fruits ye shall know them", and your words and fruits, Mr. Bates, obviously show who you are.

[subwarrior]

Kerry,

I am wondering when the clear reason of your arguments will at last be apparent for all. It is fascinating to me at how so many completely cannot reasonably look at the argument. I am thankful and grateful for those who stand up for what is right in spite of the "hate, and bigot" epithets relentlessly hurled by gay marriage seekers at anyone opposing their march to destruction.

[subwarrior]

Deacon bubba,
you are right on with your sentiments. You are as well lu-ee.

[Sean LAMBE]

Vega Girl: you write about people educating themselvs about the constitutional right to marry. Well, first there is no such right in the constitution for same-sex marrages. In fact in 1985 the US supreme court held that state laws banning sodemy were constitutional. Not until 2004, did the US Supreme court reverse their decision and make it lawfull for sodemy to take place in private dwellings. But there is no fundamental right for to people of the same sex to marry in the constitution-not to be confused with the right to marry for same sex couples. Therefore, the rights you seek as an insular and descrete minority are not associated with any fundmental rights nor are they within the penbumbra of the constitution.

Also, remember marraige is an institution-a sacreament which belongs to the church. Marriage pre-dates our country and our jurisprudence system. State cannot say what marriage is because it belongs to the church and is not guarenteed in the constitution. The standard or review: "necesssary and compelling" to overturn prop 8 is wrong because there is on right at stake. The correct standard of review is "rational bases," which will fail. Sorry!

[JakeD]

For the record, I voted for Proposition 8 specifically to invalidate the 18,000 same-sex marriages. The text of the amendment clearly sets forth those "marriages" are null and void regardless of when or where performed. At least Moonbeam agreed this was NOT a revision.

[Kerry]

In response to the comment made by Rev Hank Bates.......Let's be clear on the "love one another" commandment taught by Christ. He loved the sinners and thats why they came to him and followed him....BUT......he also delivered them from their sin....the bondage of their sin. Mary Magdelane came to Jesus as a prostitute and he showed her compassion...but he also cast several evil spirits out of her that had her bound in that sin....and completely delivered her from it....and she followed him and continued in a life of freedom from prostitution and sexual immorality. Jesus showed compassion and forgiveness on the woman caught in adultery....BUT...he also told her to "go and SIN NO MORE....lest a WORSE fate befall you. She would have been stoned to death if Jesus hadn't been there. He spared her life. But he told her to repent lest a worse fate befall her. What would be worse than being "stoned to death". Only one other thing.....think about it. My wife and I know people who are gay and we show them friendship and kindness...however we also stand firm that we don't agree with their immoral lifestyle and the bondage that it puts their souls in. Jesus came to deliver us from sin's bondage and to give us his life within. Fornication and adultery are just as much sin in God's eyes as the gay lifestyle. Society has grown to accept and even support fornication and adultery but God never changed his position on them. God said in his word that He hates divorce! Adulterers and fornicators will be judged....period. So lets get serious with God folks. We dropped the ball long before the gay agenda ever became a hot issue. God still commands us to repent.....change our minds, our hearts and our actions and he offers salvation and deliverance to those who are bound by sin....and will empower those who desire to be free. He is not supportive of same sex marriage just as he is not supportive of adultery, fornication, dishonesty, racism, hate, pride, etc. Sin is sin! He still commands us to repent lest a worse thing befall us.

[lu-ee]

where in the bible doe Jesus say it is ok for gays to marry?

go figure. even to Mary Magdalen he said "sin no more."

again, go figure. cant see how it is against Christianity & the teachings of Christ to not accept gay marriage.

also, how come gays and the supporters for gay marriage, who never gave two bits about what Christianity said & taught before, now seem to know exactly what Christ would have thought on the matter & want everyone to follow their gay christian agenda. where do these supposed followers of christ & homosexuality get their authority to interpret the bible and jesus' words anyway?

go figure.

[keith]

I was imprisoned for not providing child support to my homosexual wife. Where is our government headed now? Next week they will be offering ever lasting life. Then we can worship them instead of God.

[subwarrior]

This prepostorous absurdity just got more fantastic! What in God's name is Jerry Brown getting paid to do? Last time I checked, it was to carry out the will of California's voters. Now, it wearies me to have to reiterate for you same sex advocates that this habit is a vice, is vile, is filthy, is abominable, and is certainly not a right. Your wicked choice destroys society, and it harms this society for my tax dollars to pay for your perverse partners health benefits when you are engaging in what is about the most unhealthy lifestyle known to man! You will have no children, your love is merely disguised lust. Your whore science lies to you and tells you what you engage in is perfectly normal and acceptable, and you are left to bear the tremendous psychological impact of your wickedness. While a person may have desires, they also are supposed to have self-control, and it is the failure of so many people to exercise this self-control that leads us to the unfortunate state we face today. I only hope that this delusion does not long continue, and that people can cease being those who "having eyes see not, and having ears hear not".

[marlene]

Blackrizah.blogspot.com says
WHITE PRIVILEGE ON STERIODS WANTING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

1. Gays are proving their hateful contempt towards Blacks.
2. White People Voted against Gay Marriage many of Gays parents and friends and relatives voted against them.
3. Whites on Juries never had a justice intent towards Blacks anyway.
4. Blacks are only 6% of California, while Whites are 63%.
Where is the outrage at the 63% of Whites Hun?
5.Gays are finally getting the Insults they deserve from Rev Warren who will bring all groups together to fight the Gays who want the world to adjust to their infantile privilage Demands of the World adjusting for them.
6White Liberals are loosing Respect from America their HYPOCRISY IS SCREAMING.
Gays pushing marriage will make people fight against civil Unions and Marriage for Gays. It is time for Rev. Warren to Insult Gays like they constanly insult Blacks, and their lliberal pasties stank friends. All are nothing but fuzz mouth widgets inviting the New World Order and Posse Comatatus on America while it is falling and becoming One with Mexico and Canada. The Arrogance and Stupidity of White Privilege is the villian.

[Bill G]

Some of the comments on this board are mind boggling.

The only perversion is for those who can not understand that two men or two women loving each other is just as real as that of a man and a woman. In fact, it might be stronger. As everybody knows, men understand men just as women understan women far, far, far better than men and women understand each other.

But centuries of hatred and persecution don't go away in a heartbeat, and old minds are difficult to sway. But gay marriage will be a reality, it is the only just outcome.

It truly must border almost on a mental disease that some people can not understand what it is like to be another, different person. That someone else's needs, wants, and desires might be DIFFERENT from theirs and yet be just as valid, just as real, and just as meaningful.

Throwing religion into the mix perverts the very essence of spirituality on which religion depends -- humanity. If people can't be humane to one another, there is no hope for the human race.

[puertoricoguy]

PeterPatnter, your comment that the proponents of Prop 8 somehow "suckered" good people like "Latinos, Blacks, and Mormons" into voting for the measure is an embarassment to you. In Puerto Rico, we just elected a governor on a pro-life, pro-family ticket. Luis Fortuño won in a landslide, pledging to champion a return of Resolución 99 (our Proposition 8). Our incumbent governor killed his chances partly by opposing 99. Last time I checked, Puerto Ricans are Latinos. And we have brains, thank you very much. I am sure that blacks and Mormons do as well. Why don't you argue on an intellligent level instead of lowering yourself to mudslinging and name-calling?

[Deacon Bubba]

Ok the alleged "Christians" here need to skip the old testament and stick to the new and same for the Haters. So long as you don't force me in my church to accept your marriage, what the state of california does is something different and only a matter of law. Remember if christians cared about Caesars law we would have been extinct 2000 years ago. Marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman and what the courts say government sponsored marriage is doesn't matter, nor what the voters say. Yes it does need a definition to prevent child brides and abusive polygamist sects, but I dont see the state removing children from these cults so obviously they dont really care just enjoy giving lip service. I am more concerned that California now feels that aiding someone is a choice and not required. It is buyer beware and hate your neighbor now that the state is broke. Remember ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

[Deacon Bubba]

Ok the alleged "Christians" here need to skip the old testament and stick to the new and same for the Haters. So long as you don't force me in my church to accept your marriage, what the state of california does is something different and only a matter of law. Remember if christians cared about Caesars law we would have been extinct 2000 years ago. Marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman and what the courts say government sponsored marriage is doesn't matter, nor what the voters say. Yes it does need a definition to prevent child brides and abusive polygamist sects, but I dont see the state removing children from these cults so obviously they dont really care just enjoy giving lip service. I am more concerned that California now feels that aiding someone is a choice and not required. It is buyer beware and hate your neighbor now that the state is broke. Remember ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

[Vega Girl]

For all of you that think you're being cheated out of your vote, I beg you, please educate yourselves. You CAN NOT vote to take away fundamental rights. Let me rephrase that, you can try to vote away people's rights, but it will ALWAYS go back to the courts. Vote on it 10 times, it will still be "UNCONSTITUTIONAL." So who here is really wasting tax money? Just because a slim majority (52%-48%) voted prejudicially doesn't mean they won.....wake up. If that was the case, interracial couples would still not be allowed to wed. In fact, we would still be able to own a slave or two....LMAO. Educate yourself before you start thinking on your own people. Whether you like it or not Gay Marriage will be here someday....so go ahead and keep stalling it, I guess you like paying high taxes, our money has to go somewhere. Oh and by the way, when this is overturned, WILL YOU GET OVER IT?! Will you then stop your silly biblical arguments. Not to mention the ridiculous (just stupid) comparisons of gay relationships with incestrual relations & polygamist.

[Tom]

The language of Prop 8 is clear: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Consequently, all of those 18,000 illegal, so-called "marriages" performed after the lawless California Supreme Court invented a so-called "right" to same sex "marriage" are void. V - O - I - D. Move on, people. Thank you.

[Kate O'Hanlan, MD]

I sure hope they overturn Prop 8. Marriage is as important and good for gays as it is for straights. Marriage is the bulwark of our society. The American Psychiatric Association has confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, and has no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work, or to contribute to society. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed civil marriage for same sex couples because marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents, and seniors. When Americas premier child and mental health associations and their expert panels endorse marriage equality, there is thus no ethical reason to discriminate against gay people and their children.

[lucy2008]

Bringing Starr on board is ultimate hypocracy or perhaps just more of the same. The religious right are certainly passionate about their intolerance. I wish they were passionate about doing good in our society. Instead of spending $20M to get propostion 8 passed, why couldn't they have spent that money on giving food to the poor or donating it to AIDs prevention in Africa. Good works for the poor, the sick, the least of us is the "red letter" way of their religion. However, they prefer to stand by their man-made self-described uber- morality of their own writing. It is mean-spirited, hateful, and devisive. It is without love. The amazing thing is that homosexuals who do marry LOVE each other and want to be there for each other. A little more love in the world like that is a wonderous thing. A little more love in the world does not threaten families. These people are shallow thinkers and mean fools. In the future, these people will be dust and their ideas and actions shown as cases of the stupidity of the 20th century. Our children tolerate all of this so much more and we should listen to them.

[Christopher Jones]

I am embarrassed that I went to Pepperdine. While apprehensive at the appointment of Kenneth Starr as the Dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law in 2004 due to his known ultra-conservative views and questionable reputation for vehemently and aggressively attacking President Clinton (who I recognize likely did commit perjury, obstruction of justice and abused his power in the Monica Lewinsky scandal), I was impressed with the initial positive impact Starr had on Pepperdine, bringing media attention and increased donations/giving to the school. After all, Starr was a Solicitor General of the United States and a well-known public figure. Mr. Starr also expressed regret for the Lewinsky investigation, stating publicly that he wished that he had not led the investigation that resulted in the impeachment of President Clinton, sentiment that I personally witnessed. Then, I was shocked that Pepperdine professor of law Richard M. Peterson appeared in television commercials in support of Proposition 8, playing on the fears of the general population with lies that gay marriage would result in gay marriage being taught in schools while Churches would be threatened with a loss of their tax exempt status, both unsupported and ignorant “scare tactic” statements. Now, this is the final straw for me. Mr. Starr, the face of the Pepperdine University School of Law, will be the face of Proposition 8, the face of hatred and the face of discrimination. How can anyone actually argue that discrimination should be constitutionalized in light of the equal protection and liberty so fundamental to our Constitution? This is no different than if Mr. Starr and Pepperdine supported a ban on interracial marriages, a ban on Jewish marriages, or even a ban on women from voting. To be clear, I am from a conservative family, maintain a strong moral code and am politically moderate, which is why I chose to attend Pepperdine, a choice I now regret and a choice I now discourage others from making due to the hatred, discrimination and ignorance promoted by this supposed institution of higher education.

[NO on Ken Starr]

jim said:

"Thats why marriage needs to be defined between a man and a women."

So bigamy is OK, but gay marriage isn't?

But...bigamy is illegal here. Help us understand why a marriage between "a man and a women" is ok. You're not the first in this conversation to say that. And don't blame it on a typo, the A and E keys are far enough apart.

[DJ]

GO KEN!! Stop the misfits....the 1/10th of 1% who think they should rule the country. Gay marriage will never be recognized in this country......NEVER.

[John Galt]

"Marriage is between a man and a woman." - Barack Obama

[Third time?]

Maybe we should take a third vote just incase it was wrong the first two times?

[Tax Dollar]

This has been a issue for a very long time, and still is a issue. Maybe if we didnt waste so much of our tax dollars hearing these defeated cases from the gay community maybe we can put those tax dollars to good use. Like balancing the budget deficit!!!

[Rosario]

It is news to me Ken Starr is licensed to practice law in California. What is the California state bar thinking when they issued him that license?

[Mike in Studio City (CA)]

Time for the Mormons to do some more fundraising. Too bad they don't spend that money on Christ-like acts, but choose to line Ken Starr's pockets with it instead. But that's their right, I guess. Even hate is protected by the Constitution (although crimes based on hate, thankfully, are not).

[cowgirl]

JohnDoe:
Please show me where in the Constitution, Bill of RIghts, or any founding document that the principle of "The Separation of Church and State" exists.

By the way- good luck.

[Amazed]

The amount of false assumptions held by those who are trying to force their view of same-sex marriage on everyone else is just plain amazing.

I would advise that those who are opposing prop 8 go study a bit on the concepts of: rights, separation of church/state, morality, how to create an argument for your position, etc.

It would help your case, seriously. Just calling people names (e.g. the labels you drop on Ken Starr) and emoting doesn't do it. In order to convince reasonable people, you need to offer a reasonable argument.

I am game. Give me a good argument why the traditional view of marriage should be abolished and a new one should be held. And, if you can, please give me an argument that doesn't also justify any old relationship (e.g. bigamy, etc.) to also qualify as "marriage." And let me also suggest that you show why the new definition of marriage is superior and how it actually produces a better society.

Thank you. I am looking forward to seeing your clear arguments.

[Garick]

Listen, my best friend is a lesbian and I love her to death. Having said that, I think I am unbiased as to the argument whether or not same sex marriage should be law. Here's my sticking points though: If marriage is both a religious and historical term between a man and a woman, why does any group have the right to change it? Also, if it were changed...would it not be long before one man and two women would be asking to be married together, or a father marrying his daugher, ect...? Listen those may seem like extreme cases, but there are people out there who would argue just that.

If your gay, how could you say "no" to their rights? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. I am not against two people of the same sex being in an exclusive, loving relationship and having the same rights as everyone else. But why not just come up with a different term instead of the word "marriage?" I would like someone who is for same sex marriage to respond as I am interested in their viewpoint. I am very open minded, am I missing something here?

[Yes on 8]

Now look who's doing the harassing!. We'd all be better off if gays stayed in the closet.

[SP]

Gay marriage was never a civil right to start with. And there was never a scientific proven fact of anyone was born gay. People are basing their arguments of rights and discrimination on far fetched assumptions.

[Dee Jay]

There is a verse in the Bible that does say that it is a sin to lay with the same sex, child, animal. I am ashamed to say, I do not know my Bible well enough to tell you the book, chapter and verse but I know it's there because I read it.

There is nothing in the constitution about homosexuals rights. What the constitution covers is for ALL people.

[blinded]

My rights as a citizen have been denied me by the citizens of California for a long time. It is illegal to deny a right to me, a member of a minority group- the California State Constitution says so. I am blind and I want to drive a car. I am being discriminated against because I am not allowed to drive. The definition of "driver" needs to be redefined to include those who are sight impaired.

Thank you Jerry Brown. Your argumentation will finally get me where I want to be- in the drivers seat of a car.

[jca]

Christ always loves the sinner, He dines with them, hang around with them and as always made sure they are His personal concerns. But nowhere in the Bible do we read about Jesus Christ tolerating sin when he is with sinners. Christ always insist that people changes from there wicked ways. The adulterous woman whom the religious leaders condemn as having commited sin has also been acknowledge by Christ to have committed the sin of adultery and yet have her go her way with the exhortation of "Go and Sin no more". Christ never tolerated sin to continue unrebuked. What the people who do not like Christians are saying above is that in the name of love allow sin for that is the way of Christ is baseless. They have caricatured Christ and his love to tolerating all sort of sinful acts that would make sodom and gomorrah pale in comparrison. Remember it is the same Christ that said that in the last days it will be worst than Sodom and Gomorrah!. Society is helpless in making this truth a reality. The blindness of people in sin is really a reality. May God have mercy on our society today.

[GoGo]

To Rex Boone: It would be a treat to see you disassociate yourself and all you cronies from the civic system. Go at it!
And I seriously doubt your are anywhere 10%, try less than 1%, if that much. You are dreaming you numbers are so prominent -- your cause will die out by the next generation.

To everyone else: most of your points are irrelevent to the case. Marriage is not an individual inalienable right. It is a social contract, a social right. Think, before you go spouting your dribble.

[Walter Lane]

"Gay marriage" is an oxymoron. The last dictionary I looked at defined marriage as a union of two people of the opposite sex. You can try to re-write the law, re-write the Bible, re-write peoples morals, but when you mess with Websters Dictionary you're asking for trouble. (while the last is "tongue in cheek", I DO believe that gay marriage is absolutely silly. Will we legalize marriage between species next? Or pedophile marriage? And, yes, I am including gay, lesbian, bi and trans as sexual perversions). If the "thought police" need to find me, I'm in Florida.

[Joe Jericho]

Many of you, unfortunately, are missing the biggest point in all of this.

California is heading for a consitutional crisis (anarchy). First, the Democratic-controlled Legislature makes an end-run around the State's Constitution (Prop 13) requirment that all revenue-raising laws enacted by that body must be done so by a 2/3s majority. Essentially the Dems cut out the Republicans and a significant portion of the state's population in passing a $9.3B tax increase.

Next comes Moonbeam Jerry Brown deciding to fight Prop 8 in front of the CA Supreme Court. The Attorney General's office has the duty to defend the laws of the state against those who are challenging it. In this case, there are several gay/lesbian groups challenging the validity of Prop 8. Fine. Brown is supposed to defend against that suit on behalf of the people of California who have spoken on the matter and passed the initiative. Instead, he has reversed course. He initially stated that his office would defend against the suit, but will now work with the other side to overturn the Proposition. Makes you wonder if there are truly two sides to this suit? The defendant has now become the prosecutor. The new defendant, essentially, is a private interest group that now is put in the position of defending the will of the voters. That's an untenable situation. Brown should defend the suit even if he didn't agree with the results of the election. That is his responsibility as a public servant to the state - defend it's laws. He has a duty to put forth his best argument in support of Prop 8 and how it doesn't violate the State's constitution. If he loses, he loses. So be it. But h is reversal amounts to a form of near-anarchy and continues to put CA on the path of a major constitutional crisis. Disgusting.

Some will say that he is upholding the Constitution by not supporting Prop 8. I disagree. If he were in the situation of his everyday job, maybe that would be correct. But in this particular case, it is not his job to adjudicate the merits of the case. The CA S. Ct. will be doing that. So his role is clear: defend the law of the State of CA. The S. Ct. will decide whether this law is Constitutional or not, not Jerry Brown.

[JJ]

One must wonder how much Pepperdine university is behind the yes on pro 8. First a prominant professor is the major spokes person and now Ken Star is lead counsel........makes one go HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM......Ken Star is supposed to be running a law school.... one must wonder why he is now lead counsel.......and wonder what pepperdines involvement is......

[Regats]

The religious right has it all backwards.

Christ was hated by the Jewish Fundamentalists worse than a murderer because he preached against the rigid doctrines of the Torah; Instead of "an eye for an eye, a life for a life" he said, "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek". Instead of "Homosexuals are an abomination and must be stoned to death" he preached "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Now that science has shown that homosexual behavior is a genetic trait woven into the DNA of about 10% of the population, it's time to understand that it is no more abnormal than blue eyes or left-handedness, and the inclusion of gays in the institution of marriage is a decent, Christian thing to do and will not destroy the institution of marriage but expand it to include all those who chose to live and love in a committed relationship.

[Marriage as it ever was]

I like watching the "yes on 8" logic vs. the "no on 8" emotion. The yes on 8 group laid low after the supreme court decision, got the votes needed for the proposition, and wrote up an iron clad amendment (which is why a former judge is on the lead counsel). Then there's the no on 8 side who took to the streets in "out of the closet" fashion over the summer with the supreme court decision. Then they went to the streets again (this time vandalizing property, spitting on people, etc.) when the people voted yes on 8.

I'm glad that when this is brought up again in court, I can feel confident in the logical approach of the yes on 8 campaign to succeed against the bare-breasted, angry, name-calling, rioting approach of the no campaign.

Thank you Mr. Starr for adding even more wisdom to an already logical approach to maintaining morals in our country.

And Jerry Brown, will you please be quiet. You and Pelosi do everything you can to keep the San Francisco vote and it is disgusting. San Francisco is not the voice of California, as we just proved this past election.

[JayHavens]

Marriage, like any other kind of partnership, is regulated by the State.

If the State, through a general election, chooses not to accord a particular status on a grouping of individuals, well the State clearly has the right to do just that. If we were arguing about a group of lawyer's rights to organize in a particular way--- Say mandatory LLPs instead of LLCs, this conversation wouldn't even reach the light of day...

And the distinction between a'' revision'' and an amendment' is a distinction without a difference, it's basically just semantics: and the anti-proposition 8 groups know this.

While I am pro gay and lesbian marriage, the majority of the people of the State of California have spoken. And no matter how 'regressive' their vote might be viewed, this is still a democracy and the majority in this democracy still have the right to govern absent infringement into a highly protected right.

And democracies make mistakes all the time......perhaps, in time, the people of California will get to the point where they can conclude that HAVING gay/lesbian marriage will really have NO IMPACT whatsoever on opposite gendered couples and society at large.

But until then, however badly reasoned and inappropriately focused this law maybe, it remains the law in California and is due its respect until it is removed from the books by the voters.

[AGEEPOO]

Let the people do as they wish in their homes. Should we decide whether or not a couple should be married? Do not place that upon the shoulders of the voters, because we might see things different than you do. Does that make a person bad, or hateful because they have their own views? Think for yourselves. Do not make man your judge. Is there not a higher authority?

[HCarter]

Again---check out these comments---how many are referencing "jesus" and their personal view of Christianity? Is this really the state of our education system that people are no longer taught American Civics and the separation of church and state?

This issue is about civic marriage licenses. It has nothing to do with what you personally think religious marriage is.

Though I'm really wowed by the homophobia here---especially the "Aids" comments---no, Equal Rights isn't about forcing businesses to cover the health care costs of "high risk" individuals. The fact that this is what you focus on is just jaw dropping. I bet you said the same thing to yourself about interracial marriage too.

[Pointing out the obvious]

David, I'm afraid you are...well...to put it nicely...."misinformed."

The issue with Utah statehood involved polygamy or plural marriages. The Supreme Court ruled that religion could not be used as an excuse for continuing the practice of polygamy in Reynolds v United States. In the opinion of the court, presented by Justice Waite, no place is marriage defined as between one man and one woman. No precedent for gender was established, just that a person could only marry one other person.

Utah's Constitution was amended only in 2004 to read that marriage was between a man and a woman. As for their state law that bans same-sex marriage, that law is the Marriage Recognition Policy, which was also enacted in 2004.

So, in a nutshell, you're just misinformed all around. I'm glad I could help in easing you out of your ignorance.

The More You Know (TM).

[Leonard D.]

Proposition 8 was passed as a popular consensus. However, the issue has become a matter of law.

Gays feel marriage is a civil right, but there is no right to marriage per se if it is untenable and vitiated under law.

For instance, a gay marriage contract cannot be perfected. In law of contract, a marriage must be consummated. For two of the same sex, this is biologically impossible.

In law of probate, succession, and wills a gay union has no potential of sanguinity, or passing of lineage by blood. The union is fruitless and artificial . . . not natural.

The failure to meet elements of marriage contract, and the complete lack of bloodline succession makes such a union invalid, void, and a sham. Those of kith and kin who have sanguinity would have every right to challenge succession through a gay marriage.

[Dutchman]

If this clown, Starr, does the same two faced job on this as he did on the Clinton indictment we can see the Prop 8 fall like everything else that stands for morals, Character and conscience.
Oh BTW, Ken Starr's firm gave $30,000 to Hillary's campaign fund right after he HELPED Clinton get of the hook, or didn't you know that,,this is a fix just like before.

[BART SIMPSON]

WELCOME TO THE NEW SOVIET UNION!

IF BROWN DOESN’T AGREE WITH THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE CALIFORNIANS VOTED FOR PROP 8, WHY DOES HE DEFEND A MAJORITY OF 4 TO 3 OF A JURY OF 7 INDIVIDUALS?
DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

SPEAKING ABOUT EQUAL RIGHTS, IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYING AN EDUCATED VOTE SHOULD OUTLAW AN UNEDUCATED VOTE?

THEY WANT TO IMPOSE THIS (AND OTHERS, TO COME) ON US LIKE IN THE OLD SOVIET UNION.

[Jeremy]

As an alumnus of Pepperdine Law School, I will NEVER give another dime to that institution as long as Starr is there. He is a disgrace to the school and the profession.

[Tommy]

"Jesus would protect marriage between a man and a women and wouldn't be intimidated when people yell insults at him"

Hey Steve, lets go ahead and NOT speak for Jesus. I dont know, there just seems to be something wrong there. I dont know which Jesus your talking about, but the one I know and Love loves all, and wouldnt create gays only to hate on them, so step off and stop putting words in my main man's mouth.

[Robert]

I hope to God that it stands. It is the right of people in the country to marry and that is equally applied to everyone. You marry someone of the opposite sex. Anything else is perversion as the gay lifestyle is a perversion. A perversion of nature and a perversion of morality.

[Brian]

Mike -- the Bible doesn't say one word about gay marriage. It does say that Christians are not to marry non-Christians....Paul calls this being "unequally yoked." Ken Starr is a Fundamentalist Christian married to a Jewish woman. So his marriage is unbiblical. Would he support having that marriage taken away from him?

Scripture says that what God requires is to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. Jesus said there are only two commandments: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. He also said that when He comes to judge the living and the dead, whether you go to Heaven depends on how well you treated those less fortunate and powerful than you.

Have you ever heard Ken Starr, the Yes on 8 people, or any leader of the religious right, use words like love, justice, mercy, humility, or compassion? There could hardly be a less Christian, godly group of people than them. This is about relgiion. It's about hatred and bigotry.

Justice will prevail, no matter how hard people like Ken Starrr try to keep it from happening.

[T J Huerena]

Rev. Bates:

Come now, you must recall what it says in Matthew Ch. 19, v. 4-5:

"Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh."

Marriage is ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN!

[Dr. Pastor Steven D. Shollenburg]

So many people interpret the Bible the way it suits them, even some religious leaders as you have read. From the Old Testament through the New Testament the Bible discusses the value of this topic, and includes homosexuality very specific. Homosexuality is included in a serious list of vices that are deserving of death and not only for those who practice but also for those who approve of it and condone it. Homosexual behavior is a sin, ungodly and disqualifies one from entrance into the kingdom of God. With approx 72% of the American voters claiming to be Christians, how can this type of thing even get to a vote if they are true Christian's and believe in God's word.

[No On Starr]

I find it funny that the frothing supporters of Starr and Prop 8's posts are almost always riddled with poor spelling and grammar. It speaks volumes to the level of education and intelligence behind them.

Jesus said nothing about gay relationships. I've read my Bible. Have you read yours? The New Testament washed away the laws of books like Leviticus. Let's not be so selective in our interpretation and application of the word of God.

True, Paul spoke against many things, but you could hardly call Paul an unbiased commentator. If you want to take him literally, then do so on every point he made.

Not so comfortable any more, is it?

[Seven Burke]

California richly deserves its reputation as the land of fruits and nuts, which of course is an insult to trees & plants that produce fruit & nuts.

[MatthewScott]

This is a new low for Christianity! Nullifying 18,000 other people's marriages? Is this what Jesus would do? This is a black day for people of faith.

[nano]

Since when has it been good policy for the majority to vote on matters of other people's civil rights?

[Rhett Wooden]

This is a test of the ultimate of Separation of Church and State. Marriage as it has been defined for thousand of years, is between that of a man and woman for the creation and protection of family. That definition comes from religious writing. For Christians, from the Bible.

Why is it that the liberal population wants to steal what is a religious word and definition after thousands of years of understanding what it is?

Separate Church and State; take Civil Union as we have all heard being proposed so many times before. Unite in Union and become a bonded couple. Love and be loved.

Anything that is licensed, is a privilege, not a right. Just as a drivers license is a privilege and not a right.

The word Marriage has become weakened enough, though civil marriage on Friday and annulment on Monday. The divorce without cause, "irreconcilable differences." Divorce rates of 50% and lack of commitment. Don't weaken it further for the religious world that holds the word and definition SACRED and lifelong commitment and love.

Liberal thought seeks Separation of Church and State. Well, on this one I'm on your side.

Marriage, Church and Civil Union, State.

[Josef]

"what has happened to the Christian faith? Has it become consumed with divisiveness and hypocrisy?"

This reminds me of a quote from Mohandas Gandhi:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

[Dora Glasberg]

Let's hear it for the MORON (not a typo) CHURCH.
Those wonderful folks who only admitted blacks 2 decades ago.
Who supported polygamy, which demeans and degrade women.
Who sanctioned pedophilia and child rape AND incest as part of their religious practices. (Some offshoots still do!)
Let these 'pillars of morality' tell the rest of us how to live.
PUL-LEEEEEEZE.

[amsron]

It's extremely telling that Pepperdine University denied any involvement with the professor featured in the Pro 8 commercials earlier this year and now is allowing it's Dean of Law to argue a case in favor of the proposition. Perhaps the trustees of Pepperdine University should be investigated for malfeasance. What is their advantage, what monies are being used, will their fundraising efforts be enhanced by their participation? We deserve to know.

Personal to MIKE. If you're going to quote the Bible, don't forget that GOD is love. Aren't you a terrible person to forget that? I know you will be judged and I think you should ponder your fate if you continue along this path of sinful wickedness.

Personal to JohnDoe Perhaps you're on the right track. I think that the State of California should be barred from performing marriages if they intend to discriminate. The threat of permanent loss of income would probably stop all this foolishness.

[jim]

If I love my dog and my dog loves me why cant we get married? What happens if someone wants four wifes, why cant they marry all four? Where does this stop? The answer is you cant stop it. If you let a small percentage of people change what marriage is then you open the door for everyone. Thats why marriage needs to be defined between a man and a women.

[Mark Atkins]

The ignorance and irrational thinking of those who oppose Proposition 8 is astonishing. Do any of you realize that according to the law in all jurisdictions in the United States, marriage is NEVER defined as a right? Did you know that? Probably not. No, marriage is not a right, it is a PRIVILEGE. That is why when you go to get married you get what is referred to as a LICENSE. It is for the same reason that you get a driver's license, because it is not a right, it is a privilege. You do not have the right to marry whomever or whatever you choose, and have the government recognize it.

For example, you do not have the right to marry an infant. You do not have the right to marry a goat. You do not have the right to marry more than one person. So, by extension, you also do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex. This is because you do not have the "right" to marry in the first place. The institution of marriage is governed by societal rules and constraints that have always been a part of the law, and have been consistently defined and defended by the courts of this land, at least until modern days. Now judges with an agenda feel they have a "right" to overrule the Constitution, be it federal or, in this case, state.

In short, those of you who oppose Proposition 8 really demonstrate your ignorance of the laws of our constitutional republic when you speak of "my constitutional right to marry." No such right exists or is defended by said Constitution. But this foolishness should be expected because you are all products of a mind-warping educational system in this country that does not teach children the real history and civic knowledge of our American society. It's rather sad, really.

[David]

What people seem to not know and don't have knowledge of is the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress have already ruled on marriage and what constitutes marriage. When Utah and 3 or 4 other states in the West and/or Southwest wanted to be admitted as States to the Union the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress told those states that they had to either make it supreme law of the state by Amending their state constitutions or make it state law to say marriage is between one man and one woman. So the issue has already been decided with Precident by the Supreme Court of the U.S. and the Congress of the U.S.

[John]

Just not, lest ye BE judged...........

[Pointing out the obvious]

Mike, you seem to be confusing the United States for a theocracy. The Bible says a lot of things that the Christianists don't follow. Eating seafood without scales or fins is a sin, yet Red Lobster is still in business. Likewise, divorce is a sin, yet you don't see a ban on divorce in this country. So, why exactly is it that the Christianists cherrypick so readily from the Bible to suit their own lifestyles and agenda?

[dre]

What a joke! I don't care what your opinions are. The PEOPLE of CA voted. And the job of Attorney General is to defend laws that the PEOPLE of CA pass. I don't care what he feels... Why won't he resign and go work for the gay community and have them pay him. Not me!!! His job is to defend the laws of California. Whether he agrees with it or not. Where is common sense? where is the gov OF THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE? Seems like its the gov of the gay only... Excuse me, 52% of US PEOPLE voted. Until the % changes, Mr.Brown you get your little butt to work for THE PEOPLE!!!

[John]

Mike:

We are here discussing the Constitution of California, not the Bible.

[Rex Boone]

My rights as a citizen were denied by the other citizens of California. I no longer feel that I can fairly serve on a jury and judge these people fairly. How will I feel if an African Americain appears accused before me and I am asked to dispense justice. I think every gay citizen should bring this feeling up when brought before the judge as a pontential juror. Deny the legal system 10% of its potential jurors and let the good citizens of California serve additional time as a result.

[Mike]

"what has happened to the Christian faith? Has it become consumed with divisiveness and hypocrisy?"

You best look in the mirror Bates. Anyone that scams the public best be worried about joing perverts in hell.

[Michael F]

I find it particularly fitting that Starr would defend Prop 8 -- an ugly law now has an equally appalling face.

[Jeffery P. Segall RN]

Why can murderes on death row get married?
Why is common-law marriage legal in some states? California recognizes common-law marriage created in other states...so you live in sin for seven years and you are awarded marriage??? Makes a lot of sense

[Bill]

This is a no brainer-marriage involves opposite sexes
same sex marriage would remove childrens rights of a father and mother
are we really this confused in society or is it the minority mob mentality trying to distort truth

[Steve]

Jesus would protect marriage between a man and a women and wouldn't be intimidated when people yell insults at him

[David Jones]

Ken Starr, I was so proud of you when you argued clemency cases against capital punishment. I believed then that you were a decent man. Now I am saddened to see you argue this indefensible position.