Gay marriage battle relaunches today as Prop. 8 is challenged in court

A new front in the battle over gay marriage in California will open today when two prominent attorneys will challenge Proposition 8 in federal court.

The attorneys, who argued on opposite sides of the Bush vs. Gore election case in 2000, will hold a press conference announcing a federal lawsuit and calls for the restoration of gay marriage until the case is decided.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in the contested election, have joined forces to tackle the same-sex-marriage issue, which has deeply divided Californians and left 18,000 gay couples married last year in legal isolation. The lawyers are scheduled to appear this morning at the BIltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles.

In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

Their lawsuit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.

The California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that state law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional under the privacy, due process and equal protection guarantees of the California Constitution.

But in November, voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman. The high court upheld the voter initiative in a 6-1 ruling Tuesday, with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting.

Legal scholars have observed that proponents of gay marriage have avoided taking the issue to federal court so far because of the dominance of conservative judges and justices on the federal bench after the eight-year tenure of President George W. Bush.

The U.S. Supreme Court has what usually results in a 5-4 majority against extending rights to gays by recognizing sexual orientation as a vulnerable class of citizens in need of protection.

 And all but one of the 13 federal appeals circuits has a reliable conservative majority. Even the exception, the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, experienced a curtailing of its liberal orientation with Bush’s seven appointments.

-- Carol J. Williams

Interactive map of milestones in the gay marriage battle and how state laws have changed since 2000.

State Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8
California reacts to long-awaited ruling

Photos: Decision draws mixed reactions

Full text: The justices' ruling

Complete coverage

Comments

[Debra Haffner]

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court must decide (any I hope that Sonia Sotomayor might be part of that decision) that it's unconstitutional to create second class citizens -- based on sexual orientation or gender identity or anything else. Separate but not equal is not just unconstitutional -- it's wrong.

Rev. Debra Haffner

[Mike]

Repeat 1,000 times
"Marriage is a privilege, not a right."

I do not have the so called "right" to marry my mother, father, brother or sister.

[Drew]

These two attorneys and the clients they represent need to slow down. Now is not the time to appeal this on the Federal level, and all they are doing is selfishly risking the futures of all other same-sex couples who stand a better chance getting this legally overturned at the ballot box next year. If this gets appealed on the federal level and the U.S. Supreme Court were to find that Proposition 8 was valid, it would set a precedent nationally that would put the gay rights movement back decades. To the attorneys and plaintiffs: stop being selfish and end this federal appeals farce.

[Maya]

In 1948 the California Supreme Court, in Perez v. Sharp, said:

“The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one’s child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.”

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

“Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

I can't believe we're back here again.

[CA LDS]

As a supporter of Prop 8, I would welcome this issue to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe that a ruling favorable to the supporters of traditional marriage would be the outcome and this could help overturn the other States were their courts have mandated policies to go against a marriage between one man and one woman.

[Chris]

It has been made perfectly clear that Gays & Lesbians are on our own here.

The very Heteroseuxals that CREATED us have NO intention of treating us as equals. Now or ever.

I wonder what God would say about that?

[Drew]

@Rev. Debra

So, if you want homosexual marriage, then are you for polygamy? Or are you going to discriminate against that minority.

That, and where do state and/or the federal government it say that marriage is a right, especially as there are wide ranging restrictions on who can marry? Rights last I heard were supposed to be inalienable and without restriction. That'd leave marriage way outside the status of a "right."

[Pam]

When I think of the gay people I know as friends, co-employees and neighbors, I am heartbroken that they, once again, have been told they're not as good and have less rights than heterosexuals. How could anyone who describes themselves as a good person and a good American discriminate so completely and openly? These are people who say they are "Christians"? Hmmm...wonder why I have no respect for religion and the mean-spiritedness caused by something written thousands of years ago by MEN, not God. How stupid can you be to think that these men had no prejudices?! They didn't care too much for women either, so I suppose our rights should be diminished too. Way to go Christians! I'll be shocked if the Times publishes my comment!

[Donn Wallace]

The California State Supreme Court's decision was not rendered to "create second class citizens". The Court's task was to determine if Prop 8's passage (with a simple majority of voters) met the requirements of California's state constitution. The Court ruled that Prop 8's simple majority passage met that burden.

Any appeals to the Federal judiciary will likely meet with the same conclusion.

All proponents of gay marriage have to do is convince a simple majority of voting Californians that same sex marriages should be passed into state law. Given the 52% majority which passed Prop 8, that might not be all that difficult to do.

As a person who voted for Prop 8, I would be inclined to vote against any initiative sanctioning gay marriage; but, I would like for the issue to be put to the voters, not adjudicated by the courts or passed in the Legislature. It's a personal, people's issue; so, it should be decided by the people.

[Nick P]

"The U.S. Supreme Court has what usually results in a 5-4 majority against extending rights to gays by recognizing sexual orientation as a vulnerable class of citizens in need of protection."

This is misleading and generally inaccurate. While it is true that the Court has not formally elevated sexual orientation to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause (as it has for race and gender), the last two major Supreme Court cases involving homosexual rights were both 6-3 rulings IN FAVOR of homosexuals. Romer v. Evans (1996) struck down an anti-homosexual amendment to the Colorado constitution as a violation of the equal protection clause and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) invalidated a Texas law that criminalize homosexual sodomy as a violation of the right to privacy located in the 14th amendment's due process clause.

To my knowledge, the current Court with Roberts and Alito has not yet ruled on a homosexual rights case.

[Michael]

California's Proposition system is flawed to begin with. It is certainly NOT an appropriate tool for civil rights. Civil rights cannot hinge on merely a majority vote process that would zig-zag throughout time as it is challenged by every well-funded opponent and advocate alike.

The State needs to recognize civil rights. It is not, and never has been, something to be put to majority vote. In all civil rights matters, the majority has been wrong by default and needed to come around to reality after their fears were proven wrong.

[Greling Jackson]

I knew this was coming. Though it may be debatable to some if denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law, it is clear and obvious that granting some gays the right to marry and denying it to others is. I think the California Supreme Court handed Prop. 8 opponents a legal victory in disguise.

[fern]

Was the threat of a recall so serious they feared for their jobs?
They're not to rule over the morality of the amendment, just the technical side. Ain't that great? would an amendment for Jews to wear yellow stars pass the ballot?
A law is a law the same for everyone, but no one breaks the law under the same circumstances or for the same reasons. This is the human factor and the reason we need judges they have the opportunity to be lenient or draconian (Dracon old Greek lawmaker). By being technical a judge will sentence a 17 year old on grounds of pedophilia to ten years in jail and will have him report as a sex offender for the rest of his life, because he had a consensual sexual encounter with a 15 year old girl (Genarlow-Georgia).
Do we the people need such judges?
No.
Judges like that could be replaced by computers.

[MEL]

we in california can not discriminate people based on their religion believes, but california churches are allowed to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation and other minorities. enough with their bible rules: EQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE FOR EVERYONE.

[Gil]

The real fight is getting the American Medical Association to re-declare homosexuality a disease. Congress needs to start taxing doctors until it hurts the pocketbook then they will return homosexuality back where it was before. If you search the internet you will find millions of blogs and posts that identify gay as a disease, it's obviously what most people believe.

[Truth]

If we allow homosexuals to marry, why not bigamists? How is that any different? Don't bigamists have rights?

You say that hetrosexuals can marry, but what if I was born a bigamist? Aren't we creating a second class of citizens?

Shouldn't bigamists be able to live fulfilled lives?

[Sandy St.John]

It's not whether people are second class or first class citizens - it' what's about right and wrong! God says it's wrong, and even animals won't do it!!!

Besides, when protesters gang up on a lone elderly woman praying and carrying a cross, and terrorize her just because she's voicing her opinion, WHO ARE THE INTOLERANT ONES AND WHO ARE BEING MADE TO FEEL LIKE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS' NOW!!!

[Alex De la torre]

I also believe that eventually this will end up in the US Supreme Court but just like the article mentioned, federal courts are extremely conservative. I think that Californians have a better chance for equality in this coming 2010 than at any federal court.

[Dave Steele]

However that still means that gays will not be accepted. You can not force love.

The real opposition to gay marriage is within the Black and Hispanic communities. At some point these communities will rebel. You do not want Hispanic gang bangers targeting Gays.

[Jim]

Why don't you go into the hood and protest?

[Sandy St.John]

Hypocrites!

[MC]

Sonia Sotomayor will join five other Catholics on the Supreme Court. The lefty loons are going to be surprised if they think there will be any "liberalizing" of the law with respect to gay marriage or abortion. The Rev. Debra Haffner should know that marriage is an institution established by God as an image of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and she does a disservice to the Lord by preaching heresies. It is possible to protect the dignity of homosexual persons without warping the meaning of marriage, and to say that those of us who oppose gay marriage therefore hate gays is just plain illogical.

[eric]

Debra Haffner,
How dare you call yourself a Reverand and then type the crap you did. Do you have any idea what the Bible says about homosexualilty? You are just as bad as the Hack preacher that was on fox11 yesterday morning.

[Black]

This is the type of confusion that comes when judges and politician try to recreate or create laws instead of ruling on existing laws that are already in place. The outcome: Homosexual "marriage" illegal and yet, the state is forced to recognize such "marriage" in the same instance. If this isn't the most idiotic ruling to date, then I suggest the worst is yet to come. At this rate, people will start to see laws and policies as a big joke and something unworthy of respect. Our governing rules and policies are in placed to attempt to avoid a disaster and a comic disbelief of yesterday's homosexual "marriage" ruling. This whole matter should have ended when the people "followed" the law and voted against it the first time, but the judges had to stepped in and overturned the will of the people(twice). Now, the state of California has a mess in its hands that will take probably years to repair if it isn't already beyond repair. "So goes California so goes the nation"? I hope not! California seem to not knowing what the hell it is doing these days. If there is something other states can learn from all of this, don't legislate or create policy from the bench and the politicians should honor the will of the people they represent within the law.

[Jim]

Not as long as the black churches have their way.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[John O]

Defining marriage doesn't create second class citizens any more than defining any other rule. Would you say that the legal voting age creates 2nd class citizens? How about the drinking age?

A separate agreement for defining marriage-like unions has been proposed...even already exists. Why oppose that if it gives you exactly the same legal rights?

Seems to me that you aren't allowing a group (heteros in this case) to define their relationship using an established and accepted term (marriage). But you want another group to be able to use any term they (homosexuals) want. There are lots of other words in the dictionary that can describe that relationship. Pick something...anything other than "marriage."

[Straightman]

Remember when blacks and whites could not marry? I don't care what anyone says, this is no different. People used all sorts of arguments like Gods will and "that's how I was raised". Well, it's hate. Plain and simple.

[Atom&Yves]

We won. Get over it. Now, where have I heard that before?

[Tejedo]

The majority of voters and Supreme Court judges in California agree that the definition of marriage is a "union between one man and one woman." The majority of California voters and Supreme Court judges ARE NOT ANTI-GAY (and I defy anyone to label me as such).. They are pro-marriage, as the institution has been defined since the beginning of recorded history. They are pro-not-changing-the-definition-of-marriage-to-fit-one-minority-opinion-about-how-marriage-should-be-defined. The rights that go along with marriage are different from "the right to marry." There is no "right to marry" in the United States, only rights connected with marriage, which rights are guaranteed by civil unions in most states. I plead with people to stop abusing the "civil rights" mantra. There are no gay "second-class citizens" in California. There is simply a clear and MAJORITY-defined definition of the concept of marriage, which definition the majority feels should not be changed.

[Kittybarfola]

I hope their efforts fail every step of the way. The Federal government left this issue to the states to decide and the voters have spoken. Deal with it Olsen and Boies.

[karl]

I'm pleased the California Supreme Court has recognized the will of California voters.

The deconstitution of marriage into a legislative construct, divorced from its tradition and function, into an amorphous vehicle to legitimize radical, irresponsible and dissolute lifestyles, will have profound and negative effects on our society... and most especially on children.. for whom the institution is intended to provide a nurturing and loving environment.

Changing that will have the unexpected and very unpleasant effects on our future. We have lost our sense of the real nature of sexuality as a God given gift, meant for procreation, into a very selfish concept of gratification as human right.

[Verballistic]

Thanks to the California Supreme Court for re-affirming the will of California voters in approving Proposition 8 and thus amending the State Constitution to clearly define marriage as being between a man and a woman. A new Gallup Poll shows 57% of American voters also agreeing with that definition of marriage.

[Dan]

"The deconstitution of marriage into a legislative construct, divorced from its tradition and function, into an amorphous vehicle to legitimize radical, irresponsible and dissolute lifestyles, will have profound and negative effects on our society... and most especially on children.. for whom the institution is intended to provide a nurturing and loving environment."

As much as gays and lesbians would just love to do that, I'm afraid Mel Gibson already beat us to it.

[Zach]

The people don't get to decide on either the rights OR relationships of other consenting adults. This is not a country of mob rule, nor has God come down and told us who deserves rights under our government and who doesn't. Marriage is for each couple what it is for them, and that's no business of anyone else who decides that they know better what a marriage should be between two tax-paying citizens. I wish these two lawyers the best in delivering equality from group hysteria.

[Henry]

Only the United States Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over a state Supreme Court so if these attorneys take this matter to a US District Court and if the US District court overrules the state Supreme Court then the US District Court will be over stepping its authority. The ruling by the US District Court will be null and void.

[RobbyL]

How does Councilman John Duran have less rights than anyone else? He has the same rights as every other man to marry a woman. What he wants is a brand new additional right and the voters of California said they didn't want to give that.

I don't happen to agree with it (voted NO on 8) but that's why we have 50 states. You don't like the state, move out. People have been moving from state to state forever because of high taxes, bad weather, corruption, etc. Or, work within the system to effect change.

[Le M]

Those who oppose equal rights are on the wrong side of history, as those who opposed women suffrage, interracial marriage and abolition of slavery. They are the anti-suffragists, the anti-miscegenationists, the Ku Klux Klan proponents of this generation. As a society, we move towards what's fair and just, ensuring that legal benefits, federal rights and state protections apply to all. What part of the 1,400 federal and state rights accorded to marital status exclusive to heterosexuals don't you see as discriminatory? Gay and lesbian couples exist throughout history as did women and minorities.

As a gay man in a 10-year relationship without access to 1,400 federal and state rights, we are first-class taxpayers treated as second class citizens. For as long as the federal and state governments are in the business of granting legal benefits (taxation, medical, immigration, inheritance, property rights, etc.) based on marital status, we have the right to access the same protections as long-term couples. The distribution of government benefits and protection is not a privilege.

Upholding Proposition 8 is not a triumph of democratic process. It is a triumph of the Christian majority denying minority civil rights. It is a triumph of nontaxpaying religious groups bankrolling a proposition to interfere with the government's administration of rights for all taxpayers. This is not the America founded on justice and liberty for all, founded on the separation of Church and State.

The argument that the federal and state government must protect opposite-sex marriage based on tradition and religion have no grounds, other than its roots on hate towards gays and lesbians. Social definition of marriage changes with time. Biblical tradition has marriage between one man and multiple women, with women treated as property. Other religion to this day allows women to be married off based on dowry or parental matching. Divorce is not allowed in Catholic faith. Should we pass propositions based on these religious grounds and put your rights to a vote? Until the '60s, marriage in America is traditionally one white man and one white woman. In the years of slavery, African-Americans were treated as property to be bred at the discretion of owners.

Marriage rights will happen in America as it did in the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Belgium, Norway, and Sweden. It is a matter of time. It is a matter of which side of history you'll be part of, which side you took for the next generations to read.

[adriana and Ruby]

The supreme court made a wrong choice because they did not keep their word on allowing gay marriage and its good they are letting only those people that got married before november be legal but still it makes them look bad and its not equallity some are more equal than others .they are violating the rights of minoritys But THE BATTLE IS NOT OVER ,YET WE WILL OVERTURN PROP 8 IN 2010 .everybody is not equal anymore but we will soon because we will keep fighting we will not give up for sure and we will have that same rights to marry!we will win slowly but sure we just need patience .it be nice if they should make a law where they ban devorce to straight people that would teach them how to be commited to one person only. so they can see how we feel what would they do ?we are humans we deserve to keep our rights ,why are they allowed to get married many times they want and ban us from getting married who are they to judge ? see the supporters of prop 8 were religious they got most of the money from churches& its proven. i thought this state and the church were separate .they used the family and the children as an excuse to fool the people there are alot of gay and lesbian people in the world it doesnt matter they can still raise family there is no defference ,its just the word MARRIAGE .we dont ask to be married in their churches its just a paper of equality we ask for! .they dont think that if they allow gay and lesbian to marry they will give a boost to the economy?we didnt chose who they would marry and they want to chose for us they should just mind their own bussiness and let people live their own lives

[Buffy]

My how you people skewer Reverend Haffner because she's not spewing the traditional line that gays are evil and should be stoned to death, or at least made legal second-class citizens you can treat with the utmost contempt using your religion as an excuse. When is the last time you demanded divorce or adultery be banned via constitutional amendment? When was the last time you stoned a child to death for being disobedient to you? How about a woman who wasn't a virgin on her wedding night?

Stop cherry picking from the Bible to support your personal bigotries and stop trying to legalize discrimination because you don't like certain people.

[Kathleen]

And the hatred begins.......the militant homosexual community is the most intolerant, hate filled group we have in this country. There is SO MUCH MORE to this whole debate. If same sex marriage is recognized and legalized, then anyone who disagrees with this is forced to accept this lifestyle choice. There is no choice for Christians, Muslims or anyone who thinks marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. You are forcing people to go against their heart-held beliefs for the benefit of less than 3% of the entire US population. This is WRONG. You want civil unions? Fine. No one is stopping you. But I'll be darned if I will be FORCED to accept a lifestyle that is not only condemned in the Bible as sin and an abomination, but was also considered a mental illness and an abnormal lifestyle by the AMA and the APA until 1973. Homosexuality will never be normal. It is an abnormal state to live in and will always be detrimental to the mental, physical, emotional and spiritual state of any person who makes the choice to live this way.

[MontyMoose]

Pan
you are so wrong! The Bible is the inspired Word Of God, written by men led by the Holy Spirit ..whether you believe it or not.
Pam, discrimination is not what you say it is.... Is it discrimination to isolate people who carry small pox or diphtheria? Is it wrong to keep known terrorists out of the USA? Should we allow bullets instead of ballots decide who is right?
Can person marry more than one wife or husband?
My bible says marriage was created as an institution by God... If you dont like it, get off His planet!!!
If we allow people to vote on human rights,,, we begin down a slippery slope that is very dangerous>
Lets see,,,, lets see if we can vote in a Solient Green for all older people, after 70 euthanasia is mandatory...IS that ok?

[Shawn]

Wow, all the opinions, and not one reference to the ACTUAL history of man, and we have thousands of years to review, and there were times that gay and any other "religiously" described immoral behavior was tolerated and even promoted....it all ended badly, for society as a whole and for the individuals.

People should get off their GOD like positions, reset to what nature created and revel in what you were born as.... this is not about second class anything, not about religion, not about left or right, all those postures are distractions from what was made by nature, and just because nature gave you a brain and higher intelligence, does not mean that you get to use your intelligence to force approval of your unnatural behavior upon those who are more than civil in tolerating your private behavior, but, refuse to allow your minor and unnatural behavior to be placed equal with the natural and shoved down their throats as equals, ...

As soon as the gay movement comes to the aid of those practicing beastiality, then there will be "equality" and no second class living beings.....after all the rest of the animals on this planet have a right to live their private lives without our (human) domination, dont they?

Funny, they don't seem interested in unnatural acts or behavior....maybe they are more perfect than humans who were given waaayyy tooo much intelligence....just sayin'

[Nick]

Sometimes I have to wonder if these politicians and lawyers have even READ the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say the feds get to rule on a state's marriage policy? It doesn't!

[Common Sense]

The gay bigots will do ANYTHING to spread their hatred towards anyone that gets in their way. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

[Josh]

The gay mafia just doesn't get it. It is not about denying equal rights. Its not about discrimination. It is a backlash of 97% non gay citizens fed up with gay extremist who try and push their perverted lifstyle on everyone around them. The leftist media, the Hollywood idots need to shut up and realize that the majority of Americans absolutely oppose gay marriage. In 2010 they are going to try again in California, the voters will again vote against gay marrige, but the dirty lawyers will sue, sue sue, untill they overturn the will of the people.

[John]

The Supreme court when they said Gay Marriage was legal after CA voters said it is only a man and women which was in the law books for years. The Supreme court over stepped their bounds by changing a law in the books in the first place. Judges under the Constitution are not allowed to MAKE LAWS. They where unlawful and unconstitutional in the first place. It is NOT WE THE JUDGES, it is WE THE PEOPLE!!!!

[Jennifer]

? How will California defeat DOMA in federal court?

[Victor]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where does it say separation of church & state in the first amendment? Can someone point it out for me? It doesn't mean freedom from religion, Freedom from the press,Freedom from speech. Learn to read.

[raivyn]

To the militant homosexual community ...
Marriage is a religious ceremony meant to be between a Man and a Woman, period.
You can have civil unions will the exact same rights as married couples, but that is not good enough for you, you always have to get your way, it's always all about you.
You are being used as a tool of the extreme left to destroy this country, same sex marriage is one of the main elements of the communist agenda, and you fools are just the useful idiots they need.
You will not win, you will not be allowed to weaken and degenerate this society any longer, we the people have spoken, so grow up and get over it, or get out.

[Booya]

Wrong Debra, the government has no place in marriage, and Sonia Sotomayor is nothing but a racist.

[U NO HOO]

Homosexuality, what if everyone did it all the time?

[doug]

The majority of voters said NO move somewhere else if you don't like it.

[brenda]

Here's why I'm upset about this happening.

I don't "hate" gay people, because that in itself is against the Bible (which I follow). It doesn't matter what I believe in, or what anyone believes in, really. This is why I'm mad...

California voted Yes on Prop. 8 a long time ago. So, DEAL WITH IT. If California had voted No on Prop. 8, you wouldn't see the people against it wreaking havoc and being such sore losers about it. You wouldn't see them whining until they got what they wanted (like 3 year olds). No. If it had been voted "No" from the start, it probably would have stayed that way. A law is after all, a law. A rule, is after all, a rule.

I think it's a big mistake. You can't just go back on a vote because gay people are not giving up. It was a fair vote, just like the election of anything else, and that's that. Are you seriously telling me that grown adults who can't deal with reality are getting their way?

That really sucks. We're creating monsters.

And besides, if they really want to marry, they can. They can go and sign the papers. That's still being married. Why do they want to get married in the church? Face it, the only reason some churches are being "tolerant" and "accepting" is because they need the money that you put in the collection bin when you walk out of their church. Because, when it comes down to the Bible which is used in many religions...well...the Bible freely and continuously prohibits it. That's all I can say on it. I mean, if they want to marry, so be it. That's okay. We'll all pretend we don't see what's happening. If I was gay, that would be fine with me. I wouldn't feel as if my love for another person was being interrupted. No one can really change the way you feel or demonstrate your love for another person.

If you marry by just signing the papers like other gay couples have been, you're still officially married.

[Avery S.]

You all make me sick.
This isn't about my right to marry who I choose; it's not about your right to marry who you choose, it's about the right to keep the Gay community held down as "second-class citizens".
Much like African Americans and others of non-white origin.
This country was founded on the right to be free.

But what it really meant was that rich, land-owning, WHITE MEN could be free.

Not women, not African Americans, not Hispanics, or anyone else. So stop referring to the past. We need to make our own future for what's right now. Can't anyone think for themselves? Your generation is THROUGH. Mine is going to set things right.

And when I'm old enough to vote, may whatever God you believe in help you that you aren't against me.

-Vee

[William Nelson]

I am so glad the gay community has decided to try and get prop 8 overturned at the ballot box. They will be shocked to find out that now there are more people that are angry at the fact that they dont get it. I predict the margin of voters will be greater than it was to vote in prop 8 to begin with. The voters are a little more than angry that we voted, had it overturned by rogue judges, voted again, and had it taken to court again. WE REMEMBER! Gavin Newsome slapped us in the face with it, how could we forget!
Being militant and intolerant, the thing they claim everyone is doing to them, is their way. Now a federal lawsuit?
Well it looks like we will have to file a federal lawsuit to keep the federal government from meddling in our STATE CONSTITUTION! I think deep down the homosexual community knows in their heart of hearts that their lifestyle is wrong, this is why they push so hard to have their lifestyle normalized and put into the main stream. This is why they are so militant and intolerant. Its called a concience. They need validation for the very thing their subconcious knows is out of kilter. I am not anti gay. I am not a homophobe. I am not a bigot. I am common sense. What you do in your bedroom is your business. But I will be damned if you sit there and tell me or my children that what you do is normal, mainstream, and demand I accept and embrace you! You have equal protection under the law, in fact you have better protection than heteros do. You want the WORD marriage and you cant have it. For everyone out there crying about the civil rights of gays are being violated, you really need to stop and use your head, instead of repeating what you hear. Nobody has taken their rights away. There are many ways for them to be unified, they cannot procreat, and will never be recognized in the holiest of unions

[jemimah]

Straightman, not only do those who do such things (sodomites) have a fearful judgment awaiting them, but also those who approve of such things.

[MTB]

The majority of people voted on the rights of a minority group, yeah, that seems like a fair fight. Even estimating the gay population at 3% which I believe to be far too low, the vote was close. That's a KKK mentality, we the mob deny you who is different the right based on our bible to have the life we have.

Geesh, bibles down people, they were never meant to be a weapon. If you want to legislate based on Religous principles, then we need to outlaw birth control, stop funding to unwed mothers since we're rewarding the sinner. I don't believe we shoud stone them, but if you want to run this country based on your bible you better be able to take the consequences, and women may loose the right to vote and be in positions of authority over men.

Oh but that's different right? Gay men and women have been around forever, homosexuality is identified by biologist in more than 1,500 species, it's just the Human Race that can't seem to understand it, with all it's vast intelligence.

Gay marriage is spreading throughout the United States and throughout the World, it's only a matter of time. Not long ago they said there would never be a black president, and well that prejudice is a thing of the past as well.

[coolhand]

Homosexuality in nut shell is not a race! The black robes made a big mistake allowing the so-called same sex marriage to continue. They are giving false information!

"308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California."

I guess they're afraid the homosexuals would riot and burn down the court house!

By the way I never voted to let homosexuals have domestic partner/union status????

What is a so-called gays/lesbians? Men or women. How can one be both sexes? This is ridiculous to say the least!

[coolhand]

Ditto:
"Marriage is a privilege, not a right."

I do not have the so called "right" to marry my mother, father, brother or sister.

Great statement!

[FreeRepublic]

Nazi's, Communists, Al Qaeda, The Taliban, Christians, Catholics and Mormons are all trying to take away rights from gays, suppress them or harm them. I just see this as one step closer to communism when you take away freedom from Americans. I don't care if you pass a law that bans religious freedom in California, you are just taking freedom and you should just move to Communist China and enjoy living in the goal you are trying to accomplish. Freedom is America and if you try to take it from anyone, we will go to war with you. War

[Reagan]

I don't think the Republican party really appreciates the anti-gay sentiment. Dick Cheney has a gay daughter, Ronald Reagan has a gay son. What are you people trying to say about the Republican party? This is anti-American and unpatriotic!! God will pass the judgement, not you mere mortal humans

[AmericasNewRepublic]

If you are supposedly a Christian, than it is a sin to judge others. You are a mere mortal and judgement is left up to your God, not you. So you are not allowed to judge gay people, only God is. And if you are judging them, you will go to the bad place.
If you are a Republican, shame on you! Dick Cheney has a gay daughter that he loves soooo much and Ronald Reagan (god bless him) has a gay son he loved very much. How dare you go after your fellow Republicans and bash their children. That is just unpatriotic and un-American. You people should be ashamed!
Communist China took away the freedom of their people and you are taking it away from Americans.
They jail gay people in Communist China, Al Qaeda executes them, Taliban executes them and Muslims execute them. How are Christians, Mormons and Catholics any different?

[ivy]

It is very difficult for me to understand how some people do not understand the basic function of the court system. To say that the courts have no business determining the penumbra of rights afforded to citizens is so grossly ignorant. This is what is sad to me about leaving minority rights to the "will" of a simple majority. The courts have already ruled that marriage is a right; that's not up for debate or discussion. The California Supreme Court acted within the bounds of their function (ruling on the justness of laws created and passed by the legislature or voted on through the initiative process), just as they acted within their bounds to both hear the Prop 8 appeal case and rule that the initiative process was fairly executed in this instance.

It is disturbing to me that so many people still think that this is about church marriage and sacraments -- even here in these comments. There is so much information available in the media about what marriage equality entails, that to continue to push misinformation and scare tactics about religious liberty is closed-minded and ignorant.

And -- as an aside -- for those of you who think that gay people are abnormal and deviant but claim in the next breath that that doesn't make you a bigot: that is the definition of bigotry. That has been the accepted definition of the institution of bigotry for millenia, so please stop redefining bigotry.

[Mister Peabody]

Gay Marriage = Inevitable.

Suddenly, people get to have a say about how other people live their lives, lives they don't even observe or have any idea what really goes on. That's part of the inevitability.

Homosexuals already live together and have families. They'll do whatever it takes to get the proper and full legal protections, whatever you call it marriage or civil union. They won't have to marry in any church to get it.

My wife and I are hetero. We didn't get married in any church. It's still called marriage. Thank you, home state!

If you really want gay "marriage" to go away, don't allow gays to live together; and be sure to take their children away from them. This is another reason why gay "marriage" is inevitable. That, and it's already legal in a handful of states and growing. Plenty of opportunity to see that gay marriage is no big deal and that the state has no interest in making it illegal.

The perversion you imagine is just in your mind. I think two women together are hot and so do most men!! Does that make me gay? Perverted? No, I'm attracted to women! Done deal.

My neighbors are gay, married (albeit in Canada), and have two children. Nothing will stop them from being a family, and as soon as families like them experience any particular hardship from lack of legal protection, and take it to court, it will whittle away the fallacies of the whole "perversion" myth.

Hey, guest what Religulous Readers? You cannot take me to court for any law as expressed in the Bible. Only if it's mirrored in secular lawbooks. So quit quoting it to me. It has no effect on me. You cannot force it on me. I'll adhere to the secular laws that can actually be enforced. See ya!

[b.lee]

I have a hard time understanding the tension between the gay community and the relationship it has with church. Church people has a motto about loving everyone, children of god and behind their backs they chant that it is unnatural and god condemns you in the choice you make based on your sexual orientation. Just very contrary on which side you swing.

And the biggest argument I hear is that people don't mind that people bond with each other and call it a 'domestic partnership' rather than 'marriage'. Now the updated definition of marriage is between a man and woman based on their beliefs from the bible. But that is a far cry to what marriage once was, even to people who are bible believers. Marriage was just a way of assuring that money stays within the rich or the family, and that is reached by marrying a relative or family member. The side effects does produce children but that wasn't the primary concern. So regardless of how sacred the word 'marriage' is, it wasn't that well respected as people make it seem.

If the point of marriage is producing children, I am very disappointed because children need to be raised properly. If a man and a woman can consummate to have kids, they don't necessarily mean they want or can raise kids. Sentimentally, I would say that marriage is between 2+ individuals (i won't discount polygamy) who want to spend their lives together with the protection of the law on their side.

And its very disagreeable to state that churches only allow same sex couples to 'marry' in their churches because they get money from it. American churches are very capitalistic. You dedicate your funds to it because churches are a business first, house of god second. Then again, that is an extremity, it could be that they accept and/or Tolerate different people, who just happens to be gay.

Prop 8 is not resilient with only morals and traditions as a basis. Yes on 8 is a yes to discriminate on a under represented group. Plus, just because everyone is agreeing to 8, doesn't necessarily means it to be morally right.

[Dark Ages Obliterator]

If we go by the bible, we might as well take away women's right to vote since in the bible it talks about women's inferior status... From your precious bible, Ephesians 5:22-24: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

[Dark Ages Obliterator]

Although the bible includes some wisdom and has been a positive source of guidance throughout the centuries, it also has passages that have been responsible for the subjugation and degradation of many groups, including gays. Many, such as Pat Robertson, consider the bible nothing less than "the word of god." Compassion and social justice throughout the centuries has been a result of those intelligent folks who have rejected such hurtful passages. More important than believing in god, is being a good person through your actions.

[JJH]

"I have been denied access to 1,400 federal and state rights?"
This comment, featured prominently on the LA times internet "overheard" section is dishonest and inflammatory. No gay couples have been denied access on any significant level to any degree. It just hasn't occurred. Sort of like the myth of the risk to heterosexuals from AIDs. The gay community continues to embellish and lie. Enough!

[RICHARD]

Why can we allow a change to our state constitution with a vote? I thought we had competent legislators for that? Why didn't prop 187 change the constitution as well? We sure as hell would be better off financially today if illegal aliens were out of the financial picture. The right and fair thing will indeed happen. It is only a matter of time. Then the bigot Mormons can throw their fits. But while they do that, let's remind them of the separation of church and state.

[Ironic Twist]

One fascinating result of religious folks joining hands to ban gays from getting married: They are assuring future generations of more closeted gays (i.e. James McGreevey), who, in an attempt to secure 1st class status and meet the "ideal", will marry women and pass their gay genes to their children, and their closeted children will repeat their gay parent's actions and produce more and more gay children.... and larger gay populations will result.

[Jason]

What about SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE in the same sex marriage debate?

(And the case that the masses are confusing the issuing of marriages licenses recognized by the Government with the marriage ceremony recognized by the Church.)

IF one argues that marriage is only between a man & a woman, then THAT puts the U.S. GOVERNMENT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ENDORSING A RELIGION THROUGH THE ACT OF ISSUING OF MARRIAGE LICENSES. Because if issuing licenses are nonreligious acts, as are granting business partnership licenses, driver licenses, etc., then the government has to issue marriage licenses to same sex partners. If the government refuses, then it is endorsing various religions' dogma, which state marriage is only between a man and a woman.

For example, if two individuals want to start a business, would the government issue them a business partnership license if they are straight, but if they are gay, then they are issued a business union? And if they did, why would they make the discrimination? Because gays are different, less than, a separate second class to be treated differently just because some people are uncomfortable with them?

(And for the record, I believe in Greek Pagan Religion that states only 2 males can marry as to bind strength to secure their survival. Women are only to reproduce children, have no marriage rights, are simply vessels to impregnate. Why isn't my religion endorsed? Only males can marry).

And this IS where all the CONFUSION lies – between the Government issuing marriage licenses and churches performing ceremonial marriage acts. Even if the government issued same sex marriages licenses, that would NOT imply that any religion, faith, or church must recognize it or perform the marriage ceremony, because marriage ceremonies are SEPARATE ACTS and have no legal power – they’re simply celebrations. And gays certainly wouldn't demand that churches perform a marriage ceremony, because it doesn't mean anything legally. The ceremony is really just a style preference, and gays can find another church that will perform the ceremony. But in this case, they can't find another county court house in California to issue them a marriage license. And the government has to take a blind eye to color, age, sexual orientation, etc. in issuing any license, whether a business, drivers, or marriage license.

So really Christians have no real complaint. They're confusing the issue of granting licenses with the ceremony performed by their church. Heck, even with same sex marriage, their church is still free to say ‘no’ to recognizing it, say ‘no’ to performing any same sex marriage ceremonies - because theses refusals wouldn't mean anything legally; theses refusals would simply be rants and raging outbursts with no real binding power, as it's the government that issues rights through licenses and must do so equally to all couples, even with marriage licenses to same sex partners. And this is what Christians REALLY dislike - the reality of discovering that they're powerless and not able to control others to their will.

[know the facts!]

Truth,

your ignorance is abounding! you said "it' what's about right and wrong! God says it's wrong, and even animals won't do it!!!" Many "animals" DO participate in homosexuality! Look up facts before you open your hateful mouth. Moreover, their is not a single copy of any bible that addresses homosexuality in an exclusively negative way! And, don't even think about quoting Sodom and Gomorrah because it clearly states that everyone will be raped, not just other men! Moreover, Figments of people imagination (God [or whatever you name your figment]) needs to stay out of U.S. politics! this is not Iran nor Iraq nor any other place where religion rules and here, in the US, we are not run by religious beliefs! Here we are run by logic and science! So, tell all the figments of your imagination to shut the help up and allow all humans their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness! Less YOUR right to YOUR pursuit of happiness be taken away! By the way, the INALIENABLE RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness is in the US constitution! Just in case any of you ignorant people didn't know!

[Daniel Ipson]

They're not second class citizens. But they are demanding recognition for third rate behavior. In the end it won't matter what happens here, because after this life they'll all be on trial before God, for their unchaste moral crimes.

Let's see them appeal his ruling of eternal condemnation.

[Jamison Dance]

I am in favor of Proposition 8 because of my religious beliefs, but I cringe at some of the comments of those who are also in favor. Name-calling, ridiculous unsupported assertions of "facts", TYPING ALL IN CAPS, and a enormous lack of respect for fellow human beings is no way to discuss an issue. Comparing homosexuality to an infectious disease does nothing at all to support or refute any argument. We all need to grow up a bit, no matter which side we are on.