Prop. 8: Schwarzenegger says he'll carry out court's ruling; San Francisco crowd disappointed [Updated]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said this morning that he would carry out the Supreme Court's ruling backing Proposition 8 but that he believes gay couples should have the right to marry and would obtain it someday through an initiative or the courts.

"He voted no on Prop. 8. He supports the idea of giving same-sex couples the right to marry. I think he was hoping it would go the other way," said spokesman Aaron McLear.

Updated at 2:11 p.m.: In a statement, the governor added: “While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California I will uphold the decision of the California Supreme Court. Regarding the 18,000 marriages that took place prior to Proposition 8’s passage, the court made the right decision in keeping them intact.” Schwarzenegger also encouraged those protesting the decision to do so peacefully.

Meanwhile, reaction in San Francisco was marked by disappointment. Shortly after 10 a.m., a chorus of boos went up from the crowd outside the California Supreme Court, as news of the decision spread. Whistles blew and the crowd chanted "Shame on you! Shame on you!"

Jeanne Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, was in the crowd with her partner Pali Cooper.

"It's unconscionable," Rizzo said. "They had the opportunity to be courageous and stand up behind their original ruling. They failed to do that. There's no joy at being one of the 18,000."

Rizzo is "62 and tired" and Cooper is 54. They live in Marin County.

-- Michael Rothfeld in Sacramento and Maria La Ganga in San Francisco

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

[busytimmy]

Why didn't the Governor sign the marriage equality bills the state legislature put on his desk? He VETOED them! Too little too late Arnold. The gay community doesn't need fair weather friends!

[Sarah]

Very surprised and at the same time glad to read that our dear Arnold supports the gay marriage.
Very surprised. And very glad :)

Respect

[Michael Salomon]

Com on It’s not what you look like, when you’re doin what you’re doin.It’s what you’re doin when you’re doin what you look like you’re doing. No one is doing it in the moon or in the jungle anymore, yeah maybe perez witth a free pass from me . But still don’t mean a thing if it ain?t the thing you want.

[markieoe]

And let's add Obama to our list of fair weather friends.

Have some guts, gentlemen.

[Marie]

Arnie is a schmoozer and will say anything to look good. I don't believe anything this guy says!

[nelly]

i thing the world is going wrong day by day please open your eyes we are not discriminating people we are asking for respect for the people and families who still believe in the holy matrimony betwen a man and a woman

[Alicia]

This was voted on by the people and passed both times it is not up to the Supreme Court to write laws. It is the courts job to uphold the laws that we the voters pass!!!! I am all for cival union between same sex couples but I believe marriage is to be between a man and a woman and I don't think that is unconstitional.

[savvydude]

Arnold was wrong on Prop. 8, wrong on the Special Election and is wrong on global warming.

But the biggest goon is Jerry Brown. He was elected to defend the state and enforce the law, but decided to defend his personal opinion instead. It's time for him to go away.

[Aaron]

Civil marriage is a civil right. Prop 8 is discrimination, "nelly." Nobody's trying to force churches, synagogues, and mosques to start marrying gays. We just want equality. We'll have it soon enough.

[Josh]

"we are not discriminating people we are asking for respect"
No, you are discriminating. It's BS to say otherwise, and entirely untrue. Prop 8 is based upon the premise that respect is an alienable right which a majority may take away, so there is simply no reason for anyone to respect those who choose to discriminate.

[ToddSanders]

I like how Obama preempts the coverage on the Prop 8 decision by announcing his Supreme Court Appointee today instead of the originally planned date of this Thursday. Just shows how he wants to minimize anything dealing with gay issues including outrage toward this wrong CA Supreme Court ruling. In effect, he purposely has put the brakes on any growing protest of the Prop 8 decision and minimized the media cover of it.

[joecalbear]

California affords domestic partnerships the same rights & responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5):
• Making health care decisions for each other.
• Hospital & jail visitation rights.
• Access to family health insurance plans (Cal. Ins. Code §10121.7)
• Spousal insurance policies (auto, life, homeowners etc..) (Cal. Ins. Code §381.5)
• Sick care & similar family leave
• Stepparent adoption procedures
• Presumption that both members are parents of a child born into the partnership
• Suing for wrongful death of a domestic partner
• Rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts
• Same property tax provisions (Cal. R&T Code §62p)
• Access to some survivor pension benefits
• Supervision of Cal Superior Court over dissolution & nullity proceedings
• Can file state tax returns as a married couple (260k) (Cal R&T Code §18521d)

What they don't get is to call themselves "married".

Schwarzenegger knows that in his birth country of Austria, the tradition, culture and sanctity of marriage - between a man and a woman - prevails! Shame on you, Arnold, for coming up with your Hollywood dialogue in California. You inspire more when you stay true to your heritage.

[Dave Wyman]

While most people seem NOW to dislike Arnold Schwarzenegger,

I think he's been speaking what he believes of late. He knows the only way to climb out of debt is to pay it off, and so I think he was correct in supporting the various initiatives to do just that.

And I think he's speaking what he believes when it comes to gay marriage. To those above me who've suggested that he changes with the mood of the crowd, I would say remember that the initiative to ban gay marriage passed - so he's going against the popular mood.

[not gay supporter of civil rights]

So the california supreme court upheld prop 8. So a majority of the population is legally allowed to strip rights away from the minority.

So let's strip ALL RIGHTS away from ALL minorities.

That's what is legally allowed.

Let's take away the right to marry to blacks, asians, mexicans and all other minorities.

Let's take away the right to vote away from women and minorties.

Let's take away the right to marry to all those who are not: White, Rich, Landowner!!!!

Either do these things or realize that everyone should be treated equally. Our United States Constitution says everyone should be treated equally. LET'S START DOING THIS!!!!

[babalu]

To the gay and Lesbian community: first, you participated and funded the initiative, but when it didn't go your way, suddenly, the very same legal process that you participated in is no longer valid, so you sent it to the CA SC. Now that the SC had made the decision, and again, it didn't go your way, suddenly the SC is also to blame. Why? Because again it didn't go your way. STOP THE CHILDISH ACT OF SCREAMING AND KCIKING THE CARPET WHILE LYING ON THE FLOOR LIKE A THREE YEAR OLD!!! Respect the process, respect the law, act like adults!!! You will gain respect that way. And only that way.

[BumbleBee]

Schwarzenegger is such a flip-flopper! He should NOT be taken seriously! He clearly does not adhere to any one set of political principles. Let's impeach him already for being such a blithering idiot!

Support marriage equality: www.wontbackdown.org.

[1man1woman]

Its about time the liberal courts stopped creating law and policy and started to translate the constitution. If gay marriage is allowed then marriage between 1 man and 4 woman should be allowed...right? Since the dawn of time it has always been between a man and a woman....how else can the species procreate? If you don't like the ruling move to another state.

[Chad]

It's amusing the attempt to pass this as a 'stripping of rights' or other similar nonsense. Gays still, right now, have the same rights to marriage as everyone else in the state. That their preference in partners doesn't match society's norms is the real issue.

The gay community - if it's actually serious about this - needs to drop the "trampling our rights" fiction and instead work to change the definition of marriage to any two partners. Since rage and judicial fiat backfired maybe being honest and forthright will work better.

[Sandra]

Since when do the needs of a few out weigh the votes of the many? I want to print my own money, should we have a vote on that one? I want to be able to drive my car through the streets at any speed, why not vote through that initiative...
Gays have NEVER had the right to marry until recent history in just a few locations. So nothing has been lost. Civil unions do not get you any less....If they want gay marriage, then they should respect Mormons who want more than one spouse...

[Jackie E]

Marriage is not a constitutional. Choosing a sexual preference is not anywhere near being born of a certain race, gender, or with a physical disability. It is not a civil rights issue. We all have the same opportunity to marry -- one man and one woman. You choose partners of the same sex, you have the option of your civil union.

AND, even someday were the nation to err and allow you to call yourself "married," you still will not be validated. You still will not have a union recognized as a marriage in the eyes of the very same folks who voted against homosexual marriage. What you are looking for is acceptance and validation--you cannot legislate that. It will n-e-v-e-r happen that you will have accepted marriages.

[DRob]

Why does everyone keep calling gays and lesbians minorities. When does sexual orientation became a minority group. Get over yourselves. You are no different than anyone else in this world except for your sexual preference. That is it. Blacks, Hispanics, etc are minorities not gays. Many gays are black and hispanic. Does that make them double minorities with twice the rights of others. No I don't think so.

[1man1woman]

@not gay supporter of civil rights:
Prop 8 was passed mainly becasuse of the minorities that voted for it. over 90% of the black, hispanic and asian people voted FOR prop 8, so your argument that rich white people are responsible for the new constitutinoal amendment are fallacious.
This country is based on freedoms, tempered with traditions that the country as a whole (or state) agree on by a democratic process. You are using apples and oranges in your comparison, sexual orientation is not the same as race. Otherwise you would have to create a special group for child molesters who marry their "victims", polygamy(sp?), and many of the other deviant sexual orentations out there.
Not to mention the fact that this should be a strictly religious ceremony (seperation of church and state right?). Under the current california laws state below, civil unions have all of the same benefits of a marriage license. I think the government should get out of the marriage license business and then this whole thing would go away.

[Phid]

Homosexuals have always had equal rights in regard to marriage. They can marry a person of the opposite sex they choose, just as heterosexual people can. Homosexuals and heterosexuals therefore have equal rights.

Bottom line: this issue is not about "equal rights", so let's please not claim that it is.

[Michael]

Another waste of time listening to the most mundane of legal arguments. Personally, I believe the concept of "marriage" is between a man and a woman. The problem with 'gay' people is that they have relationships where infidelity is a way of life. Sex is just an act of personal satisfaction and if the concept of "marriage" does become tarnished by allowing same sex marriages (instead of classifying them to something else in their own right) then slowly but surely this country will become more and more immoral. But go ahead and make it legal....the "divorce lawyers" should be lobbying for it.

[boohoo]

The people have spoken. Real marriage is between a man and woman...next we take it back to the SC to make sure you cant raise children...thats the last thing that should ever be allowed. poor children should not have to endure that kind of trauma...horrible gays!!! we have the funding and the people...your protesting and hate crimes against the church will not go unpunished!!!

[William Bowen]

The people voted and as a result, there is no Gay Marriage in California. The court ruled for the people of California. The only way Gay Marriage can pass anywhere is by a court ruling. The longer Gay groups demand this right, the longer it will be before people take their side in a vote. At this rate, it will never happen.

[Kurt]

When did marriage become a constitutional right? It isn't. Marriage is a social contract. A man and a woman come together and have children. That relationship is a benefit to society and an increasing number of studies show that. Children raised by a man and a woman do better financially, educationally, socially, and in other ways. Marriage is the way society perpetuates itself. Were it not for children, there would be no need for the state to involve itself in marriage. Marriage is not a right nor an affirmation of love. It is a social contract.

Homosexuals have the right to enter into personal contracts, they can marry if they can find someone to perform the marriage. They can have a big reception. The state just doesn't recognize it because same-sex marriage is not capable of fulfilling its part of the social contract: begetting children.

[JS]

For those of you who keep talking about "stripping away rights," please - you are being disingenuous and you know it. Marriage has been a union between a man and a woman for as long as America has been a country and far longer. Marriage is not a right, it is a definition. If you want a homosexual relationship, this nation does nothing to stop you. In fact, it has granted you the legal rights of partnership as if you were married. The people of California were not hateful when they voted for Prop 8 - they just wanted a wonderful tradition to continue to mean what it has always meant.

[John Thomas]

Boy, that democracy thing's a bitch, isn't it? By the logic of the gays and lesbians, Obama's not my president then I guess.

Grow up.

[bama]

Providing state protection and support for a relationship that produces and fully nurtures the next generation of Americans is, and always has been, a main priority of the state in Western societies. The ancient Greeks, who were very amenable to and accepting of homosexual relationships, never even considered redefining marriage - they protected that institution as critical to producing and raising children. The wisdom of 5000 years of civilization and scientific research in abundance verifies that Mom + Dad in a committed lifelong marriage is by far the best way for kids to grow up across a wide swathe of metrics.

The idea that human sexuality has nothing to do with reproduction (patently ludicrous) and an abandonment of the commitment to marriage and parenthood for the long haul is literally wiping out societies across the world. The birth rates among Russians, Italians, Spaniards, and others are at 'collapse' rates from which no society has ever recovered.

Are there any gays out there that recognize how critical it is for those of us who are using sexuality to REPRODUCE are to the future of the world? Raising kids makes our lives highly complex and challenging and we need the support of the government and society (provided society still actually thinks that having humans around in the next generation is a social good, which I certainly do).

To say that there is no difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual is to deny the fundamental nature of humanity as the offspring of a man and a woman who are mammals that nurture their young for 18+ years - ideally their own offspring (and I say this as an adoptive parent who would rather see a child adopted by gays than stay in an orphanage).

If I'm willing to allow you to have a wide variety of rights for a relationship of your choosing, can't you allow to remain distinct a relationship that MUST exist in order to have a stable society and that requires special support specifically because it is the ground underneath our children's feet?

[Jim Brown]

Thank goodness, it's about time that the California Supreme Court ruled. It's over, let's move on to other real and substantive issues. A marriage is between a man and a woman, period.

[jukin]

I am shocked that the majority would rule. We all must learn to live with the tyranny of the minority or be called names.

[Zach]

Babalu, you do know that this Prop 8 was started and funded by OPPONENTS of gay marriage, not "the gay and lesbian community," right? Of course they participated in the process to defeat it, that's how the system works! That same system also allows an appeal to the courts, who should defeat tyranny by majority through a little thing called "checks and balances." They failed, so the fight goes on, just like it always does where equality is involved. Democracy is a struggle, educate yourself and get used to it.

[SJ]

yay!
Finally some good news.
Marriage is NOT a right.
The homos were not redefining marriage, they were trying to undermine it.

[Kevin]

The CA Supreme Court had the opportunity to leave a legacy of leading the country in EQUAL RIGHTS like they did 60 years ago when they struck down the inter-racial marriage ban. Shame on them. Now they can leave a legacy of DISCRIMINATION.

[rootvg]

If you want to know the real reason Obama doesn't seem to be on board with gay rights, it's because he's really a Muslim.

The signs are all there: his so called birth certificate from Hawaii, his Kenyan family background, his school paperwork from Indonesia, his close relationship with Reverend Wright...I could go on and on.

If you're a homosexual, this guy is NOT your friend.

[YAHOO!]

---------------------------
HAPPY, HAPPY, JOY, JOY!
HAPPY, HAPPY, JOY, JOY!

Hip, Hip ... HOORAY!
Hip, Hip ... HOORAY!
Hip, Hip ... HOORAY!
---------------------------

[Alex C.]

To the people who say marriage is for producing children and therefore same-sex couples do not need to be married: What about infertile male/female couples? They cannot have children via sexual intercourse. Should they be banned from marriage?

To the people who try to use examples of marrying a dog or a child or a second spouse: Being homosexual is NOT A CHOICE. If you think it is a conscious choice and you are straight, see if you can decide to find people of your own gender sexually and emotionally attractive. Go ahead and try it. If you're unable to legitimately do this, it's clearly not a choice. When two ADULT, CONSENTING people want to get married this is a completely different situation than bringing in a CHILD who cannot consent, or an animal who cannot consent. Therefore, "Gay marriage will lead to marrying dogs/children!" is a ridiculous strawman argument that cannot hold water in this debate. As for polygamy, that IS a conscious choice and therefore not applicable as an argument in this, either.

Finally, for anyone who says that a domestic partnership grants the same rights as marriage, and therefore Prop 8 is "protecting the term marriage but not alienating anyone's rights" you are misinformed. A domestic partnership grants some rights to one's partner but it is in no way equal to the protections and rights granted to a legal spouse.

I fully uphold your right to say you believe homosexuality is wrong. But since the primary reasoning for this seems to be a religious one, it has no place in governmental law. There is freedom of religion but there is also separation of church and state. A law that is supported solely by the teachings of a handful of religious sects is not one that should be in a constitution that purports to protect ALL citizens regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

[Hiram]

I read the complete decision. It is a bit of doubletalk. Part of it essentially says that "revisions" restrictions to the Constitution only apply to procedures of the government, and that "amendments" can take away minority rights. Regardless of one's stand on gay marriages, that is a very dangerous idea, and a new one. One of the concurring justices wrote a separate opinion disagreeing with that proposition.

This opinion was obviously "result oriented," written to justify a decision to prevent a nasty recall effort. (The excuse the justices write at the beginning that their "personal" views have nothing to do with their decision makes that obvious, and is really not true.) Already groups say they are targeting J. Moreno, the lone dissenter who had the guts to stand up to the majority. They did the same thing years ago in not confirming justices on the Rose Bird Calif. court because of allegations of "soft" on the death penalty. And what did that get them? Not a safer Calif., but a new pro business court which stripped away many of consumer's rights and protections.

[BJ]

Where's the Terminator? All of the previous 'gay marriages' by Newsom should have been annulled. This is ridiculous. All of my gay friends in CA are not monogamous. What definition do they have of 'marriage'? It certainly doesn't include a life-long sexual relationship with 'one' person. One of my friends was 'killed' by this lifestyle..he died of AIDS and his cremated remains where FEDexed to his parents. Where's the outrage about this? Certainly not from a certain 'minority' in California. Arnold should have the 'guts' he is known for in his movies and stop making pandering statements toward a defeated position.

[bettie]

This is a minor, albeit disappointing, setback.

Civil rights movements have never been stopped before they were successful. The right to equal marriage for gays and lesbians will not be stopped either. It's just a matter of time.

So all you moral dictators and neocons just need to realize that, maybe in five years, maybe in twenty, gays and lesbians WILL have the right to marry in the United States of America. And it WILL be called Marriage. The movement cannot be stopped. Even the California Supreme Court acknowledged as much in their opinion today.

The times they are a changin'.

[Mark]

Congrats to the Supreme Court for respecting the voters rights.

About time they got it right.

[Marc Huestis]

RE-" I like how Obama preempts the coverage on the Prop 8 decision by announcing his Supreme Court Appointee today instead of the originally planned date of this Thursday."

Are you so self centered as to think the world revolves around you. Listen- I'm gay, saddened by CA Supreme Court and thrilled by Obamas appointment. Those who are for Marriage Rights
should attempt to work to change hearts and minds and reach out instead of thinking the world owes them something. Run a good inclusive and loving campaign and evntually you will win.

[YAHOO!]

Alex C. says, "When two ADULT, CONSENTING people want to get married this is a completely different situation than bringing in a CHILD who cannot consent, or an animal who cannot consent. "

Using your logic, I should be able to marry my CONSENTING ADULT brother (or sister) then, right?

I should be able to marry my mom (or dad), right?

INCEST RIGHTS FOR EVERYBODY!

[Jason]

I think that it's a good thing that the court supported the voters. In fact, I think that banning gay marriage is always a good thing. I hope that all states ammend their constitutions to assure us that our country is not a place that allows homosexuals to ever marry. They are rightfully viewed by the state of California as a separate class of citizen and do not have the right to marry one another. Homosexual activity is inherently evil and morally corrupt. Thank goodness for judges like this who uphold the rule of law.

[Bill]

Got to find it funny, you live in a state that is completely bankrupted no job growth unmanaged healthcare, poor schooling and with all of this going on the focus in on gay marriage? I was born in California live there for 30 years but would never move back due to the stupidity of the state and peaple. The state of California needs to grow up and make some very tough choices

[Peter McLean]

Gays do have equal rights under the law. Women are allowed to marry men, and vice versa. Today's ruling was a victory for truth.

[Bruce L]

Gay marriage is the civil rights issue of our times. Separate but equal did not survive the scrutiny of the courts in 1954 and ultimately, neither will denying this right claiming there is a separate but equal right conferred by civil unions. Only a matter of time and enlightenment......

[Sandy]

The Bible says "God gave them over to their own lusts,...men doing with men what is unnatural..."
People, all you have to do is repent from this abomination - God is so willing to forgive you.
Oops, sorry, I forgot, -- if you selfishly want your own way, who cares what God thinks, right?

[Bob Smith]

Can someone please tell me what rights gays are not afforded because they can't get a mariage license ?

[Michael F]

I hope that there will be a day in my lifetime that I can legally marry my partner in any state I choose to live. I also hope that someday people will treat everyone with respect. It's so upsetting and troubling to see comments cheering for the fact that the CA constitution has been amended to include discrimination.

[kevin]

Ha ha ha yes, yes yes. Down with the gay mafia already and lets move on to the next issue like the state budget. The whole notion of gay marriage is so absurd to begin with. Why we should be wasting a second of time in our courts is beyond me. You know our tax payer money went to pay the judges who heard this idiotic case and they were paid with money we don't have.

[Alex C.]

YAHOO! says: 'Using your logic, I should be able to marry my CONSENTING ADULT brother (or sister) then, right?

I should be able to marry my mom (or dad), right?'

If this is what you really want, and all parties are consenting adults, then go for it. I disagree with it, but my OPINION should not prevent you from doing this, as long as your brother, sister, mom or dad are consenting adults.

Please work harder on putting together your strawmen.

[Gorio]

Equal "Rights" as defined:

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

So that blows away your whole argument of a Constitutional basis.

As for the commenter who made the statement about infertile couples, those couples are man and woman, born with the necessary biological tools to procreate yet physiologically unable due a medical problem of one, the other or both. It is still a proven positive that a Mother and Father whether natural parents or adopted is still the best make up for a child to be raised with love which is demonstrably different between the two sexes and most important for emotional and spiritual enrichment.

Gays are either overly sufficient or extremely deficient as couples, there is no Yin or Yang.

As for the commenter stating it was the Blacks, HIspanics, and Asians who voted overwhelmingly to Yes on 8. Doesn't it make sense that those 3 cultures are the oldest on the earth? America as a culture is slightly less than 250 years old, while the 3 you mention are thousands of years old and have survived this childishness.

[Robert]

The most important thing is the triumph of democracy and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth, and not be replaced by the government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite. (Replace elite with judges, attorneys general, administrators, minorities,etc).

This posting does not judge the merits of the proposition but the way elites and minorities try to thwart democracy when they don't agree with the outcome of the popular vote.

There is only one way to change a resolution approved by a mayority if you belive in democracy: promote your ideas and wait for the next vote. Instant gratification is not a democratic value.

[kevin]

Gay marriage should never have been considered. In fact, gay lifestyle should be banned in this state just as a matter of public health concerns.

[B]

The amount of ignorance and hatred pouring from these pages are making me wish I didn't live in CA and at this point, this world.

People should open their hearts and minds up, at least even a little, and stop spreading such negativity.

Equal rights for everyone will happen one day. It is just sad to know there is a lot of people out there that will be unhappy once that day comes.

Think about that and what that means.

[LizardOC]

A small setback. The opponents of equality know that their forces are growing smaller and more obsolete by the day; that's why they're so noisy and foul-tempered.

[Dom F.]

In response to the comments by Alex C....Marriage is based in principle, and that principle is reproduction, infertile couples are still able to reproduce in principle and this is what matters. A man and a man would never, by any stretch of the imagination, be able to produce a child. There have been many a couple that have been declared infertile only to discover at a later date that they do in fact retain reproductive capability.

In response to your belief that homosexuality is not a choice I would ask you to provide proof of this statement. There have been countless studies and experiments conducted attempting to ascertain the origin of homosexuality, the best of these has only shown only loose correlations that have been unable to be replicated in similar studies. This lack of proof leaves only one option.

This is not a law that is supported by religion, but rather by science, your seeming attack on religion seems ironic when your own unscientific viewpoint is taken into consideration.

[clare bell]

California Gubernator/Democrat believes gay couples should imitate Maria and himself and have the right to marry; and would obtain it someday through ANOTHER initiative, the courts, or a decree by a Kenyan-born, socialist U.S. president.

[Spider]

Vote or no vote; decision or no decision - it's all about natural selection. Nature selectively restricts propagation when defects are present. Even if gays did marry, they'd die out because they won't reproduce. Good for the rest of us.

Let's let the gays have NoCal - without hetero influx - and the problem will self-correct.

[GM Owner]

Are gay people really that retarded? They have an aversion to the opposite sex, yet in the relationship, one is still in the masculine role and one is still feminine. Perfect example, Ellen DeGeneres and her partner, Portia DeRossi. Ellen's obviously the male in the relationship, (short hair, dresses like a guy), and Portia is feminine, (dresses, long hair). You can spot the male ones a mile away. The males in the female role are so overly effeminate it's not funny. (Think the gay guy on will and Grace that said he wasn't gay, but was), or the character Marc on Ugly Betty. Too effeminate for me. I love my husband and my kids and are raising them to be normal in an obviously abnormal society that thinks that gays/ queers/ fags/ homos/ dikes/ or whatever they're called, are accepted as the norm, and normalcy is outdated, weird and old-fashioned.

[taxpayergroups]

To Bradstreet,
First, I congratulate Proposition 8 being uphold by California Supreme Court. Since you allow discrimination at work and do not enforce California labor laws, your marriage will not be allowed and enforced by Californian Voters and High Court. Don't feel bad now, because of what goes around come around. What a shame when you allowed Padres altered and withheld my evidence, etc. in order to protect a powerful politicians connecting employer and disregarded my basic right under State and Federal Constitution. So you and your partner don't blame the people and a High Court of California violating your basic right. To find out for yourself go to nolaborstandard.com or type in no labor standard on yahoo's search. Should DLSE be abolished for the sake of Californian Taxpayers? Amen!

[Peter Carlson - Van Nuys]

In re: "yay! Finally some good news. Marriage is NOT a right. The homos were not redefining marriage, they were trying to undermine it."

Good. Then we'll take it away from you, too. If it's not a right, then you won't miss it.

Snide remarks aside, however, when the contract of marriage (as the state defines it):
1. permits the orderly transmission of property upon death;
2. allows particular tax benefits, and
3. recognizes the rights of the marriage partners to make decisions (financial and medical, to name two) for each other,

then it has nothing to do with the religious opinions of any person in this state. These are contractual rights that are the essence of marriage -- in the eyes of the state.

Until lesbian and gay couples are permitted the same right (yes, I'm using that word) as heterosexual couples to enter into that contract, the California Constitution will be compromised.

It guarantees equal rights for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, and yet eliminates that very access to a contract recognized by the state, based upon that very distinction.

I'm terribly sad to see how many people are confusing civil marriage and religious marriage. The state doesn't care if you were married in a Baptist Church or a Hindu temple or a courthouse. The civil rights afforded to each couple, however, are the same.

My religious beliefs require equal rights, including marriage rights, for gays and lesbians. Why is there no freedom for MY faith in California?

[Dr. Peter Evans]

For SHAME to ALL of the hateful, malicious, flat out WRONG postings above, written from a place of ignorance, religious (Bible) "quoters" who are in such denial and ignorance of the world around them. Shame on you all! And SHAME again,
To all of you hateful, stupid people.....just keep on breathing because whether you like it or not, WE ARE GOING TO WIN in the end. Oh, WE shall gain our 'equal rights' over all of this great country, and eventually, world wide.

Dr. Peter

[kevin]

Ha Ha gays are idiots. Every gay person I know has not even the accomplishment of a basic high school education. What is it with gays and their lack of intellect? They thought they could get married? Ridiculous.

[Lou H.]

> If you want a homosexual relationship, this nation does nothing to stop you. IIn fact, it has granted you the legal rights of partnership as if you were married.

Not really. Read the Defense Of Marriage Act. There are hundreds of perks given to married people by the federal government, and DOMA prohibits them from applying to same-sex partners.

Maybe the thing to do is stop having the government give special treatment to civil unions or marriages. Have marriage and civil unions be a personal or religious matter. No more things like tax discounts for filing jointly, or tax-free estate transfers, but the government can rejigger the definition of a dependent to keep it fair.

[Blanca DeBree]

Now that we have stopped the gay marriage, can we finally get rid of the Mormon marriage, the black marriage, the Hispanic marriage, and any other marriage that isn't normal "opposite" marriage?

[Micah]

Nature has always intended for the attraction of a man and woman to procreate. Men and women have specific sexual traits meant to attract a mate for the purpose of sexuality and procreation. Marriage was established as a mechanism to recognize this natural attraction. Gay/lesbian for whatever reason are attracted solely for the purpose of sexuality and not procreation. A union between a man and woman is not the same and can never be equal to that of a gay/lesbian relationship. Sure both groups can both deeply be in love with their partner, but only one a man/woman partnership can be mates. Therefore, marriage should always be the defining word for a couple committed to mutual sexual attraction and potential procreation between within the partnership.

[K]

I believe in democracy. Democracy requires the debate of ideas, not forcing issues on others. The courts should never make decisions about long standing issues like marriage at all. I will go further: GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS! In many places around the world, civil unions are governed by the state. Marriage is usually the area of religious groups. The government sanctions the union of two people and the religious bodies solemnizes it. In France, two people must go before a government official first to sanction the union before going to their respective religious body to have it solemnize it. Even if the two don't go to a religious body, the union is still legal and recognized. In the US we should adopt the same mechanism.

Government recognition of a union is important for many reasons, but in particular for contracts and other legal reasons. In many countries like Finland, Sweden, etc civil unions are for gays and straights. "Marriage" is seen as a religious institution to be decided by the religious groups. This is ironically results in a separation of Church and State when it comes to unions between two people, even though these countries have state churches (In Sweden and Finland it is the Lutheran Church). The state does its thing and the church does its.

As a gay, I believe in democracy. If a group wants to advance an agenda it should rationally and logically convince its fellow citizens and not to do an end run. It only creates resentment.

[gene]

Ha Ha gays are idiots. Every gay person I know has not even the accomplishment of a basic high school education. What is it with gays and their lack of intellect? They thought they could get married? Ridiculous.

Posted by: kevin | May 26, 2009 at 03:51 PM

Well Kevin.....lack of intelect....do a search on "Alan Turing"...just because you are using a computer to show your lack of education and ignorance....

[Swarn]

Please tell what rights are denied to gays?

[John Alexander]

What is the definition of homosexuality? What is the defining characteristic of homosexuality?

As a heterosexual man, I can clearly say what homosexuality is not:

1. It's not the love of one man for another, for there are many men that I love and would die for.

2. It's not that two men live together, for I lived with three guys as roommates while I was in college.

3. It's not spending time with another guy, I greatly enjoy spending time with my buddies.

4. It's not a life long commitment to another guy, for I have committed to a number of guys to be there for them for life.

So what is it? What is the distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual?

Answer: Sodomy. That's it. There is no other distinction. It is, pure and simple, a matter of one guy wanting to have sodomy with another guy.

Accordingly, what each supporter of the legal recognition of "homosexual rights" is saying, is that the state should recognize the sexual act of male to male sodomy as a protected class. Why not do the same for pedophiles? Why not do the same for those into bestiality?

Let's not be intellectually dishonest. Let's at least admit what we're dealing with here. Sodomy is the only thing that distinguishes a homosexual from a heterosexual.

[Bruce L]

Wow.

Reading this venom reminds me of the stupid blogs during the presidential election. I did not think there were enough rocks in CA for these type of ignorant homophobic people to live under.

Get an education. The light of day will do you good.

[John]

I still am amazed that people think I am discrimintating because I voted for marriage to mean what the definition of the word is; the union of a man and a woman. Gay people can marry another man or woman if they choose, but they choose not too. So why should we change the definition of marriage to suit 1-2% (at most) of the population. I have a few gay friends and they all do not want to get married and think it is ridiculous. But you watch, at some point the juduciary will over rule us, justy look at Obama's appointment to the Supreme court today. This woman does not rule based on law, but on how she feels. That is not upholding the Constituion in any way, shape or form!!

[Alex C.]

Dom F.: Fair enough. I should have provided citations with my claims that homosexuality is not a choice. There is not much room here so I will offer up a few snippets from peer-reviewed journals on the matter. Text is from the abstract or the article itself in each case.

"Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.

"Many researchers link homosexuality to genes. Researcher Brian Mustanski led a study of gay men to analyze genetic factors of attraction. Mustanski suggests that definitions of homosexuality should address behavior and identity. Researcher Theo Sandfort suggests concepts of gender identity must be reconsidered in studying homosexuality. Mustanski suggests incorporated knowledge may be a factor in the formation of human desire." Daedalus; Spring2007, Vol. 136 Issue 2, p47-57, 11p

"There is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness. Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217–2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals." New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line, Francesca Lemmola and Andrea Camperio Ciani. Archives of Sexual Behavior; Jun2009, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p393-399, 7p, 2 charts.

Regarding whether I made a 'seeming attack' on religion, I should underline that not all religions believe that homosexuality is wrong. It is common in this culture (meaning the U.S.A. in general) to equate 'religion' with 'Christianity', which is an unfair bias. Anyway, my assertation is that the only real argument against same-sex marriage is coming from people who cite a religious point of view. They note that God does not approve of this behaviour, passages in the Bible are quoted and so forth. This is why I am pointing out that this law is being backed by opinions founded by these particular religious sects. I am, myself, religious but I do not belong to one of these particular sects that deem homosexuality to be sinful and wrong. So I'll add another interesting article related to this:

"Across the globe, the debate over homosexuality continues, with great variation in public opinion about the acceptability of homosexuality, laws regulating same-sex unions and penalties for homosexual sex behaviors. Religion is often seen as an important predictor of attitudes about homosexuality. However, cross-national differences in cultural orientations suggest that the role religion has in explaining homosexual attitudes may depend on a nation’s cultural context. In this study, we merge ideas from cultural sociology and religious contextual effects to explain cross-national variation in public opinion about homosexuality. Using data from the fourth wave of the World Values Survey and Hierarchical Modeling techniques, we find support for the micro and macro effects of religion and a survival vs. self-expressive cultural orientation. Moreover, we find that personal religious beliefs have a greater effect on attitudes about homosexuality in countries like the United States, which have a strong self-expressive cultural orientation." From the abstract. Amy Adamczyk and Cassady Pitt. Social Science Research; Jun2009, Vol. 38 Issue 2, p338-351, 14p

[Lou H/]

I'm reading page 134 of http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF , which is where the Court rationalizes how they can uphold an amendment that says "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." yet also rule that 18,000 same-sex marriages made last year will remain valid and recognized.

And it looks like the Court is sending a polite Screw You to the Prop 8 proponents. "A retroactive application of Proposition 8 is not essential to serve the state's current interest (as reflected in the adoption of Proposition 8) in preserving the traditional definition of marriage by restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples; that interest is honored by applying the measure prospectively and by having the traditional definition of marriage enshrined in the state Constitution where it can be altered only by a majority of California voters."

IANAL, but it sure looks like they're (perhaps intentionally) misinterpreting the letter of the amendment.

[John]

"I hope someday I can marry...."

You can, just has to be someone of the opposite sex, just like everybody else. If gays marry, than we'll have polygamy under the "equal protection clause"...and it will go downhill from there.

[Whitley]

What is Schwarzenegger problem? "He carryout the court ruling? Whatever is he going to do? I use to like this guy but he is just "way too silly". The people of Cali has spoken loud and clear on this issue. If gays can't deal with it ...... Who give a crap?

[Dom F.]

That is an impressive array of scientific research but the common thread that they are all lacking is a valid conclusion, there is only theory and correlation, but as any good researcher will tell you, correlation does not prove causation. No number of theories or suggestions will change that fact. I acknowledge that the possibility exists for a genetic link but until such a time as that proof comes forward I will remain skeptical. Another possibility to consider is that there exists a predisposition towards such homosexual tendencies much as there does towards alcoholism, but is a predisposition enough to warrant such actions as equality of marriage? I don't pretend to have the answers, but it would be nice to have some more concrete explanations.

[Kimberley Kay]

For the sake of argument, let's concede that one is "born that way", i.e., homosexual, what does that prove? This is an incredibly pedestrian argument with a classically flawed premise, i.e., if you are born with a certain predilection, then it must be a righteous thing.

My goodness, just because I'm born with certain fleshly predilections does not make those predilections a good thing. Lot's of people, it is argued, are born with the predilection to drink to drunkenness. But that doesn't drunkenness a good thing.

Many people find adultery very hard to resist, claiming, I was just born that way. Indeed, I believe many of us are born with strong sexual predilections, but does the fact that I was born with those predilections of the flesh make it good, or right?

Of course not!

My flesh is tempted to many things: sex with people other than my spouse, lying, greed, selfishness, and the list goes on and on. But does the fact that I was born that way give me license to cave in to my flesh? Of course not!

Let's be honest here. Homosexuality is, simply put, a desire of one man to have sodomy with another man. Whether or not you were born that way is irrelevant.

[laymen NY]

Man, some of these comments, "my Christian faith excepts gay marriage"; does your Christian faith accept Jesus Christ? All these statements to support the notion of gay marriage as if there is any validity. First off, there is no such thing as gay people, it's people that are gay. People are men and women, Black, \White, Hispanic, and etc; some who engage in deviant behavior. Do we really want to use behavior as a people group and be consider a minority class or a civil rights issue. My goodness could you imagine the majority of us were murders, thieves, and etc detrimental behavior clamoring for civil rights, society would collapse. Take a walk down history lane, homosexuality is large when great nation started to decline. God says it is bad, history says it's bad, health says it's bad and yet so many put on willful blinders and will corrupt marriage to justify this immorality; I guess the 60's fornicationn open the door?

[Timber]

Religions can discriminate all they want, and shouldn't have to marry anyone except those who fit their criteria. We have no established religion, so the state cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation between consenting adults.

It's about commitment, inheritance, responsibility, things like that, necessary for the proper functioning of civilized society. But speaking of things Christian, my reading of Matthew says that gays don't have to get married if they don't want to. And that's it (don't quote me the Old Testament unless you're Jewish). But Jesus did have quite a lot to say against divorce, but that doesn't seem to stop many "conservatives" from untying the knot.

But who cares about all that. It's a civil rights issue.

[BostonRedSoxRule]

Wow...reading these posts, I never realized how many people in California are so small minded. As a straight man growing up in a conservative Northeastern Catholic family, even I know that gay marriage will never threaten my marriage, and secondly that it's none of my business.

Where's all the love in California? I See a lot of hatred on this board -- I thought you had a lot of sunshine out there!

[SJ]

BOO HOO HOO!
The gays can't marry, waaah.

However they can live together, adopt, joint bank accounts have hospital and inheritance rights, but waaaah, they can be married.

Next you queers will say it is an infringement of your rights to be denied marriage to your horse or favourite fish.

Marriage still are made in heaven! When you combine two same sexes, they are made in hell!

[Mickey DD]

With apologies to John Alexander...

What is the definition of heterosexuality? What is the defining characteristic of heterosexuality?

I can clearly say what heterosexuality is not:

1. It's not the love of one man for a woman, for there are many women that I love and would die for.

2. It's not that a man and a woman live together, for I lived with female roommates while I was in college and grad school.

3. It's not spending time with another woman. I greatly enjoy spending time with my female friends.

4. It's not a life long commitment to a woman, for I have committed to a number of female friends to be there for them for life.

So what is it? What is the distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual?

Answer: Heterosexual sex. That's it. There is no other distinction. It is, pure and simple, a matter of a guy wanting to have intercourse with a woman.

Accordingly, what each supporter of the adoption of "marriage protection laws" is saying, is that the state should recognize the sexual act of male-female intercourse as a protected class. Why not do the same for two homosexuals?

Let's not be intellectually dishonest. Let's at least admit what we're dealing with here. Intercourse with women is the only thing that distinguishes a heterosexual male from a homosexual mail.

[G]

There was never concrete proof that "homosexuality" was in the genes. Below is an exgtract from the APA.. but will you see this in the liberal media? No.. coz they want to promote homosexuality and want to make it seems as if its "genetics" rather than a "choice".

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

The new statement says:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

[GDLorentzen]

It doesn't matter whether Gay is nature or nuture, choice or instinct, inherited or socially constructed. Silly arguments all. The ultimate constitutional question is whether millions of people (and it doesn't matter what percentage) are DENIED the right to marry whom they want for no other reason than opposition from either an archaic religious belief or simple bigotry. And now in California you have a very tangled legal situation because of today's decision. The court agreed that the people could vote to change the constitution (which was the basis for taking Prop 8 to court), but the court refused to undo the 18,000 same-sex marriages--that was a separate legal/constitutional issue. So, now you have gay people who ARE legally married, and gay people who MAY not marry but may register as a civil union--ultimately a separate but equal situation. This will have to be appealed to a higher court to find a remedy. I believe the 14th Amendment is being violated in California and all states where civil unions are allowed, in particular, the due process clause, which was the basis for the landmark Brown vs Board of Educ. in 1954 that undid racial segregation laws. So, although the decision today was disappointing, I think the way the case was framed the Cal. S.C. had no choice but to rule the way they did. Tentatively, I'm OK with the Prop 8 decision today, because I'm hoping the decision will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to rule once and for all on the unconstitutionality of all Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) that discriminate against a minority within the society. It doesn't matter in our system what the majority wants...the courts are there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority when they are clearly wrong and acting against the principles of the Constitution. In the case of gay marriage, the majority is clearly acting tyrannically over a minority and the Courts will have to resolve the conflict. Throughout U.S. history such social conflicts have always had to be remedied in the Courts. Thankfully, the Constitution allows for the Judiciary to review laws and rule on their constitutionality!

[Zach]

John Alexander would tell us that because he can have love for another straight man, love does not define homosexuality. Well, unless he copied-and-pasted that, I'd expect he'd be intelligent enough to be able to differentiate between brotherly love and romantic love. So let's be honest, John, this isn't about a logical argument, but a chance to shout "sodomy," a chance to both condemn people and trivialize their lives and loves.

[Kerdick]

Wow - so many heterophobes! Viva Democracy. Hitler was gay and so was Frederick the Great. I'm sure they would have been livid over this! Thankfully our President is against redefining marriage.

[Lonk the Sane]

The Catholic Church, a religious institution, predates the existance of the United States of America by 1500 years, give or take a couple of hundred. It counts among its sacraments the institution of marriage.

The United States of America, a governmental institution and relative newcomer by comparison, created very early in its existance the notion of a wall of separation between church and state.

In spite of this wall of separation, the government gives favorable treatment (according to gay activists) to those participating in a religious sacrament (according to Catholics and other Christians).

I think the underlying problem here is clear and evident. The government, by being involved in the marriage business (a handy way to drum up fees for marriage licenses), is interfering in the dispensation, definition, and usage of a religious sacrament. This violates the government's own rules.

To rectify this problem, all state laws regarding marriage must be done away with in their entirety, so as to preserve the separation of church and state and to ensure equal rights. After all, why should I, as a single person, be discriminated against when all of you marrying types (gay lesbian straight or even pedophiliac-saedo-masochistic-bestial-incestual for those of you who can find an underaged self-hating animal that is related to you) get special treatment for participating in what is and has been for much of human history, a religious ceremony.

[Alex C.]

Dom F.: I agree that it would be nice if we had more concrete explanations, but for now all we have are some compelling studies that point towards probable causes (genetic, conditions in the womb, etc.). Remember, too, that homosexuality as an innate condition is something that has only been studied recently; in the late 19th century it was classified as a psychological disease. In 1973, the American Psychological Association reviewed clinical research and decided that it was not a disease. The World Health Organization listed it as a mental illness until 1977. This has only happened within many of our lifetimes. It will take further studies and a better understanding of human genetics and the human mind to get a clear picture of why some human beings are attracted to their own sex.

In any case, Dom F., skepticism is good; it keeps us from accepting anything at face value simply because we are told that this is how things are, and therefore that is how things should be. I sincerely appreciate that you are keeping an open mind about this.

Kimberley Kay: I notice you leave romantic love out of the equation entirely, which is rather telling, but I'll leave it at that. Yes, many people are born with predilections that may not be good for them, such as a tendency towards alcoholism.

Adultery could harm one's marriage. Lying could harm trust with loved ones. Alcoholism could harm the health (and the lives those around) the alcoholic.

However, you are speaking about something that would occur between two consenting adults. If two consenting adults engage in something that is respectful to each other, which does not cause either any physical or mental harm and does not harm those around them, why is it 'wrong'?

If you deem it to be morally wrong (ie: morality drawn from a religious point of view) that is perfectly fine. You are entitled to that point of view, and I respect that. However, forcing it upon other people who have a different moral code is also wrong. What if they have a different religion who deems homosexuality to be okay, for example? Is religious morality only okay for a very particular segment of the population?

[John Alexander]

Guess I struck a nerve... truth often has a way of doing that.

For the benefit of the plagiarist who couldn't think for himself but had to cut and paste my discourse (exchanging the word heterosexual in place of homosexual), you are correct in your definition of heterosexuality, however, you omitted one, shall we say, vital component, to wit, pro creation. Heterosexual relations have the natural, biological result of creating a beautiful human being.

I understand that it may be difficult for some homosexuals and heterosexuals to understand, but, believe it or not, there is more to the act of intercourse than just "getting off". That's what animals do.

Be that as it may, it would seem that you agree that homosexuality is about sodomy, and that was my point... thanks for helping to demonstrate.

[Keith Johnson]

I'm one of the 18,000 couples who admittedly got in on judicial activism. I'm happy my marriage is in the clear and I could care less that others missed the boat. Unfortunately, these groups that are so butt-hurt don't seem to understand how democracy works. Judges don't rule the land... the PEOPLE do. The People decided to make marriage back to what it was originally... a union between a man and a woman. I'm okay with that. If they don't like it, leave and form the first gay-majority democracy somewhere... If those who bitch really want to be ruled by tyranny and not by the People, see how they treat their gays in Iran and other Islamofascist nations. There, the judges commonly overrule the population's more moderate stance. Be thankful for what you have.

[Yanis]

There is a simple answer to once and for all make this argument equal across the board. Also there will be a very dissapointing repercussion for the judgment today. First the answer:

1. The federal government and states need to get out of the marriage business. ALL "marriages" should be seen within the legal system as a domestic partnership contract so in the event of a divorce, it can be handled in the legal system. So if anyone wants to get "married" they can go to a church and go through the ceremony or go to a court and get the certificate. Gays can go to a church that marries gays, and there are plenty. Churches are private so they can do what they want and should be able to without government intervention. When the government gets involved in anything they always screw it up (almost always).

2. Now the problem here: Since there are gay marriages that have been "grandfathered" in as "legal", the unfortunate aspect is this. A gay couple walks into a church (lets say catholic) and demands the church "renew" their vows. Catholic church says "no", for obvious reasons. Now the couple(s) will be suing the churches all over the state for a plethora of damages and claiming discrimination, civil rights, perhaps even "hate crimes" etc. etc. with the help of big money from the ACLU and the likes.

My observation: This is going to be the unfortunate issue here. And for some or even most of the gay couples, their issue (equality), perhaps never intended to be used in this manner, will be used by the few in an attempt to attack and destroy religion.

My example #1, is the answer to this whole mess. What do you think?

[Leif Ragnarsson]

A lot a of words up there, mostly biased bs from hate-mongers, dingbats, Pollyannas, idiots, etc., etc. The fact is, applying Darwinian principles of survival, homosexuals wouldn't exist, they need heterosexual couples to begat them. Oh, and the clown than pontificated on the "fact" that the only difference between heteros and homos is sex with the opposite gender, I take issue with that, too. Homosexuals need to use body orifices and body parts not "designed" for normal procreational sexual activity. Putting ones sexual apparatus into anothers rear-end is disgusting, filthy and strictly for pleasure, as is strapping on a wooden doodabitty. Ahem, alas, what to do, what to do?

[Vlad]

If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.

[John Alexander]

So, Alex, taking your position to it's logical conclusion, you would have no problem with the recognition, as a protected class, a man who's into pornography. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about outlawing porn or homosexuality, for the sake of this conversation, I'm simply talking about creating a PROTECTED CLASS of persons based on their sexual proclivities.

By the way, the AIDS stats would beg to differ with your comments as regards the harmless nature of homosexuality.

[Mike M]

Okay, a man and a woman walk into a clerk's office, get a marriage license and get married. One of them is homosexual.

So answer this, which one is the homosexual and explain how that person was denied their civil right?

... END OF 'EQUAL RIGHTS' DISCUSSION.

[Tony P.]

I think many of you are missing the point. This discussion has turned into a debate on the right-or-wrong status of homosexuality. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is perfectly ok and a totally natural and acceptable way of life. Great. Perfect. Wonderful. However, the fact also remains that homosexuals (and apparently their heterosexual supporters as well) are a statistical minority in terms of population.

Now, the founding fathers of our great nation saw fit to put in place a system whereby the voice of the majority shall overrule the voice of the minority. In other words, if 51% of the country decides we all have to cluck like chickens, and you happen to be one of the 49% which disagrees, you'd better start practicing your cluck. Your voice is HEARD. Your opinion matters! If you could sway 2% of the voters, then clucking would go the way of the dodo. However, those who drafted our constitution deemed the majority to be the ones calling the shots. If a law is put to a popular vote and it passes, then it's up to the governor (or president in national polls) to sign it into law. If he does so, then it is up to the supreme court to determine if it is constitutionally sound. If they deem it to be so, then hey, it's a law. What we are seeing is democracy at work in all it's glory. You can disagree with it till you're blue in the face, but frankly, it's still a law. Sorry.

You can't praise the founding fathers for having the foresight to include separation of church and state in the constitution and criticize the system of government they put in place with the same breath. The debate is over. Democracy has spoken. You want the law changed? Start convincing people to think as you do...OH...wait...that's exactly what you criticize Christians for doing...guess you'll have to become a hypocrite if you want to change minds. Lucky for you, there is still no law against hypocrisy...yet.