wow wrote on May 15, 2008 10:31 AM:i can't believe it! but it makes me happy to know that these people will now have more rights... rights they deserve despite the beliefs of the right wing conservatives.

Ken wrote on May 15, 2008 10:35 AM:This decision by the higher court is utterly insane! What is happening to this world? This decision is going to take this country to a place that I don't want to go. I have never heard of such utter nonsense. And we call ourselves a "Christen" society! What is going to be next, allowing to have multiple partners?

RCH wrote on May 15, 2008 10:45 AM:We all knew this was coming, in spite of the two overwhelming votes against it. The Judges have mis-understood their job, their job is to enforce laws not create them. The people have spoken and do not want this yet they force this on us anyway. These judges are lowlifes as far as I am concerned, not because they paved the way for this, but because they ignored the will of the majority. Our founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves at this nonesense.

Osider wrote on May 15, 2008 10:55 AM:Oh Great, why do they even put this on the ballot then. We need to get the Feds involved. Marriage is defined as a man and a woman, not man and a man or woman and a woman. No wonders this country is going down the drain!

Sleeping but Awake wrote on May 15, 2008 11:13 AM:The right to marry and be happy or be miserable is not dependent upon sexual orientation.
Same sex marriage is a matter of equal rights in a secular republic.

In fact, in those countries that have adapted this public policy something queer has happened, they did not get hit by a divine bolt of lighting or destroyed in an earthquake, a good sign.

In fact, same sex marriage is a contract governed by laws of the land and in our case the great state of California.

If your church, mosque or synagogue does not want to open there doors to same sex marriage, not very tolerant if you ask me, then so be it. But a civil contract called marriage seems O.K. to me.

I feel I should keep my nose out of other peoples marriage decisions and leave the gay people alone already.

Minority Rules What a suprise wrote on May 15, 2008 11:14 AM:So much for upholding what's right, let me get this correct, A minority group protests loud and long enough and say gay marriage is OK, It now becomes OK? Well, Let's hope all the pedophiles in the state don't decide there voice should be taken seriously. And don't say it coulden't happen.

We Dont matter wrote on May 15, 2008 11:21 AM:I guess the people of CA do not matter to the SC.

Michael wrote on May 15, 2008 11:40 AM:No, they (the people) don't when they want to discriminate against another group. Mind you, we're talking about US CITIZENS HERE! Why must people fight so hard to make sure other groups don't have EQUAL rights? Or, did WHITE ONLY/BLACK ONLY restrooms and drinking fountains seem the best way to do things? How does it possibly affect you? Do you feel better about yourself thinking you've put another down?

Didnt we wrote on May 15, 2008 11:49 AM:the tax payers vote no? If the Supreme Court wishes to go against the voice of the people, then maybe the Supreme Court needs to start paying the taxes of the people.

To_WOW wrote on May 15, 2008 11:49 AM:What do you mean "these" people? Are you suggesting that those who CHOOSE to live an alternative lifestyle are different? This is the worst decision that the SC could have made. This is now a lifestyle that is being forced on us by the LEFT WINGERS. Marriage has always been between a man and a women, and that is because that is the way it was designed. We marry to produce children to carry on after we die, it is kind of difficult for gays or lesbians to reproduce. It is not about conservative or liberal, it is about right and wrong.

What's next human and animal marriage being recognized?

Start the spinning... wrote on May 15, 2008 11:50 AM:time for interested political factions to start spinning the decision to their advantage. Will the fun politics of California ever end? I hope not! This will be good blogging for weeks if not months to come. Of course for the huge majority of Californians, this decision will not noticably effect their lives. Gas prices and the recession are really more pressing issues but they aren't as "interesting" are they? I can't wait for the wedding to resume.

All we like sheep... wrote on May 15, 2008 11:54 AM:What will be the preeminent issue here is that all this will all happen with barely a squawk from the public at large. We are way too busy working 2 jobs to pay off those loans (we never could afford in the first place) to have this even be a small blip on our radar screen. Our children will be shackled with this lack of moral responsibility for years to come.

Herb wrote on May 15, 2008 12:02 PM: Don't get your drawers in a twist yet. The issue hasn't gone to the US Supreme court yet. Remember, the people of CA have spoken as to what they want. The problem is that it must be done by a change to the CA Constitution. What it is all abut is tax evasion, and I wouldn't advise anybody to start counting their money yet.

To Michael wrote on May 15, 2008 12:06 PM:You cannot even compare gay/lesbian issues with those of racism. Gay/lesbian CHOOSE to live the way they do, the blacks did not, they were born that way. Gay/lesbian is not a civil right, it is a choice.

And why is it that when the Christians speak out against this "lifestyle" (not the people)they are treated with hatred, but you do not see the SC stepping in to help them, because the SC is just as Liberal. I am all for equal rights for all, but this issue does not even deserve to fall into the category of rights. A lifestyle that is totally against the natural order of life desrves no rights. I guess if someone wants to marry a dolphin that should be recognized as legal.

JR wrote on May 15, 2008 12:09 PM:I say give them all equal rights as everyone else. That way all homosexuals can feel EQUAL pain and EQUAL financial suffering when their signifcant other divorces them for another person.

Patriot wrote on May 15, 2008 12:15 PM:This is far from over. The California Marriage Protection Act will likely qualify for the November 2008 election, based on the 1.1 million signatures that its organizers submitted. Its organizers can also petition the Court in the next 30 days for a stay of the Court's order, pending outcome of the people's vote on the Constitutional Amendment in November.

CR wrote on May 15, 2008 12:18 PM:What a bunch of Supreme Idiots! (at least four of them). California is in store for earthquakes, fires, floods, and it is well deserved. Now we rank in the bottom two states as far as common sense, not a surprise as these liberal judges try to socialize the state and drive out all of the decent people. I can't wait to move to Arizona! I sincerely hope that the state goes bankrupt with Arnold's new plan to "borrow" from future lottery revenues which may never happen.

Alf wrote on May 15, 2008 12:19 PM:The issue is equality. Whether one is born a homosexual or chooses to be homosexual is irrelevent, what is relevent is that the law cannot make the violation of RELIGIOUS beliefs into something that violates the law. There can not be "second-class" citizens in this country unless one has been charged, tried and convicted of a crime and being homosexual is not a crime. Regards, Alf.

Mary wrote on May 15, 2008 12:20 PM:If the definition of marriage is changed to include anyone can marry anyone, technically I can now marry my sister, then it is no longer marriage. It now becomes a legal arrangement only, for taxes, medical, property ownership, etc. The odd thing is that marriage comes from religion originally with the state and federal rules following. BTW, I am an atheist non-conservative, I am just indicating the history of marriage. They will get no new rights, they have always had rights guaranteed by the constitution and bill of rights. Marriage is just a legal arrangement. Personally, I will never recognize a so-called "marriage" between people of the same sex. It is meaningless. But I think marriage is becoming meaningless also. Who gets married anymore? BTW, when are we going to allow multiple wives for the Muslim religion? Aren't they being cheated of their rights?

Bad Habit wrote on May 15, 2008 12:24 PM:I would like to know how much the original ballot against this cost. Why do we vote just to have the SC overturn it. This reminds me of prop 187. The people of California voted and the court overturned. Why do we vote????

Sleeping but Awake wrote on May 15, 2008 12:27 PM:TO: Michael

1) You state - You cannot even compare gay/lesbian issues with racism. Gay/lesbian CHOOSE to live the way they do.. it is a choice.
REALLY, Do you have any sense of compassion. Gay folks are attracted to other of the same sex because they are wired this way,born this way. Try talking to a few openly gay people who live this lifestly and see what they say, it won't be that they CHOOSE to be different. Never mind the majority of scientific studies and common sense.

2) Y0U SAY - when the Christians speak out against this "lifestyle" they are treated with hatred. Well, it is a free country with the first amendment, speak away but try to listen to others. speaking out against gays is a little ignorant in my opinion, here, just leave them alone and they will not bother you as long as they have equal rights. They do pay taxes and fight for our country you know.

3) You say - I guess if someone wants to marry a dolphin that should be recognized as legal. Hmmm, I agree with you there,no man-dolphin marriage should be allowed. I say dolphin-man love should only be recognized as a civil union. Whats next, having to block man-doplphin blow hole pornography on public library computers. We indeed are on a slippery slope. Also, I say free the dolphins anyway, let them go free from Seaworld, we are keeping them in a jail for our amusement and that is not correct. Glad we agree on something.

Legal Citzens Deserve Equal Treatment wrote on May 15, 2008 12:27 PM:Like it or not, marriage is a legally binding contract that is both initiated (marriage license) and enforced (divorce court) in the public domain. Public licenses can be limited by the applicants ability (such as a drivers license) but not by race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or any other available means of discrimination. As long as the people applying for the marriage license are legal taxpaying citizens there is no reason it should be denied. As far as the church goes ... if you don't want to marry same sex couples then don't. That is your right. They can go to the JP that their tax dollars also pay for.

Alf wrote on May 15, 2008 12:46 PM:I read many of the comments to the article in the U-T and more than one person pointed out that any law that violates the Constitution, no matter how popular (remember Prop. 83), can and will be struck down if challenged. If another ban law gets passed in November, it will be challenged and if the challenge is based on the violation of the Constitution by said law, it will be overturned. And the next and the next. As I have said many times before, if you want to be able to pass a law that violates the Constitution, first you must Amend the Constitution to allow the law to pass. It really is that simple. Regards, Alf.

Animals wrote on May 15, 2008 1:06 PM:I can't believe some people are comparing a marriage between two men to a marriage between a man and an animal. Are gay people like dogs and pigs to you?

mike in LSM wrote on May 15, 2008 1:24 PM:To Alf Amen!! In my opinion, the State Supree Court did the correct thing: protected the rights of ALL, no matter how unpopular.
It will be very interesting to see what happens when this issue reaches the US Supremes. Will they uphold the rights of states to have different laws in various areas? Or will they cave to popular political pressure?

Change is Coming... wrote on May 15, 2008 1:27 PM:As a lesbian and a tax-paying American citizen I am appalled at the amount of hate and ignorance being spewed in this blog. Michael - I did NOT choose to be who I am nor did I want to be a lesbian, but just like people cant choose what skin color they are nor can I choose who I'm attracted to. Why should my rights be hampered by your faith in a 2000 year old book written by scientifically illiterate goat-herders?

Threat to Marriage wrote on May 15, 2008 1:29 PM:The Republican-Christian coalition must be right about how this threatens a marriage between a man and a woman. I just might switch teams and leave my wife to marry some hairy hunk of a man! The temptation is just too great.

Freitag wrote on May 15, 2008 2:02 PM:Another tragic case of judges, politicians and gay rights groups ignoring and disrespecting the majority will of the voters of the State of California.

Our state, like the Titanic, has just hit the iceberg.

NOT BAD IDEA wrote on May 15, 2008 2:19 PM:Let gay people know what HELL is all about !!!

to sleeping but awake wrote on May 15, 2008 2:25 PM:finally! somebody with some sense!!!

Jeff wrote on May 15, 2008 2:42 PM:HAHAHA!!! Great comment by JR!!

Alf wrote on May 15, 2008 2:46 PM:This is an actual comment to the article in the LA Times - "women should stay in the kitchen. most men should be serfs to kings. people not part of the clergy or of noble blood should not learn to read.". This is the sort of regressive response that I would expect from someone of a hundred years ago, you know, when interracial marriages were illegal and women couldn't vote, two things that were going to "end civilization as we know it", yet we are still here, aren't we. Regards, Alf.

Take that theocrats wrote on May 15, 2008 2:55 PM:Sorry your ancient scribblings don't rule this secular society. Nothing is being forced onto you, continue to spread hate and preach lies to children. The court recognizes its role in protecting the rights of minorities against you marching morons. Remember the golden rule...

Happy for all wrote on May 15, 2008 2:55 PM:Thank you to the California Supreme Court. Today I became a real citizen in California instead of a “second class” citizen. I am happy that now I can marry any person of my choosing. It is gratifying to know that a Proposition that was past almost a DECADE ago was finally acknowledge as being unconstitutional. I have yet to hear one good argument as how me being able to marry my partner is going to affect society negatively. As in every other day I will go to work go home, make dinner for my family, walk our dogs, and watch a little television. Please tell me how my life affects yours or the traditional family values you claim it affects. I thought I was doing the normal family lifestyle. Today I know how it must have felt in 1948 when interracial marriages were found unconstitutional, the world didn’t come to an end then and it will not now. I will be celebrating tonight at home with my family and tomorrow going to work, who knows I might see you, after all I could be your doctor, a police officer, or your banker.

Jake wrote on May 15, 2008 2:57 PM:I can't believe all the hate from the bloggers, I guess you all that attend services on sunday must of been out to lunch, when the pastor gave his sermon. We are suppose to come together and unite and make this a better place to live. Those that are feeling this blog with hate, just remember you have kids, you have grand kids and so....you don't know which of your kids/grandchildren might be gay.

too bad wrote on May 15, 2008 3:16 PM:This is the same idiotic court that overruled Prop 187 and look at the problems we have now. Anything and anybody can now marry anything or anybody. Wait 10 years and look back at this wonderful day. To hell with what the voters want these 4 idiots on this court feel they know better. We need to get this overturned. Maybe a few Straight Pride Parades. Oops that is not politically correct, now we straights have to hide in the closet.

Martha wrote on May 15, 2008 3:25 PM:"land of the FREE" shouldn't have had stipulations on gay marraige in the first place. good luck to the entire community and congratulations so far.

Martha wrote on May 15, 2008 3:29 PM:P.S. if everyone hates this country so bad and thinks that we are going down the drain- go live in Iraq. We won't miss you.

Mom of wrote on May 15, 2008 3:47 PM:The problem here is not what the two adults do, but it's the children. Let them "marry" but not raise children. What happens when two women raise a boy? What happens when two men raise a girl? Mark my word, those kids will grow up confused and long for their "real" parent.

The divorce rate is giong to go sky high!

Steve wrote on May 15, 2008 4:17 PM:People like WOW and others often speak of marriage for the purpose of procreation but no one suggests that if by accident, disease or age a "couple" become unable to have children that their marriage be desolved. Marriage is based on "love" and if the partners fall out of love we have a means of desolving the marriage which is called a divorce. Both men and women can love and be loved and if you are going to base a same sex argument on the procreation issue then you better limit "marriage" to 18 to 50 year old healthy virile people only.

Osider wrote on May 15, 2008 4:22 PM:The children of the future are going to be the ones who suffer especially, if they are living amongst them. I can see the kids caught up in all of this saying to the other kid, my mommy is a man or my daddy is a woman. This is against all religous beliefs across the globe!

Sleeping but Awake wrote on May 15, 2008 4:26 PM:Look the judges are smart and educated people so it is unfair and silly just to call them stupid or irrational. Setting aside the emotions of same sex marriage here is the reasoning behind the SC ruling. You can agree or disagree with the majority view of the court paraphrased below but to disagree you need to punch holes in the clearly stated reasons contained in the opinion.

1)First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.

2) Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.

3) Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

4)Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated
differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

aDAMANT wrote on May 15, 2008 4:32 PM:There goes the traditional family values down the drain. It makes more sense to have man and women. The plumbing makes more sense. And what happens when they try and raise a child. The child is going to be brainwashed. Sad day for this state. Hopefully, none of the other states follow suit.

To Ken wrote on May 15, 2008 4:46 PM:No, "we" don't call ourselves a "Christain" society...you do!

Does this mean wrote on May 15, 2008 4:47 PM:the vote of Americans means nothing? Are they now declaring the USA is a dictatorship? Do they want a revolt?

Bill wrote on May 15, 2008 4:55 PM:I really don't care if the gays get married. I agree with JR, wait till they have to pay support cause it didn't work out. Advise to the gays, get a prenup.

Fantastic wrote on May 15, 2008 5:02 PM:This is long overdue. This idea that a religious definition of marriage is the be all and end all has to come to an end. The marriage initiative will go down in flames in November. Think about it - Obama will likely be the democratic nominee and will most likely trash McCain (bless his heart). Obama will also bring unprecedented numbers of youg voters with him - the millenials - and guess what - this is a non-issue for them. They are concerned about the war, the economy, and the environment. They don't understand why there isn't same sex marraige already! I really look forward to seeing how this new generation will tackle the problems of their day and how they will shapw the world. I also look forward to the day that religion is a private matter and not a litimus test or a reason to discriminate. Did anyone catch David Brooks piece on religion the other day? Fantastic!!

tolerance for all wrote on May 15, 2008 5:02 PM:To: Animals

My, my, my aren't YOU judgmental! You are a hypocrite! You are promoting discrimination and hatred toward those who have a different lifestyle and sexual orientation from yours. These people love their pets, sometimes it seems more than their own children, because their pets offer them UNCONDITIONAL love which is mutually returned. So it's wrong to discriminate against two men, but it's OK for you to discriminate against animal lovers and their differing lifestyle and sexual orientation? Are you going to quote some Bible verse that says it is wrong? Show some tolerance and celebrate this diversity!

David wrote on May 15, 2008 5:11 PM:Ban Gay marriage. Why should homosexuals get financial / tax / health care rewards for breaking the laws of the constitution? So your gay, big deal, now you want rights too? Bug off. This world is throwing away all it's moral values.

Bill wrote on May 15, 2008 5:11 PM:I don't care what people do in private but allowing gay marriage is absolutely disgusting. I can tell you I don't care to see a couple of men or women making out in a park and have to explain that to my grandchildren! I don't care if you slather the words love,family.... it is just not the natural order! And to me it is an abomination and a slap in the face to marriage and the voter's of this state!!

Finally wrote on May 15, 2008 5:12 PM:A court who believes that regligion of others should not be involved, Rather the dignity a human deserves.

If you are truely a christian or other religion you are not appointed to condem anyone.

Now then Congradulations to you all.

I am happily married and straight but I care for others who just want the same respect! GO GO GO

Oceanside Resident. :)

BILL wrote on May 15, 2008 5:25 PM:I am starting a movement to overturn polyamy laws, I LOVE ALOT OF WOMEN WHY SHOULD I NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY THEM AND BE HAPPY!!!!

sickning wrote on May 15, 2008 5:33 PM: sodom and gamorrah all over again
Come Lord Jesus, strike this nation

Protect Marriage wrote on May 15, 2008 5:34 PM:My wife left me and joined a softball team as soon as she heard about this. I need the federal government to step in and protect me from California's attack on marriage. Make my wife come back to me!

This is insane.... wrote on May 15, 2008 5:49 PM:I just wonder why we bother to vote on anything. The people of California spoke on what we wanted on the ballots. We chose not to have same sex marriages.....get over it. The lame brains judges just told us it doesn't matter what WE voted on, they are going to do whatever the hell they want to do. This country and state is in a lot of trouble if taking away the demands of the voters is allowed. If Californians wanted same sex marriages it would have passed on the ballots.

Ayden wrote on May 15, 2008 6:32 PM:It's great to see that I finally have the right to marry in this state.

Although, I'm disappointed by all the homophobia here. It's between two consenting adults, and it has nothing to do with the rest of you.

Against gay marriage wrote on May 15, 2008 7:25 PM:Marriage should be between a man and woman period the end! California is becoming Sodom and Gomora.

lucki wrote on May 15, 2008 7:35 PM:Some of you are sad, sad, sad.
Mind your own business already. Who cares if gays and lesbians want to marry each other? How does it hurt you?
I know people say it discounts the sanctity of marriage but I am more ashamed of the married straight folk who cheat on their spouses. That is more of a blatant disrespect for the 'holy union' than two people, of the same sex, who love each other taking the vows.
Luke 6:37 (You are not perfect)

WHO CARES wrote on May 15, 2008 7:35 PM:THIS ISN'T ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WANT THE REST OF US SHARE. THE ABILITY TO SELECT ONE PERSON OF OUR CHOICE TO SHARE LIFE WITH AND THEN SHARE THE BENEFITS AND BURDENS OF TAXATION, JOINT PROPERTY, AND OTHER LIFE DECISIONS. THE REAL ISSUE PERHAPS IS TO PASS A LAW BANNING DIVORCE. THAT WOULD PREVENT BREAKING FAMILIES RATHER THAN ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BUILD THEIR OWN FAMILIES. I SAY THIS IS A GOOD RULING FOR A FAIR FUTURE - REGARDLESS OF MY PERSONAL RELIGOUS BELIEFS.

to you ask why wrote on May 15, 2008 7:55 PM:The bible also says "Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive as the law also says"
1 Corinthians 14:34 , so should this be California law also???

Infidel wrote on May 15, 2008 7:57 PM:Can someone tell me why marriage is a "Right"? Marriage is a choice and the last time I checked nature that choice was for the purpose of having children.

Now let's see, show me the GAY GENE... and then show me a man giving birth.

You folks are screwed in California.

aDAMANT wrote on May 15, 2008 8:06 PM:To: Change is Coming: Of course you chose. You were not born to be gay. Living an alternative lifestyle is a choice. This was not handed down to you genetically. That is absurd.

Upset wrote on May 15, 2008 8:43 PM:What is our World coming to??? This is so sick, and the life style is too. Read your Bible and you will know. I am so upset over this.ITs just disgusting.I sure hope this gets overturned.......................

To Minority Rules wrote on May 15, 2008 8:44 PM:Typical ignorant comment. Did you know that statistically, pedophiles are most likely to be heterosexual males? Seriously, what are you "Christians" so afraid of? I'm a heterosexual woman who has been married almost 25 years and I have no problem with people who want to commit to each other - regardless of their orientation.

To all of those intolerant and judgmental "hets" out there - do you really think you could be forced or somehow indoctrinated to be gay? It's the same for them. Please get a clue and stop being so judgmental. Jesus would be ashamed over how much religion has changed in the past 2,000 years to adapt to this new philosophy of what "Christianity" is supposed to be. It's supposed to be about acceptance and tolerance, not intolerance and hate. How very un-Christian of you all.

To To Wow wrote on May 15, 2008 8:47 PM:No, we don't all marry to "produce children." We marry for companionship, and a lot of the time children are produced as a result.

Texasdude wrote on May 15, 2008 8:47 PM:Thank god I live in texas....too many left wing liberal gays in cali. I do believe there are birth defects that can cause homosexuality...but I think the majority is just a simple perversion...just remember life without a god is meaningless...even einstein said "the universe is a far to complex place to just have happenend"...so all you gays better fear for your short-lived life!

We wrote on May 15, 2008 8:48 PM:We heterosexuals have done a fine job heterosexuals are doing a fine job o f destroying the institution of marriage all by ourselves--the divorce rate in this country is proof of that. The "traditional family" went over the falls a long time ago. Unmarried people are having babies all the time, single people who have given up on finding a spouse are adopting children to raise on their own. This is what everyone is so desperate to protect? Ha!

To To Michael wrote on May 15, 2008 8:49 PM:Being gay is not a choice - it is HOW you are born.

I had no idea wrote on May 15, 2008 8:52 PM:that I lived in a state with so many ridiculous people! Really - you think that we are in for natural disasters because the gay community has now been given equal rights, as deserved under the 14th Amendment? Do you know that you live in a blue state? This is really scary to know that there are so many ignorant and intolerant people in this state.

Former altar boy wrote on May 15, 2008 9:06 PM:I`m a hetero male. Sexuality is determined at the moment of conception. Most of the gay people I have met are fine upstanding citizens. Why shouldn`t they get the same benifits as heteros ? This is just another instance of haters hiding behind their religion. Get over it.Religion & sex are power plays, manipulate the people for the money they pay, selling skin, selling God, the numbers look the same on the credit cards.How much money has the author who wrote about his so called 23 minutes in hell made ? Not to mention all the stinking rich TV evangelists.

To the atheist who quotes religions wrote on May 15, 2008 9:11 PM:To "Take that theocrats" Thanks for quoting one of the basis of nearly every religion know to man, The Golden Rule

Atheists make wonderful hypocrites

To Change is Coming wrote on May 15, 2008 9:17 PM:You're wrong about not being able to choose or change your orientation. The Medical and Mental Health professionals make very clear the Gay/Lesbian lifestyle is a choice. Not that you would know. You obviously didn't bother to find out. They have made a documentary called "It's Not Gay".

Other Mary wrote on May 15, 2008 9:55 PM:As far as the government is concerned, their only interest in "marriage" is to register people who have agreed to assume each others legal financial obligations. Thus they should stop handing out marriage license and performing civil marriage services and just accept the filing of forms registering the financial responsiblity relationship. Marriage be a religious or private secular event. Just like the state registers the birth of child or the death of person but is not involved in christianings nor funerals. Same distinction. If you want to be married, go find a preacher. If you want to assume someone elses bills, then file a form with the county registra.

Frida wrote on May 15, 2008 10:16 PM:This is great news! Justice prevailed once again.

Whats more important wrote on May 15, 2008 10:17 PM:I think God is more concerned and accepting about people who "do unto others as they would have them do unto them" than he is about people who interpret the Bible to conveniently fit into their own bastardization of what he stands for.

Can someone please explain, in a rational way, how gay marriage is a direct threat to their heterosexual lifestyle?

Osider wrote on May 15, 2008 10:35 PM:Bill has it right, I would not want to explain to my grandchildren why these 2 men are kissing in the park. Everyone seems to be forgetting the children that will be impacted over this decision. All I can think about are THE CHILDREN who will suffer because of this in the long run. Once again, THIS IS AGAINST ALL RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD!

SDC wrote on May 15, 2008 10:39 PM:I know a gay couple who have lived togethr for over 20 years. I'd like someone to explain to me how allowing these two fellows to tie the knot "endangers" marriage and family more than allowing Britney Spears and Kevin Federline to wed and breed.

I wonder if what the anti-gay marriage faction really fears most is that married gays and lesbians will have a lower divorce rate than the 50+% racked up by us hets.

finally wrote on May 15, 2008 10:54 PM:It's about time.

Mike wrote on May 15, 2008 10:59 PM:"Come Lord Jesus, strike this nation"

Why, Reverend Wright, so glad you could join us here.

ask GOD HE is in charge wrote on May 15, 2008 11:16 PM:Holy Matrimony
Ephesians 5:20-33, Matthew 19:3-6
Marriage was instituted by GOD Himself in the garden of eden and restored to such by JESUS CHRIST in the new covenant. A valid sacramental marriage lasts until the death of one of the spouces, hence the vow til death us do part. The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children, most especially educating them to know,love and serve GOD.
1Corintheans 7:1-4 10-15
Let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband.
If you care to know more the BIBLE is still the "number 1" top selling book.

Reality bites wrote on May 15, 2008 11:22 PM:The quality of a relationship isn't dependent on marriage. Marriage just gives one legal rights. Rings slip on and off. As long as we are restricting this to two consenting adults, I don't see the issue. Marriages of convenience and based on fraud cause untold pain. Sometimes reality supercedes tidy moral biases. It is what it is. It won't change for you or me.

Against gay marriage wrote on May 15, 2008 11:43 PM:To the people against gay marriage: Did you sign the petition that is circulating around San Diego? We need several hundred thousand more signatures.

Tom wrote on May 16, 2008 12:37 AM:I am 21 and even though I do not have plans to marry soon, this decision has truly made me feel more human. I never knew a decision like this could make me feel so much more at ease in this world. I have parents who do not support homosexuality and they brought me up the same, but I'm tired of feeling like I'm a 2nd class citizen. There aren't words to explain what having these rights feels like; it is extremely emotional. If you are opposed to homosexuality, that is your own right of opinion, but preventing equality is a shameful matter that does not affect you. Interracial marriage was once illegal, does this have a negative affect on you? Let God do the judging please. Thanks

Save your breath wrote on May 16, 2008 12:46 AM:How dare people quote God as a way to put others down. Judgment is left up to God, not you. Please don't tell others how to live their lives. There's so much hate in such a "morally correct" group of people. Go tell these things to your pastor and see how he responds. The church shouldn't be built upon fear, negativity, and pointing the finger. What happened to all of us being brothers and sisters?

too much information wrote on May 16, 2008 12:47 AM:Ones sexuality should be kept private. To discuss it openly is tacky. What you do behind closed doors is your business. Why insist on making it mine? I don't care if anyone is gay. What difference does it make? Why the need to broadcast it? Why the parades? Have a little class.

Gay wrote on May 16, 2008 4:04 AM:What's wrong with marriage between gay, as in happy, people? I am, however, opposed to legalized marriage amongst homosexuals.

Steve wrote on May 16, 2008 4:46 AM:Why is anyone shocked that your vote means nothing? The fastest growing employer in the country is the government. Marriage is pretty much meaningless now. Has been for many years but this is the icing on the cake. My neigbors daughter talks about her uncle Lisa all the time, it's so cute.

Conrad wrote on May 16, 2008 5:17 AM: In essence, what the CA Supreme Court said was that, although the CA voters have expressed their opinion that gay marriages should not be allowed, the legislation were poorly written and under the circumstance, according to the way they were written, they, the Supreme Court, have no alternative put to say the CA law is unconstitutional. Therefore, it is a simple matter of writing the laws properly, and better yet, making a correct change to the CA Constitution.

Nonchristian wrote on May 16, 2008 5:32 AM:The catholic church says being an alien from another world is ok but being gay isn't. Maybe they didn't think about gay aliens...

John wrote on May 16, 2008 5:58 AM:I was hoping this would happen. Maybe the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage will lead to the legalization to marry my beloved dog.

Alf Said It Best wrote on May 16, 2008 6:26 AM:"The issue is equality. Whether one is born a homosexual or chooses to be homosexual is irrelevent, what is relevent is that the law cannot make the violation of RELIGIOUS beliefs into something that violates the law. There can not be "second-class" citizens in this country unless one has been charged, tried and convicted of a crime and being homosexual is not a crime." ... "I read many of the comments to the article in the U-T and more than one person pointed out that any law that violates the Constitution, no matter how popular (remember Prop. 83), can and will be struck down if challenged. If another ban law gets passed in November, it will be challenged and if the challenge is based on the violation of the Constitution by said law, it will be overturned. And the next and the next. As I have said many times before, if you want to be able to pass a law that violates the Constitution, first you must Amend the Constitution to allow the law to pass. It really is that simple."

We just vote wrote on May 16, 2008 6:33 AM:in November and recall the S.C. If this is allowed two things will happen. One is you are going to get strange marriages aproved such as multiple wives, fathers marrying daughters for tax purposes. And TWO you wll have to either give all single filing tax payers the same break as married or you will have to raise everyone to single status for paying taxes.

Being a criminal wrote on May 16, 2008 6:35 AM:is not a choice - it is how you are born!

Sleeping but Awake wrote on May 16, 2008 6:52 AM:To Conrad - You stated - In essence, what the CA Supreme Court said was that.... the legislation were poorly written.... and the Supreme Court, have no alternative ....the Civil Union law is unconstitutional. Therefore, it is a simple matter of writing the laws properly.

This is not an accurate descrition of the SC opinion. Read the ruling. The SC said...1) gay marriage rights do not affect opposite marriage rights. 2)Civil Unions are not equal to marriage and harm gay couples and their children 3)Banning gay marriage says that the State believes gay relationships do not have equal value/stature 4)Only retaining marriage for opposite sex couples sanctions the notion that gay folks are second class citizens and importantly the state emphatically rejects this notion.

If you can you need to refute this ruling and the logic behind the statements. You can not rely on religion because the state SC does not and will not, pesky seperation of church and state matter, so the SC does not care.

BREAKING GODS COMMAND wrote on May 16, 2008 7:03 AM:I GUESS MY TRADITIONAL MORAL VALUES DON'T MEAN A DAMN THING IN THIS STATE.

A MINORITY OF GAYS GET THEIR WAY. WHAT A DEMOCRACY! VOTERS RIGHT DON'T MEAN NOTHING ANYMORE IN THIS STATE.

I AM MAD AS HELL THAT A BUNCH OF GAYS CAN VIOLATE THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE AND BREAK GODS COMMAND.

JUST FOR THE RECORD I WANT NO PART OF THIS VILE, OFFENSIVE DECISION THAT 3 JUDGES FEEL THEY HAVE THE POWER TO IMPOSE ON US.

ITS SICK!

susan wrote on May 16, 2008 7:15 AM:What good does it do to vote these days when special interest groups can have the will of the majority overturned? Another example is when a majority in CA voted to not pay for education for those here illegally. Teachers unions etc had it overturned in court and now we are 46th in the amount spent for educating a child and all children suffer.

YFZ wrote on May 16, 2008 7:26 AM:Is polygamy legal now?

When voters rights wrote on May 16, 2008 7:34 AM:no longer matter, you become dangerously close to Anarchy. What if the laws the people have voted on no longer apply. The people then see its everyman for himself. Now if the people were to riot, who would stop them? The police have demonstrated over and over again they will not go against a mob. Remeber the Rodney King L.A. riots, I remeber seeing the police officers running away from the riots, so who will protect anybody? If the people feel they are under a dictatorship these riots will come sooner than later.

Leanne wrote on May 16, 2008 7:39 AM:To John Weber-
You are so right! I have two bull mastiffs and I would love to legally marry either one. They are so much more loyal to me than any human male could hope to be! I would have their puppies in a second if I could. How can mere laws supress love between earthly beings when it was obviously meant to be? This gay marriage rule opens new doors to all of us!!!

Bill wrote on May 16, 2008 7:42 AM:The religious right screams out against gay marriage, gay rights, whatever; presumably because it's a "sin" in their world. Yet hardly a wisper when their own leaders have a long term documented pattern of molesting their very own children. Seriously, you people need to take a long look in the mirror.

Harry wrote on May 16, 2008 7:44 AM:The constitutional rights of the citizens should never be subject to majority rule. Segregation was unconstitutional no matter how popular it was and no matter how many times the majority in Alabama and Mississippi and Georgia etc voted for it. Similarly, the right to marry, isnt limited by the particular orientation of the couple.

It hurts no one to give marriage equality and it is guarenteed by the Constitution of the State of California.

blm wrote on May 16, 2008 7:45 AM:This is progress, hotly protested by the same proselytizing religions that impeded women's and racial rights, or for that matter any sexual preferences for oral, anal, or coital positions other than the prescribed "missionary" one. So please settle down your hatred just a bit; this is about the state's definition of marriage between two consenting adult humans for tax, insurance, property and financial ownership, not about your choice of religious or cultural interpretation of marriage. This doesn't change your right to interpret marriage your way, or my right to interpret it my way. Separation of State and Church is just that, the State is not making a religious or moral statement here, and I certainly wouldn't want it to: my religious beliefs are mine, and not for the State, or you, to decide.

Conrad wrote on May 16, 2008 7:52 AM: To Sleeping but Awake: I can only go by what I read, and I have in hand quotes from the CA Supreme Court, "Under the circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest." Continues, " Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statues are unconstitutional."
They did not say that same sex marriages are constitutional or unconstitutional. What they did heavily imply is that the CA legislature did a very poor job in writing the statutory provisions.
It happens - and correcting the error(s) is simply a matter of rewriting the statues or doing a change to the CA constitution according to the peoples vote. Read and then think it out - puting your personnal desires aside.

Patriot wrote on May 16, 2008 7:56 AM:No matter if the California Constitution is amended in November, a few years into the future this matter will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be argued that gay marriage is a legal contract that must be recognized across state lines. So wherever you stand on gay marriage, as a voter, you must ask yourself, do I want gay marriage to be legal nationwide? Then you must contemplate, which presidential candidate is more likely to appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices who will rule accordingly?

Some Islamic Extermist wrote on May 16, 2008 8:03 AM:believe gays should be put to death. Are you saying they are not free to practice their religious beliefs?

Jim wrote on May 16, 2008 8:04 AM:2004 called. It wants its issue back.

Alf wrote on May 16, 2008 8:06 AM:Well, thanks "Alf Said It Best" at 6:26AM. By the way, neither the legislature of the state of California, nor the people of California can pass any law, proposition or Amendment to the California Constitution that violates ANY part of the United States Constitution. Any law, proposition or Amendment to the California Constitution that violates ANY part of the United States Constitution will eventually be overturned, that is the prime directive of the United States Supreme Court. Please remember the words "equal protection under the law". Regards, Alf.

Pluto wrote on May 16, 2008 8:11 AM:1) To Ken and others, we are NOT a "Christian society". The Founding Fathers were careful and clear about that. They had bad experiences when government was dominated by religion.

2) The Constitution trumps majority (mob) rule. This is what makes us a "nation of laws, not men" (sic), and why our government has remained stable for 200+ years.

3) Maybe you should move to some country where there is no effective constitution and homosexuals and others are 2nd class citizens, like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.

Societies come wrote on May 16, 2008 8:14 AM:and go. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah and the Roman Empire? Where a countries morals go there go the country. Between these types of rulings, unchecked illegal immigration and those that don't believe in the military and the protection it provides how long do you really think this country can last. The future generations will unfortunately pay for these immoral foolish decisions from people who only look to their own feelings and immediate gratification.

to YFZ wrote on May 16, 2008 8:19 AM:No, polygamy is not legal, or marrying your sister, or animals. Those arguments are stupid. You people have let your prejudice trump your common sense and logic. Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Taught in School wrote on May 16, 2008 8:21 AM:Why if this is about free choice and equality for all and equal rights, is this going to end up being taught in schools as a way of life, when my children are not interested in seeing or being taught this, but there is a "BAN" on the BIBLE being taught in public school. Those who are in favor of this decision do not want the BIBLE taught in school because they consider it HATE SPEECH. It should be the same for those who oppose this and want the BIBLE taught in school, who think that this lifestyle is wrong.

If you want to SCREAM EQUALITY, it needs to be for everyone not just a select few.

Pluto wrote on May 16, 2008 8:30 AM:to BREAKING GODS COMMANDS: Maybe you don't know, but there are about 128 "commandments" in Exodus 20-23, not just ten. Not one of these 128 mentions homosexuality, and Jesus said nothing about it during his lifetime teachings (4 Gospels) How important can it be? What about shellfish? Why aren't you picketing Red Lobster? You people CHOOSE the homosexual issue because of your prejudice, and because the Republican party uses this issue to stir up it's base of prejudiced yokels. Get over it.

To ALL wrote on May 16, 2008 8:39 AM:If people are born GAY then why has this not been allowed before? The US is over 200 years old and you tell me that there were no GAY people born before now? The reason why it is an issue today reflects the down turn of society and the "WHAT EVER MAKES YOU HAPPY" mentality. Maybe Charles Manson will say he was BORN a crazy pyscho and they will let him out of jail. hey he couldn't help it, leave him alone

Before we go any further wrote on May 16, 2008 9:03 AM:with this issue, I want the issue of the single tax payer cleared up. Is the single tax payer going to be taxed higher than a "married couple"?

andy wrote on May 16, 2008 9:08 AM:Great decision! Finally Justice for all! Keep Religion in church and out of government. Very Proud to be an American today. Finally Justice trumps prejudice and bigotry. May God bless all us today!

Alf wrote on May 16, 2008 9:09 AM:I forgot to mention in my 8:06AM post that, for all you people who shout "activist judges", it is the responsibility of EVERY judge to operate within and uphold the United States Constitution. The notion that we are a country of "majority rule" is false IF the "majority" is seeking to violate the United States Constitution, thus protecting the "minority" from the "majority". The ONLY solution is to Amend the United States Constitution, a simple yet very difficult task. Regards, Alf.

Concerned One wrote on May 16, 2008 9:16 AM:While the concept of same sex marriage is still awkward to me, I'll adjust. I'll be happy to explain it to my grandchildren. The only thing I'm curious about is what will they call each other? "Hi, I'm Bob and this is my husband, Dave." Or: "Hi, I'm Bob and this is my wife, Dave." Neither sounds quite right. Maybe the answer is a husband and a wife refers to a man and a woman, and "partner" refers to man/man, woman/woman. Does that work?

Alf wrote on May 16, 2008 9:35 AM:Well, "Concerned One" at 9:16AM, partner, lover, significant other, mate, other half also work just fine, just don't call them late to dinner. Regards, Alf.

Animals wrote on May 16, 2008 9:36 AM:Tolerance For All, I hope you're kidding. Marrying an animal, however much you love the animal, is fundementally different from marrying a human being and it's a shameful comparison. For starters, your pet doesn't understand the concept of marriage and isn't able to legally consent to a sexual relationship.

Happily Unmarried wrote on May 16, 2008 10:09 AM:I've been happily unmarried to the same person for going on 10 years and I have to say that I really just don't get all the hubbub. I'm personally more concerned with the fact that gas is topping $4 a gallon. How about the recession we're not in? The ongoing war in Iraq that McCain thinks we can win in another 5 years? I mean really people ... don't we have more pressing issues at hand?!

Pluto wrote on May 16, 2008 10:19 AM:To ALL @8:39am asks "If people are born GAY then why has this not been allowed before? The US is over 200 years old and you tell me that there were no GAY people born before now?" Answers: There have always been and will always be gay people. In fact, about 15% of most primates and other species are homosexual. The reason this wasn't "allowed" is because ignorance and prejudice have dominated the history of our species. We are gradually becoming civilized. In the "enlightened" US, Africans were slaves until 1865, and women couldn't own property or vote until the 20th century. We are gradually overcoming our prejudices and becoming more enlightened & free, but it's never easy. There was backlash after slaves were freed, and after women were supposedly given full rights. Two steps forward, one step back. Those who oppose gay marriage represent "the dead hand of the past", including those whose politics and morality are determined by ancient books.

Larry wrote on May 16, 2008 10:26 AM:Even though I'm not gay, it's nice to know I could marry another dude if I wanted to.

Is sodomy now wrote on May 16, 2008 10:46 AM:legal between two consenting adults?

Joe wrote on May 16, 2008 10:50 AM:I guess I dont see the big deal, they pretty much had all the rights married people did before the ruling. Now they can get a piece of paper making it official. Maybe I'm cynical a little but I gather this is all a play to lure the conservative voters to the polls in November for another election they may not be willing to vote in otherwise. A rather ingenious move I think and a good one if it will help elect someone who will keep our federal taxes down.

Jon wrote on May 16, 2008 11:17 AM:It doesn't suprise me to hear all the retoric about this topic. The minority gets what they want, it's not moral, blah, blah, blah.

Take a look at history, Rosa Parks, Fair but Equal, the right for Blacks to vote (it was against the law for blacks to vote until 1943) and the court overturned these backwards law inspite of the majority of public opinion. And guess what, it all turned out fine. If gays are allowed to marry, but deal. It will be a non-topic in ten years.

If we put half the energy into education that we put into gays, we would be at the top of the country and not 48th at the bottom.

Concerned voter wrote on May 16, 2008 11:29 AM:I am more worried about 4 people who call themselves judges making a decision for the majority of people who already voted on this issue and telling California voters that their vote means NOTHING. This is definitley a way to silence the voices of a democracy. This is a shame. Ammmend the Constitution and send a message to the 4 judges that their vote means NOTHING and then we will have EQUALITY as they are trying to create.

RWC wrote on May 16, 2008 11:34 AM:We have cease to be a republic. Since when does judges have right to over rule the will of the people? This is tryanny! The United States Constitution never gave judges right to make law. They can only give their opinion. The USA is being taken over from within. The majority of citizens do not realize what is really going on!

To RWC wrote on May 16, 2008 12:03 PM:You ask "Since when does judges have right to over rule the will of the people?" ... I answer Since we are a society of laws not man.