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.

Chubton wrote on May 16, 2008 12:08 PM:Cute how when a court rules counter to conservative wishes the judges are called 'activist'.
It might be interesting to point out that the majority of these judges were appointed by Conservative governors.

KJ wrote on May 16, 2008 12:09 PM:Now that this line has been crossed, anybody can define marriage as anything they want, because that is their "right." By the way, someone should inform the FLDS group in Texas that California has just unrolled the red carpet for them. Welcome!

To Ken wrote on May 16, 2008 12:10 PM:You cannot even spell "Christian."

Ward wrote on May 16, 2008 12:20 PM: To: To all. The reason Gay activity was not allowed before is that it disrupts the family which has been and still is the foundation of society. Before medieval times the wise men and women of the day know that "gays" could not produce children which are needed to carry on the family, that the activity produced disease and brought disgrace to the family. And it still does. Ask any doctor why you should wash your hands after using the bathroom. And that is the reason San Francisco has become a Mecca for them. Their Mommas get tired of their bring disgrace to the family in small town USA and give them a one way ticket to San Francisco where they can be gay and happy, and spread disease.

Wimpinator wrote on May 16, 2008 12:52 PM:governor won't fight it. Won't endorse a proposition. That's nice, won't represent the majority of people who elected him. Caves to educators on the budget. Refuses to stop illegal immigration. Man this guy has turned to nothing but mush. I think the steroids or the Dems have finally gotten to his brain. Arnie, take yourself and your carbon footprint somewhere else. We need Tom McClintock!
Someone with brains and guts!

Manson Clan wrote on May 16, 2008 12:54 PM:How dare anyone accuse Charlie Manson of being gay! I knew Charlie personally and even lived at Barker Ranch with his family in 1968. He may have been a murdering, drug-abusing, schizophrenic maniac. But, HE WAS NOT GAY! Such insults will lead to a life in Hell.

Sleeping but Awake wrote on May 16, 2008 12:57 PM:To all you folks who think the judges need to uphold majority rule, the vote of the people.

This is not their job. Their job is to uphold the CA constitution which clearly calls out equality for all. It does not say equality for all except for gays and their children.

And the CA constitution wrote on May 16, 2008 1:03 PM:certainly doesn't say equality for all except for polygamist and their families!

To Sleeping but Awake wrote on May 16, 2008 1:08 PM:Sodomites do not produce children. Sodomy is a capital offense. It is a crime just like murder, stealing, adultery, etc. Our society has gone soft on these so now sodomy follows. That does not make it right. Our country is ripe for judgement!

Who can wrote on May 16, 2008 1:13 PM:Transvestites marry? Or for that matter what about people that prefer barn yard animals? They don't have rights?

This State is turning wrote on May 16, 2008 1:21 PM:into a do whatever makes you feel good, forget how your fellow man feels. Not such a good idea what I might consider amusing and fun, alot of people would call it homicidial spree killings. Now take your time and see if you want us all to be able to do what we want.

Fred wrote on May 16, 2008 1:27 PM:Get a grip, people. They didn't say they were making gay marriage mandatory.

BillyBob wrote on May 16, 2008 1:32 PM:I want to marry my sister and have 10 kids with her. And that is my right. It's the way I was born. You people are intolerant and ignorant if you think otherwise. So what if we want to repopulate the world with inbread children. Oh what? You don't like that idea? I'm sure some panle of San Francisco judges will make it happen for me.

Sandy wrote on May 16, 2008 1:50 PM:Sleeping but Awake is absolutely right. The judges job is not to uphold majority opinion. I just cannot understand what people are so worked up about. I don't care who marries or does not marry. It is so totally irrelevant to me or anyone else. Do you know if your next door neighbor is married? Are you sure? WHY DO YOU CARE?

Tiny Tim wrote on May 16, 2008 2:07 PM:Even the Pope says marriage between gays is not moral. Let me tell you if I have to decide who to tip toe through the tulips with, I will pick Miss Vickie everytime.

Justin wrote on May 16, 2008 2:08 PM:Although I don't agree with same sex marriage the fact that it is now "legal" doesn't bother me as much as the fact that we have activist judges creating laws as if this were a dictatorship. How many times do we have to vote on something for it to stick? With activist judges and a vocal MINORITY apparently there is no limit. In Democracies Majority rules. The Majority has voted on several occasions for several different issues but the Judges seem to get there way in the end.

In a democracy how can a few judges overturn the votes of millions? Talk about disenfranchisement, here it is!

Peter wrote on May 16, 2008 2:13 PM:To the Christians: Read Psalm 37
To the gays: I wish you all a long, happy life together, as it is all you have.

Pedro wrote on May 16, 2008 2:24 PM:How can we recall these idiot judges?? What an embarrasement that these arrogant judges think they know more than 61% of the people of the state of California!

To Tiny Tim wrote on May 16, 2008 2:26 PM:Who cares what the Pope says?! The Pope (and those before him) were too busy standing idly by while churches beneath them moved child molesting priests from parish to parish so they wouldn't be punished for their homosexual acts. Truth be told ... the Catholics really just need to stay out of this one. The hypocrisy is way too thick.

To TinyTim wrote on May 16, 2008 2:27 PM:Is this the same pope that was a member of the Hitler Youth ? HMMMMMM yea lets listen to his idea of right and wrong !

To Justin wrote on May 16, 2008 2:30 PM:You ask "In a democracy how can a few judges overturn the votes of millions?" ... I answer - If this was a democracy I might be able to help you but it's not a democracy it's a republic.

One good thing people wrote on May 16, 2008 2:30 PM:We don't have to worry about AIDS!

tolerance for all wrote on May 16, 2008 2:47 PM:Animals, there you're being judgmental again. Some think homosexual "marriage" is shameful compared to marriage between a man and woman. "Consent" is indicated by the loving acceptance of the pet and non-consent by aggressive self-defense. Many states had laws making the "legally consent to a sexual relationship" not applicable to gay sex because homosexual sex by law was illegal! And most states do not have laws prohibiting human/animal sex. Your biases are just as intolerant as the fundamentalist's, but you are blind to them.

Concerned One wrote on May 16, 2008 2:48 PM:This is a non issue. I wish it would just blow over. Ooops!

face wrote on May 16, 2008 3:13 PM:
its all so beautiful....I say if they want to be miserable like the rest of us we should let them...

Bill wrote on May 16, 2008 3:14 PM:I think some of the people have a point here. If this is equal rights then why can we tell people who want multiple wifes/husbands they can't do that. If the entered in to this willingly then why should we tell them they can't?? mmmmmm

To Bill wrote on May 16, 2008 3:31 PM:As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a problem with that either. As long as all participants are of legal consenting age and agree to the structure & numbers in the relationship then they should be able to run with it as well.

Alf wrote on May 16, 2008 3:37 PM:It seems that some of you do not get it. The 4 State Supreme Court judges were doing their job. They ruled using the California Constitution as their guideline, that is not activism, it is following the highest state law in California, its Constitution. You who think that "majority rules" when the "majority" wants what is un-Constitutional, are wrong. Regards, Alf.

to animals wrote on May 16, 2008 3:38 PM:what do you mean animals can't legally consent to a sexual relationship. My dog is always trying to hump my leg

Bernard wrote on May 16, 2008 3:39 PM:"We need to keep our eyes on the real social issue behind all of the interest in the gay gene-homophobia and societal discrimination. Regardless of the extent to which biology influences one's sexual identity, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be afforded protection against the discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

Social and political remedies will counter unjust and unequal treatment of people.

Biology is not the issue. Society at present protects people against discrimination for behaviors which are not biological. Whether people's differentiation is cultural (such as religious) or purely the result of choice (such as marital status or political affiliation, protected in many jurisdictions, or religious conversion, protected in all), genetic predisposition is not necessary to create these legal protections.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual community does not need to have its "deviance" tolerated because its members were born "that way" and "cannot help it." Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian, gay and bisexual lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, and an acceptance of all human beings. We need to celebrate diversity, whatever its origins."

Cmon Lassie wrote on May 16, 2008 3:58 PM:if we hurry we can make it to the city hall and get married. Now don't get mad but I did hear some rumor where someone said they were using male dogs for your part, that ain't true is it? You are a her I mean.

Yeah what about wrote on May 16, 2008 4:02 PM:if a dog trys to hump your leg, is that rape? Or is it the right of the dog to do what feels good to him?

LOVE wrote on May 16, 2008 4:21 PM:As a heterosexual, married, white, North County residing Catholic man, I am proud to celebrate this civil rights victory for the gay community of California. It is about time that the overt hatred and fear-mongering aimed at homosexuality is chipped away at...the rest of the hatred will dissipate in larger chunks when the older generations (like a lot of ... on these blogs), who have been bred to fear and hate the homosexual community out of a whacked-out and politicized Christian agenda combined with a man's world mentality that died in the 1950's, start to pass on to a greater place.

Sodom and Gomorrah, give me a break!I'll take a civil rights victory for freedom any day over more of the hatred and ignorance spewed on this blog. Get back to your NRA convention ... break's over. To the rest of the world, welcome to a new day in which the concept of freedom has actually been expanded upon.

Has the gay community caused war, famine, and hatred? Perhaps it is us heterosexuals and our politicized religion(s) who need some talking to!

I'll await the barrage of ridiculous biblical passage condemnations, leave the country-isms, fear for your salvation-isms, and other techniques of attempted fear installation (that so many of you have been spoonfed from your backwards parents and years of military sexual oppression)...and watch them all fall innocently at my feet as I celebrate this great day for all of the residents of California.

I know I'm going to heaven - because I have chosen to love and respect ALL. Think about it.

Realist wrote on May 16, 2008 4:35 PM:Christ put it simply - hate the sin, not the sinner. I worked with gay/lesbian people and they are decent people. That's their decision, and they have to live with the consequences of that decision, whether good or bad. However, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that is the best environment to raise a family. But I will not impose my beliefs on anyone else or make judgments, because Christ said how i judge others is how I will be judged by HIM.

To Love wrote on May 16, 2008 4:42 PM:Nice try passing yourself off as a Catholic, I will give you that.

to BillyBob wrote on May 16, 2008 4:46 PM:Best Wishes to you and your sister!

Alf wrote on May 16, 2008 4:47 PM:Well, "Realist" at 4:35PM, is that another way of saying, if you'll pardon the old joke, that you don't want to stow thrones? Some months back someone would ask how "the golden rule" would apply in a given situation, the last sentence in your post "But I will not impose my beliefs on anyone else or make judgments, because Christ said how i judge others is how I will be judged by HIM." is a perfect example. Thanks. Regards, Alf.

human wrote on May 16, 2008 4:51 PM:
I saw a rainbow the other day it had such beauty

Step one wrote on May 16, 2008 4:59 PM:Step one, legalize gay marriage
Step two, legalize polygamy
Step three, destroy the basis for our culture and bring down the greatest nation on the planet (yes, that's the USA).

A little out there? I'm not so sure, anymore, with how liberals seem to want to destroy our culture and nation at any cost.

Bill wrote on May 16, 2008 5:20 PM:This state is ripe for the judgement of God!

We need to repent before time runs out!

Ward of the court wrote on May 16, 2008 5:40 PM:Ward seems a little nostalgic for the "wise" pre-medieval times. History books sometimes called these the "dark ages." Is Ward a Visigoth?

Robin wrote on May 16, 2008 6:07 PM:I love how those who say, "Do unto others...", the so-called Christians, don't think that includes everyone. Is that commandment selective? Get a life. Let people who love each other get married. At 50% of traditional marriages ending in divorce, how could it be worse?

To Robin wrote on May 16, 2008 7:49 PM:It has nothing to do with the Christians or any or religious groups on this issue. What it is about is that people voted against this and the SC court said screw you all, we are over riding it. I do not believe in gay marriages. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I DO believe that gays and lisbians should have a domesticated partnership law that gives them the same opportunity financially and legally as married couples do. But if we take away marriage from the traditional values....it is just as bad as taking God out of the pledge of alligenece and off our money. I for one as a registered voter who voted against gay marriages am appauld that I mean so little to the sc that my vote doesn't even matter......shame on those judges...they should be fired. I will be at the next poll....voting no

Attention Klu Klux Klansmen wrote on May 16, 2008 8:06 PM:Hate is hate, any way you disguise it, it is still hate. Worry about your own souls. Life is short & God is the Only Judge. God gave us freedom of choice & some people here would like to over rule that freedom. Take off your robes & learn tolerance.

Martha wrote on May 16, 2008 8:14 PM:the intolerance that is everywhere in this discussion makes me ashamed to be a human.

Re To Robin wrote on May 16, 2008 8:40 PM:The court didn't say 'screw you' to the voters. The court did it's job of enforcing the constitution as it exists. You simply can't pass a law (any law ... voted for or not) that is in contradiction to the tenets of the Constitution ... Period. If you don't like it then don't vote for the law that will be overturned, vote for the Constitutional amendment that will allow the law to stand in the first place.

Practical principles aside ... I'm curious, while I support your personal feeling that same-sex marriage is wrong (we're all entitled to our opinions) ... what makes you right? I think a lot of things others don't agree with ... am I right just because I think so? Does my opinion get to ride gunshot over everyone else? No. We are a society of laws and those laws apply to everyone ... even the ones you don't happen to agree with. What I think is the most amusing though is that you're not opposed to same-sex unions. You're just one of those many who want it to be called something else. I'm not sure if that's a state of denial or just wanting to be able to maintain some level of superiority. Really ... what's the difference between marriage and domesticated partnerships? Other than the title ... nothing. If marriage was still held strictly within the walls of the church I would agree that the church can decide whether or not to allow them. Instead, marriage is a publically issued and enforced contract that cannot be denied to any legal, taxpaying & law-abiding citizen based on race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. And I personally queston those who support goverment sponsored discrimination while living in, and benefiting from, probably one of the most free societies in the world.

Finally, to compare allowing same-sex marriages to the removal of God from the Pledge of Allegiance and off our money is just illogical. For the record, God was in neither when they were created and he doesn't need to be there now. I absolutely pledge allegiance to America first & foremost and my respect for the flag is absolute, but I will never pledge allegiance to any God who would allow such intolerance, hatred and suffering to those he allegedly created ... and in his own image at that. If you truly believe in God then you also have to believe that judging others isn't your responsibility ... it's His. Live your life and let others live theirs and finally ... let God do His job when/if the time comes.

To Robin PM wrote on May 16, 2008 8:45 PM:While I agree with your sentiment (hetero couples have done far more damage to the institution of marriage than same-sex couples could ever attempt), it's important to note that the "Do unto others ..." isn't a commandment. It's a suggestion in the Lord's Prayer. Not that it makes any more or less valid for the purposes of our discussion, but those that cry about what God does or doesn't want (like they know or have the authority to speak for God) will surely have a field day nonetheless.

A side thought that just hit me. Institution of Marriage ... Institutions ... isn't that were they lock away crazy people? :)

human wrote on May 16, 2008 9:45 PM:
will i ever see a rainbow?

Disgusted wrote on May 16, 2008 10:19 PM:I bet the first one getting married in 30 days will be ?Rosie O'donnel again, and she is disgusting..Gay marriages are sick, and against our Bible Beliefs. Marriage is Only Between Man and Woman, How do u think you got here..lol

robert wrote on May 16, 2008 10:27 PM:sic sic sic and no you are not born gay it is a choice it is not right period

Some people havent been getting their hugs wrote on May 16, 2008 11:11 PM:Maybe the Bible was made up by man to try & control the have nots. Maybe God is disgusted with all the " christians". We will not know until we die. If you have a conscience I believe you`ll be fine. Peace & may you live long & prosper.

Infidel wrote on May 16, 2008 11:32 PM:Show me the Gene?

dean wrote on May 17, 2008 12:04 AM:let us not speak of votes that don't count when a president who doesn't win the popular vote (eg. the will of the people) is still killing our brave men and women overseas while the country festers in the eyes of the world and families are put out on the streets - ejected from their homes by the thousands every month.
Please remember, this ruling does not state that gay marriage is legal; it merely states that it is illegal to discriminate for the purpose of government benefits because a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman. If you want to live in a god-fearing, christian society, you should keep in mind that judgementmust be left up left up to god...not you, no matter how strong your faith is.
As for believing, i choose to stand in the shadow of the eloquent Bishop Tutu: If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God.

This has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with priorities of faith, love, and understanding.
Peace to everyone. God loves you.

dean wrote on May 17, 2008 12:16 AM:I think Bill is pi%$#ed off because he's not likely to be invited to any wedding celebrations soon

dean wrote on May 17, 2008 12:20 AM:seriously, do people really think the country is going down the drain because the California SC said it is illegal to write discrimination into the constitution. the economy was not performing amazingly well before today. but i guess we all need someone to blame for our problems. I can't satisfy my wife; it must be because Rob and Dan are now able to get married. How is this even a real issue that money is spent on?

Howiek wrote on May 17, 2008 5:43 AM:Sort of a final note it would seem, but the SC did not in anyway usurp the will of the voters, they simply declared that Prop 22 was unconstitutional. Just because a majority, at the time, voted to enact a law does not make it legal. Californians simply voted for an illegal law. And this is not the first time!

Not a Christian nation wrote on May 17, 2008 6:18 AM:Contrary to popular belief, the United States is NOT a Christian nation, nor was it founded on "Christian values." Thomas Jefferson was more a product of the Enlightenment and French Revolutionary theory-- both of which actively attempt to keep Christian morality OUT of government.

lester wrote on May 17, 2008 6:42 AM:Ken, U.S.A. is NOT a christian society, It is a non secular society, seperation of church and state.

Yokozuna wrote on May 17, 2008 8:20 AM:The Judges? We're allowing ourselves to be sucked into the "find someone easy to blame game". Another example: When some of our water supply was shut down because of some ... fish people were blaming the judges instead of the group(s) which brought the suit. The current situation is function of state laws and cannot be mitigated by considering all the personal opinions of populace belong to private groups. The blog from Sleeping But Awake on 5/15 at 11:13 AM pretty much said it all.

Opinions versus facts wrote on May 17, 2008 8:45 AM:Opinions, Opinions, Opinions.
Let's look at some facts!

First, the USA was founded upon Christian principles. All you have to do is read the original documents written by the founding fathers. Also, a visit to government buildings in Washington DC testify to the Christian heritage of our country. However, the USA is no longer Christian.

Second, the Bible has over three dozen references to sodomy in OT and NT. Every reference to sodomy speaks of it as being wicked and an abomination. Sodomy in a nation is a warning we are very close to judgement.

To Opinions Vs Facts wrote on May 17, 2008 9:29 AM:Our country may have been founded on some basic Christian principles, but the founding fathers were also smart enough to know the dangers of combining religion and government when it comes to the running of a nation. The Bible can say whatever it wants about sodomy or anything else for that matter. We are not governed by the Bible. We are governed by the Constitution. If you don't like it then work to change it, but stop citing the Bible because it's really irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Stacey to All Opposers wrote on May 17, 2008 9:35 AM:There is just one thing I really want to know. If you're this riled up over same-sex marriages ... How do you feel about gas prices hitting $4 a gallon? Or the recession we're not in? Or the on going and never ending war in Iraq? How about the housing/credit crisis affecting thousands of American families? Have you screamed your outrage at those issues or any of the other real issues affecting our society today? Believe what you want about homosexuality, you have that right, but we have real problems that need to be dealt with in the meantime.

jesse wrote on May 17, 2008 10:13 AM:
I am an atheist who is repelled by gay marriage. It has nothing to do with religion. Rather, there is something inside me, biologically, that makes me think "that is just gross!" Just as there is something inside me that makes me think "hubba hubba" when I see a beautiful naked woman. It has nothing to do with religion and it isn't a choice. It's just biology. I don't feel the slightest guilt about it.

My fear with gay marriage is that now there will be additional laws aimed at mainstreaming gays and forcing me to watch men kissing and fondling each other and things like that. It just grosses me out and makes me angry as hell. I don't mind it when gays have a section of town where they can "flaunt it" but I don't want to *have* to see them anywhere and everywhere flaunting it. Which I am quite sure we will see now. Many gays are very aggressive and "in your face" and this is going to make it much worse.

In fact, I don't believe the ability to form a legal union had anything to do with this campaign for gay marriage. They already had the ability to form legal unions. In my opinion the whole battle is about their ability to be "in your face" and impose their lifestyle on everyone else. This is more about confrontation and intimidation than anything.

People try to compare gay rights with the fight for racial equality, etc. I just don't see it. Racism is not something biologically built into us for the sake of propagating the species. Racism can legitimately called a "prejudice." Being disgusted at the notion of two guys kissing can most accurately be portrayed as "an evolutionary advantage reinforced by natural selection," as Darwin might say.

So now we are about to pass a sweeping set of laws that encourages 5% of the population to regularly disgust and annoy 90% of the population. I think people come up with interesting names like "the defense of marriage act" because they are slightly embarrased to say what the real issue is. And I believe the real issue is, most people could not care less what gays do behind close doors, or in certain parts of the city that we know to stay away from. But they do not want gays to come into straight neighborhoods (or straight living rooms) and shove their gayness in our faces. Liberals want this because they believe it will breed tolerance and understanding. But I believe the natural reaction, nausea, is more biological than anything else. I don't think straights "choose" to be nauseated by gays any more than gays "choose" to be gay.

So what the gays are really fighting for, in my opinion, is the right to make 90% of the population nauseous. Which of course I am inclined to oppose. I believe that right should be reserved to only a select few, such as Barry Manilow...

Alf wrote on May 17, 2008 10:18 AM:Well, "Opinions versus facts" at 8:45AM, FIRST, the United States of America is not and never was a "Christian nation". Its founders were men who made it VERY clear that they wanted NO state-sponsored religion because they had left a country that had the Church of England and they wanted no part of it, hence, the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.". SECOND, I do not care if there are 10,000 or 0 references to sodomy in the Bible, the Bible is not the U.S. Constitution, nor any of our laws. While there may be some things in common, you are completely wrong to insist that what the Bible says about something has, or should have, any influence on our laws. THIRD, you are as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine, BUT you are not entitled to inflict your beliefs on me or anyone else. While I am a hetersexual man, I support the RIGHT of any homosexual, a woman friend from high school springs to mind, to be entitled to EVERY freedom, right and responsibility that I have. In short, I support her right not to be discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. Regards, Alf.

Edward wrote on May 17, 2008 10:40 AM:In reading all these comments, whether for or against, what scares me the most is the thought of a lot of you voting. There is a profound amount of ignorance displayed here.

pcs wrote on May 17, 2008 10:45 AM:Posters here stating that it is the role of the CA Supreme Court to enforce the law need to go back to their school text books for a little brush up on their role of interpreting the constitution. That's what allows the court to say that a law passed by a majority is illegal if it violates the state constitution.

Same as what happened when they decided that laws banning interracial marriage (although supported by the majority at the time, as well as custom and state law) were unconstitutional.

I'm curious if any of the anti-gay marriage posters here felt the 1948 decision on interracial marriage bans was wrong too, since it uses your same arguments?

So what do you think, yes or no?

Change is Coming... wrote on May 17, 2008 10:55 AM:Jesse: It's people like you who make me nauseous. So ignorant and self-absorbed that you make such outrageous claims that gays want to "throw it in your face with their gayness" and "annoy 90% of the population." You obviously don't know any gays or you wouldn't be making those kind of claims. So they should stay on their side of town indoors in segregated little slums? Sounds to me like the Jewish ghettos that the Nazi's created to keep the "rabble" from the clean, decent, "pure" society. As for those that would claim it's a choice...you would all do well to read up on a couple of studies done over the years by Swabb and Hofman (1990), Allen and Gorski (1992) and Simon LeVay. Change is coming and there is nothing you can do to stop it...

Timray wrote on May 17, 2008 10:55 AM:You would never get away with this in Mexico or Iran.

To Jesse wrote on May 17, 2008 10:55 AM:Easy Tiger ... no one is forcing anyone to watch anything. I agree that I don't particularly like the idea of seeing two guys making out in a park or anywhere else for that matter. But I'll go one further ... I don't particularly like seeing a man and a woman making out in public either. There's a time and place for everything and such overt displays of affection should be reserved for the private times ... regardless of who's involved.

As far as the 'they can have their own section of town' idea ... segregation was defeated decades ago.

To the rest of your comments ... straight neighborhoods, living rooms and what have you ... I wouldn't even know where to start.

response to jesse wrote on May 17, 2008 11:14 AM:Your blatant discrimination against gays (your several references to it as "disgusting" and wanting to segregate them into a separate section of town) makes ME sick to my stomach. That kind of talk upsets and nauseates me but does that give me a right to stomp on your right to say it?

Seems your strongest reason to not give gay couples rights equal to straigt is it makes you say "ewwww!" Really? That's your strongest argument? Rather silly, don't you think?

Please come up with something more adult and logical. I may not agree and it may just make me a bit ill but heck you have equal rights as I do, right?

a real mental health professional wrote on May 17, 2008 11:17 AM:Above poster "To change is coming" wrote: "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".

I happen to be a licensed mental health professional in this state and what you wrote is 100% WRONG. The consensus of the mental health community is that homosexuality is a normal variant on human behavior. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which is the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, was changed in the early 1970s to reflect this. Attempts to "change" sexual orientation are not seen as acceptable therapy, and in fact, that it does harm. I've been a licensed mental health professional for 25 years and have worked with a total of probably 300 psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed clinical social workers and marriage and family counselors in San Diego and Los Angeles, and out of that number, I have only met ONE who thoght it was pathological to be gay...but that was in the 70s...and when I ran across him again 20 years later he had changed his mind and in fact even denied he'd ever said that!

So be aware that the above poster is 100% wrong as to what the medical and mental health community think about this subject.

Ive read the bible wrote on May 17, 2008 11:30 AM:I've read the bible and I challelnge anyone to find anything at all that Jesus said about gays and lesbians.

(I know several biblical scholars and they all verify that Jesus is not on record on the subject at all. He did say some stuff about loving your neighbor as yourself and something else about whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me, so I think on the whole that Jesus loved everyone. Which would have to include gays and lesbians. God made them that way. And anyone saying it's against nature never met my Australian Shepard who only was interested in the same sex...and he was a good dog.)

janet wrote on May 17, 2008 11:42 AM:Most people who oppose this confuse marriage in the church (the church decides who qualifies) and civil marriage (the state decides who can marry). Your church can still exclude whoever it wants. There are no valid reasons that the state should deny gays equal protection. The Bible says a lot of things which don't make sense in these modern times. Please read it and try to do everything it says for one week. You will probably fail on the first day. The most important thing for CHRISTians is to listen to and understand how Jesus said we should live our lives. Oh, and I'm not gay and I'm not a member of any organized religion, but I respect the rights of gays and Jesus' teaching.

to pcs wrote on May 17, 2008 11:44 AM:
Comparing anti-gay marriage bans to interracial marriage bans is not legitimate. It's quite clear why you want to make the comparison - you want to portray any disagreement with you as some sort of defect on the part of the person who disagrees, and of course you want the same outcome. But I would guess that 99% of the people who are opposed to gay marriage have nothing at all against interracial marriage.

Furthermore, I would guess that 95% of the people opposed to gay marriage have nothing against gays entering into legally binding domestic unions. They can even have a celebration to commemorate the event if they like.

Why don't gays simply have "garriages" and let us heterosexuals have "marriages" and leave it at that? What is their obsession with re-defining "marriage?" Why are they forcing themselves upon us when there are already completely viable alternatives that they could embrace and celebrate equally as well as marriage?

The answer is, a profound personal relationship is not what this movement is really about. This movement is about forcing the gay lifestyle down the throats of non-gays.

There is no moral imperative here.

This would be analogous to me suing a high school because they won't let me in the girl's locker room. "Well gee, why can't I go in there?! I really WANT to go in there! Why don't I have the same rights my sister has! Discrimination!"

He was a great man. wrote on May 17, 2008 1:39 PM:For all we know Jesus was gay. The bible implies he never had sexual relations with women.

Anthony wrote on May 17, 2008 1:46 PM:Marriage is a civil right, a wedding may be a religious rite, but since no "Church of the United States" exists, then no person in good standing with constitutional rights should be denied the right to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage between a man and woman is a secular view, and should not be enforced upon the public via the vehicle of the US Govt.

Anthony wrote on May 17, 2008 1:50 PM:Friends: bring yourselves in to the 21st Century. There is nothing to fear here, gays cannot foul up marriage any more than hetero's have already.

To Ive Read the Bible wrote on May 17, 2008 2:53 PM:
I am confused why you can not find verses on this topic in Bible. I did a computer search this morning and found over three dozen references.
Very simple to find using concordance,topical bible, or Bible computer software.

The Bible has over three dozen references to sodomy in OT and NT. Every reference to sodomy speaks of it as being wicked and an abomination. Sodomy in a nation is a warning we are very close to judgement.

Brian wrote on May 17, 2008 4:09 PM:Congratulations to gay couples that can now marry. I can't seem to understand why it's so "wrong" for gays to marry, but straight couples can divorce at the drop of a hat, go on television shows like "Wife Swap", or any other imaginable thing that disgraces the supposed sacred vows that these religous freaks claim. It's about time we start moving forward with a growing society.

To He was a great man wrote on May 17, 2008 4:16 PM:Now you are blaspheming God!

Curtis wrote on May 17, 2008 8:26 PM:I'm very happy about the court ruling! Hopefully the limits on marriage proposition won't pass this Fall.

estaban wrote on May 17, 2008 11:13 PM:This is good news!

Me wrote on May 18, 2008 4:53 AM:I'm so glad the Gen-X and Echo-boomer generations are much more open minded than the rest of you who are stuck on the old ways. Learn from your kids and grandchildren who are part of these generations...we are the future and we care more about our economy & the war than the love between same-sex couples. Seriously...it's not a big deal. Gays deserve the right to be as happy or as miserable as the rest of us.

As for children, if they do ask why two wo/men are kissing, go ahead and tell them what your religion tells you brainwash them with. When they grow up, they might realize they are gay. At least they will get to live in a country that treats them as equals...wouldn't you want your children be allowed that?

My conscience is my guide wrote on May 18, 2008 11:03 AM:Heretics were murdered (burned at the stake) by the catholic church. Shame on Religion & all the atrocities bible thumpers have committed over the years.

Activist Judges wrote on May 18, 2008 9:35 PM:To all the people who are so upset by the judges making this decision. Would you still be so angry if they had decided that marriage could only be between a man and a woman, rather than including gay couples?

Court of King George IV wrote on May 20, 2008 9:33 AM:Three justices of the California Supreme Court are up for retention election in 2010. They are Chief Justice (King) George (IV), and Associate Justices Carlos Moreno and Ming Chen. King George and Carlos Moreno voted for Gay Marriage. Ming Chen voted against.

Hopefully wrote on May 24, 2008 2:03 PM:Well hopefully and the Gay Marriage stuff will get overturned and Life will go one . 56 percent of calliforians are against Gay marriages. " One for the People"