Where are the Supes wrote on May 23, 2008 7:44 PM:Where are our faithful conservative County Supervisors in this matter? There may not be alot that can be done but at least make a fuss about it. Stand up and be counted for your opposition to a court-sanctioned anti-democratic law that was forced upon us by 4 judicial activists!!!! What will happen to those who are married before November when the people rise up and vote again to deny homosexuals the title of marriage? They can have their domestic partnerships and all the benefits that come with that! But we will not allow them to take our covenant of marriage.

To Where are the Supes wrote on May 23, 2008 8:20 PM:Gee I'm really sorry to hear that you have to be forced to adhere to that pesky Declaration of Independence that clearly states that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

Please take careful notice that it says ALL men ... not just the straight ones.

If you don't like same sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. But the state sponsored discrimination proposed by this 'change the constitution to fit my selfish needs' movement is not only wrong it's just plain un-American. On top of that, it will certainly be overturned by the US Supreme Court since a state cannot have a law/amendment that directly conflicts with the federal one.

Where are the Supes wrote on May 23, 2008 10:32 PM:Last time I checked the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two separate documents. The Declaration of Independence was written as a statement to the British and the US Constitution was written as a living document subject to amendments if the MAJORITY decide it is necessary. Unfortunately for the Homosexual movement the majority have determined that defining marriage is between a man and a woman. If the only way that homosexuals are able to get their way is through judicial activism then I would argue that we no longer live in a democracy, hence the Declaration of Independence that you qoute from becomes a worthless document because we are subjecting ourselves to a form of Monarchism where the Judges are now our kings and we are the peasants. I assure you that any measure I support (proposition 22 being one of them) would be through the proper legislative process, as the Consitution allows, or through the voice of the people, which democracy (flawed though it may be) encourages. And for your information I don't support gay marriage, not because I am intolerant of individuals making commitments to one another, I just disagree with forcing the most dangerouse lifestyle upon untold millions of childern (mine included) who will have to learn about homosexual and lesbian sex the same way they have to learn about heterosexual sex in our messed up pulbic education system. Its the aftermath of homosexual marriage that scares me....You know, the whole slippery slope argument. Oh, and what amendment would conflict with what federal amendment, I am confused?

Uh wrote on May 23, 2008 11:22 PM:I am not sure what is being said, but we are not forced to adhere to anything the Declaration of Independence says. I love the princples that are espoused by the Declaration of Independence but it is not the Law, the Constitution is and I doubt that the original intent of the Declation of Independence was aimed towards the homosexual lifestyle; it was independence from Britain. Another point is that all men and women are not created equal. We have different aspirations, talents, gifts, and are born into different environments with which to advance. We may all start out born equal in terms of certain rights, but as life goes on and individuals make choices they simultaneously forfeit or take advantage of different measures of equality. Homosexuals have their life, liberty to choose their lifestyle, and are free to PURSUE their happiness (happiness is no garuntee, just the pursuing of it is).

Howiek wrote on May 24, 2008 6:49 AM:To Where are the SupesII? What is undemocratic about this state supreme court decision? The judges read the law and determined it to be unconstitutional, period! The vote of the people is not always right, many times it resembles mob rule! If there has ever been a more overused, hackneyed term than activist judges I can’t think of one at the moment.

I suppose in your convoluted thinking that we should have separate (but equal) water fountains and separate (but equal) concession stands at sporting events. Are we to have two San Diego County Fairs? One for straight folks and one for gay folks? I’m sure you wouldn’t want you or your kids exposed to such things.

VoteOutRepublicans wrote on May 24, 2008 7:17 AM:Great response "To Where are the Supes"!
Did you notice the first posters question? "Where are our faithful conservative County Supervisors"? We defintely see that bigotry, hatred, prejudice and discrimination in our country comes from one group of people. Those wily ole faithful conservatives. Without their voice America would be the land of the free.

Equal Rights For Equal Citizens wrote on May 24, 2008 8:14 AM:You cannot deny the right to participate in a publically initiated (marriage license) and enforced (divorce court) contract simply on the grounds of sexual orientation any more than you could do it on the grounds of race, sex or religion. Period.

Aside from that, when approximately half of all hetero marriages end in divorce, exactly what sanctity is that you're trying to protect?

Keep same-sex marriage out of the church if you want. That's your right. But you can't have that kind of discrimination with regards to the public aspect of it. Gay people pay the same taxes as straight people. They also live in the same neighborhoods and follow the same laws. As long as the applicants are legal citizens you can't (or shouldn't) stop it.

Declaration of Independence wrote on May 24, 2008 8:23 AM:True the document is not law, but it largely considered the founding document of our country and includes the basic principles that the people of the new United States built upon. Those principles have been used to help overturn discrimination of many kinds throughout history and it will play a role in this one too.

Straight people aren't superior to gays any more than whites are to blacks or men are to women or whatever combination you would like to throw out there. Since none are superior (or inferior) all must be equal. All being equal, all are deserving of equal treatment under the law.

Mike S. wrote on May 24, 2008 8:43 AM:Perhaps we should all go study American History and rediscover how protection of minority rights was an essential part of how the Constitution was written. We would also learn how protection of these rights is an essential reason that the role of courts evolved early in the history of this country to include judging the constitutionality of laws.

Reading the Blogs wrote on May 24, 2008 8:59 AM:After reading the dialogue taking place on this blog it is becoming apparent to me that there is a disconnect between the two arguments. The individual opposing gay marriage is making points about a lifestyle being "forced" upon society and the others opposing this argument are drawing conclusions that just aren't there. Saying that mob rule exists is a convenient response to any law enacted that somehow negatively affects the minority. But what of laws that negatively affect the majority? Would that be like the tyranny of the minority? Anyway the argument is spun, the other opposing forces can use the same argument their opponents are using. What rights are gays denied at this point in CA that they can't obtain through a domestic partnerships and are they significant (is it really hospital visits they are after)? Why must gays have the term marriage for their use? And the point of the "homosexual and lesbian sex" being taught in our public education system (being supported by taxes of the majority who opposes gay marriage) is a valid point that should be answered. Do all opposing forces now need to pull their children from public schools because they don't like what is being taught in the public schools? I think the responses to those who opposed gay marriage should be thought through a little more.

Laughing at it All wrote on May 24, 2008 9:07 AM:Calling all this judicial activism is a bit of a strech. Roe V Wade is jusdicial activism, this is just judges striking a law from the books because it is unconstiutional, which is actually their job to do.

However, having state officials starting to get ready to give out the licenses is going to put those people who have them in a world of litigation trouble because unless the federal government gets rid of its ban, the issue will not be solved.

Sandy wrote on May 24, 2008 9:12 AM:I fail to understand how gays marrying is going to adversely affect me. If it makes them happy, I say go for it. However, I would caution them to "be careful what you wish for" as marriage ain't always what it's cracked up to be. Take a look at the straight population. I wonder how many of those adamantly defending marriage between a man and a woman are cheating on their spouses.

Stacey wrote on May 24, 2008 9:15 AM:TO READING THE BLOGS: For me this has nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage ... It's all about equal rights for everyone who is a legal, law abiding and taxpaying citizen of both this state and this country. Creating a legally recognized 'sub-class' that is entitled to less just because they're different is just fundamentally wrong in my eyes.

Entitled to less wrote on May 24, 2008 10:47 AM:No has answered the question yet. How are gays in domestic partnerships entitled to less than if they had the title marriage? I don't know so am hoping that one of these pro-gay marriage advocates can answer if for me. Please answer this question because I fail to see the inequality.

Whats Next wrote on May 24, 2008 11:59 AM:Granted I myself am a gay man living in the county however my views are simply: all Americans should be treated like all other Americans. If we can actually allow this country to make laws that will legally state that one group of people are inferior to another than what's next? I say if homosexuals can't be treated like the Americans that they are then let's rally to limit other inferior Americans. Let's put women, african-americans, native americans, hispanics, non-white land owners, back to their place! Let's dissolve all inter-racial marriages. In fact since marriage is mostly just for the best Christians in the country, let's dissolve any inter-religious marriages, and not even allow those outside of the Church to wed! Sounds ignorant doesn't it? We as a state and as a nation cannot sit here and limit another group of people. And don't try and use your religious background...that's just an excuse to be a bigot because your same churches were the ones who were against blacks, women's rights, and native americans...unless you can be bold enough to let us know that your faith is still just as racist and sexist. Your faith will change just as it always has, you might as well just allow the change to happen now. And for the posting stating why homosexuals aren't happy with just having domestic partnerships: you can't put a can of pepsi next to a can of store-brand cola and say 'you can have the store-brand but not the pepsi...it's the same thing', no it's not, I don't want some knock-off cola, I want, and will have the Pepsi thank you!

To Entitled wrote on May 24, 2008 12:32 PM:I'm certainly no advocate for anything other that complete equality for all legal, tax paying & law abiding citizens. I've looked a bit into the whole difference between domestic partnership vs marriage and the majority of the differences (with regards only to the state of CA) appear to be more on the federal level with regards to social security, tax filings, death benefits, etc. Obviously not something that can be addressed at the state level, but certainly an inequality that needs to be corrected.

As a happily unmarried hetero, my curiosity is more about the obsession to protect the word marriage. Protect it from what? Does anyone realize that the word marriage has definitions other than the legal union between a man and a woman? Any close or intimate association or union can be defined as a marriage. Gee ... think of all things that could cover.

Is the sky falling yet? Maybe not, but gas is over $4 a gallon. We're still in Iraq. People are losing their homes and jobs due to this recession we're not in. Etc. Etc. When it comes right down to it ... we have bigger fish to fry in the scope of societal tragedies.

To Whats Next wrote on May 24, 2008 12:34 PM:You say "And for the posting stating why homosexuals aren't happy with just having domestic partnerships: you can't put a can of pepsi next to a can of store-brand cola and say 'you can have the store-brand but not the pepsi...it's the same thing', no it's not, I don't want some knock-off cola, I want, and will have the Pepsi thank you!"

GREAT ANALOGY!!!

Democracy Now wrote on May 24, 2008 12:38 PM:The voters of this state will have the final say in November.

Sandy wrote on May 24, 2008 1:29 PM:TO DEMOCRACY NOW,
What if we all voted to bring slavery back? What we vote for or against is not the issue. Equal rights under the law is. If you don't approve of same sex marriage, then don't do it. But please don't impose your narrow minded religious beliefs (on this or any other issue) on everybody else.

By the way, don't you all wish the weather was nice today so we could be outside doing something fun instead of debating on our computers?

Democracy Now wrote on May 24, 2008 2:26 PM:Individuals who are not able to see the difference between involuntary servitude and gay marriage need to question their mental competence. Slavery has always been a hotly contested and divisive issue since its inception thousands and thousands of years ago. Religious institutions and cultures dating back centuries have disagreed with and fought against slavery. Homosexual marriage is not as fortunate an issue. Now, to be clear, homosexuality has also been a hotly contested and divisive issue for just as long as slavery. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, has never, at least in recorded history, been accepted by any religious institution and culture in any part of the world. This is not just a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other religious issue. This is also a cultural issue. While some cultures are known for homosexuality none, and I repeat none, have advocated for gay marriage. Changing the definition of traditional marriage dates back to the beginning of time, of course the specifics of their marriages reflected their time. Just because consenting adults believe that they ought to have the right be recognized as married individuals does not mean society HAS to grant it. Where do you stand with the consenting adults of polygamy? Just because they are consenting adults and believe that their marriages should by recognized by the state does not mean society HAS to grant them their wishes. Before you say the women in polygamous marriages are brainwashed I can very well say the same thing about gays, heterosexuals, pedophiles, etc, etc, etc. There are so many diverse sexual preferences out there that we must defend what has always been traditionally recognized as marriage; and that is between one man and one woman. The people of California will not stand for this and we will overthrow the ruling of 4 judges.

Oh yeah...it was a fair ruling wrote on May 24, 2008 2:27 PM:4 judges vs. 4.6 million voters (61% of the vote). That sounds fair.

Read the ruling wrote on May 24, 2008 2:29 PM:Before people get really up in arms about this ruling, we all should read the court docket. It really has some interesting points. For instance, a dissenting opinion was that while she agreed that definition of marriage is limited she also realized that in a democracy there are proper channels for this to be resolved, namely through propositions and through the state legislature. It is an interesting read.

Whats Next wrote on May 24, 2008 2:34 PM:Sandy, nothing would be nicer than to be outside, maybe in the pool enjoying life. I'm just afraid that my being outside might influence American youth into thinking that maybe homosexuals are people too... yikes!!!
I pity the narrow-minded people on here who are forching their own children into hating themselves for being gay without even knowing it. It's parents like you who go out and speak down about gays who then end up losing their child because of depression. Being gay isn't a lifestyle, it's not a choice, it's just how we are. We're your hair stylists, your fashion desingers, your decorators AND we're also your neighbors, your friends, your teachers, your judges, your children, YOUR PEERS... nothing more, nothing less

To Democracy Now wrote on May 24, 2008 5:13 PM:Where do you stand with the consenting adults of polygamy? ... I personally have no problem with it. While it's not the life for me, I've know a couple of households who have lived quite nicely in a multi-spouse relationship. As long as all members are consenting adults who agree to the structure & numbers in the relationship then it really shouldn't matter to anyone but them.

This is not just a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other religious issue ... Each religion is perfectly able to decide for themselves where they stand on the issue, but that opinion has nothing to do with the laws of our land. The Bible is not law nor should it ever be. The fact that so many people seem to need it to know good from bad and right from wrong has always boggled me anyway.

As far as culture goes ... yes, it is a cultural issue and it saddens me to know I live in a culture that is so filled with hate and disdain for its fellow man. Especially for such a stupid reason.

I am also a voter in CA and will absolutely be voting against any effort to write discrimination into our constitution.

Now, onto more important questions. What do we do about our $4 a gallon gas? How do we get out of Iraq? How long will it take for the economy to recover? In case you haven't noticed ... we have real issues to deal with.