Court: California same-sex marriage fight can continue
Supporters and opponents of banning same-sex marriage in California clashed in front of a courthouse last year.
November 17th, 2011
01:48 PM ET

Court: California same-sex marriage fight can continue

By Bill Mears, CNN

(CNN) - A complex legal fight over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is back on track after California's highest court on Thursday allowed an appeal over a controversial ballot initiative to move ahead in federal court.

At issue is Proposition 8, a voter-approved measure that would recognize marriage only between one man and one woman. A federal judge had earlier struck down the law as a violation of equal protection, prompting an appeal to a higher court.

The sticking point was who would defend "Prop 8" in court, after the state's top officials– including the governor and attorney general– refused to do so. A federal appeals court had asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in and decide whether supporters of the law - called the "official proponents" - could take the place of state officials.

In its ruling Thursday, the state high court said yes.

"Neither the governor, the attorney general, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters," said the court's majority. "It would exalt form over substance to interpret California law in a manner that would permit these public officials to indirectly achieve such a result by denying the official initiative proponents the authority to step in to assert the state's interest in the validity of the measure or to appeal a lower court judgment invalidating the measure when those public officials decline to assert that interest or to appeal an adverse judgment."

The initiative was approved by voters in 2008.

soundoff (720 Responses)
  1. Mike

    Nice misuse of scripture. PS, the Bible and "GOD" do not make policy in the United States. No matter what you might think, we are not a Christian nation, and while the first amendment does not specifically call for a separation of church and state, the founding fathers wrote extensively about it's importance, saying that if Government were to recognize one religion, it had to officially recognize all religions of its citizens.

    November 19, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Mike

    Your Invisible Sky Daddy is laughing at your dumb joke.

    November 19, 2011 at 7:03 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Bob

    Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married then.

    November 19, 2011 at 6:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • haven

      Exactly. If gay marriage doesn't effect you and your personal life why waste time thinking about it. I have a lot of gay friends who I love so I support gay marriage because I want my friends to be happy. This whole issue is a farce to keep peoples eyes and minds off the fact that the American congress is screwing us sideways by not balancing the dang budget, letting companies with huge tax breaks go overseas, and dismantling our education system. Gay marriage is unimportant at this point. Let them marry. Let their combined income add to our economy. God knows at this point we need something to stimulate the economy.

      November 20, 2011 at 12:22 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Pattysboi

    Nobody is "shoving" a "gay agenda" down anyone's throats. It's the fundies, the following cults: the afa, the frc, the focus CULT, the westboro CULT, and the "cwa". THEY are shoving anti-gay garbage down everyone's throats, and you KNOW it.

    November 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Pat

    These are the same people who shelter among them the hypocrites, molesters, and down low closet cases who bring pain and suffering to their spouses (not to mention STDs). Live and let live.

    November 19, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Flappy

    You seem to have fascists and socialists confused with one another. They are opposite ends of the spectrum. I suggest you read up on it thru wikipedia and come back when you have had a chance to form a cogent argument.

    November 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
  7. CarrotCakeMan

    You've got that exactly backwards. The anti-gays are the fascists, and a clear and quickly growing MAJORITY of Americans support marriage equality for their fellow Americans who are LGBT. Give up your silly anti-gay fantasy that Americans hate and fear their fellow Americans who are LGBT.

    November 19, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Patricksday

    !Good thing ending Slavery wasnt put on the Ballot it never would of passed with the Hate in the World

    November 19, 2011 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kay

      Sadly, you got that right 🙁

      November 19, 2011 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • SixDegrees

      That's why the Greeks believed that a pure Democracy was an appalling form of government. See "Tyranny of the Majority" for much, much more on this very old topic.

      It's also why the US and the rest of the West have republics or parliamentary forms of democracy: they actually work, without devolving into tyrannies.

      November 19, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Carson

      You are so right Patrick!

      November 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rodney in Dallas

      Sad but true!

      November 19, 2011 at 11:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Randy

      The problem with all of this is that there is no such thing as a "gay" person – there is only "gay" behaviour. So treating a behaviour as if it were a race of people is absurd – and impossible really.

      November 19, 2011 at 11:07 pm | Report abuse |
  9. rep

    The "unwilling" American families don't have to come to the weddings of attended by the "willing" American families so what should they care?

    November 19, 2011 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Slash

    People are correct when they say that comparing equality for gays to equality for black people is an unfair comparison.

    Gays have had it a LOT worse.

    November 19, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Let's Produce

      PLEASE! You are obviously clueless as to the plight of others.

      November 19, 2011 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Howard

        Gays currently have it worse because its legal to discriminate againts them.

        November 19, 2011 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ave

      I'm gay and completely disagree with that bold comment. I understand the comparison but in no way is it worse.

      November 19, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Emetrius

        Ave, one must be careful with absolute statements.

        November 19, 2011 at 6:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • JustWondering9999

      Surely you jest,,,,

      November 19, 2011 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Howard

        'He's serious. And don't call him Shirley.

        November 19, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Carson

      Everyone in this thread has to be careful. No one can speak in absolutes because we don't walk in each others' shoes! Hate, ignorance and intolerance are all horrible, no matter to whom they are applied. In 2011, people of color are still discrimintated against....and even lynched. In 2011, LGBT folks still don't have legal standing with the federal government and in many states, meaning that LGBT folks don't have rights to marry, have a job, inherit, adopt children, etc. And, yes, in 2011 some LGBT folks are beaten and killed in the U.S. So, it is terrible all around.

      November 19, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • factChecker

      Remember when gays were forced to pick cotton all day at the age of 9, were not allowed to learn to read or right, were hung if they ran away, were whipped if their owner felt like it, were bought and sold at auctions as children? Me niether. So I guess you are joking.

      November 19, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Report abuse |
  11. SGT J

    "one nation under God not the 9th Circuit" You bozo's who always say we are "one nation under God" do realize that the expression "under God" was only added in the 1950's 1954 to be exact, as a way to combat communism and make Americans more patriotic. The original pledge of allegiance to the flag did not include those words. Stop trying to make this a Christian nation when so clearly it is not. Full Disclosure, I'm a Christian. But i know enough to know that the founding fathers though some of them may have also been Christian's did not intend for this country to be a Christian Nation.

    November 19, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Shawn

      Excellent Post. And to back up your argument, this is a quote from a Thomas Jefferson letter which can be viewed on the Library of Congress website.

      Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.


      November 19, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
  12. inga

    Wanda Sykes said it best..."don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a gay person." How simple is that?

    November 19, 2011 at 7:18 am | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      Michelle Bachmann could've used that advice back in 70's.

      November 19, 2011 at 11:58 am | Report abuse |
  13. inga

    what is your point?

    November 19, 2011 at 7:15 am | Report abuse |
  14. pogojo

    Just have the gov giveout civil union licenses. this would solve the issue with the word "marrige", give them all the rights under the civil union license. everyone who wants these rights would have to get a civil union. If you want to be married go to your church, heck the gov could work with churches and give civil union licenses at the same time as the marrige licenses.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • BK

      I am of the same mind there. I say marriage/unions shouldn't be a state thing at all. Why does the state have to approve who someone is with anyway? Joining should be a personal thing between two people and (only if they choose) some religion.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • SixDegrees

        The state has to be involved because they are the final arbiter of the contract they grant through a marriage license. Just leaving the matter up to individuals can sometimes work, but more often than not becomes extremely messy when joint property, shared wealth and children are involved when the mutual understanding breaks down.

        November 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shawn

        It doesn't work that way. Marriage by definition involves a host of legal and social services and behaviors. All peoples and societies need a strong, moral, foundation – irrespective of culture or religion. We defend traditional marriage because it helps to preserve that foundation. The Founding Fathers did not favor any established religion, but did stand on principle that there is a God and a divine mandate to preserve that which is good for the benefit of all in a free society. Traditional marriage and its' inherent good benefit all of us. Abraham Lincoln stated that the only way this country will fail is if it crumbles from within. We must defend marriage.

        November 20, 2011 at 10:17 am | Report abuse |
    • huhb

      That's how it already is. When religious figures (priests, rabbis, ministers, etc.) perform marriage ceremonies, the are acting both as agents of their church (performing the sacrament known as "marriage), and as agents of the state (performing the civil union known as "marriage"). When a secular figures (justices of the peace, county clerks, ships' captains, etc.) officiate, they are only agents of the state. "Marriage" has long referred to both the sacrament and the civil union....but it's only now that anyone's had an issue with it.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Flick

      I can agree on this. No government marriage licenses, period. You can get married in a church if you want to, but it will have no legal standing. Want the rights, everyone (gay or straight) has to go to the court house. I'm okay with this.

      November 20, 2011 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse |
  15. DCAV8R

    God made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve-- so say the Christians.....but Eve screwed it up big time for all of us, seems like Adam should have explored other options.......

    November 18, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • JayNYC

      What the heck is "scripture" and why should I care what it says?

      November 19, 2011 at 12:35 am | Report abuse |
    • T3chsupport

      And it's not like their kids were much to brag about...

      November 19, 2011 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Grace Of The Witch

      You do understand that if the Adam & Eve story is true,
      we all came from incest.

      November 19, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kay

        Of course. But you should read some of the rationalizations folks put out about that being OK.

        November 19, 2011 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
  16. Joe

    I absolutely support gay marriage. I myself am gay. HOWEVER – the court made the correct legal decision in this matter. Even though i would like nothing better than the executive branch to toss out the law – legally they cannot. Executives do now have the power to selectively decide which laws they support and which laws they do not. They must enforce all laws without bias. Even though i think prop 8 is a disgusting hateful law, and i'm confident it will get tossed out in a higher court, it needs to be done through the correct channels.

    Now, I have to point out that this is the big difference between a liberal and a conservative. A conservative would NEVER defend the interests of a liberal, even if their side acted illegally. I've never once seen a conservative say "hey, even though i disagree with you, my side is violating your rights." They're far too small minded and bigoted for that form of higher judgement.

    November 18, 2011 at 6:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michele

      I completely agree with what you've said. However, I have seen numerous examples of liberals doing the same thing. They will prattle on and on about free speech then say we need to curtail what is said on AM radio, for example. Conservatives are all about small government until they want the government to dictate marriage and abortion laws. The only common sense left is quasi-libertarianism, but there just too many people who want a handout or government involvement in whatever it is they have special interests for it to work. So on we go, status quo. Wrangling over stupid things like who can marry who,as if it mattered to anyone personally (except in the case of children, of course, where consent doesn't apply).

      November 18, 2011 at 6:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • paleo

      What you consider disgusting and hateful is the will of the people to live under the will of God. God designed marriage between a man and a woman, and anything else is morally wrong. It is morally wrong to live the way you're living and you need to repent of your sins and get right with God. You need to ask the Lord Jesus Christ to come into your life and heal you. It is only through Jesus that our sins are forgiven. All sin leads to death, and without His pardon for your sins, you will be found guilty on judgement day and sentenced to hell. God doesn't want that to happen to you, so seek out Jesus. Don't wait, because there is no guarantee on our lives; tomorrow may be too late. God bless.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Mike

    What part of marriage is between a man and a woman don't you understand. And how dare the Gov and AG go against the will of the people of the great state of California who approved Prop 8 over 50% and not support those us who voted yes on Prop 8 and defend it even though they disagree with it. It is their sworn duties.

    November 18, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      So, according to your logic: Blacks still shouldn't be able to marry whites, schools should be segregated by race, and there should be "white" and "colored" drinking fountains. None of those were done away with by a 50+% popular vote. Or are you so ignorant you don't know your basic facts about how people got their rights in this country? Moron.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:08 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Voltairine

    The time will come when people will look back at our time with disdain for all of these people who oppose gay marriage. They will face-palm and shake their heads over the galactic absurdity of refusing to let gay people marry as most of us do today over people who had opposed inter-racial marriages. There is no rational reason not to let them wed; just prejudice, non-sense and hate. Grow up America.

    November 18, 2011 at 5:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Elephant

      Will we also laugh in absurdity that since marriage is an "economic union" that a man cannot marry his mother to form an economic union? Or does biological mating somehow come back into the picture now? Will we also laugh in absurdity that a man can't have 3 husbands and put them on his benefits as a civil right? Will we also laugh in absurdity that since marriage has nothing to do with biological mating that a man can't marry his sister to share benefits, retirement, and clear inheritance rights?

      Since marriage is only about Love, committment, and economic union, how DARE you deny the civil rights of two brothers who need this union, based on your belie they don't have certain feelings of lust that somehow are still a requirement.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Elephant

      The comparison between gay marriage and interracial marriage is absurd. A black and white have the consequences of mating to consider, that very likely they will create a family, because they are mates. Thus it is important for the individuals, the couple, potential children, extended families, and society as a whole that these two unite.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Voltairine

        Love is the key and there are no consequences to letting two gay people marry. Your "argument" or implication are that this would mean to close relatives producing children with sever birth-defects is a monument to absurdity. Gay marriage harms nobody nor produces children so afflicted. There is no difference between the bigotry of prohibiting inter-racial marriage and prohibiting gay marriage. The only reason that you and your ilk are against it is prejudice and your "reasons" are mere excuses in a vain effort to conceal that fact.

        November 18, 2011 at 5:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • lroy

        I love you said the mouse for that. From this woman to that man.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:56 pm | Report abuse |
  19. Judge Not Lest Ye be Judged

    It looks like a bunch of self-righteous, self-anointed gods are making anti-gay posts on this board.

    Might there be a surprise trap door for them at the Pearly Gates?

    November 18, 2011 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • mabel floyd

      great post-i agree

      November 18, 2011 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Martin

      I assume you'll be going to heaven. That's a point in favor of hell right there.

      November 18, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Church of Suicidal

      I can hear the Freakbasher's protests already. "I'm not supposed to be here – I hated them just like you told me to, Lord!"

      November 18, 2011 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
  20. Relictus

    I know, right? It's like INT is their dump stat.

    November 18, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • PattyCakes

      Rel, you are an ultra dork. Get off the WoW, save some money and go get laid. Dork.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:32 pm | Report abuse |
  21. Bill92395

    The bigger conversation is about the definition, not the rights. In a society, there has to be value to long standing traditions and values. Break down those traditions and values and you loose the core of what you are and become something else. The traditional definition of the word marriage does need to be protected; its definition left intact. IF the "fight" is for equal rights then it is an easy task, granted simply. (If civil partnership laws simply stated that any couple joined as a civil union shall have all of the same rights and privledges as a couple joined under the traditional laws governing the rights and privledges of a man and a woman and husband and wife.)

    I believe that EVERYONE should (and in many ways already does) have equal protection of the vast majority of these rights. But, I DO NOT believe the definition of the word "marraige" should be changed. I DO NOT want to fight the battle everywhere the word "marraige" appears in law, in school books ... and by extension, in religious doctrine – and it will. It will because the same fundamentally small group of people who want to change the definition of marriage, as opposed to actually just fight for the rights, are generally the same liberal groups of people who don't see value in religion anyway. It is difficult to not want TODAY something that SEEMS ok and right. We have become a society that doesn't think enough about the future (unless its our governments budgets), but these are the sorts of decisions that form the character of our country. There is nothing that prevents us from doing something better, for a longer, better benefit to our country and culture than simply doing something becasue Canada has it, or "Europe" has it.

    And don't give me the "separate is not equal" Brown vs Board of education. This is NOT a race issue. It is NOT an equality issue, though many try to make it so. There are plenty of laws protecting the individual legal rights of EVERYONE. Its about a word. Change the word, change the arguement to be about the rights and 80% plus people will be on board.

    November 18, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkInPDX

      Sorry, but you don't own a word, and definitions, like traditions, change. And the "separate but equal" argument is utterly valid here. As long as you legislate that gay unions can't be called "marriage", then they, inherently, are something different and violate the equal protection clause.

      November 18, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkInPDX

      And if you think we already have equal protection, then you're not paying attention. Simple example: Social Security benefits.

      November 18, 2011 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      So what you are saying is we should bring back slavery and take away the rights of women to vote. In the name of tradition of course.

      November 18, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • brett

      There was a time where white and blacks couldn't be legally married, so should those marriages not be called marriage? marriage should only be defined by whether two humans want to be connected either legally and or religiously. Marriage is the act of joining and it shouldn't be based upon who is joining.


      November 18, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Martin

      Separate but equal. Where have I heard that before?

      November 18, 2011 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • pogojo

        civil union equal for all

        November 18, 2011 at 9:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hmmmmm

      Well put bill!

      November 18, 2011 at 5:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • QS

      "Break down those traditions and values and you loose the core of what you are and become something else."

      Now people are starting to get it! Traditions and values are not synonymous, just as religion and morality are not.

      Some traditions are designed to be broken down and changed. Keeping things the way they are for the sake of keeping things the way they are is never a winning strategy in regards to progress.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • FKell

      Well, I think everyone would consider that a good first step if there was equal rights, but at present, there are not. There is no federal law allowing you have a joint tax filing. There is no protection at the federal level that allows you to receive benefits (many companies do this, but that can just as easily be changed at the next benefits enrollment period say if the company is looking to save a few more percent so someone can get their bonus...). There is no implicit right as being direct beneficiary in event of death. There is no right to not be forced to testify against the other person. There is no right to access at a hospital. There is no right to make legal decisions like if the person wished to be kept alive on machines when there was little to no hope of recovery/cure... When all those things exist, and are in the federal law which mandates that these rights apply to everyone, then I might be able to agree with you, a little.

      But as what has already been said, we already tried that whole "separate, but equal" thing, and it was far from equal. If anything, the government should simply get out of the whole "marriage" thing in the first place. It solves a lot of problems when you think about it. Many religions and cultures allow, encourage, and approve of polygamy. Yet, the USA doesn't because it was generally built from the Christian viewpoint, which was in many ways based on the Jewish viewpoint (Jesus was a Jew remember), and in that belief system, "marriage" was for life and only with one other person. Yet, this country was suppose to not impose the religious believes of one group of people on another (hence the "Congress shall make no law" statement in the "Bill of Rights"). Yet, it has made a law, and multiple laws, which goes against many religions with respect to "marriage". Government should get out of the business entirely, and let the religions marry people.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ben James

      The definition of marriage is neither universal nor is it static. The definition of marriage has changed over time, and continues to change and evolve in order to meet the needs and challenges of the community.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • arthurrrr

        God invented and designed marriage and He hasn't changed it. God will never ever Bless gay marriage since it is NOT part of His design.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        Actually, you should read the *original* definition. It hasn't changed.

        November 19, 2011 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      If your only definition of marriage is based on religion, you've already lost the argument man.

      MY religion defines marriage as "any number of any adults deciding to share their lives and assets while standing over Bill92935's bloody corpse".

      That is why religion doesn't get to dictate laws. They contradict each other and that leads to a$sh4ts like yourself telling people they're not allowed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      there is no law that states you must get married.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Maya

      "In a society, there has to be value to long standing traditions and values. Break down those traditions and values and you loose [sic] the core of what you are and become something else."

      That is an illogical load of crap. Who says that we need long-standing traditions? Is it because that's the way it is always been that reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. The fact that a practice or idea has been in existence for any arbitrary amount of time does not confer upon it any objective value. It used to be tradition to sacrifice animals. It used to be tradition to put on passion plays at Easter and depict Jews in them as bloodthirsty, devious murderers. It used to be tradition to do a lot of ignorant, destructive things. Should we bring them all back for the sake of tradition?

      The man makes the values and traditions; the values and traditions do not make the man. Values and traditions are nothing but ideas and memories, and ideas and memories cannot exist outside of the mind. It is therefore illogical to say that abandoning them somehow changes something intrinsic within the individual, as it is that thing that created them in the first place. The worth of values and traditions can only be objectively measured by the desirability of the results they create. If your value or tradition creates a destructive or absurd result, you change it. It is that simple.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • Larry pooface

        The definition of marriage has changed many times before. Catholic priests in France during the 1500's did not perform weddings like they do now. Marriage was also often arranged in many parts of the western world, as well as Asia, Africa, and South America. Marriage was used as a tool to strengthen a persons ability to survive; two are stronger than 1, and so on. Marriage for love is a more modern concept. Values have changed. If we kept the all of our American values of the past, we would have never evolved into the diverse nation we are today. If our values prevent anyone in this country from enjoying a benefit that is available to all, it is not a good value to have. This is especially true when it comes to religious values. You know that stuff isn't real, don't you? We mad it up so we don't go crazy. Think hard about it; it's really funny sounding when you talk it out.

        November 19, 2011 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
    • DJL

      Sorry, but "Separate, but equal is not equal" still applies. It's about equal rights for ANY minority, not simply race. In any case, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment covers it. Prop 8 WILL be overturned by the Supreme Court and within 10 years of that, each and every state in the Union will have to allow gay marriage.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lee

        Although I agree Prop 8 SHOULD be overtuned I don't believe the current make-up of the court will permit that. This court has shown far too often that it is a politically active court and with 4 of the Justices being extreme right wing and 1 usually leaning in that direction, I would be very surprised by anything other than a 5-4 vote upholding Prop 8.

        November 19, 2011 at 3:23 am | Report abuse |
      • Count OnIt

        Lee, remember Lawrence v. Texas? In that case it was a 6 – 3 decision by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court that made So-d- omy Legal in Texas between consenting adults as well as in all of the nation's other states. Therefore, take it from that. For more see: http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/lawvtex

        November 19, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Obviousness

      This is an equality issue. They're voting on whether gays have the same right to marriage as straights. That is a blatant and obvious equality issue. Personally, i think gay folks should be able to have a civil union and call it a marriage if they want. Put their partner on their health insurance, list em as beneficiaries, whatever. I dont think very many gay people WANT to get married in a church and why would they? Christians dont need to worry about them "gaying" up their church so why do people feel the need to block this?

      November 18, 2011 at 8:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • pogojo

        They can have the same rights, i think its just them trying to use the word marrige that offends so many people

        November 18, 2011 at 9:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gadflie

      There are over a dozen DIFFERENT definitions of marriage in this country, not even counting the ones that have changed in the last ten years. Isn't it time to quit pretending that there is only a single definition or that there is something sacred about it. The oldest surviving laws about marriage described it as a civil contract, it didn't mention religion at all.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • pogojo

        civil contrace, see you know what is needed.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:16 pm | Report abuse |
  22. mark

    Isnt it great that Cnn allows you to state hat ing one group but not the other? You can disdain christinans but according to the play book of C n n 'Thout shall not esxpess disdain for Home specticals? Look arround and gather the Hat red and you will find who the largest pile is.

    November 18, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkInPDX

      So you're upset that you can't express your bigotry? That sucks for you.

      November 18, 2011 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      Tekstep isn’t expressing hate for anyone. He is suggesting that your sky fiery does. You didn’t answer MarkInPDX’s question. Are you in fact upset you can’t express your bigotry? Do you demand the equal right? Hmm hypocrisy from a theist… somehow I’m not shocked.

      November 18, 2011 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      *sky fairy

      While you're complaining... ask for an edit button.

      November 18, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • mark

      I didnt express hate towards anyone. I just pointed out a duality. Christians are called to love one another as themselves. That does not mean accept anything a person does. and it doesnt mean you have to accept everything as equal. I personally dont care if you are gay or not. As long as you dont make it the primary reason for your exsistance. You can throw out as many insults as you like about Christians and God and it wont change a thing. We Christains are use to it. We have thicker skin than that. But You have a grerat day....

      November 18, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Raif

      Not all Christians are ignorant fools... some Christians are beautiful empathetic people, while others are hateful xenophobic ridden folk... i am no christian, but i know that i am a loving and empathetic person who believes that all people should be allowed to love whom they wish, my country and especially the state that i was born and raised in, should recognize that love is not a choice or a privilege, love is like water or air, we need it to survive.... all of us, even you Mark. I am not gay, but i support human rights 100%. just as much as i support your right to be whatever you are.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Report abuse |
  23. fred freakbasher

    Nice try...whatever you call it you will forever be considered freaks of nature by 99% of the world ..so call it what you like you will NEVER maintain "rights" in the eyes of society...SORRY

    November 18, 2011 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
  24. Nicole

    Hahaha...I know right!!

    November 18, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
  25. Ajax

    Your right. It isn't gay marriage. Whether its gays marrying or straight marrying it is MARRIAGE plain and simple.

    November 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
  26. James

    The Bible also says God hates divorce, yet no one seems to be fighting to illegalize that. Checkmate.

    November 18, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Talk Some Sense!

      Listen buddy, I thought I finally had someone to blame my divorces on. You're telling me now that gay people are NOT to blame? Shoot. Time to look for another scapegoat!

      November 18, 2011 at 1:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Hmmmmm

        Divorce is a result of people that are looking for superficial satisfaction of the moment that will not sustain the relationship beyond the attraction of the superficial.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kay

        No, hmmmm. While that sometimes is the case, it often isn't. So please stop trying to diminish an often difficult decision just because you feel like being superficial yourself.

        November 19, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nicole

      LOL!! Another reason I won't read the bible or go to church lol! I like the checkmate haha!! 🙂

      November 18, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Me

      The key here is that God did not pen the Bible, men did.

      November 18, 2011 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • lroy

        Men wrote the Bible, but it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is God, so in a sense God wrote it using humans as His instrument. Thus sayith she.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • DJL

        @Iroy: gods are imaginary, man-made myths, and man has invented LOTS of them (there are over 120,000 religions CURRENTLY in practice). There's no proof that they exist, therefore they don't. (You can't prove that something doesn't exist, therefore you have to prove that it does to know that it exists.)

        November 18, 2011 at 8:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • SixDegrees

        Dave – while you were typing that, did your eyes spin in circles in opposite directions while "Pop Goes the Weasel" was playing inside your head? I'm just curious.

        November 19, 2011 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
      • rider_83

        And from the book they wrote they decided they have the right to tell everyone else how to live and believe!!

        November 19, 2011 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • mark

      Who do you think opened the door for legalized divorce? Secularists. The 'Church has always maintained divorce to be wrong.

      November 18, 2011 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • Relictus

        Yet the church is happy to allow divorcees to remarry. Some baby mamas make a career out of it.

        November 18, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • mark

        Not true.. Who does benifit from divorce? Lawyers, therapists, child psycologists, Prisons, and liberals

        November 18, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sean


        You forgot the devoiced. Then again maybe my mother should have stayed married to the man that beat her until she was hospitalized. Surely had she stayed your sky fairy would have intervened at some point. On an unrelated note…. How is that end of days thing coming? It’s been about 2000 years and he was supposed to return within the apostils life time.

        November 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • mark

        Ridicule and snappy come backs thats all you got Ground Fairy? neener neener..... Come on grow up

        November 18, 2011 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • mark

        Besides Sean divorce wont solve a man beating his wife. Law would solve that. Just becouse you get a divorce doesnt mean that you are protected from abuse now does it.

        November 18, 2011 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Martin

        The Church has been divorcing people for years. Except they call it annulment and you have to pay for it. Just the usual hypocrisy.

        November 18, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • mark

        "That would make you an exception. As we all know exception does not make the rule. So please stop expecting people to do otherwise." Your words not mine Exception doesnt make the rule

        November 18, 2011 at 6:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • SixDegrees

        Uh – just wrong. No church utterly forbids divorce or declares it to be universally wrong without exception. Not one.

        November 19, 2011 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
      • Kay

        No Mark, but divorcing an abusive spouse can help get you out of that situation with no legal bindings left to hold you in some sort of relationship with the abuser.

        If you don't want to face the even slightest potential for divorce, then don't get married. Because, if you *do* get married, then divorce is no longer only up to you.

        November 19, 2011 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Flappy

        Mark: I find you naïveté both charming and amusing. Secularists invented divorce? Hilarious. Tell that to Henry the eighth who cut off the heads of his wives when he got tired of them.

        November 19, 2011 at 4:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • George

      The Bible also endorses slavery, but I don't see the fundamentalists campaigning for that.

      November 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jesus

      There's a whole industry built around getting married and an equally large industry developed around dissolving the marriage. Making divorce illegal would likely cause a precipitous drop in marriages. That would indirectly crush Church interests, "family" lawyers businesses , pschiatrists, wedding planners and wedding venues....the list goes on and on. It would be too economically detrimental to ever be considered.

      November 20, 2011 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
  27. Wrong Discussion

    This discussion is off... First of all, yes, the LDS Church did push it's membership to work in favor of Prop 8. But let's face it, you can't attribute the level of blame you're assigning to them, their influence was noticed but wasn't going to sway anyone. They just helped mobilize people who were already going to vote for Prop 8.

    I oppose Prop 8, but I also oppose judicial activism. What should happen here is those who disagree with Prop 8 should be rallying support for VOTERS to repeal it. That said, it's a good thing this battle is resuming, hopefully one of these cases will get to the Supreme Court and we put the issue to rest nationwide.

    November 18, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • tekstep1

      The large majority of voters in southern states were adamantly against Civil Rights legislation. Does that mean it shouldn't have been made into law?

      November 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Wrong Discussion

        It's a tired argument with little parallel... Sorry. Even my gay friends are sick of hearing the comparison.

        November 18, 2011 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkInPDX

      It should never have been put to a vote in the first place. That's the point. You can't legislate away the rights of a certain class of people.

      November 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
  28. mb2010a

    How about the other way around...send all the bigoted Xians to Mars and leave the gays here. Much better idea...

    November 18, 2011 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
  29. mark

    No amount of legislation can make people like you. That goes for Gays and Christians. If you find that walking down the street hand in hand and kissing is offensve to many people. Maybe you should keep that in your bedroom. Its not for the public square. If you find yourself being shunned by folks becouse you point fingers and condemn them, than maybe its no wonder why you dont have any friends. We still live in a country that is mostly Christian not mostly Gay. 4 All you gays get over it you will never be accepted as 'Normal" becouse your not! you are a small group of folks that deserve our pitty and compassion, like alchoholics and drug additcts. Its not their choise either. But you will never gain acceptance for your life style, especially by force. We are all destined to be better than we are, not like animals.

    November 18, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
  30. sumthin-under-u

    God created us as men and woman..changing our human form of life from man to woman or woman to a man is like going against his creation. The bible predicts this, and its a sin..thats one of the reasons why this world is corrupted and is coming to an end. We have to scrutinize the scripters in the hloy bible.

    November 18, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
  31. FedUp

    Or Xtians. Earth would be way better off without them.

    November 18, 2011 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
  32. Steve

    Hatred for a group of people = bigotry
    Hatred for bigotry = sanity

    Nobody here is proposing for some sort of oppression of the religious right. They want the religious right to stop oppressing a group of people that cause no harm. To call that bigotry is not just wrong, it's dishonest.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
  33. V2787

    Allow me to repeat what Rachel Maddow so wisely said: "Here's the thing about rights. They're not actually supposed to be voted on. That's why they're called rights." Marriage equality for all citizens of this country is a right. It's not supposed to be voted on. Get over yourselves, religious bigots, and stop denying equal rights to everyone.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:53 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill the Cat

      The minute you mentioned that Feminazi ultra-liberal Rachel Maddow, you lost every bit of credibility.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • DKinCA

        The minute the righties mention G. Gordon Liddy I wonder why the right takes guidance from a convicted criminal. Or, Rush the pill popping addict who is big and fat again because he failed at his diet. Laura Ingraham...didn't she have an abortion in her early 20's? One thing in common is they all make millions spouting "opinions" that make them more $$.

        Talk about credibility issues.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
  34. AC

    that gets more funny each time i see some idiot write or say that

    November 18, 2011 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Jessica, NJ

      LOL, like a cat or a truck could give informed consent to the marriage.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
  35. MM

    The only thing freaky around here is your incoherence.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
  36. Paul

    Soon, pets will want to marry our trucks! Then what?!!! The bible says... um.... something about.... um.... well.....

    November 18, 2011 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
  37. mark

    You can try all you want but you cant make legislation and force people to like you. That goes for christians as well as gays. We still live in a country that is mostly christian, not mostly gay. If you find that most people are offended by gayness, It would be best for you to not wear it on your sleave.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  38. littlehippo

    the only issues i hear against gay marriage is based on religious views. gay people are not harming anyone by existing. unless it a criminal case and you are part of the law , it shouldn’t concern you what people do. worry about your own self and soul.

    November 18, 2011 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill the Cat

      No one cares what they do in the privacy of their own homes. They care about government recognition.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
      • Jessica, NJ

        They have a right to government recognition because every one is equal and they pay taxes too.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
      • Bill the Cat

        So did Warren Jeffs.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sean

        Bill I release critical thinking is difficult for some so I’ll make this very basic. CHILDREN are NOT considered consenting adultes. As far as his polygamy goes, many of the Bibles ‘heroes’ were polygamists.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Hypatia

    So where should people send the "Oh sorry about your dead bigot" cards to your family when you kick off?

    November 18, 2011 at 11:03 am | Report abuse |
  40. Hypatia

    Does that mean California can declare any measure shoved through our legistature by a church based in Utah illegal, too? Or should we just declare war?

    November 18, 2011 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill the Cat


      November 18, 2011 at 11:27 am | Report abuse |
    • CypressSteve

      You give the Mormon church way too much credit... A belief that they somehow got Catholics, Evangelicals, and African Americans to do their bidding defies all logic and reason. They are simply too small to have that kind of influence. They are just the convenient whipping boy here. The hard truth is simply that those who wish to preserve marriage and family in its traditional form won a politcal contest over those that don't. Finding a "bogeyman" to blame the loss on simply delays the debate over the merits of the issue.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:29 am | Report abuse |
      • Biowrkout

        Actually, you can lay a fair amount of blame at the mormon church's feet. Its ok, they knew what they were doing, and so did everyone who voted for it. They are proud of what they did, and therefore nobody should feel remorse in placing blame where it belongs.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sean

        Actually Cypress that is incorrect. What we call marriage today is not its original form. Marriage was originally a contract between two men. Marriage normally involved the giving of a daughter to another man but not always. Women did NOT have rights and there for could NOT enter into a contract.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • MarkInPDX

        Your assumption (and mistake) is that it's OK to vote away the rights of a certain class of people because you don't like how they live their lives.

        November 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
  41. inspector gadget

    Religion is the greatest invention of mankind. It has been controlling the masses for centuries. It still does and Prop. 8 is proof.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:55 am | Report abuse |
    • mcool123

      cool name inspector Gadget

      November 18, 2011 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      No, we just don't agree with the pro-gay lobby's agenda to indoctrinate others.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:09 am | Report abuse |
      • mcool123

        Pro-gay? what are you talking about? what is Pro-gay?

        November 18, 2011 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        Indoctrination....Robert you really need to look at your religion again. Religion loves to indoctrinate their followers, especially the children because they know no better.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill the Cat

      Socialism controls the masses far better than religion does.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
      • 6km N of Ground Zero

        There isn't a lot of socialism in this country, outside of the currently fashionable bloviated rhetoric of right-wing pundits.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
      • Bill the Cat

        I wasn't specifically talking about the US.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • mb2010a

        But religion has been doing it a lot longer...

        November 18, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Martin

        At least socialism gives them everything they need (work, housing, food, education, medical care). Religion just gives them a guilty conscience or, for some, a license to let their inflated egos run wild in self-righteous, bigoted rants.

        November 18, 2011 at 5:03 pm | Report abuse |
  42. Dave

    Randy – you just don't seem to know much about US history. Rights are frequently expanded by the courts as they interpret the Const.itution. One example that is relevant to this story - in 1967, the US Supreme Court granted the right of marriage to interracial couples throughout the US, even though it was against state law in 16 states at the time. Majority rule in those states on that particular issue was overruled by the Court, based totally on the fact that the laws the citizens had enacted in those states, directly or through their legislatures, violated the 14th Amendment of the Const.itution.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:53 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill the Cat

      Marriage is not a right. The government does not owe you a spouse.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:29 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        Actually the US Supreme Court, in two separate cases (Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Safley) has stated that marriage is a fundamental right. Also, citizens have a right to equal treatment under the law, guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, unless there is some overriding reason based on the general public good. Since government grants certain rights, benefits, and protections based on marital status, it must do so in a fair and equitable manner.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse |
  43. Sean

    Put up or shut up.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:48 am | Report abuse |
    • gandfs

      Didn't I just say I'm putting up? Please read before making stupid remarks...

      November 18, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
  44. gradschooldude

    It will be interesting to see the sociological and psychological developments that occur in countries where equal marriage rights are extended. Rather than viewing our relationships as flawed, second-class, and inferior, perhaps as gays and lesbians, we will now see the inherent worth of our relationships. Imagine the effect on an entire generation of lesbian and gay kids growing up in a country where they perceive themselves and their relationships as valued and worthy. Canada, as opposed to the USA, is on the vanguard with this issue. Bravo and kudos to their government and populace acknowledging the inherent worth of all relationships–equally under the law.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      It is pretty amazing to live so close to your country and see such incredible differences. We have no shortage of right wing whack jobs up here, too, but the majority of people are either fully supportive of gay marriage or really just don't think about it, which, in a way, is pretty positive too. Imagine: A gay marriage wouldn't even register as noteworthy outside of the couple and their families and friends.

      Of course, you ask the Canadian religious right, and they will tell you the "gays" are ruining something or other, and probably making their own marriages less marriage-y, but whatever.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
  45. paul moore

    What's true is true.
    Aren't we all looking for that?
    We're working together on that I hope.(trying to be mutually encouraging)

    November 18, 2011 at 10:43 am | Report abuse |
  46. Canadian

    Guys! Just come to Canada? We've got this whole thing figured out, and the crazies are just a small minority! Come!

    November 18, 2011 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      Absolutely. Spend your tourist dollars. Eat in our restaurants. Stay in our hotels. Buy things. Vancouver is a lovely place for a wedding.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:04 am | Report abuse |
    • Zach

      We did! My boyfriend in the US, husband in Canada, moved to Toronto in March for marriage equality. We will NEVER go back.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Nicole

        Zach, I just wanted to wish you both the best and say congrats on your marriage! It's great to see that you found happiness and aren't letting the majority affect and sway you!! CONGRATS!!! And Happy Holidays 🙂

        November 18, 2011 at 6:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nicole

      I need to come to Canada...at least I can serve as myself in the Canadian military. Recently, DADT was repealed in the US military...unfortunately, Trans people still cannot serve openly and the gays and lesbians cannot receive benefits. We need change...what difference does it make to anyone else who I am or what I believe anyway?

      November 18, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • justin

        because they are taught from a very young age that you are weird and wrong. they are scared of something "different." its basic psychology that speaks to the selfishness of human beings.

        November 18, 2011 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • justin

        ps I dont know you but I think you are beautiful

        November 18, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Nicole

        Awwww...thank you sooo much Justin!! That just made my day 🙂

        November 18, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mzyvonne

      Yes....please go to Canada.

      November 18, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Audrey

      Getting a visa can be a bit of a challenge, though. Not much use to go up to Canada to get married if your marriage won't be recognized when you come home.

      November 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse |
  47. angelotrn

    Finally a well written statement of intellect that is clear, concise and informed. Not something we usually see here in this forum. Thank-you Timmy.

    November 18, 2011 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
    • timmy

      You're welcome

      November 18, 2011 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
      • mcool123

        i like your statment timmy!!!!

        November 18, 2011 at 11:10 am | Report abuse |
  48. Dave

    Anybody else wish CNN would get a more sophisticated word check/blocker installed?? Having to search through a post to find/fudge possible questionable words - especially those completely embedded in other words - is really annoying. Like posting on an article on Const.itutional issues, and having to find and modify it because it contains the word "t.it."

    November 18, 2011 at 10:29 am | Report abuse |
  49. timmy

    a few things christians need to consider about marriage...

    First, marriage doesn't belong to you, christians. Marriage predates recorded history and definitely predates christianity. Marriage is a social union or contract between two people and has nothing to do with se..xual orientation.

    Second, regarding hom..ose...xuality as a sin....do you realize that fallible human beings wrote the bible? So because some man 2000 years ago thought it was a "sin", you continue the bigotry of the religion by discriminating against the ho..mos...exual population. I am not g..ay, but I believe everyone in this country has basic human rights and marriage should be one of them. Also, you do realize that ho..mos..exuality runs rampant in nature, right? All types of species have ho..mo..s..exual populations. If god is all powerful and all knowing, and he considers ho..mos...exuality a sin, you would think he could at least control the animal population from being g..ay, right?

    Are animals consciously making the choice to be g..ay? Doubtful. They have been genetically born this way. We are nothing but animals with a different level of consciousness, but our basic biology is similar. Being g..ay is not a choice, its genetics.....

    November 18, 2011 at 10:23 am | Report abuse |
    • BethMN

      I am a devout Christian that fully supports the rights of gays to marry. PLEASE DO NOT lump me in with those who ... I can't even think of a way to describe those Christians who are pulling this "holier than thou" business. Should be a simple enough fix ... separate the two ... civil marriage and religious ceremony.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        But technically you dont support the rights for gays to marry unless it is civilly and not religiously. So according to you, its ok to discriminate against someone based on religious belief, even if the gay couple has the same religious beliefs as you, but not ok to discriminate on a social-economic level. So its ok for gays to marry.........as long as it is not in the church. If the church wants to discriminate against these people, fine. But their tax exempt status should be taken away.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:48 am | Report abuse |
      • BethMN

        timmy – two separate issues, don't confuse them. There are many Christians that support gay marriage in a religious environment – that's for church doctrine; but Prop 8 is about the legal contract of marriage between gays.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
      • Sean

        @ BethMN
        That would make you an exception. As we all know exception does not make the rule. So please stop expecting people to do otherwise.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        Beth,I guess i misunderstood your post...my apologies, however, the two (religious ceremony and civil union) are already separate depending on state laws. I am not married so maybe I am out of touch, but I thought one would need a marriage license in order to be legally married? I was under the assumption that two people can for go religious ceremony and go to the court and be legally married.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:00 am | Report abuse |
      • gradschooldude

        BethMN, While I acknowledge your attempt to find the "middle of the road" on this issue, have two separate classes of citizens–those who have civil unions and those who have marriages, set up the situation where there are "first class" and "class citizens." Not an optimal or equitable situation. There are legal, health, and financial benefits afforded those who are married, that are not afforded to those who are in "civil unions." Having two classes of citizens is an untenable situation.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:01 am | Report abuse |
      • gradschooldude

        BethMN, While I acknowledge your attempt to find the "middle of the road" on this issue, having two separate classes of citizens–those who have civil unions and those who have marriages, sets up the situation where there are "first class" and "second class citizens." Not an optimal or equitable situation. There are legal, health, and financial benefits afforded those who are married, that are not afforded to those who are in "civil unions." Having two classes of citizens is an untenable situation.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        @Timmy – take care not to get caught up in bigoted stereotypes yourself. A majority of Americans, roughly 80% considering themselves to be people of faith, support same-gender marriage. The Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest US Lutheran denomination (ELCA), the largest US Jewish group (Reformed Jews), the United Church of Christ, the MCC, and the Unitarian Universalists all allow consecration of same-gender relationships and/or the ordination of people in them. The largest civil-rights organization in NJ, the gay-rights group Garden State Equality, has a disproportionately high percentage (~20%) of clergy on it's large Board of Directors, and many others are people of faith as well. Christians and Jews have very high profile positions in the fight for gay rights, both here in NJ and in other states I know of as well. Most Christians I know support gay rights and, actually, most gay people I know are active Christians themselves. So don't get caught up by the fact that anti-gay ultraconservative Christians seem to get all the press.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        Dave, please post a citation as to where you are getting this information. I always like to see empirical data from a reputable source as to broaden my knowledge of the subjects being discussed and cited. Without citations, your numbers are speculation in my eyes. My "bigoted stereotypes" are based on what I have experienced in the world so far in my life, as well as things I read or see on the news. Have you ever read the "belief blog" on CNN? Most of those christians say hateful, bigoted things that refute your arguments.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
      • Grace

        I know the media makes it unbelievable that a liberal wouldn't support gay marriage. However, I have met some people that are liberals when it comes to social issues, but they do not support gay marriage. I have also met conservatives that do support gay marriage. Not, every reason for agreeing or disagreeing when it comes to gay marriage is a religious reason. This is what is wrong with the people of this nation. They tend to believe the media when they use words like "Majority" and "Polls". The media can't tell you how a person feels because they haven't talked to every single citizen on this country. If you want to know how people feel about this issue, talk to the people you see and come in contact with. If you are truthful with yourself, you will understand that people agree and disagree on the issue of gay marriage for many different reasons and it is not based on which political party they support.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        Grace, you are correct. Polls are garbage and do not reflect the entire population. I am simply stating my view based on what I have experienced, who ive talked to and what I have read. Many christians that I have spoken to absolutely think that being gay is a sin and they should not have equal rights. Many christians still believe that this is a christian nation. But facts in my post such as, ho..mo..se...xuality runs rampant in nature, and how the bible was written by man is indisputable.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Primewonk

        I am a devout Christian that fully supports the rights of black folks to marry. PLEASE DO NOT lump me in with those who ... I can't even think of a way to describe those Christians who are pulling this "holier than thou" business. Should be a simple enough fix ... separate the two ... marriage for black folks and marriage for white folks.

        I am a devout Christian that fully supports the rights of black kids to go to school. PLEASE DO NOT lump me in with those who ... I can't even think of a way to describe those Christians who are pulling this "holier than thou" business. Should be a simple enough fix ... separate the two ... schools for black kids and schools for white kids.

        Sadly, good Christian folks said exactly these things.

        Per SCOTUS, separate but equal is not equal.

        November 18, 2011 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sean

        As stated above. That would make you an exception. As we all know exception does not make the rule.

        November 18, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sildenafil

        I have to agree here with Beth – simply make the only thing gov't can recognize is a civil union. Leave it up to the churches to decide if they want to allow same s.ex marriages within their congregations.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tonlok

      Actually, the bible doesn't ever use the word 'sin' to describe ho.mo.se.xuality(which the word didn't even exist until the 1900's. The word used to describe laying with another man is "Abomination", which wounds very scray, but, the word doesn't mean today what it did then. The literal definition they used for abomination was "unconventional or non-traditional".
      Fun fact: Other practices considered "Abominations" in the bible include planting mulitple types of crops in the same row and wearing two different types of clothing at the same time(wool and cotton, leather and wool etc).

      November 18, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        my post using the word "sin" was basically to refute the arguments of christians who believe that ho...mose....xuality is a sin.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:49 am | Report abuse |
      • Bob Smith

        Sorry, but this is complelety false. Try again.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kevin

        Tonlok, could you show me what verses you where talking about when you said : "Other practices considered "Abominations" in the bible include planting mulitple types of crops in the same row and wearing two different types of clothing at the same time(wool and cotton, leather and wool etc)."

        I had never heard that so I wanted to see what verses you were talking about.

        Also, I did a quick search for verses with 'abomination' in them and read through Leviticus 18 in the 21st Century King James Version, and it sounds like the word 'abomination' has a more serious implication than just 'non-traditional'. Brief summary was that the land was defiled because of the abomination, and there souls would be cut off because of the abomination.

        I could be wrong, or we could have just been using different translation which use the word differently

        November 18, 2011 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • mark

        If you dont believe in Christianity, I guess its not sinning. But for the majority of folks in this Country and State of California do believe in Christianity and Sin, then I guess it is. Many of the posters here ARE Hateful towards a large segment of the population, and agressivley assult this group. May God have mercy on us all.

        November 18, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sildenafil

        Kevin – read Leviticus. All the abominations you want!

        November 18, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill the Cat

      Nothing you said is factual.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        who me? You sir, need to open a book other than the bible, or quran, or whatever "holy book" you read.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
      • Bill the Cat

        Yes, you. And if CNN would stop filtering posts, you'd see that you are ignorant of the two different words used for religious and moral abominations in the Torah.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        at least im not just plain old ignorant of everything in the world around me.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:53 am | Report abuse |
      • Bill the Cat

        Keep posting. Then others can be the judge of that...

        November 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        Bill if you want me to, I can post citations showing you the facts...but either way you will disregard empirical evidence so I wont waste my time. good day.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      @timmy - before I start posting citations, I'll start with just one, to make sure CNN actually allows posting of links. First, as an apparent gay-rights proponent, I hopefully don't need to prove to you that a slight majority of Americans support gay marriage. As for my statement that a large majority of Americans identify as people of faith, here is a relevant Wiki article. (And I know Wiki isn't necessarily perfect, but on topics like this, Wiki articles usually come with solid citations to show they are trustworthy.)

      November 18, 2011 at 11:36 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        Dave, I am not refuting that the majority of the population in the US is christian. What I am saying is that the majority of Christians not not accept gay marriage or gays in general.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        should read..."do not" not "not not"

        November 18, 2011 at 11:52 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Here are sites related to various Christian and Jewish denominations; I've had to fudge some with periods to get past CNN's word checker.:

      Also I just say your follow-up comment to my initial response. If the vast majority of Americans are people of faith, and the majority of Americans support gay marriage, you ought to be able to do the math ... that means that a fairly sizable percentage of American people of faith support same-gender marriage. There are pretty solid polls of Main-line Protestant Christians, as well as of Catholics, that support that conclusion. Black and Evangelical Churches tend to go the other way.

      November 18, 2011 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        It's not about the math...if it was, I would have to assume that you were correct in everything you say, and I said based on experience and what I have seen and read, I did not believe that was the case. Now that you have posted various sources, I can make an educated decision about my view points after reading said sources. thanks again.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        @timmy - actually, you wouldn't have to assume I was correct in EVERYTHING I said ... just that I was correct about the vast majority of Americans being people of faith (which is you already acknowledged), and a slight majority of Americans supporting gay marriage (which I assume you also are aware of). Mathematically, combining those two facts alone tells you that a substantial portion of American Christians - maybe not a majority, but a sizable percentage - support same-gender marriage.

        November 18, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      As for Garden State Equality in NJ, here is there website:
      And here is their Board of Directors ... which happens to identify most of the clergy among them. I know many of the others are also people of faith, though I can't prove it to you. (The Chair and CEO, while not a member of the clergy, is devoutly Jewish; see the second link.) I can also tell you that I attended a retirement celebration for another Board Member - a partnered gay pastor - last year that was attended by many past and present state officials, including a former Governor. So again, people of faith absolutely have a high profile in the fight for gay rights in NJ.

      If you research major gay-rights organizations in other states, I'm pretty sure you'll find the same thing. I know things are very similar in North Carolina.

      As for my personal experiences as a straight Christian that supports gay rights, again, most Christians I know support gay rights, and most gay people I know are active Christians. Now it is true that I live in NJ, which is relatively gay-friendly. You may live in a part of the country where the opposite is true. But rest assured that Christian opposition to marriage equality is not nearly as universal as you seem to think.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        dave, i never said that it was universal. It isnt, but based on my experience, most christians I have spoken to disagree with ho..mo..se..xuality and gay marriage. You are correct, alot has to do with location.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob Smith

      You might want to work on improving your understanding of especially biblical history before you comment on stuff of which you have no idea what you're talking about.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        prove to me using empirical data (not the bible) that what I have said is false. If you really want to talk history of the bible we can. History like how the bible was written by 30+ different people over 1500+ years, or how certain texts were excluded from the bible by man. Or would you like to discuss how religion has been used over history to discriminate, exploit, kill and torture people. Or how the people who wrote about Jesus never knew him personally, only wrote about him 40 years after his death. you pick.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Me

        Pretending that God wrote the Bible is naive. The opinions and assumptions of men, can be wrong. Think about it.

        November 18, 2011 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Me

      Could not have said it better. Thank you. No, I'm not gay either, but I do have respect for all of humankind.

      November 18, 2011 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kordax

      Yeah, take away the tax exempt status. You will open a whole new can of worms with that one that will counteract what you are trying to achieve in the first place. Genius!

      November 18, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kordax

        Check out around minute four of this video


        November 18, 2011 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Boes73

      Please do not use genetics in your argument as you clearly have (i) no science education; and (ii) no idea what you are talking about.

      November 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |
  50. Steve Lyons

    Every Gay man has a "right" to marry a woman, just as every Lesbian has a "right" to marry a man. Sounds pretty equal to me.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:45 am | Report abuse |
    • paparazzinc. c o m

      And every man has a right to be ignorant. You may be proof of this theory....

      November 18, 2011 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Steve – the "right" to marry only people you can't possibly fall in love and build a healthy, successful marriage with is no right at all. Only a moron would think otherwise.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:58 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        "maybe you are ignorant? You can't jkust go around calling people ignorants, unless you are including yourself in the name-calling game that you are playing like a freaking child."

        Mcool, why dont you take your own advice, sit down and shut up. Let the adults do the talking here and go back to your kiddie table.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
      • Hmmmmm

        What is your definition of and the purpose of marrage?

        November 18, 2011 at 10:29 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        Marriage is a social union or contract between two people. has nothing to do with se...xual orientation.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        @Hmmmm - since what we're really talking about here is the recognition of marriage by the state, though the bestowing of certain rights, benefits, and protections, the "purpose" of marriage is related to the state's interests in the development of healthy, happy, productive families. If that weren't the goal, government would have no reason to provide support for it, and there would be no 14th-Amendment issues involved.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
      • huhb

        And yet, CT v. Griswold makes reproduction within marriage optional. How can "happy healthy families" be the "goal," when no family of any kind – beyond the married couple – is a requirement of marriage?

        November 18, 2011 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        @huhb - I consider couples to be families in and of themselves, and believe the benefits of being in a loving, committed relationship to both the individuals involved and to society in general are pretty well-established. And as for kids, same-gender couples in significant (and rapidly increasing) numbers raise kids and typically do a wonderful job at it. And the benefits of stable, loving, healthy families for the kids involved are also very well established and carry over to the betterment of society as a whole. So I stand by what I said - the state's interest in marriage is the promotion of healthy, productive families. And it applies equally, regardless of whether the families are headed up by straight couples or same-gender couples, and whether or not there are kids involved.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:15 am | Report abuse |
    • Theguy

      Steve, here is a great question for you....

      How does the marriage of two complete strangers have any effect on you whatsoever?

      November 18, 2011 at 10:04 am | Report abuse |
      • mcool123

        you got an gmail adderess? Mine is trevitzm@gmail.com

        November 18, 2011 at 10:19 am | Report abuse |
    • mcool123

      Gay people have evry darn right to do whatever they want to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      November 18, 2011 at 10:09 am | Report abuse |
    • mcool123

      Steve you can say whatever you want

      November 18, 2011 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
    • huhb

      John and Steve go to City Hall and apply for a marriage license. They are denied. John goes back to City Hall with Mary and they apply for a marriage license. It's granted. Steve and Mary have been treated differently under the law based on their s ex. The Marriage Equality movement is simply about removing that s ex-discrimination from the law. Can you re-state your position on marriage without referencing the s ex of the participants?

      November 18, 2011 at 10:16 am | Report abuse |
      • shaunh20

        So what? People are treated differently every day under the law. Men can't use women's restrooms can they?

        November 18, 2011 at 10:17 am | Report abuse |
      • huhb

        Can you cite that law for me, shaunh20?

        November 18, 2011 at 10:22 am | Report abuse |
      • shaunh20

        Sure, it's called indecent exposure. Go into a womens restroom next time you are at a restaurant and see what happens.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:23 am | Report abuse |
      • huhb

        You didn't cite a law that specifically prohibits the use of a bathroom designated for one s ex by the other.

        I've been in plenty of places where there's been a long line for one (usually they women's), so they duck into the other. If no one else is in their, no "exposure" has taken place, and no law has been broken.

        And indecent exposure laws apply equally to men and women. Men have certainly been arrested for indecent exposure inside men's restrooms.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
      • shaunh20

        I could cite specific laws but they are too numerous to mention as they are local laws. And in your example, just because someone does something and gets away with it does not mean a law was not broken. This was just one example by the way. There are plenty of cases where laws are not equal. Look at affirmative action for example, by promoting equality it forces businesses to hire those who they may not otherwise hire, thus creating unequal treatment under law. Pretty ironic if you ask me.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
      • huhb

        Oh, I don't expect you to cite all of them. Can you cite just one?

        November 18, 2011 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
      • MM

        The whole washroom thing is a red herring. Can you mention one case, aside from marriage, where people are prohibited from entering contracts into based on their gender?

        November 18, 2011 at 11:14 am | Report abuse |
      • FedUp

        Oh, I don't expect you to cite all of them. Can you cite just one?

        @huhb – Classic! Good one!

        November 18, 2011 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • LadyNorse

      If an atheist can can get married and a couple in the 80's who can no longer procreate then exactly why can't two men or two women get married? Marriage is a contract between 2 people. Period. It should be legal for anyone who desires to enter the contract.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:16 am | Report abuse |
      • Bill the Cat

        Why just 2? And why not siblings? Or parent and child? Or the whole town? Why can't I "marry" all of the homeless people downtown and get them covered on my medical insurance?

        November 18, 2011 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • Only Defense

        Bill the cat is so dense with his clouded thinking that the only thing he and many other straight people can think to say for a comeback answer is to start making asinine comparisons and assumptions that make absolutely no sense but again, that is their only defense to this matter.

        November 18, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ozymandias71

      Steve, that argument makes about as much sense as saying 'Closing synagogues isn't discrimination, because Orthodox Jews have the same right to go to Christian churches as Christians do.'

      November 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brian2010

      Every black man has the right to marry a black woman just like every white man has the right to marry a white woman.
      Doesn't sound too good does it?

      How about this: If a man wants to marry a woman, he can. If a woman wants to marry that same woman, she can't. That is se.xist discrimination against women and women are already a protected class.

      November 18, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
  51. Dale

    Last time I read in the Bible, a Biblical marriage was a polygamist marriage. There are many men in the Bible that had many wives. Also remember, girls in their early adolescents were the ones with these men. So if gay marriage is a sin, polygamy and pedophilia shouldn't be because it was a practice in the Bible. Is that what these Christian are preaching? Wow....

    November 18, 2011 at 9:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Mystic American

      No, no you got it all wrong. The Bible said Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. That's a literal truth that *has* to be followed. Turning the other cheek, giving to charity, and forgiving those who sin against you – that's the metaphorical stuff and can be followed at your discretion.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:45 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        the bible also said that it is ok to beat your wife, kill your children and have slaves. whats your point? The bible was written by man. not god.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:48 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        @Mystic American - Sadly enough, I honestly can't tell if you are being serious, or are just mocking ultra-conservative Christians.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
      • scott33

        Eve was made from adams rib, so that makes her adams half sister..........and so it begins

        November 18, 2011 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
      • Tannim

        Bible also says Abraham had multiple wives, too....don't take everything so literally.

        Besides, it's supposed to be about the love, not the plumbing...

        November 18, 2011 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
      • Sean

        The Bible as yet to be proven literal or true. Isn’t it against current trends to treat the Bible as literal anyway?

        November 18, 2011 at 11:50 am | Report abuse |
      • Primewonk

        Considering that Eve was made from Adam's rib, genetically Eve was a male. In essence, Adam was blinking himself. Considering how little your god understood about biology, genetics, and molecular DNA, this mistake is easy to see.


        November 18, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • andrew.peter

      Obviously none of you have read the bible in its entirety. You confuse people's examples with God's commands. From the beginning God commanded one man and one woman, not polygamy. The bible is not a book about perfect people, but of a perfect God reconciling an corruption people to Himself.
      And the Christians are the ones who hate?? One only needs to read comments on CNN to see that atheists are steeped in hatred of Christians.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
      • Rick Sarasota Florida

        andrew, can you cite the specific verse that actually forbids having more than one wife? As far as the atheist's hating christians, we have ~2000 years of christian hate to catch up on.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:07 am | Report abuse |
      • MM

        "From the beginning God commanded one man and one woman, not polygamy."

        I see we have a Biblical revisionist among us.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        MAN wrote the bible, not god. Those are man's words, not god's.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
      • Sean

        @ andrew.peter
        Atheists are not the only ones who oppose Christians yet you go straight to them. Why is this? As far as Christian hate versus Atheist hate. You suggest reading the CNN forum. I accept your challenge and have one for you. Read a history book. Rick is correct in his comment of 2000 years of catching up to do.

        In this argument alone Christians (in general) are fighting to prevent the equal rights of their fellow human beings. Atheists are fighting to extend equal rights. Who hates? I believe it’s clear.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:56 am | Report abuse |
      • Adam


        As an athiest, I have no ill will towards any person who has been duped into believing in things that do not exist. My problem is with the people who try to push their religion/religious beliefs on the rest of the people. Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. Just because they believe it to be wrong, does not believe others feel that way. This is why western countries have a thing called choice!

        November 18, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • Maya

        I don't hate you for being a Christian. I hate you for being a self-absorbed, irrational moron.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brian2010

      Then where did Steve come from? He's obviously exists because he is trying to get married in California.

      November 18, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jesus

      It is true that polygamy was commoin in the Bible. Of course back then, if that Biblical nonsense is believed, some folks could live 900 years. Why many people buy into these childish an inane myths of the bronze age will always be a mystery to me.

      November 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
  52. Ozymandias71

    Heh heh... I really can't wait to see the proponents of Prop H8 back in court, fumbling and grasping at straws because they can't come up with one coherent reason to deny Marriage Equality. Emotional rhetoric works (unfortunately) at the ballot box, but not in a Court of law. The Prop H8 trial proved that.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:33 am | Report abuse |
    • Mystic American

      Isn't "Because the Bible says so" a coherent enough reason to deny equality?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:46 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        no because the bible is nothing but a collection of stories written by MEN. I would think by now we as a human race would understand this and grow up by now. guess not.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:50 am | Report abuse |
      • Inertiaman

        Absolutely not. Ever heard of separation of church and state? Religious dogma, no matter what faith it stems from, has no business in legislation.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
      • Church of Suicidal

        Sigh. Sarcasm recognition fail.

        November 18, 2011 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • randy

      The people voted on this, and this is what they want. i thought, that the majority rules in this country. it has become that what minority want, they get. sorry, a vote was taken, the gays lost. live with it

      November 18, 2011 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
      • Laer

        The majority also once ruled that interracial marriage was not ok. It also once ruled that slavery was ok. It also once ruled that women and blacks could not vote.

        “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

        –Ayn Rand

        November 18, 2011 at 10:17 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        So randy, you believe that discrimination is ok because the majority says so? Well, lets go back in history, shall we? There was a time when men thought women were lower than them and women were discriminated against. Was that right? There was a time where blacks were discriminated against. Was that right? The answers, in case youre too dense, is no, it is not right to discriminate against people because the majority think its ok.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:19 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        @ Laer....beat me too it...very nice.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:19 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        Randy – the US is a Const.itutional Republic, not a pure Democracy. The majority does NOT have the right to pass laws that violate the Const.itution, including the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
      • Taylor

        Right, because that has worked out so well in the past with women and Civil Rights. Do people actually pay attention in basic American history classes or just sleep through them?

        November 18, 2011 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
      • randy

        interesting. but i think a vote was taken to give woman the rights, and votes were taken to allow everything else in your country. so you are saying, that what the people want in this country doesnt matter, as long the minority get what they want. so, what you are all say, it all right to go against what the majority want. so the next thing you will want it the right to give pedifiles and pervs there rights to do what they want. i think this all happen once in history, i think it was the roman empire. and u see how well that worked out of them. but you all are history majors, and you all know exactly what right for this country and what everyone want right. even if you got to shove it down there throats to get what YOU want. like i said... very interesting

        November 18, 2011 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        Randy – you just don't seem to know much about US history. Rights are frequently expanded by the courts as they interpret the Const.itution. An example that is relevant to this story - in 1967, the US Supreme Court granted the right of marriage to interracial couples throughout the US, even though it was against state law in 16 states at the time. Majority rule in those states on that particular issue was overruled by the Court, based totally on the fact that the laws the citizens had enacted in those states, directly or through their legislatures, violated the 14th Amendment of the Const.itution.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
      • gradschooldude

        Minority rights cannot be protected by the majority voting on them. Look at the period between 1938 and 1945 as an exemplar of how minority rights can be trounced by the majority. Rather, it is up to a just and equitable government to enshrine the rights all citizens through legislation and reform.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
      • Sean

        What Laer said.

        November 18, 2011 at 11:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Ozymandias71

        Easy to say, Randy, when *your* rights aren't up for a popular vote. As others have pointed out, American history is FULL of examples of the 'tyranny of the majority' – thought I doubt you'll look any of them up. It's much easier to stick your fingers in your ears and yell 'La la la! I'm not listening! I'm not listening!'

        November 18, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • FedUp

        @Randy – stop making yourself look foolish, and hand me another PBR.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Primewonk

        When Mildred Meter and Richard Loving had the audacity to fall in love and marry in 1958, a whopping 94% of Americans said it was wrong to let those colored folks marry us white folks. In 1968, when SCOTUS made their unanimous ruling in Loving v. Virginia, over 78% of the public said black folks should not be allowed to marry white folks.

        If SCOTUS had decided to wait until at least 50% of the public said blacks could marry whites, we would have had to wait until 1995!

        Sadly, in poll of republicans in Mississippi from last April, half of them said that interracial marriage should be illegal.

        November 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • Church of Suicidal


        1) People will take you more seriously if you learn to spell.
        2) There is a fundamental difference between a relationship between two consenting adults and one with a child or animal. Please google the word consent. I'd tell you to use a dictionary, but that would be a tad optimistic.

        November 18, 2011 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
  53. Democracy is a farce

    "...court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know." ~Sonia Sotomayor. I think that about says it all.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:26 am | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      The sticking point was who would defend "Prop 8" in court, after the state's top officials– including the governor and attorney general– refused to do so.

      Now THAT says it all. Even they know its wrong.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:37 am | Report abuse |
      • btldriver

        But the leaders should uphold and support the law, whether they agree with it or not, if they don't agree with it then they should be on the road to changing it not just ignoring it and hoping the courts will make it go away. But I guess letting the courts decide gives them a pass saying its not their fault the law is in place, or wasn't nullified, because they didn't make it a law, cowards.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:03 am | Report abuse |
      • Drowlord

        I'm sure that has more to do with politics than a sense of right and wrong. If I supported Prop 8, and I was a politician in a position to defend it in court, I'd be pretty shy about doing it, too. The arguments defending proposition 8 aren't anything that I'd want on my political record, particularly considering how dramatically the USA has warmed up to gay people over the past decade.

        November 18, 2011 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Hmmmmm

      Democracy is not a farce as is evidenced by the Greek empire prior to the Roman Empire; its existence is punctuated by its marvelous, elegant and grand public works and its expansion of unified governance under Alexander the Great. However, just as striking is the total collapse of this once massive nation that extended from, present day, Afghanistan to India to Egypt to the Balkans with the death of one man (Alexander the Great) who in essence was the de-facto structure of the Greek Empire. When democracy has no structure under which it operates it is fleeting and eventually devolves into chaos, or economically weak totalitarian and or autocratic governments. The Roman Empire existed much longer because the law and rules of the city of Rome and the Etruscans framed the law by which the Roman Empire operated, until that law was structurally weakened and changed. Which resulted in what is now call the dark ages where there was almost no rule of law and the weak and sensitive were not protected nor did they have a place of regress to turn and were easily oppressed.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:10 am | Report abuse |
  54. richunix

    While I do not agree with the "Proposition 8". I must agree with the "rule of law". It is not the position of elected officals to "pick and choose" what they wish to enforce, it is left up to the voters to decide what they believe is "right"...This is why we have a Democracy....It should be neither pro-left nor pro-right.....just fair.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Steve Lyons

      The state fought Proposition 8 and lost. The electorate said no to gay marriage, Why should the state be forced to defend the losing position of a bunch of gay activists when the majority of the population rejected it? The continuance should have been rejected.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:41 am | Report abuse |
      • timmy

        "Why should the state be forced to defend the losing position of a bunch of gay activists when the majority of the population rejected it? "

        Why was this country forced to allow blacks equal rights when the majority of the population rejected the idea that everyone was equal? Because it is wrong to discriminate against one group of people.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:52 am | Report abuse |
      • Laer

        “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
        –Ayn Rand

        November 18, 2011 at 10:19 am | Report abuse |
    • jorgath

      Actually, the fact that it's a republic, a representative government, rather than putting everything to a mass democratic vote, means that they DO get to pick and choose. You don't like it, vote for different politicians next time, or have another recall. But in the meantime, they were elected by you to, among other things, pick and choose which laws they are going to prioritize.

      November 19, 2011 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
  55. geocub75

    My husband and I have just had our third wedding anniversary, I am legally married in the state of California, and am part of the 18,000. Has my marriage hurt any of you in any way? Didn't think so.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:12 am | Report abuse |
    • don

      hurt me, no! hurt marriage, yes!

      November 18, 2011 at 9:23 am | Report abuse |
      • Theguy

        How are they hurting marriage? I would think that Brittany Spears and Kim Kardashian are doing that. Kim was married for what....91 days? And wasn't Brittany Spears married for a whole 17 hours? In a society where you can get married at the drive-thru, I fail to see how letting two people who actually love each other get married is morally repugnant.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:30 am | Report abuse |
      • Sean

        Alright don I’ll bite. Prove to us how it hurt “marriage".

        November 18, 2011 at 9:39 am | Report abuse |
      • Curlee

        "Hurting" marriage? What? Straight people have been doing a good enough job at that for a very long time.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:41 am | Report abuse |
      • MM

        Troll call!

        November 18, 2011 at 11:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Jon O

      Hurt marriage – no. Not at all.

      Two people, joined in love, for the goal of sharing life's experiences and helping one another to overcome its hardships.

      Yeah, marriage is so crushed.

      People like "don' need to stop with the generalized fairy tales and just worry about their own households... maybe when the 50% divorce rate in America is fixed, straight folks will have a right to preach.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:28 am | Report abuse |
  56. steven

    Don't you know the lawyers are just overjoyed and counting their money already.

    November 18, 2011 at 9:00 am | Report abuse |
  57. gradschooldude

    I find it interesting that a nation, such as the USA, that considers itself the great protector of rights, can't even see fit to extend equal rights to all members of its populace. It's not about gay marriage or lesbian marriage, it's about equal marriage. Give all your citizens the right to share equal protection under the law. It's the 21st century, USA> Wake up or head the way of the dinosaurs.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:53 am | Report abuse |
    • Aezel

      Yeah God did a good job committing genocide in Sodom. It's a good thing he's completely fictional because if he was real he would be a monster. Hell even I would cast the first stone on his barbarism.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:17 am | Report abuse |
    • veger20

      Seriously.. were back to this again? A PERSON should have the right to marry any other PERSON that he or she loves.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Jon O

      Don needs to read his bible.

      Sodom was destroyed because of a lack of compassion for the needy and selfishness.

      At least that's what the bible says.

      Of course, the bible also contradicts itself every other page, says bats are birds, claims every living creature on the planet fit onto a 133 meter long boat and can't explain how we have different races of humans.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:38 am | Report abuse |
    • Jon O

      Don, is it that you are too stupid to understand the concept of "consenting adults" or that you are too cowardly to engage in intelligent conversation?

      Or that you're too much of a liar to portray the issue honestly and responsibly?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Curlee

      Oh how lovely Don. You are comparing other adult humans to goats, dogs, and trees. I bet you do this same type thing with all persons that are different than you in any way.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      This is a stupid argument from people who want to blow things way up to make themsevles seem right. Marriage is stupid anyway, I'm married, to a woman, and we sleep with other people. Cheaters hurt marriage. Sham weddings on television hurt marriage. Two people who love each other do not hurt marriage.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
    • btldriver

      Don, you're right, if we allow gay marriage then we must also allow for first cousins to marry or cognitively impaired (formerly mentally retarded) couples to marry. What about polygamy, will that be legal now? Warren Jeffs and his followers think so. Are the gay marriage supporters going to fight for these people as hard or will they say "I got mine so you fight for yours" and leave them to be. Let's see, hmmm, how many people right now are fighting for polygamy, that would be just the polygamysts.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
    • danfromparma

      You complain about people that disagree with gay marriage (personally, I don't care at all). You call the people bigots that disagree with you. Then you show hatred for their beliefs. Complete disrespect for any and all religions.

      How about this, I think your disgusting hypocritical bigots. And I think that the only good bigot is a dead bigot. That goes for the people that hate gays also. Unlike you hypocritical liberals, I am consistent in what I believe.

      I believe in the right to abortion also, but I believe that right should carry forward to whatever age. Because, isn't that you want hypocrites? Because I find you liberals to be parasites and a danger to society. i believe it is time to abort every one of you in the most painful fashion possible.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Laer

      God is love:
      Deut 7:9
      Ephesians 2:9
      1 John 2:5; 3:01; 4:8, 16b

      God is murder:
      Genesis 6:7, 17; 7:4, 7:21-23; 12:17; 15:9-10; 19:24; 21:10-14; 38:7, 8-10; 41:25-32, 54
      Exodus 3:20; 4:24-26; 5:3, 7:4, 9:2-6, 9-12, 14, 15-16, 22-25: 10:2, 11:7, 12:29; 13:2, 12, 15; 15:19; 17:13; 19:12-13; chaps 21-35
      Leviticus 10:1-2, 4-9; 18:25; 20:2, 4-16, 27; 21:9...etc.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
    • MM

      The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was lack of hospitality. You can't even get your Biblical stories right, can you?

      November 18, 2011 at 11:58 am | Report abuse |
    • MM

      "so should a person also be allowed to marry a goat, a dog, a tree? If it's a right to define your own marriage should we allow marriage of any kind?"

      Since none of these things can enter a legally binding contract, your question is irrelevant.

      Of course, based on your posts, adding an intelligence test to marriage is tempting.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ozymandias71

      Why is it always the fundie crowd pushing for polygamy and the 'right' to marry farm animals. It's certainly not the LGBT crowd, or our allies.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • No Comparison

      Don, are you more of a moron or just plain stupid? Since when do the laws allow non-human species to marry? Don't try that losing argument with intelligent people because you will be trounced!

      November 18, 2011 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Church of Suicidal

      Way to go, Don! Keep spreading the Santorum! If you just keep repeating this frothy mix of lies and illogical comparisons, you'll be able to crow to all your teabagging buddies how you put those liberals on CNN in their place.

      November 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • jorgath

      Honestly, you want a plural marriage, fine with me. Enjoy the headache. But you want a plural marriage that includes someone under 18...go rot in prison, Warren Jeffs.

      November 19, 2011 at 12:22 am | Report abuse |
  58. wolfy4661

    Love the sinner but hate the sin.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Jamieska


      November 18, 2011 at 8:53 am | Report abuse |
    • LinCA

      So, I should love all these christians, but I can freely hate all their despicable life style choices and behaviors?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:00 am | Report abuse |
      • Ozymandias71

        Or maybe we should love all these 'defenders of traditional marriage' who can't keep their own marriages together, but hate the 'sin' of their divorce?

        November 18, 2011 at 9:09 am | Report abuse |
    • warmesTghosT

      Being gay is not a choice.

      Being christian is.

      I know who I dislike more.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:06 am | Report abuse |
      • blf83

        Beautifully stated.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:23 am | Report abuse |
      • breezy

        That's your problem.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • jorgath

        "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are not much like your Christ." – Gandhi

        November 19, 2011 at 12:23 am | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      Please explain to me, how is "being gay" a sin....what litmus test are you using? Please provide some scientific proof that validates your claim “it’s a sin”.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:09 am | Report abuse |
    • Aezel

      Well, religion is a form of schizophrenia in the psychological field. So on the topic of Christians then it would be, hate the mental illness not the mentally ill?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:09 am | Report abuse |
      • jorgath

        Sorry, Aezel, but pro-LGBT as I am, I gotta say that if you want to use mental disorders to justify that, until about 15 years ago being gay was considered an incurable mental disorder.

        November 19, 2011 at 12:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Sean

      Prove sin exists and I’ll consider your argument. Until then I’m not basing equality on fairytales.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:43 am | Report abuse |
      • breezy

        Look at our world, and then prove that sin does NOT exist.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • jorgath

        Sorry, breezy. Your argument fails in one place, and outside of that it's a good one. The existence of evil is obvious, sure. But where is "sin" in that? Let's call "sin" an offense against the natural/supernatural order of things (see, I'm not even insisting you prove God!). Where is the proof that ALL evils are sins by that definition? Because that's what you need to connect those arguments.

        November 19, 2011 at 12:30 am | Report abuse |
    • The RealMessage

      Therefore, we should love sinners who divorce but Hate divorce itself. Huh?? Come again!
      We should love those who wear clothes made out of two different materials but hate the sin of they who do so since it is anti-Biblical. Have YOU never worn clothes made out of two different fabrics? Huh??
      We should love shellfish eaters but Hate the sin of eating shellfish as they are sinning by doing so. And who hasn't eaten shellfish! Huh??
      We should love those who are involved with slavery but Hate the sin of slavery. Huh??
      We should love to keep the Sabbath but Hate those who do not honor it as they should be stoned according to Exodus 35:2. Huh??
      We should love those who have different kinds of plants in the same patch area but hate the sin, as per Lev. 19:19. Huh??
      We should love men who wear their hair long but at the same time Hate the sin of them wearing it long. (1 Corinthians 11:14) Goodness! Our Lord and Savior Jesus wore it long! Can you now see how this saying Contradicts all that is good and moral!
      So, with that egregious and contradictory train of thought, "Love the sinner, hate the sin", we should love those who Hate but hate the hate! Huh?? And there are unfortunately plenty of haters with that same viewpoint! But Just Think of the GREAT MESSAGE This Will Teach our Kids! Especially those who Bully in schools! Love the bullier but hate the sin of doing so! God only help those haters who would rather continue to hate than to Love as Jesus said we should All do by Loving One Another, unconditionally!

      November 18, 2011 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
      • jorgath

        I've never eaten shellfish. 🙂 I'm a vegetarian, and a terrible allergy to shrimp runs in the family, though I've never had a problem helping cook them for someone else.

        November 19, 2011 at 12:31 am | Report abuse |
  59. TC

    You do not know of what you speak. Read all of Luke 12 before you start quoting the scripture.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:42 am | Report abuse |
    • sandy

      Thou shall not judge!!!! obviously you only read what you want from the bible!!!

      November 18, 2011 at 9:10 am | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      Using fiction (Bible) as proof does not prove your point.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:10 am | Report abuse |
    • Jon O

      TC – your book contradicts itself constantly.

      It's a fallacy. Join the modern world.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:45 am | Report abuse |
    • jorgath

      You hypocrite, take out the log in your eye before you berate your neighbor about the speck in his.

      November 19, 2011 at 12:32 am | Report abuse |
  60. Theguy

    I find it both sad and amusing that in a day and age where people like Kim Kardashian and Brittany Spears get married for days and hours, then get a divorce....for the entertainment of the rest of the sheeple....it is morally disgusting that John and Jeff get married? Seriously, isn't there something just a little twisted about that?

    I've got an idea....who cares! If two guys or two girls want to get married, what business is it of ours? Worry first about your own home, and leave someone elses home alone. They aren't committing a crime, folks. They are loving each other. When did we start punishing people for that?

    November 18, 2011 at 8:30 am | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      I agree with your comment, The Guy.
      My concern is that we're continually force-fed this garbage every 3 or 4 days, – as if it's something natural and necessary for normal people to understand. Frankly, I don't care at all what gays do – but, I do become annoyed at the almost daily news coverage of this crap.

      November 18, 2011 at 8:39 am | Report abuse |
      • Theguy

        Your welcome to be annoyed, Jim. I'm equally annoyed at seeing KK's ugly face, or hearing about some stupid celeb getting off the hook for stealing, or driving drunk, or beating on people, or whatever. Unfortunately, it is what defines our society at this moment in time....just like the marriage of gay people is defining our society at this time.

        I strongly suggest you do what I do. Change the channel.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:43 am | Report abuse |
      • Howard

        Ji, No one is making you read this. There's always FOX News for you.

        November 19, 2011 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hmmmmm

      What you are saying is very true in this particular instance, but is there a line that cannot or will not be crossed? Who sets that line? What are the parameters used to establishing that line? Is it democracy? Is it the law or the vote? In this case a democratic vote established this law? Should be under the law? Should we be governed at all by a federal system, state or local system? Why?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:25 am | Report abuse |
      • Ozymandias71

        Should the rights of a minority be put up for popular vote?

        November 18, 2011 at 12:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • idonteven

      And what about the gays that will marry and divorce quickly?

      It'll happen.

      Then it'll be two strikes against marriage.

      November 19, 2011 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
  61. LeeCMH

    The Christian Cavalcade of Hate! Tony Perkins of the hateful Family Research Council is thrilled.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:29 am | Report abuse |
  62. tom

    I want to convert to Judaism and eat pork.

    November 18, 2011 at 8:22 am | Report abuse |
    • Hmmmmm

      Why limit that to Judaism why not become a Muslim they don't eat pork either? Are you afraid to go there?

      November 18, 2011 at 9:29 am | Report abuse |
  63. Leeroy

    Do me a favor . . . look up "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". It was written 15 years ago and was very timely. There is no mention of hate or anger. We love everyone. Or as many say; "We love the sinner . . . not the sin." Enjoy. 🙂

    November 18, 2011 at 6:55 am | Report abuse |
  64. psychobabble

    Man oh man, whatever happened to separation of church and state? Why don't we just oust all the government officials and replace them with a congregation of strict Christian believers? Woo!

    November 18, 2011 at 6:48 am | Report abuse |
    • Sun

      Too late!

      November 18, 2011 at 7:58 am | Report abuse |
      • psychobabble

        Haha you got that right! Maybe I should become a narrow minded Christian and I'll get elected.

        November 18, 2011 at 8:01 am | Report abuse |
  65. Rational

    The Debate:
    Bigot: "Marriage should only be between one man and one woman."
    Me: "Why?"
    Bigot: "Because marriage is for couples to procreate and make a family and only a man and a woman can do that."
    Me: "I see. So would you support a law mandating that only able-bodied men and women who intend to make babies should be allowed to get married? No couples who would rather adopt? No couples consisting of one or both parties who are unable to make babies?
    Bigot: "......."

    November 18, 2011 at 4:15 am | Report abuse |
    • Don

      YOU: I don't think the majority matters, I am against a democratic form of deciding an issue.


      November 18, 2011 at 4:27 am | Report abuse |
  66. RH

    As many people voted NO on prop 8 as did YES. why does less than a 1% difference have to be the 'majority'? lol, such BS. cmon christians, you need to protect your kim kardashians and britney spears' marriages cuz they sure as hell meant more than 2 men or 2 women who love each other right? ....morons.

    November 18, 2011 at 3:26 am | Report abuse |
    • Soda Flint

      Hey, I'm Christian and I'm also gay. Please don't polarize Christians and anti-gay sentiment, because it's not even close. Jeses never said anything about being gay, and Christianity is about Jesus Christ, hence, CHRISTianity.

      November 18, 2011 at 4:25 am | Report abuse |
      • s mast

        read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 with a open mind. Ask god to direct your thoughts.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:25 am | Report abuse |
      • Leeroy

        Not sure what scriptures you're reading Soda Flint, cuz mine say plenty about being gay. For example, mine mentions this place called Sodom and Gomorrah and a few more references to the sin of acting upon ones same attraction temptations.

        November 18, 2011 at 6:29 am | Report abuse |
      • JediBrat

        Have you even open the bible and read it? Or are just listening to what someone else has told you and have no clue what the bible said? ARGH!

        November 18, 2011 at 7:18 am | Report abuse |
      • Andrei

        Please go and read the bible, screaming and yelling, like you know the bible and what is written in it. wont do you any good. God makes it clear in very beginning.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:23 am | Report abuse |
    • Don

      Vote in California was 52.24% to 47.76% a 4%+ difference. even if the ones thrown out were all no you still were down by 2%.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:36 am | Report abuse |
    • SkiOne

      I support gay marriage (more or less) but sorry if there are 100 people and 51 are for and 49 are against, in a democracy the 51's have it. This was not voted on by a representative government, this was a referendum. From a purely legal point of view the matter has been decided. I think it needs to be decided at the federal level.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:07 am | Report abuse |
  67. HarvardLaw92

    Excellent news. This was the only sticking point that put the ruling at risk of only affecting California. Now we're virtually certain to see it get before SCOTUS, where Perry is likely to be upheld and settle this question, nationwide, once and for all.

    I just want to be a fly on the wall when opponents realize what the effect of SCOTUS upholding Perry will be. Every state law and amendment banning this, nationwide, will go *pouf* at the same time.

    November 18, 2011 at 1:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Don

      And if the SCOTUS actually says "Marriage is a RIGHT", it will throw out all other State Laws regulating Marriage (Age of Consent, marriage to relatives and not being able to have multiple spouses).

      What a great world we will be living in.

      November 18, 2011 at 5:39 am | Report abuse |
      • Boytjie

        SCOTUS already ruled in Loving v. Virgina that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" and a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice."

        And yet, that ruling did not "throw out all other State Laws regulating Marriage (Age of Consent, marriage to relatives and not being able to have multiple spouses)."

        November 18, 2011 at 8:39 am | Report abuse |
      • Jon O

        Don has no idea what he's talking about.

        Talk about uneducated on the subject. Good Lord, go learn something before you open your mouth.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:40 am | Report abuse |
  68. John

    What gives anybody the right to say that one type of family is better than another? I've known amazing single parents. I even grew up around polygamist Mormons and guess what– their kids turned out fine too. We're not talking about a man marrying an animal or a child– that's abuse, not love. We're talking about adults who love each other and just happen to be the same gender. Marriage has been redefined over and over throughout history– in much more significant ways. Most importantly, marriage is now a choice. "Traditional marriage" was a man and several wives. It used to be a property arrangement between families and you didn't get to choose your spouse, but now you have a choice of who and when and how you marry. These days you can marry the person you love, not the person your father has arranged. You can marry your soul mate.

    If you're straight, of course. If you're gay, you have a choice of marrying A) somebody you don't/can't love or B) nobody. Some of my fellow gay friends have chosen option A, only to wind up in bitter divorce. I knew an old man who was married to his wife for almost sixty years, but was never happy until she divorced him (she realized he didn't love her and never had) and he spent the last few years of his life with a man he actually loved.

    Humanity changes. As a society, we learn to accept new ideas that we've never accepted before. Slavery was around long just as long as marriage (definitely longer than this "one man one woman" model) but society evolved. Years from now, we'll look back and wonder how the society could say that one type of family is "better" or more valid than another.

    November 18, 2011 at 1:26 am | Report abuse |
  69. Victor

    This has already been decided in the polls. California voters overwhelmingly decided that gay marriage is something they don't want happening in the state. Why is it so easy for these people to go against the will of the people? As has been proven too many times – a vote means absolutely nothing.

    November 18, 2011 at 12:43 am | Report abuse |
  70. Mario

    The amount of money that's being wasted trying to deny Gay and Lesbian couples the right to marry could be used to help the homeless, fund education, etc. Hate isn't just a waste of time, its a waste of money.

    November 17, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • FlyonteWall

      well said.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:21 am | Report abuse |
    • lance corporal

      enlightened self interest

      November 18, 2011 at 12:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Arleen


      November 18, 2011 at 1:18 am | Report abuse |
  71. J C

    ..."Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."...
    Luk 23:34

    November 17, 2011 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • lance corporal

      they know exactly what THEY're doing
      the real question is why do YOU care??

      November 18, 2011 at 1:05 am | Report abuse |
    • Jamieska


      November 18, 2011 at 9:05 am | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      Please explain to me, how is "being gay" a sin....what litmus test are you using? Please provide some scientific proof that validates your claim “it’s a sin”.

      Stephen F Roberts: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

      Atheism is not a religion nor is it a belief.

      November 18, 2011 at 9:19 am | Report abuse |
    • Curlee

      Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure God forgives you for all your ignorance, hate, and selfishness.

      November 18, 2011 at 10:27 am | Report abuse |
      • BR

        How will his life be any different if your mythical sky creature forgives him?

        November 21, 2011 at 11:59 am | Report abuse |
    • TheMajority NeedsForgiveness

      Yes, Proponents of Prop 8 certainly DO need to be FORGIVEN for trying to use Majority Rule over human rights, something they obviously do not understand or care to understand about! It is dangerous when a majority tries to inject their prejudicial rule into a minority's standing. Very dangerous! Pray they are forgiven before they do further damage to otherwise good basic human beings who go to church, pay their taxes, and yes, even raise their own children.!

      November 18, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jesus

      Father (that imaginarty and invible guy in the sky with a ledger book on all your good and bad deeds) ...are we speaking of Gawd or Santa Claus?

      November 20, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Report abuse |
  72. Colin

    Who, according to evangelical Christians, inflicts the greatest, most barbaric punishment possible on gay people:

    (i) The Ayatollahs of Iran
    (b) The Afghan Taliban
    (c) Backward red necks; or
    (d) the Christian god?

    November 17, 2011 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo


      November 17, 2011 at 11:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • lance corporal

      and all of the example you mention use the biblical passages to justify it

      November 18, 2011 at 1:06 am | Report abuse |
    • XYZ

      People with "non" theistic names like Mao, Ceucescu, Mugabe, et al. I remember marriage and the family in the sixties, and I am tired of this last 40 plus years of moral decline – sick of it. Sick of the living together, sick of the wierd perversions of family.

      November 18, 2011 at 3:29 am | Report abuse |
      • Leeroy

        Hopefully, our vote will count and enough people will vote for what is right. Unfortunately, there are a lot of very confused people out there. 🙁 But, all we can do is speak up and vote. I can live with that. 🙂

        November 18, 2011 at 6:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Andrei

      you left out gay's them selves. it's mental state it's an act of life.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:26 am | Report abuse |
      • AndreIdiot

        II'm sorry that you don't know anything about biology or science, but since that's the case you shouldn't state opinions regarding either of them. Go out and learn some things.

        November 18, 2011 at 7:38 am | Report abuse |
  73. Colin

    Hey, I've got a great idea. A real original one! Let's NOT base 21st Century social policy on a collection of Bronze Age mythology that was cobbled into a book before the Dark Ages.

    November 17, 2011 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
  74. pogojo

    Government should stay out of marrige, government should do civil unions for everyone!! this would give everyone the same rights under government laws.
    If you want to be married go to your church, this does not give you government rights.
    This would solve the issue, most people who oppose dont want the word "married" to be run through the mud.

    November 17, 2011 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gadflie

      While I think that government should get out of the marriage business, there is no shortage of churches that are more than willing to marry gay people. So, the "problem" that you think this will alleviate would not be helped at all.

      November 17, 2011 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Luigi

        How? There are pre-existing marriage contracts! How?

        November 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        Fairly easy actually. Give no marriage based government benefits or and start treating them like any other civil contract.

        November 17, 2011 at 11:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • XYZ

        The whole society is an sbox. They predict we will be working until we are 80 now – ugh. I am fifty and will die alone. I have a nasty life. Bring back the family. I could not get married because all the men in the blue states are promiscuous and all the church guys are not too bright.

        November 18, 2011 at 3:31 am | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      Hay, if a church wants to marry them, that should be fine.no real church would do it.

      November 17, 2011 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        A fine example of the logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman".

        November 17, 2011 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • ajk68

      Having the government stay out of marriage is hardly just. Society recognizes marriage in its laws in order to foster the healthy procreation and education of children. They do this most justly in light of the principle of subsidiarity. Society has an obligation to protect the family, the reason for the existence of the family, and the integrity of what it means to be a family. Otherwise all types of distortions will creep in – polygamy, poly-amorous relationships, incest, etc. These will lead to unstable "family" situations in which the children, as well as the parents, will suffer – as will society.

      November 17, 2011 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • dwarf

        My mom just re-married at the age of 60. Since she's already gone through menopause and can no longer bear children, are you suggesting that her marriage is somehow invalid or a threat to the "traditional family?"

        November 18, 2011 at 12:17 am | Report abuse |
      • lance corporal

        your refusal to expand what family means, to keep it ARTIFICIALLY limited to what YOU think is right is an attack on families, maybe not YOUR definition (and just how mean spirited is that??) but they are families none the less. BTW incest takes place as does polyamoory now you can not force perfection and the attempt to do so will always lead to unintended unforeseen consequences

        November 18, 2011 at 1:10 am | Report abuse |
      • Jamieska


        November 18, 2011 at 8:37 am | Report abuse |
    • lance corporal

      I've been saying this for years, when my wife and I married 25 years ago we specifically made it a civil ceremony, it is easy to do, there where no christian or other religious rites, we have no problem with anyone who wants to do it as a religious thing but people have been entering in to permanent unions looooooong before christianity, they didn't invent it and don't own it, it is and always has been a civil contract at it's most fundamental level and more importantly it FUNCTIONS that way in our society and legal system..this fight is over a semantic construct,,,,,, how amazing!!!
      the word marriage, this really is hard for me to understand but I think that these types of unions should be issued to all regardless of race, gender etc (remember when it was wrong for white and black to "marry"??) by the civil Gov't and that churches can offer some addl "god anointed" version of it to those who want that
      if your a citizen capable of the informed consent needed to enter in to the contract the Gov't should not stop you
      in the land of the free .
      and you should be able to call it what ever you like....but maybe we need to give the "loving" christians a pass on this word since it just seems like crack to them and they are willing to get very ugly to control it

      November 18, 2011 at 12:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Leeroy

        Nice try Lance Corporal . . . but most laws are based on right and wrong. I would suggest they come from a religious foundation. Marriage between a man and a woman has been around as long as the scriptures have. But now, people are falling into this trap of believing we can no longer do wrong. Well, "ajk68" is right on the money. So . . . do push-ups Corporal! 😉

        November 18, 2011 at 6:47 am | Report abuse |
  75. Gadflie

    It's amusing to me how people use, for a moral guide, a book that does NOT think it is a sin to beat your slave so badly that he dies of his wounds the following day but DOES it a sin to love someone of the same gender.

    November 17, 2011 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      One of the comandments "thow shall not kill"

      November 17, 2011 at 11:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        Actually, no. It gave instructions not to murder. But, slaves were property, not people. They obviously didn't count. Read Exodus 21:20-21 for full instructions.

        November 17, 2011 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ozymandias71

        And yet 'Christians' like to throw around Leviticus 20:13 – you know, 'Kill any Gay men you find'.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:13 am | Report abuse |

      To Gadfly- So because the Bible says that they were considered property they were?? I mean, you DO realize that they were ACTUAL human beings right?? Old Testament= Jewish Supremacy, Hate and Oppression. Does it really seem logical to base your philosophy on an archaic book that has been rewritten and revised a hundred times???

      November 17, 2011 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        Try reading for comprehension sometime. Get some help with the big words if you need them. My original post was what is consider irony or sarcasm. It was making a very specific argument that the Bible ranks pretty damned low as a moral guide.

        November 17, 2011 at 11:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Chernobyl


        November 18, 2011 at 5:54 am | Report abuse |
    • Lisa

      The book you are referring to is the bible, and you don't know it well or wwouldn't make such an uneducated statement about it. There are two testaments, the Old and the New, in the Old, there were men who got married and had concubines and also had slaves because that was society back then, but then Jesus was born and so was the New Testament, and Jesus wiped away the old covenent and made a new one. One were you turn the other cheek, not an eye for an eye, and one where you love others as you love yourself. Don't talk about the bible if you don't know it

      November 18, 2011 at 12:17 am | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        Lisa, I am willing to bet that I know the Bible better than you do. For example, Jesus himself clearly approved of severely punishing slaves. See Luke 12:47-48 for details. So, I am going to give you back your own advice. "Don't talk about the bible if you don't know it"

        November 18, 2011 at 12:42 am | Report abuse |
      • Aezel

        LOL. Enter the Christian on queue "you don't REALLY know the Bible." Has to be one every single time. Well my dear, I can assure you that I have read the Bible cover to cover, and I'm fairly certain I know more about it than 99.999% of all Christians out there. I can also assure you that if YOU actually read the whole Bible, and paid any attention, both the old and new testament are filled with acts of utter barbarism and disgustingly primitive moral sanctions. It's a book of fictional garbage written by barbaric goat herders 2000 years ago and if you take it seriously the only thing it's good for is a hearty laugh.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:27 am | Report abuse |
      • Raven

        So... God lied?

        November 20, 2011 at 3:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Arleen

      Sadly, it appears to me that the Bible has created more divisiveness, hate, erroneous "facts", and problems than solutions and true love.....The first 5 books of the Old Testament - also referred to as The Torah (Jewish scriptures). They are poorly written, addressed to the social and mental climate of the day, and a mixture of metaphor, analogies, and poor interpretations. In the world there are 5 main Jewish denominations. But in the Christian "world", there are about 38,000 denominations - all with their unique differences, interpretations, power, and "Truths"........If there is a God, He is way too big for one religion or one book......Smarten up people. Get rid of your hang-ups. Affirm the humanity of all people. Stop living in a world of dogma and political bs and open hearts; open minds......

      November 18, 2011 at 1:33 am | Report abuse |
      • lance corporal

        there is a simple test to weed out the contradictions, if it comes from love it may come from god
        EVERY thing else comes from man

        November 18, 2011 at 1:41 am | Report abuse |
  76. matt


    November 17, 2011 at 10:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      This reminds me of OWS, we have the 1% who want over ride what the 99% want, I believe the people voted on this issue.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        Civil rights issues should not be up for a vote. That is the specific reason behind the Bill of Rights. To protect the rights of the minority from the will (and vote) of the majority.

        November 17, 2011 at 11:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • pogojo

        You dont have to have a paper to be commited to someone.

        November 17, 2011 at 11:04 pm | Report abuse |
  77. ???

    It amuses me at how human beings strive to obtain everything that matters most to them...and yet...I observe that while one set of humans already have what they need, the others lack it. I feel as though that this unacceptable divide in all of human society is what disrupts the very meaning, no, foundation of what matters to everyone. I have been questioning this divide for a while. That is my philosophy.

    November 17, 2011 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • ajk68

      Human beings strive for what matters most for them. Unfortunately, most human being do not strive for what is good for them and others.

      November 17, 2011 at 11:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • ???

        I do not quite understand by what you mean when humans do not strive for what is good for them and others.

        November 18, 2011 at 1:13 am | Report abuse |
      • jorgath

        Translation: Humans strive for what they think is important, what they want, but that's usually not what is best for them to have. I want chocolate, so I strive for it. I should eat broccoli.

        November 19, 2011 at 12:36 am | Report abuse |
  78. madjim

    How about if I live my life and you live your life?

    November 17, 2011 at 10:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • lance corporal

      wait, you mean that if I don't like the way your living your life I can just pay attention to my own and not worry about it??
      that DOES sound kinda..... american, WOW! problem solved
      you should have said something sooner 😉

      November 18, 2011 at 1:23 am | Report abuse |
  79. ???

    I really can't understand how people can be so divided on this issue because we are talking about civil rights, which is something everyone should have, regardless of race, orientation, age, disability, religion, etc. My question is: What is wrong with being different from others?

    November 17, 2011 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leeroy

      If different is what they want, then call it something different. I think most would be okay with that. Win-win situation.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        Separate but equal. Yep, that worked out so well the first time.

        November 17, 2011 at 10:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ian

        So what should we call interracial marriage? It's different after all.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:45 am | Report abuse |
      • Ozymandias71

        'Separate-but-equal' Civil Unions, right? Win-win? Too bad that every state that has offered CUs has had the same hate-fueled groups trying to keep them from happening... see Washington State, Rhode Island, Hawaii.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:16 am | Report abuse |
    • no religion

      Organized religion is a joke...the bible was written by men...most of the world are sheep...just following the biggest propaganda machine in the world...the church...more people have died over religion than anything else....it is a joke...get a life people, think for yourself....people wrote the bible...period!! Christains act so righteous, so long as you believe just like them, the hypocrisy is beyond! when i hear someone is a good christian i laugh.....go to church every sunday then go out and drink smoke sleep around etc....joke!

      November 17, 2011 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • God

      Explain please how you find the bible to be "so true"? Are you referring to the same bible which says god created the universe in 6 days and then got tired and rested on the 7th? The same bible that says there were only Adam and Eve and their children had no option but incest? The same bible which says light came first and then the sun? Or have you found a new bible and read it with special eyeglasses given to you by god?

      November 17, 2011 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gadflie

      Disprove the Bible from it's prophesies? Ok, that's easy. The prophesy that Jesus himself made and repeated more often than any other prophesy he made did NOT come true in the time frame that He set. Oops.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bystander

      GENESIS 19:34-38 is prime example of something told in the Bible – which it never says is bad but implies that it is GOOD, which we would call completely abhorrent today. But that is in the BIBLE. You going to defend that?

      November 17, 2011 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Silence

      Marriage is not a civil right.

      November 17, 2011 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        Equal treatment under the law is.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:34 am | Report abuse |
    • ajk68

      You assume it is a right. Not everything people want is a right.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:00 am | Report abuse |
      • MM

        "You assume it is a right. Not everything people want is a right."

        Garbage. That you don't want it to be a right everyone has doesn't change anything.

        November 18, 2011 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa

      to "god" the part in the bible where God created the earth in 6 days, the bible is giving a measure of time, but it doesn't say how long the "day" was. God's day could have been 100,000 thousand years, we don't know. the bible wasn't written to be interrupted literally, many of it is figurative. And as for Adam and Eve, it has been proven that all dna can be traced to one female. The bible says God made Adam and Eve, but it doesn't say God didn't make anyone else. It puts in what it has to to make its points, but some things weren't put in it.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Gadflie

      I love the "we don't know how long they meant by a day" excuse. A day is, by itself, a measure of time. By the time the Bible was written, we human types absolutely did know what a day was. We knew how long it was. And, there is no indication anywhere that this measurement wasn't exactly what was used. To pretend otherwise is just that, pretending.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:36 am | Report abuse |
    • lance corporal

      hate / the demeaning of others is a deviant perverse choice
      no I will not try and disprove the bible to you, you already have closed your mind on the subject
      but consider what thomas jefferson said "reading the bible is like looking for diamonds in a dung heap"
      you have to shovel a LOT of sh it to get to the gems my brother and while I have no problem with you basing YOUR life on what ever you want this is OUR country and we established it as a FREE country
      you can't limit others without CAUSE and because YOUR religion says so is not a valid cause

      November 18, 2011 at 1:35 am | Report abuse |
    • atroy

      "...the bible is so proven..." Great Satire...you really made me laugh with that one.

      November 18, 2011 at 7:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Jamieska


      November 18, 2011 at 9:03 am | Report abuse |
    • MM

      "The B ible is ***SO*** proven true"

      Cites, please. This is just such a big fail on so many levels.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • MM

      "to "god" the part in the bible where God created the earth in 6 days, the bible is giving a measure of time, but it doesn't say how long the "day" was."

      It all depends on what your definition of is is.

      In other words, this is pure nonsense. It's a cop-out, and it's absurd. Try again.

      November 18, 2011 at 1:02 pm | Report abuse |
  80. Dave

    Nope. Unfortunately, there won't *BE* an "America"

    November 17, 2011 at 9:43 pm | Report abuse |
  81. BnThrDnTht

    I find it interesting the chatter about marriage being about love. History shows that couple's were encouraged to marry and procreate to better strengthen the communities at large with labor. Also, most cultures had, at one point, arranged marriages which still occur in the 3rd world today. Where is the love part?

    I just don't see the state having any vested interest in marriage. We live in an overpopulated world, with varied cultures and traditions. How do we decide what is "right" under the law?

    One thing though, if you use an individuals right to love whomever they want and marry, how can you still prevent polygamist marriages, brother and sister to marry, age restrictions, etc.

    Outside religion, I just don't see a need for marriage.

    November 17, 2011 at 9:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leeroy

      Some might argue that laws were founded upon religious based values. And others might argue that love (between a man and woman) was the real reason for marriage in the first place. Thanks for suggesting that religious people can continue to be married. 😉

      November 17, 2011 at 9:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bystander

        Marriage is first a civil contract. One cannot be legally married in most states without having both a license from the civil authority and someone with the legally recognized authority issued by the civil authority to conduct a marriage, which essentially consists of taking the oaths of both parties.
        In order to marry a couple, a priest must have a license issued by the local civil authority to do so.
        A judge or even a notary public may marry a couple in most states.
        Religious ceremony is never required to make a marriage contract legally binding on the couple who have exchanged oaths before the person authorized to witness those oaths completing the marriage contract.

        November 17, 2011 at 11:04 pm | Report abuse |

    I for one, wonder why we even tolerate "big religion". For decades in this country, it has been used as a tool of division and moral grandstanding...pandering to a voter demographic who refuses to engage in honest dialogue about ANYthing. Religion=Hate, Division, & Superiority Complexes... We should start occupying evangelical churches...

    November 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leeroy

      Now there's a loving comment. Wow.

      November 17, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • TERMOYL

        Your point? Do you actually have anything to say? I mean, something more substantial than the equivalent of a meaningless facebook update.

        November 17, 2011 at 9:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Leeroy

        My point is that your comment is filled with anger and suggestions of hate. Have you considered anger management and/or couseling? Love ya Bruthah. 😉

        November 17, 2011 at 9:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Careful not to confuse wolves in sheep's clothing with the truth. There is a *BIG* difference and you are accountable for the truth whether you believe it or not.

      November 17, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Soporifix

      Evangelical churches are taxpayer-subsidized anti-American schools of violent, ignorant radical politics. Occupy, shut down, burn to the ground.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • h

        subsidized? so is wells fargo, bank of america, chrysler, general motors, wall street, pakistan...

        November 17, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        Ask the native Americans (both N and S America) which religion killed the most people throughout history...

        November 17, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Silence


        November 18, 2011 at 12:01 am | Report abuse |
      • jorgath

        Which religion killed the most people through history? Hmm, I'd have to go with the "Church of Saying You're A Christian But Just Hate Lots of People." Which means, y'know, just about anyone who was both Christian and politically powerful. But barring that, it's probably the "Church of Me," aka the human race.

        November 19, 2011 at 12:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Leeroy

      SOPORIFIX, I know a church that is not tax subsidized. 😉

      November 17, 2011 at 10:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • no religion

      i agree 100%

      November 17, 2011 at 10:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bystander

      Any now, some use their religion to justify their acts of violence against others.

      November 17, 2011 at 11:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • ajk68

      Atheists have the biggest moral superiority complex and are the most vocal grand-standers.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:03 am | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        That's an interesting theory. I guess that's why you hear so many of them preaching on the radio and see so many on TV every week. Oops, never mind.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:51 am | Report abuse |
  83. j

    Protests mean nothing, your vote means nothing...

    November 17, 2011 at 8:26 pm | Report abuse |
  84. csher

    If people are going to insist on defining 'marriage' in religious terms, it should be removed from all federal law and policy as a violation of church and state.

    November 17, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Report abuse |
  85. ???

    I thought the 9th amendment said that no one can have more or less rights than others regardless of who they are...

    November 17, 2011 at 7:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Grace Of The Witch

      **** ???

      I thought the 9th amendment said that no one can have more or less rights than others regardless of who they are...

      True, but the Christians want to put an asterisk (*) behind it and add.....unless you are gay.

      November 19, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  86. BR

    It never ceases to amaze me how some people give a damn about what happens in somebody else's bedroom. They are probably the ones who say govt is too much in our lives. Pick a side.

    November 17, 2011 at 7:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • justaintright

      This isn't about what happens in one's bedroom. If it were, no one would care. It's what about what happens in public that has us concerned.

      November 17, 2011 at 7:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • LetsTalk AboutIn Public

        You're concerned about what happens in public? You must be talking about all of the tongue kissing with more than half naked people on straight television just about each and every day, including during prime time when children can be watching! So, if you want to talk about concern for morals in public, you hypocrite, you can simply start there!

        November 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Howard

        What is it you're afraid of tem doing in public? Will they not do this if they aren't allowed to marry?
        Even better, why do you care what they do in public? If they knew what a bigot you are, I don't think they'd want to see you either. But they will at least deal with it.
        Why can't you? You just ain't right in th head.

        November 19, 2011 at 5:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Is it here yet

      oh believe me I don't want to know what goes on in the bedroom (barf) and if you didn't notice I'm clearly defined!

      November 17, 2011 at 7:46 pm | Report abuse |
  87. waveparticleduality

    Last time I checked, God did not write California laws, so it seems silly to claim [your view of] God's wishes as the basis to go by. Of course, if we did go by God's law, shouldn't we not be the ones writing it down and deciding on it, and also shouldn't that mean we should accept and celebrate people for their differences as long as they are not harming others? Maybe it's just me, but I didn't think God liked us judging other people so much. –> Mind your own beeswax and stop trying to dictate how other people live their lives.

    November 17, 2011 at 6:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jess

      Good comment. I couldn't have said it better myself!!

      November 17, 2011 at 7:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Is it here yet

        hey Mess we are jumping off the cliff tomorrow, come join us? lol

        November 17, 2011 at 7:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hunsaker

      Does this mean we can rob, cheat and steal too?

      November 17, 2011 at 9:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Darkenwolf

        Clearly you missed the part where he said "not harming others." Don't you come from a state where they teach second grade english comprehension?

        November 17, 2011 at 10:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      I guess you're exempt from the speed limits and from the laws that prevent murder, incest, rape and battery? Fail logic.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ozymandias71

        The only FAIL here is your reading comprehension. '...as long as they are not harming others...' I saw that in the post – pity you chose not to.

        November 18, 2011 at 9:21 am | Report abuse |
  88. Slash

    There is not a single argument against gay marriage based on logic. Not ONE. The "will of the people" has NO standing on civil rights issues. The people thought slavery was cool. Traditional marriage was about political alliances and dowries for the vast majority of its existence, along with the ALSO popularly-supported marital rape. Archaic babbling has no place in a secular country in the 21st century. And it will not stand.

    Not one step back.

    November 17, 2011 at 5:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Darkenwolf

      Okay I'll bite. How do you know what God wants? How can you possibly be so lacking in humility (which, by the way, is a sin) that you can possibly speak for God? You have no idea.

      Also the fact you think that gay people cause AIDS is proof you don't belong in this country. Go away.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cowabunga100

      Correct. The basic issue here, religious zealotry aside, is whether there is any government interest in saying that it's OK for Jim and Jane to marry, but not Jim and John. I think not. It can't be reproductive interests: no one is compelled to have children (well, Mississippi tried, but I digress...) and infertile couples, those too old to reproduce, or others who just choose not to reproduce are free to marry. Defining marriage as between persons (in the government sense, it's really all about interpersonal legal issues anyway, and a sheep can't enter into a contract) cuts out the usual "slippery slope to bestiality rubbish, and polygamy is easily dispensed with as well because of the legal complications that can ensue with parental rights, inheritance, and other legal concerns of marriage. I think the government could articulate an interest there. Even the religious would presumably, when presented with a proposed marriage between a closeted gay man and gay woman, apply the plumbing check and come away satisfied that all is well. So is disparate plumbing really all that matters? Pretty lame standard, and again, why should the state care? Keep the religion in the churches where it belongs, and out of the law – where presumably all of God's children are equal.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • ajk68

        Those of us who are married realize that men and women think in vastly different ways. This dichotomy is necessary for raising healthy children.

        November 18, 2011 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
    • Leeroy

      Darkenwolf, it sounds to me like Dave has been reading his scriptures; which are the word of God. The scriptures are where you learned about "sin". The AIDS thing I think has been confirmed scientifically. So, I think Dave has some pretty strong points.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • johnson

      comparing the plight of gays seeking marriage to that of slaves is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

      November 18, 2011 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
  89. Pan3


    November 17, 2011 at 5:40 pm | Report abuse |
  90. Solex

    The only question that should be asked about Gay marriage is "Who Cares"?

    Why do conservatives demand that we have little to no government intrusion into our lives with the exception of their religious dogma?

    Opinions should NOT become law.

    November 17, 2011 at 5:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • SixDegrees

      This Conservative shares your opinion entirely, and would like to point out that the expansion of government power over lifestyle violates every core principle of Conservatism, which values small, non-intrusive government. There are still a lot of us Goldwater-style Conservatives around who are dismayed by the hijacking and perversion of the term by bigoted evangelical theocrats.

      I miss Bill Buckley, too.

      November 17, 2011 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Leaf on the Wind

        I may disagree with your conservative views, but I sure do wish you and others like you would take back the GOP from the fright-wing nut jobs. At least your views are thoughtful and logic-based.

        November 17, 2011 at 5:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • Agreed

        @Six Degrees......I believe everything is decided by the Silent Majority. You know those people who IT doesnt really effect so they say nothing. While I appreciate your true conservative stance I do question this...Are you registered Republican and if so what have you done to let your Republican Representatives know that their stance on gay marriage contrary to yours? Or are you among the silent majority that is letting them get away with it? Regards.

        November 17, 2011 at 7:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • aurban

      opinions are all people have. it is impossible not to pick a side. if you think opinions should not be laws, by you thinking gay marriage is OK, then that's an opinion!
      we're human, we're FLAWED. who are we to say what is right and wrong. if it was up to us, we would have it backwards. but a loving God decided to give us directions.

      November 18, 2011 at 2:45 am | Report abuse |
  91. Think For Yourself

    Wait...why are rights being voted on?

    Can we have a vote on allowing women to vote?

    How about blacks?

    What is wrong with you people? EVERYONE should have the SAME rights as the man/women standing next to them.

    No questions asked.

    November 17, 2011 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • HarpoNotMarx

      They do. Men can marry women and vice versa. that's pretty mucht he same.

      November 17, 2011 at 8:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • MM

        "They do. Men can marry women and vice versa. that's pretty mucht he same."

        Then it's gender discrimination. I can think of no other similar legal contract that is so restricted by gender. It's discrimination, and it needs to go.

        November 18, 2011 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      So, you want to marry Goats or children next?

      November 17, 2011 at 9:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Cowabunga100

        If you can find a goat or a child that can enter into a legal contract, I guess so...

        November 17, 2011 at 10:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Church of Suicidal

        As long as we are voting who may be allowed to marry and form a family, may I preemptively vote that Dave not be allowed to procreate? Stop spreading the hate...

        November 18, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
  92. Michael

    This is good news for the gay community because if the court had ruled a different way then only CA would have gay marriage. Now when 9th Circuit rules against Prop 8 every state under it's jurisdiction will have to allow gay marriage and if this hits the Supreme Court then every other state would be included. Anyone who followed the trail knows the Prop 8 backers do not have any legal argument against gay marriage.

    November 17, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      This is also the right decision. Whatever one thinks of Prop 8 (or Prop anything) the governor can't just overturn it. The court is the right final arbitrator – just like the court is the final arbitrator for any law.

      November 17, 2011 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dad

      Following that reasoning we could not determine that a man could not legally have 100 wives and 1000 children also.

      November 17, 2011 at 11:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gadflie

        You think there is a law against having lots of children?

        November 18, 2011 at 1:03 am | Report abuse |
  93. Chop

    So if a majority of the people vote slavery as being legal that would be ok? What happened to all people being created equal with equal rights under the law? Gay, Straight, bi-curious, orange or purple...it shouldn't matter.

    November 17, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Peter Vogel

      So if the majority voted that a black man could not marry a white woman that would be OK? Because that's what the majority of Americans felt up to about 1990. When SCOTUS overturned Georgia's law against interracial marriage about 80% of Americans were opposed to inter-racial marriage–a super-majority.

      November 17, 2011 at 5:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • MarkInPDX

        First, supermajority or not, the public has no right to deny a class of people the same rights that others enjoy.

        Second, when exactly did a majority of people "vote" to uphold interracial marriage?

        November 17, 2011 at 6:00 pm | Report abuse |
  94. Ian

    I find it Odd that just after approving gay marriage they banned it :|. . .

    November 17, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • TexDoc

      They didn't ban it. They simply said that the voteers (who passed the law) have a right to challenge their ruling (by the California supreme court). So the case moves on–it won't be settled till it reaches the supreme court of the US.

      November 17, 2011 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ian

        Isn't that currently controlled by democrats ;o?

        November 17, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
  95. Levi

    I am all for gay rights for EVERYTHING including marriage and adoption etc, but I wish the people on the front line wouldn't dress like clowns to make a point. How can we take anyone serious wearing that junk in the picture? Let's be adults and let's be serious!

    Yes I am gay. Now get back to work

    November 17, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leaf on the Wind

      Well said, Levi. Can't take someone seriously when they dress up in clown costumes.

      November 17, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Answer

        So when actual clowns go on protest dressing as 'clowns' it's serious right? When they dress in a tuxedo then go on out to protest for their rights as clowns they're making an a-s-s of themselves?

        November 17, 2011 at 9:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • crp0499


      November 17, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leeroy

      Double Amen.

      November 17, 2011 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dad

      The clowns are dressed that way because they ARE clowns.

      November 17, 2011 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jesus

      How about the middle aged evangelical housewife who weighs 250 lbs., has a male's close shaved haircut and dresses in a robe? I rather objectively read the message, than review the fashion sense of the messenger.

      November 20, 2011 at 11:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • sue

      hi Levi. i have a son (15) who is gay, and i (we) have to agree with you. Lets be serious about this, it isn't a matter for clowns. Even my son thinks it is weird and wonders why they dress up like that.

      November 21, 2011 at 6:52 pm | Report abuse |
  96. Mr Johnson

    Then we have an idiot in Texas – Rick Perry that is messing with New Hampshire's marriage laws. He is driving gay couples and lots of major money out of the state with his greater than thou holly high and mightyness.

    November 17, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leaf on the Wind

      How does the governor of Texas have any say-so in New Hampshire's laws?

      November 17, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Report abuse |
  97. Mike

    Finally a ruling from the California State Supreme Court. Now the case can continue. I really don't see how Prop 8 survives. Prop 8 is violation of equal protection not to mention equal treatment under the law. If you listened to arguements that the "official proponents" made, they simply don't stand up. Nothing they've argued is valid. I expect that Prop 8 will be struck down and rightfully so.

    November 17, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  98. Maya

    It doesn't matter anyway. Prop 8 supporters will lose this lawsuit. They simply don't have a single solid legal argument.

    November 17, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Levi

      There is no such thing as "legal arguement" in this matter. America is land of the free which many leaders have lost sight of. It's time for another revolution and no not just because of this. We have lost too much power over time.

      November 17, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jack

        Who's ...we?

        November 17, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • MarkInPDX

        What power have you lost? You mean the power to deny a class of people access to the same rights that you have?

        November 17, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
  99. C. Rodriguez

    If gay and lesbian couples want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, then let em !!

    November 17, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hari

      Haha, You are right.

      November 17, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      you mean equality...ok

      November 17, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarkInPDX

      Wow. That's so original.

      November 17, 2011 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
1 2