Gay marriage OK'd by State Supreme Court

Home » News » Local

Friday, May 16, 2008

Comment

By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer

Calif. Supreme Court opinion - PDF

SAN FRANCISCO - California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters were planning to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.

James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, called the ruling an "outrage."

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mail statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays from around the country are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, a gay-rights attorney who worked on the case.

The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.

Randy Thomasson of VoteYesMarriage.com, a campaign to amend the California Constitution to ban gay marriage, said the decision was in effect telling children that they have a "new role model — homosexual marriage, aspire to it.

"This is a disaster," he said.

Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with" the court's decision.

James Vaughn, director of the California Log Cabin Republicans, called the ruling a "conservative one."

"The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and equally. This decision is a good one for all families, gay and non-gay," Vaughn said.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four-thousand gay couples wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race and state and congressional contests in California and beyond by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples — in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage.

Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said same-sex marriage advocates could not have hoped for a more favorable ruling by the Republican-dominated court. "It's a total victory," Minter said.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage amendment on the ballot.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Associated Press writers Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves in San Francisco and Liz Sidoti in Washington contributed to this report.

235 comment(s)

napamomma wrote on May 15, 2008 11:00 AM:

" THIS IS SO WONDERFUL!!!!! :0) "

Dwayne wrote on May 15, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Oh swell, now my normal family has been greatly diminished. That's why we're called "the left coast". "

glenroy wrote on May 15, 2008 11:27 AM:

" Lovely....I can’t wait to get invited to a gay wedding...wouldn’t that be exciting.
"

southnapareader wrote on May 15, 2008 11:51 AM:

" Your family has been diminished? Now that gay marriage is legal in CA will straight married men be led astray?

Thank God for this decision granting equality. ALL couples wishing to commit to each other should be celebrated, and any loving commitment helps to build up society.

Recent (Oct 2003) qualitative studies from the University of Washington and the University of California, Berkeley have actually shared about the success of same-sex relationships, noting the higher level of equality, maturity, positive emotions and consideration shared, compared to heterosexual couples.

(Since the Register doesn't allow links, search Google to find the study, by lead author John Gottman.) "

MP wrote on May 15, 2008 11:51 AM:

" I can't see how this decision affects my personal life, my family or my marriage any more than your family affects my relationships, Dwayne. I believe this is the correct, moral decision to give true equity for all our citizens. "

funnyme wrote on May 15, 2008 11:59 AM:

" Only in San Fransicko.

Dwayne, normal families are still the vast majority even in California. Hang in there. "

steph wrote on May 15, 2008 12:02 PM:

" Dwayne, your "normal" family might be diminished by the likes of Britney Spears and other "normal" serial marry-ers, but not by two adults who love each other and want to be committed to each other. I, for one, am very happy that the Supreme Court has seen fit to extend equal rights to our fellow human beings. "

Dwayne wrote on May 15, 2008 12:19 PM:

" I love my dog, and wanna marry her. It's all about love, not sex, right? This state is totally nuts. "

antipc wrote on May 15, 2008 12:27 PM:

" One more chunk from the stone of democracy & one more nail in the coffin of Calif. "

Common Sense wrote on May 15, 2008 12:31 PM:

" Just when you thought McCain wouldn't be able to win California... "

kevin wrote on May 15, 2008 12:43 PM:

" Don't worry people, there is a Constitutional Amendment going to be on the ballot in November that will overturn this ruling... "

kkjp wrote on May 15, 2008 1:14 PM:

" This decision doesn't deprive anyone of their rights. It gives everyone equal rights, actually, and disallows sexual orientation discrimination, just like the law prohibits racial and gender discrimination.

Things that opposite-sex couples take for granted such as joint income tax filing and social security survivor benefits, even hospital visiting privileges, will now be available to all adult couples, regardless of their sexual orientation.

I don't find any of that personally threatening or a threat to society. Neither do most people. That's why the constitutional amendment will be defeated. "

reader wrote on May 15, 2008 1:15 PM:

" To the Nay-sayers: There were people in our history who thought as you do, which allowed inequality of women, including the right to vote and own property; and many forms of legalized racism. Don't fret, your thinking will come around as your definition of "normal" is broadened to more normal and contemporary terms.

Over-turning this decision cannot occur, based on the way it was written, presented and approved; nor can it be taken to the US Supreme Court. It is a done deal. You can kick, scream, and throw a tantrum but it is law, just as anti-slavery is law. Only forward and progressive movement from this point forward.

I am proud to be living during these history making events, including the ability for our 2 democratic primary candidates to be running strong in the mainstream. "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on May 15, 2008 1:30 PM:

" However, Arnold has said he is against the state constitutional amendment. So the wishes of the vast majority of people in California will again be thrown out on the altar of political correctness. The tyranny of the few . . .

The good side of this is, just wait until the first same sex divorce cases begin - more work for the lawyers - and I'll bet some of those divorces will rival any heterosexual marriage for vengeance and backstabbing. "

jfreelancer wrote on May 15, 2008 1:30 PM:

" Proof that you can't believe everything your read . . . California is not the nation's biggest state! Texas is first, Alaska second and California third, every 5th-grader knows that! Someone should tell the Associated Press! Oh yea, gay marriage, so what! "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 15, 2008 1:37 PM:

" Yay!!!!!!

"Normal families", defined by who?

I find it truly sad Dwayne that you are comparing two loving adult human beings fighting for rights, to beastiality.

Gay couples should be afforded the same rights as straight couples whether it be civil union or marriage.

If all it takes is two gay people marrying eachother to shake the foundation of YOUR marriage, then maybe you needn't look any further than your own front door. And as far as the "sanctity" of marriage goes, realy gay people are ruining that too? It couldn't be Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage, no of course not, it is those gay people ruining it for all of you!

What reasons are there besided Biblical for two gay people not to be together?

Get a grip. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 15, 2008 1:38 PM:

" We must remember, even though homosexuality may be theologically and biologically wrong, our founding fathers wanted to create a place where people were not persecuted for a belief different than the main stream. The Europeons that settled here (and eventually founded this nation) were persecuted for thier puritan beliefs.
Gay couples absolutely have the right to pursue happyness as they see fit. The problem is where does society draw the line on this pursuit of happyness? Certainly we wont give a psycopath the right to murder people. The problem I see with allowing gay marriage is, whats next? Plural marriages? Men marrying children? Were do we draw a line?
For the record (and I am conservative politically) the 'sanctity of marriage' argument doesnt hold water. The far right will recognize a marriage between two people married while drunk by a midget dressed like Elvis in Las Vegas but not two loving adults??
Without a doubt gay marriage is absolutely within the spirit of freedom that the founders of this country wanted to impart to all. So, good for them!

But mark my words in the next decades we will be aurguing about the rights of plural marriages, adult-to-children marriages, etc.

Where do we draw the line? "

realitybites wrote on May 15, 2008 1:40 PM:

" This is an checks and balances issue. What is the California Supreme Court doing deciding what "marriage" is? This is a bad decision and the court clearly stepped over the line - again. The court was suppose to decide if Prop 22 is constitutional - that's it. Where is "marriage" defined in the constitution? "

Paddy wrote on May 15, 2008 1:42 PM:

" As one of the majority opinions of the country, and the state of California. This is a slap in the face of traditional family values and the core values of our country as a whole.
I'm not surprised. The state supremes have been manipulated by minority opinion for decades. It's horifying that CA has turned into such a wreck. "

kbf wrote on May 15, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Everyone hold your breath. The court is being asked to hold off on enacting this and in November it might be on the ballot for us to vote on. "

Tim wrote on May 15, 2008 2:04 PM:

" Are you ready for two consenting adults..who happen to be brother and sister to marry?

Or two consenting adults who happen to be mother and son to marry?

If they love each other they too should be able to marry right??

"

steph wrote on May 15, 2008 2:35 PM:

" I've got traditional family values at my home and...my face is remarkably unslapped. I'm not feeling threatened...just called my husband, he's ok, too. Our marriage is not being shaken nor tested in any way. Not worried about children marrying adults (except in certain Christian cults) and not worried about relatives marrying each other (except in certain very religious countries where arranged marriage is customary.) No, this is a good day where the rights of responsible, unrelated adults are upheld by the law. No tyranny, just liberty. You can marry the unrelated adult human of your choosing now. Nobody (except in very religious communities) will be forced to marry someone not of their choosing. The sky is not falling! What a great time to be an American! "

Tim wrote on May 15, 2008 2:39 PM:

" NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) has been waiting a long time for this...look it up...They argue that they should have their love confirmed also, it is between a consenting adult and consenting boy...Oh what tangled webs we weave. It is just a matter of time. "

Paddy wrote on May 15, 2008 2:53 PM:

" Why should we stop at two consenting adults. Why not two consenting humans. Age discrimination shouldn't be permissable.
Isn't this all about inclusivity? There should be no consideration given to moral values (obviously). How can sex between a 30 year old and consenting 15 year old be offensive under the new guidelines?
They won't be. Soon. Not in CA. "

Dwayne wrote on May 15, 2008 3:03 PM:

" I guess y'all aren't concerned that our schools are mandated to teach that marriage should be honored...All marriages. Teaching my child that gay marriage is normal and honorable is an absolute insult to society and common sense.

Plugging your toaster into an outlet is normal. The mechanics of any other combination is fruitless, and won't work. 'Nuff said. "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 15, 2008 3:04 PM:

" Tim:

I don't know why you keep bringing up children. We are talking about ADULTS, people who are over the age of 18 and can legally consent.

You are talking about a child, who is unable to consent LEGALLY. You are also speaking to pedophilia, which is where one party (the adult) is taking advantage of, or harming a child. No one will argue that a 45 year old man should be able to marry a 12 year old boy. Are you missing the "consenting adult" part, or are you just conviniently overlooking it?

I have a hard time understanding why one would draw this parallel but for no other reason than a simple (key word is simple) scare tactic.

"

realitybites wrote on May 15, 2008 3:27 PM:

" Why the California Supreme Court found Prop. 22 unconsitutional is the issue. The California Constitution does not define "marriage". It is not for the court to do so either. It is for the voters and legislature - not the court.

20 years ago homosexual conduct was considered "deviant" behavior according to the psychological community. I personally feel it is deviant behavior as is incest or beastyality. Just because more people are engaging in same sex relations doesn't make it "acceptable" or worthy of being recognized as a "marriage". So, if more people start "loving" their pets in that special way, is the court going to define that as a marriage - so we as a society don't infringe on the animal lover's right to wed his dog? In my opinion, same sex adults are entitled to form a "civil union" - but it isn't a marriage. I define marriage as a civil union between a man and woman.

What is the California Supreme Court doing overturing the voters definition of marriage? Where is marriage defined in the constitution?

For all of those who believe we are talking about "consenting adults" - where do you find that language in the constitution to support your definition of marriage? Why not mother and son or female and dog? Sounds like the court could use the same "equal protection" argument to support either of those deviant unions. "

nightwatchman wrote on May 15, 2008 3:30 PM:

" Hey look everyone, it's the same slippery slope arguments we heard when another "Activist" court struck down the ban on miscegenation... "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 15, 2008 3:55 PM:

" Dwayne: Why concern yourself with the mechanics of how things work or don't, if it doesn't directly effect you?

Quite frankly, I applaud schools for teaching EQUALITY, apparently a foreign concept for some.

Paddy: Because there is a level of mental capacity and the ability to make a well informed decision that a child does not have, nothing will ever change that. Would you allow a 6 year old to make a life changing decision, such as getting married? Probably not, and I can't think of any people, besides pedophiles, that would think that they were capable of such things, gay marriage isn't going to change that. It isn't about inclusion, it is about the very reasonable idea that two consenting adults should be allowed into a legal union. These ridiculous parallels that are drawn by the religious right are laughable, at best.

The thing that I don't get is the fact that another persons marriage doesn't effect you, why is it any of your business? How does the fact that two men are married effect you directly?

Although frustrating, women's sufferage, civil rights, and now gay marriage all had to start somewhere. I hope that I can see the day that people overcome their predjudices and I can one day tell my daughter "I actually lived in a time where people thought that gay marriage was weird and wrong, I am glad we are past that." "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 15, 2008 4:00 PM:

" realitybites: These arguments about people marrying animals and such are getting stale and tired.

There is a legal age for marriage.

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM . Many things throughout history have been deemed "mental illness" that are not, a lot of diagnosis had to do with social norms.

"

707jng wrote on May 15, 2008 4:16 PM:

" TO Plasticpinkflamingo: your comment below is cruel and I'd like to know what is the basis for this statement? How can you be so sure gay couples will backstab more than a hetero couple in a divorce? That's just mean to say.

"The good side of this is, just wait until the first same sex divorce cases begin - more work for the lawyers - and I'll bet some of those divorces will rival any heterosexual marriage for vengeance and backstabbing. " "

realitybites wrote on May 15, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Please read the decision for yourself. I have. It's on findlaw.com. The rationale the court uses is the same argument that can be used to support any number of unions which may be socially unacceptable today.

Hey NVgirl - who does it hurt for my neighbor to marry her dog? Who cares if someone marries a hundred different consenting adults all at once - who does it hurt? Who cares if a man weds his daughter, who does it hurt? Shouldn't we be able, as a society, to vote on what we believe the law should be regarding what constitutes a "marriage" (since it isn't defined in the Constitution) without fear of the Supreme Court reaching down from high and telling us NO - a man has a right to marry another man or perhaps his daughter, or a hundred wives (or now husbands) or his pet gerbal? What gives the Supreme Court the right to "legislate" and tell the majority of California voters that homosexuals are entitled to "marry"? It's not their call. "

707jng wrote on May 15, 2008 4:25 PM:

" It's amazing to me that in these times there are so many people against gay marriage!! What's the big deal? we're not asking you to marry a gay man or woman, this decision doesn't affect any hetero people so why all the hatred? Get over it!! "

opiniagirl wrote on May 15, 2008 4:25 PM:

" Steph: "except in certain Christian cults"…ouch, please be careful.
A more clear statement would be "so-called" Christian cults or Religious extremists" because neither cults nor extremists is founded in the word of Christ or embraced by practicing Christians as a biblical interpretation of the Bible.
Home school is the only way to protect our children from this information being rammed down their throats in elementary school. Personally, I don’t want anyone talking to my kid about the mechanics of anything, that’s my job.
Christians. "

leavintown wrote on May 15, 2008 4:35 PM:

" Ah this is just ridiculous. This state is going to hell in a hand basket. I guess if you are a pregnant, illegal immigrant, and a married lesbian, you would get everything you want because California doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. "

sammy wrote on May 15, 2008 4:47 PM:

" You know I come from the perspective of being a christian woman, and having a gay daughter in a committed relationship and my grand children being raised in the schools where traditional family values as we ONCE knew them are now being changed to acceptance of all families. While i believe that sin is sin is sin is sin, I surely don't rate one sin higher than another , because that would definitely not be the godly attitude and heart that I would want to stand before God, come my time of judgement. He teaches to hate the sin and love the sinner. I am madly in love with my daughter and her partner, and I am excited for my children's children that they can be part of this time in history. Does it make me not a good enough christian ? Dunno, I don't bother with what other christians who live the cookie cutter christian life style think of me. I have to be what I believe God would want. This is a great day for alot of children in our schools to begin the experience of feeling like everyone else. "

John Richards wrote on May 15, 2008 5:13 PM:

" The gays should enjoy this narrow 4-3 decision while they can, because the court ruling will almost certainly be overturned by the voters in November, as has already happened in many other states. The California Supreme Court should do the honorable thing by staying their ruling from going into effect until after the November election results are known, otherwise there will be thousands of gays whose newly 'married' status will be in limbo. "

napamomma wrote on May 15, 2008 5:24 PM:

" I hope none of my children ever turn into such bigots! "

misfit wrote on May 15, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Rape of women, sex with young girls, multiple wives, prostitution, having children out of wedlock...all heterosexual problems. What will we see next??? Doesn't anyone watch Dateline NBC? But, it is heterosexual so, it must be okay, right?
"

John Richards wrote on May 15, 2008 5:28 PM:

" "kkjp", you say "joint income tax filing and social security survivor benefits ... will now be available to all adult couples." You are wrong. Those are federal benefits, and the federal government does not recognize gay marriage. "

John Richards wrote on May 15, 2008 5:38 PM:

" George Orwell's "1984" predicted that by government fiat the plain meaning of words will be twisted to mean something entirely different. So now the age-old meaning of the word 'marriage' will be twisted to mean something different. What's next? Will the terms "male" and "female" be outlawed because they discriminate on a sexual basis? "

pharper wrote on May 15, 2008 5:43 PM:

" It deeply, deeply saddens me that people would turn such a thing into something ugly. Love between two consenting adults can in no way be compared to bestiality, or to plural marriages, or to unions between children and pedophiles. People are born gay; there have been gay people since the beginnings of humankind, and they are only just beginning to have the rights given to all other American human beings. It's wonderful that we live in a time where equality is finally starting to be a reality.

Did you know that less than fifty years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many places in the United States? It took YEARS for people to finally recognize that people of other races are humans as well, and hopefully this is the start of the same thing for gay people. Perhaps with the legality of gay marriage in California, tolerance and awareness will grow, so that our country can be one where EVERYONE is TRULY free.
"

reader wrote on May 15, 2008 6:12 PM:

" Gay and lesbian people, per capita, are higher wage earners and have higher levels of education than the general population.

Gay and lesbian people have a much lower incidence of reported abuse, of all kinds for both men and women; rape and incest are extremely low.

It is heterosexual men who create the greatest number of crimes against women, children. and other men.

So what is it that those of you who discriminate against gay and lesbians are complaining about? Please don't quote the Bible to me, we all know it was written by and/or interpreted by men who had certain political and social aspirations in their time. Give me evidence and documentation. Otherwise your emotional out bursts are just that, which demonstrate fear and hate, not intelligence or knowing. "

Disgusted wrote on May 15, 2008 7:15 PM:

" Why do so many people care SOOOOOO much about the lives of others? Do you really care who your neighbor is sleeping with that much? Shame on you all. "

pharper wrote on May 15, 2008 7:37 PM:

" You said it all, reader. :)

I too would like to see some hard evidence that does NOT come to the Bible as to why gay people should not get married. So far, all I've seen are mean-spirited comparisons to animals, pedophilia, and incest. How about actual facts/statistics/valid reasons? I'd be willing to bet you nay-sayers couldn't find any. "

russ wrote on May 15, 2008 8:07 PM:

" steph, I agree with opinionagirl: I think that you used a careless, unthoughtful, and offensive choice of words; "christian cults", for example? Lutherans, Presbyterians? Is there a cult on every corner? "

John Richards wrote on May 15, 2008 8:14 PM:

" I really don't care who sleeps with whom, so don't go setting up a strawman argument based on that.
I do care about a narrow court decision negating the plain and clear vote of the people on Prop 22.
I have no problem with giving gays all the rights and privileges associated with a civil union. But let's not go twisting the age-old meaning of marriage as being between a man and a woman. "

plasticpinkflamingo wrote on May 15, 2008 9:06 PM:

" So 707jng says about me:

your comment below is cruel and I'd like to know what is the basis for this statement? How can you be so sure gay couples will backstab more than a hetero couple in a divorce? That's just mean to say.

Now exactly how is that mean to say? Because it is true? I have known many gay/lesbian couples, and when they break up it can be (notice I said 'can' be) just as ugly as any other couple. Hurt feelings, the desire for revenge, or the need for greed to grab as much money as possible from the other partner do not know any sexual boundary.

Of course the dear lawyers will now have another 'specialty', that being same sex divorce law, so they will be able to charge premium prices. And as should be well known, 707jng, more money often brings more trouble.

I do not agree that what I said was cruel, in fact I will be proven correct.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
PPFlamingo "

Paddy wrote on May 15, 2008 10:21 PM:

" NValleyGirl -

What you're not grasping is the fact that most believe both homosexuality and pedophelia are offensive and disturbing.
Where does it end and the line of decency stop moving to the left? "

Paddy wrote on May 15, 2008 10:27 PM:

" napamomma -

Comments like yours reflect who the true bigot is. In many countries homosexuality is a capital offense. To me it's just offensive. Can I have an opinion without being branded a biggot? "

carlon wrote on May 15, 2008 10:40 PM:

" John Richards: It sounds like you're saying "separate but equal" is just fine with you, correct?

In regards to the "age-old meaning of marriage", are you referring to only the modern era when women were not considered property? Or even more modern when - gasp- interracial couples could marry? Marriage has changed substantially over the years....
"

Suze wrote on May 15, 2008 10:49 PM:

" Hmmmn....I do find this a bit peculiar, I thought that 'marriage' was a religious ceremony? Surely the various churches or synagogues should decide on this issue? We already have Civil Union and Domestic Partner provisions in place, so why do you have to have the white dress ceremony? It is not about who you love and what your commitment is, proclaiming and parading about 'gay' is a statement about your sexual behavior. Homosexual behaviour has been with man (and women) since recorded time, but it will never be completely accepted by all, so I hope these folk are not going to hold their breath for that acceptance. I think that the 'don't ask. don't tell' was a wiser policy in this delicate area. I hope gays recognize the reality that they will NEVER be accepted by all of the populace. However, I felt happy for them at their joy over this ruling, and wish them well. All the gay people I have met have been very clever, fun and interesting. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on May 15, 2008 10:53 PM:

" Alaska is the largest state. If Alaska were cut in half, each half would be larger than Texas. California is the third largest. Montana is the fourth. Somebody needs to purchase an atlas. (Others need to read the Constitution, including its amendments.) Equal protection under the law is guaranteed to all Americans, including gays and lesbians. I applaud the decision announced today by California's Supreme Court. "

steph wrote on May 15, 2008 10:58 PM:

" Not careless, not thoughtless--the FLDS is a Christian cult that practices heterosexual pedophilia. Some of their "lost boys" claim homosexual pedophilia was overlooked, as well. Note carefully that I did NOT say that all Christians practice pedophilia; I was careful to mention cults. I did carelessly leave out mention of Islam, which is used to condone marriage of very young girls to much older men in many parts of the world. Of course, it's ludicrous to compare exploitation of children to marriage between two responsible, loving, consenting, unrelated adults. For the life of me, I can't figure out why people are so preoccupied with business that is not theirs, that does not affect them in any way whatsoever. Does it serve to distract people from the fact that over half of heterosexual marriages in this country end in failure, and the resulting toll this takes on our legal system and families? Does it make people feel superior to be able to throw stones? Are the windows of your glass houses so shiny that you can't see them? If a couple want to dedicate their lives and financial responsibility to each other, is this so harmful to the rest of you? Maybe you need to get out there more and meet more of God's other children--they are a gift. Breathe, people. "

steph wrote on May 15, 2008 11:00 PM:

" Regarding the will of the people, how would that vote have gone to end slavery? "

steph wrote on May 15, 2008 11:04 PM:

" If I find it disturbing that certain heterosexuals have sex with each other (maybe they're not so great looking, or they're grossly overweight, or they're smelly, for example) should I see if I can get a law passed to ban marriage between these types of people? Should really old people who can't reproduce be allowed to marry each other? Who's business is it, anyway? "

theodora wrote on May 16, 2008 12:24 AM:

" Ok to the people who are all bent out of shape of California not being the biggest state here are the facts:

In LAND SIZE California is the third biggest state.

In POPULATION size, we are by far the biggest state. We have more people the Canada!!

Hope that helps.

BTW: My best friend is gay, and has a great boyfriend. I have no problem with it, because they are humans like all of us. I go to a high school where no one yet has had a problem with it. You guys need to go look up the word "equal" again, because you apparently forgot. "

savetycoon wrote on May 16, 2008 8:42 AM:

" I for one am happy that this passed.
These are people too, and they diserve to be happy just as we are. So what if they like something that is completely different, if that is the way they want to spend their life, let them, becuase every one diserves to be happy, with out being frowned apon. If you don't like gay, or gay marriage, then look the other way, becuase if you think about it, this really doesn't affect you, in any circumstances unless you are gay, if your not, then dont worry about it.

Right on for fighting to be happy. *people don't judge, just because that is not your life style.* "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 16, 2008 8:55 AM:

" Paddy: What you are not grasping is that you are making comparisons to what you feel is offensive and what is abuse.

Pedophilia is ABUSE, it is an adult taking advantage of and abusing a child. What dont you get about that? A child is not of age or mental capacity to make informed decisions about a sexual relationship, or relationship for that matter. That is what the adult relies on, the inablity of the child to recognize or distinguish abuse.

Just because you find homosexuality offensive does not make it abuse or wrong. If it is something you wish not to practice, then don't. It is a real easy solution.

realitybites: A person marrying a dog, would be abuse. Clearly an animal has no way to willfully consent to such a union. You are grasping at straws and it is painfully obvious.

A father marrying his daughter, please refer back to the pedophilia.

So enough with the slippery slope arguments.
"

realitybites wrote on May 16, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Personally, I could care less if you "marry" someone of your same sex, or a cucumber or a gerbal.

This issue here for me is that the California Supreme Court has denied the will of the people of California - again. The California Supreme Court is not the legislative branch of government. The California Supreme Court has no business defining "marriage" when the term is not defined in the California Constitution. The sole question for the California Supreme Court should have been whether the California Constitution prohibits the voters definition of the term "marriage" as a union between a MAN and a WOMAN.

This isn't about equal protection or the morality of homosexual relations. It's about the checks and balances of our representative form of government. The California Supreme Court is NOT the legislative branch of government.

"

Sharon wrote on May 16, 2008 9:06 AM:

" If the government should not be making a decision on marriage because marriage is a religious sacrament then they should not issue a marriage licence. Since the government does issue these then they MUST seperate church and state and have full equality. No discrimination based on any aspect of a legally conscenting adult human life can be upheld. For those who say this will corrupt your children or diminish your own marriage maybe you need to bring your eyes back where they belong- into your own home and your own bedrooms. Outside influences can only be held responsible for as much as you choose to let them be responsible for..If you do not agree with a way of life then discuss it with your children. But think about this. Whose fault will it be if your children feel you are to narrow minded and they abandon you because their beliefs do not fit into yours. I agree with Sammy. Your opinion of my life does not matter. What matters is that I live my life true to MY beliefs and love my family regardless if their beliefs conform to mine or not. When this country was founded it was founded be people of all beliefs. no religion, religion, puritan, etc..they all respected everyone elses right to choose and did not cast stones. This is what made us great. Then extremist hippocrits started passing judgements and convincing people it was correct to cast stones. It has become the way in this country. We need to go back to the beginning and stop casting stones into other peoples rights to be unique. "

opiniagirl wrote on May 16, 2008 9:17 AM:

" The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church) is one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist denominations[1][2] and one of America's largest practitioners of plural marriage.

The group is openly MORMON – They never refer to themselves as Christians and do not fall under the umbrella of Christian Theology.

Please don’t paint all Christians with the same dirty brush!
"

realitybites wrote on May 16, 2008 10:11 AM:

" To NVgirl: This isn't about what you or I consider to be acceptable or abusive. This is about the argument the California Supreme Court used to justify their decision to LEGISLATE. Read the opinion. If you believe the Supreme Court's logic, it would apply equally to ANY individual who believes they have a right to "marry" ANYTHING. Equal protection applies equally to ALL, not just homosexuals and heterosexuals. "

steph wrote on May 16, 2008 10:25 AM:

" Sorry, opiniagirl, Mormons, otherwise known as LDS, do not condone plural marriage. And FLDS as well as LDS ARE Christians whether you agree with their theology or not. This is how THEY define their religion. You may feel that your religion is the only true religion and that God only approves of your people, but other Christians feel just as strongly that God approves of only their religion. Sorry if that offends you. God's world includes a whole BUNCH of different types of people. Love your neighbor. "

steph wrote on May 16, 2008 10:40 AM:

" The people do not have the right to pass illegal, discriminatory legislation. "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 16, 2008 10:55 AM:

" realitybites: That is your broad interpretation of the ruling which you have contorted to suit your argument about how we just opened this flood gate to people marrying any one or anything.

I am sure people we carrying on about the same thing when the ban on interracial marriage was lifted.

Gee whiz, we better hurry and correct this wrong and only allow heterosexuals to marry before all hell breaks loose. Doesn't playing the roll of Chicken Little ever get tiring for some people? "

707jng wrote on May 16, 2008 10:55 AM:

" To Suze - this isn't about having a "White dress ceremony" it's the fact that gays and lesbians are humans too and they deserve the same rights as the hetero community. They are being treated as though they are not humans with human rights. The government and a bunch of hate filled biggots have NO RIGHT to tell people who they can and can not marry!!!!! Put yourselves in the shoes of gays and lesbians, how would you feel if you were told that you can't marry the person you love?? "

realitybites wrote on May 16, 2008 11:20 AM:

" NVgirl: Clearly, you feel that name calling is an appropriate response when your unable to articulate an informed response. Why don't you try reading the decision and responding to the argument instead of name calling. Not is this about what the US Supreme Court (not the California Supreme Court) decided decades ago about RACE. This is about a voter approved definition of "marriage", which the California Supreme Court determined was unconstitutional under the equal protection doctrine. Although you may disagree with my interpretation of the decision, it doesn't change the FACT that the same argument used yesterday to strike down Prop 22 can be used to strike down any prohibition of the right of ANY individual to "marry" ANYTHING.

Who is hurt by a man who "marries" hundreds of differnt consenting adults? Your argument about "abuse" certainly doesn't address that synario, nor one in which a father weds his 18 year old daughter or neice. "

realitybites wrote on May 16, 2008 11:26 AM:

" To Steph - how is it "illegal" for the voters to define "marriage" when it isn't defined in the constitution? Where does it say in the California Constitution the California Supreme Court gets to enact legislation or define "marriage"? Isn't that the purpose of checks and balances? This is all gonna be mute in November, as a Constitutional Amendment will resolve this issue and put yesterday's decision where it belongs - in the dumpster! "

TrickleDown wrote on May 16, 2008 11:53 AM:

" As is commonly argued, we are a nation founded on Christian traditions, therefore, we should ask ourselves "Who would Jesus marry?" Since Jesus didn't marry we shouldn't either. Marriage is clearly a sin and continuing to allow this sinful act only takes us further from our Christian roots. Case solved: the religious are happy as homosexuals can't marry and people desiring equal rights for all can't complain as everyone now has the same rights. "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 16, 2008 1:05 PM:

" Oh boo hoo!

I think that it is sad that some fail to understand is that determining the Constitutionality of law IS the function of the judicial branch. The California Supreme court's job is to decide whether laws pass the constitutional test, they rightly decided that the ban on same sex marriage is a violation of the constitution.

If the majority takes it upon themselves to legislate the private lives of the minority, is there no recourse? No check or balance on that?

One of the beautiful things about being a constitutional republic is that the "majority" doesn't get to violate the rights of the minority, which is exactly what the ban on gay marriage did.

What if the Court decided tomorrow that there will be a ban on Christian marriage, then the "majority" of CA voters agreed. You wouldn't want the Courts to take a second look at the new law?

Hopefully this won't be a "moot" point in November and the real majority of CA will speak out and this will be a permanent change. "

realitybites wrote on May 16, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Boo hoo is the best you can do NVgirl? Please, your refusal to address the issues and go on a personal attack demonstrates the validity of your argument.

Perhaps you can point out the article and section of the constitution (either CA or US) that defines "marriage"? Perhaps you can point out the article and section that states that an adult can't marry their sibling?

November is just around the corner and the voters will resolve this as they have done in every other state - except Mass. Oh, and by the way, the federal government, including the IRS still doesn't recognize the so called "marriage" between same sex couples anyway - what a hollow victory it must be. "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 16, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Yeah, "boo hoo" really negates the rest of my argument. Is that the best you can do?

If you can't define marriage and it isn't defined at all. Then who is to say that heterosexual marriage is valid? Who is to say that a man and woman constitutes a valid marriage?

History has shown that the "majority" isn't always correct and doesn't always have everyones interests at heart.

"Victory is sweetest when you have known defeat"

Hurry along now, because we all know the sky is falling! SAVE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

XMAN wrote on May 16, 2008 2:51 PM:

" This is one of those "argue till the cows come home" topics. My (female) wife and I have been married for over 40 years. The main feature of our marriage is a high mutual regard we hold steadfastly in our hearts. I don't understand homosexuality and never will but if two people are committed to loving each other unconditionally, that is a form of marriage. You don't need a recorded piece of paper to have it. It appears that bringing this up for an opinion by the court is a matter of principle by the petitioners. In ruling the way they did, the court most certainly opened the door for future initiatives on the coming ballots. "

realitybites wrote on May 16, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Despite your attempts to proclaim me as your savior, I'm not here to save anyone NVgirl. Your vague assertions and irrelevant argument is hilarious. I don't know what "constitutional test" your referring to in your argument, but I don't see "marriage" defined anywhere in either the US or California Constitution. Can you define this "test"? Does this test protect the rights of those who want to marry their house plant?

Which "majority" are you referring to - the one that defined marriage already in California or the "real" majority you proclaim will rise up this November and defeat the Constitutional amendment?

You ask - who is to say what the definition of marriage is? ITS THE LEGISLATURE OR THE VOTERS. The ultimate power in our political system is derived from the voters.

"

kingsavage wrote on May 16, 2008 3:10 PM:

" who cares? gays should have the right to be miserable just like the rest of us. "

esanoche wrote on May 16, 2008 3:16 PM:

" Just some perspective on "Judicial Activism, From Andrew Sullivan's Dails Dish:

"The California court cited the 1948 Perez v Sharp anti-miscegenation law ruling prominently in its decision today. If you believe that courts should have no role in opposing public opinion in areas of social policy, then the polls at the time make for interesting reading. Ten years after the 1948 ruling, Gallup fund that 94 percent of white Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. As late as 1967, when Loving vs Virginia was decided, a majority opposed it. That remained the case through the 1970s. In fact, the Perez v Sharp ruling was fifty years ahead of public opinion." "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 16, 2008 3:51 PM:

" This law brought before the CA Supreme Court had to face the test of 'strict scrutiny' (the most difficult test for a government to meet) and the highest form of judicial review, under the test of strict scrutiny all reasons for discrimination failed.

Yeah that's it realitybites my argument is so vague or irrelevant, yet you choose marriage to a houseplant to support your thesis.

I admire the way you pick and choose what you will respond to.

"Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions" "

steph wrote on May 16, 2008 3:52 PM:

" I noted with interest that three of the four judges on the majority side are Republicans. And I'm reading through the majority opinion (thanks NVR for linking to it!) I'm impressed with the thoughtfulness that went into the decision. As a libertarian-leaning individual, I have such respect for these judges who favor individual liberty and responsibility. I believe gay men and women deserve equal protection under the law. So sorry for the anguish of folks who want to punish homosexuals. I will pray for their enlightenment. "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 16, 2008 3:58 PM:

" "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samual Adams "

opiniagirl wrote on May 16, 2008 4:23 PM:

" I have NEVER once heard a Mormon call themselves a "Christian."
The problem is, that the term "Christian" is thought by some to lump all religions together in one bundle, which is dangerous to the Christian belief system or “theology” because it allows people to pick "Christianity" apart and find hypocrisy and fault with it based on all of the different interpretations of “truth”. I simply say "I'm a Believer". It can be difficult to stand firm on the rocky foundation of "Christianity" when so many secular groups claim to be based on "Christian theology" and then openly practice the opposite in their daily lives. I find that the Bible) Scripture is complete and accurate and unchanging. The “literal” translation of the Bible speaks to my heart. I cannot say what anyone else does or should feel as that is between them and the lord.
"

opiniagirl wrote on May 16, 2008 4:51 PM:

" After MUCH prayer and consideration on this issue, my position on this issue as a "Believer" is this. I believe that the scripture is (very) clear on the issue of homosexuality. Like all other sins it requires repentance and forgiveness. Sin is inherently ingrained in the heart of EVERY MAN, WOMAN & CHILD. All people, including Christians, seek out their own desires of the flesh and live in constant sin. That is why I humbly proclaim the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior and reach out to accept the Grace that had been laid at our undeserving and to often unappreciative feet.
My position as a believer:
Like any other person living on continuous sin, I must attribute a compassionate and loving attitude and try to lovingly lead fellow sinners to the Lord.
My position as a parent:
It is my job (and NOBODY ELSES) to shepherd my children and guard their hearts as much as possible from the sins of the flesh.
My position as a voter:
I believe the Government should uphold the desires of the voters; who already voted on this issue.
"

opiniagirl wrote on May 16, 2008 4:51 PM:

" I think that Believers must be careful on how much of our belief system we force onto American People. A Government decision to allow marriage is a form of acknowledgement to homosexual couples that they may share in the same “Governmental” rights and responsibilities as the rest of society, and is not necessarily inappropriate.
In Gods eyes nothing has changed. Is it beneficial to the Christian movement to insist that there be Government regulate against, and therefore alienate, the very people that we want to show Christ’s love to? Is this the forum that we want to address this issue in?
Believers are held, by the Lord, to a standard completely separate from the world. It is why a believer can look into the eyes of a person who killed or raped his child and offer that person genuine forgiveness and love, while that man remains incarcerated in this world for his “sin” or crime. And also why an unbelieving man can remain unpenalized in this world and then be penalized for unrepentant sin by the Lord, after death. These things should be prayed over, considered and ultimately decided by the Lord.
"

Beta Napan wrote on May 16, 2008 5:18 PM:

" About time this was settled! It's been almost 12 years since my friends Ellen and Delia tied their lifelong knot. They're still together, now married and happier than ever. It's good to know that relationships like theirs will have the same consititutional protection as my 18-year marriage. Prop. 22 was shameful and embarrassing. The judges did the right thing. "

steph wrote on May 16, 2008 7:32 PM:

" Opiniagirl, I continue to hold a great deal of respect for your intellectual honesty. You always put forth a well-thought-out and well-written opinion. We agree on many issues, but not this one. However, I find your call for rationality and thoughtfulness very refreshing. To me, the true teachings of Christianity center on the fact that it is God, not man, who will judge the sins of others, and that to live like Christ, you must be loving and gracious. I think you're trying, and I admire your conviction. Obviously, I'm not as religious as you are, and in my opinion, it is arrogant for people to think they know what God really is or what God really wants. When people speak of "the" Bible, I wonder if they really appreciate that there have been many edits made to what exists today, or that nobody can truly abide by a literal translation of "the" Bible, and that to pick and choose certain parts of the Bible by which to live or to judge is fairly hypocritical in the eyes of many of the rest of us. You know, I've known teenagers who are gay, and I don't believe this is a "lifestyle" they chose for themselves. Why would a kid choose to be ostracized and hated by much of society? I feel gay people have many unique contributions to make to society and deserve to be treated with love and dignity and have all the rights that anyone else has (and also all the corresponding responsibilities.) I think we need to separate our feelings of discomfort over homosexuality from what we know in our hearts is truly the right thing. I don't think it's a sin to be born gay and I don't think gay people need saving. "

John Richards wrote on May 16, 2008 10:44 PM:

" Carlon, don't try to obfuscate the issue. You know as well as I do that since time immemorial the common meaning of 'marriage' referred to the union of a man and a woman. "

John Richards wrote on May 16, 2008 11:08 PM:

" NValleyGirl, of course it is within the purview of the California Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of a law, but they can't make that decision based solely on their feelings of what is politically correct. It has to be based on something that is already in the Consitution. Have you read the basis for the Court's decision? It is a pack of do-gooder mumbo-jumbo. It babbles about the right to privacy, and how gays deserve to belong to a family unit. What in blazes does this issue have to with privacy? Where does it say in the Constitution that everyone deserves to belong to a family unit?
It is a darn shame that this decision is not subject to review by the US Supreme Court, or it would be shot down in flames for sure. "

Tim wrote on May 17, 2008 8:41 AM:

" NVALLEYGIRL: Why is it so hard for you to see that if you radically redefine what “marriage” is, then you have no legal leg to stand on to restrict other types of relationships? How do you know that polygamous or polyamorous couples are not “consenting adults?” If marriage now includes two men together or two women together, just exactly how, based on the legal arguments that have been made in favor of gay marriage, do you restrict a relationship between 1 girl and 4 dudes or 3 girls and 2 guys or whatever else people come up with? If a 15 year old and 50 year old hook up, and the 15 year old says they want to be with the 50 year old, how is that not consenting? I’m sure you’ll say the 15 year old is a minor, but if we’re already giving condoms and birth control out to teenagers, (which they do at school) we’ve obviously come to the conclusion that they can handle sex, SO HOW IS IT ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS WHO THEY DO IT WITH? When you already have the ACLU defending NAMBLA, when we give out birth control to teenagers, is it really that far of a jump to a movement to legalize adult-child sex as just another “alternative lifestyle?”

And for those of you who say that will never happen, 20 years ago people said gay marriage was an impossibility.

This is the problem with your stance: unintended consequences due to only looking at the short-term. If you give homosexuality the full protection of the law based on privacy rights and freedom of association, you open up the door for practitioners of all types of relationships to sue for the same benefits.
"

Tim wrote on May 17, 2008 8:57 AM:

" When the courts changed the definition of marriage, it must be implied that marriage is just a matter of cultural definition. If so, then “marriage” is really nothing and can be restructured at the whim of the people. It’s privileges, protections, responsibilities, and moral obligations are all up for grabs. Right now there are cases wending their way through courts in Utah challenging prohibitions on polygamy. Why not, if “marriage” is just a social construction? "

steph wrote on May 17, 2008 11:33 AM:

" realitybites--the Supreme Court did not enact legislation, it said that the state has no compelling interest in infringing upon a fundamental right of marriage between two (TWO) adults (ADULTS) who are PEOPLE. So, the claims about plural marriages and dogs and plants is hogwash and meant to be a distraction. The court found that the state cannot extend rights of marriage to only heterosexuals, especially when it already provides similar rights via domestic partnership laws to homosexuals. In effect, domestic partnership is a second-rate classification that discriminates against homosexual families, who have equal rights and protection and responsibility under the law. Case law establishes that bans on interracial marriage is illegal, and similarly, so are discriminatory laws against homosexual citizens. Individual rights cannot be taken away by majority rule. Thank goodness for the USA, where we still have freedom, even if it takes this long for some people to gain access to liberty. The good part about the US is that we do try to right some of our most heinous wrongs. "

pharper wrote on May 17, 2008 1:12 PM:

" What I'm seeing here are "slippery slope" arguments and references to the Bible. As I recall, our Constitution (federal and state) says something along the lines of, I don't know, "separation of church and state." I don't know about the rest of y'all, but to me, that means that stating homosexuals shouldn't get married because of something in a religious text kind of violates that clause. Even if you don't agree with gay marriage, I'm assuming we're all good Americans here, and as good Americans, we adhere to the U.S. Constitution. If you can find a clause in there that says "except for when it comes to homosexual marriage," please let me know. Otherwise, your religious arguments are moot. Religion can't fall into this, or it's unconstitutional.

As to the other arguments, I have to say that it’s just fear of the unknown. There's an enormous difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. Being a pedophile is a sickness; most pedophiles like children because they want to hurt them, not because they want to have a meaningful, loving relationship with them--and even if they did, a child is incapable of understanding the circumstances of it, particularly the physical, and that makes it wrong, whereas a healthy homosexual relationship is between TWO understanding adults. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation; no one choose to be that way. No one woke up one morning and decided to be heterosexual, and nobody woke up one morning and decided to be homosexual. It's like being born male or female, or black or white. You can't change it, and we're all human--human AMERICANS, which means we should ALL be afforded rights, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is a violation of these rights.
"

Tim wrote on May 17, 2008 2:23 PM:

" Steph, No rights are being taken away, some entitlements are not given because they do not qualify for those entitlements.
You don't qualify for Native American entitlements, nor do you qualify for entitlements under affirmative action, now tell me what rights of yours were taken away since you don't qualify for those things?
They have every right under the law that you and I have.
Any gay person can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned marriage. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.
It’s true that gay couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals do either.
If you develop a loving, close, and committed bond to a friend you have had for 30 years, they will not be able to receive your benefits when you die.
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to your offspring. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she and they are still covered).

If gay couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved? "

Tim wrote on May 17, 2008 2:39 PM:

" Steph, you said: "Case law establishes that bans on interracial marriage is illegal, and similarly, so are discriminatory laws against homosexual citizens."

Sorry, that is flawed logic, It is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of your objection, They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.

Your argument wouldn't work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 17, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Tim: You say that "sex is fundamental to marriage." Does this mean that a quadruplegic male should not be allowed to marry? Should one who becomes quadruplegic be forced to divorce?

According to the 1994 study by Laumann, E., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., and Michaels, S.: The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States, 13% of married couples reported having sex a couple of times a year and 3% of married women said they had ZERO sex in the past year. Should they get be required to get divorces because sex is "fundamental to marriage"?

Perhaps you could say that sex is fundamental to your marriage, but there is nothing in the law that states that sex be fundamental to any couple's marriage. I am sorry, but that is not the way the law works...and hopefully the law continues to stay out of married people's bedrooms. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 17, 2008 4:13 PM:

" Tim: This sentence of yours is wrong, too:

"If you develop a loving, close, and committed bond to a friend you have had for 30 years, they will not be able to receive your benefits when you die."

If this close friend is of the opposite sex, you could run right down to Vegas and immediately give them your benefits. It is only if that close friend is of the same gender that you can't. "

pharper wrote on May 17, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Gay marriage and interracial marriage are VERY similar, Tim. The same way that people didn't see African-American people and people of other ethnicities as people (and therefore, not eligible to marry a person) so do people see homosexuals as less than human, and as less than American. There isn't any difference between a straight and a gay person other than their sexual orientation, the same way the only difference between a black person and a white person is the color of their skin.

Another reason your argument is flawed is because a person isn't born incestuous or as a polygamist, but people ARE born gay. Saying that gay marriage will lead to laws allowing polygamy and incest is simply ill-informed, because being polygamous is a conscious choice that people make (an often despicable one, judging by the recent FLDS cases), as well as being incestuous (which we all know is typically a form of abuse). Therefore, gay marriage and polygamous marriages/incest are completely separate issues, as the latter are both lifestyles, not human characteristics. Being gay is a trait that people are BORN with, that they can't help--just like the color of their skin. So actually, I see many parallels between the former laws against interracial marriage and the proposed laws that would ban gay marriage. Your argument is flawed, and I suggest you come up with some better evidence instead of the same old paranoid story about how homosexual marriages will lead to the fall of civilization, or whatever it is you're trying to get at.
"

rogers wrote on May 17, 2008 4:36 PM:

" I’m happy with the court’s decision. I suspect this thing called “love” is just a little bit bigger than that shared by a man and a woman. Homosexuality has been with us since the beginning of human relationships. It is usually religions that place the “onus” of immorality upon relationships that do not fit their strict definition of marriage.

These people are no threat to the majority of heterosexuals. Those who fear and loathe homosexuality have been taught such intolerance and hate. The court decided to support the rights of consenting adults, nothing more. Discrimination is discrimination. You can attempt to wrap the “rationale” of your bible studies around this, but in the end it is simply religious intolerance for those who are different. Keep in mind the same bible was used in the south to justify slavery. It was not so many decades ago that most states prohibited marriage between races. The tyranny of the majority does not necessarily make actions moral or right.

This is not an “activist” court. They were required to do their job which was to rule on a case that ended up before them. They were not “over the line”. What is over the line, are the hundreds of thousands of dollars pouring into California from religious organizations such as Focus on the Family, who try to foist their extremist agenda on the rest of the nation. In November we will face yet another ballot initiative funded by religious bigots and outsiders who hate the idea of a society that won’t discriminate against the minorities they hate. So much for “live and let live”. "

NVGal wrote on May 17, 2008 5:11 PM:

" Citing the bible as a reference is completely flawed to me because there are many religions and many bibles. So how would you interpret polygamy? If you interpret one bible to mean marriage between a man and a woman, wouldn’t you have to legalize polygamy, since some religions interpret their bible to mean polygamy is God’s law as well? In order for a religion to survive the ages, it’s members must procreate. That’s why marriage in religious terms is interpreted to mean a man and a woman.
You can legally change your sex if you undergo a sex change operation, making it legal for the individual to marry the “opposite” sex. So it is ok if someone undergoes a radical surgery that alters their gender to marry someone of the same, but now opposite sex? I guess in religious terms that would be ok as long as you could procreate – turn yourself legally into a man, but keep female parts so one day you can have a baby.
I hope one day I get invited to the biggest same sex wedding of all time and that their marriage is legal in all states, including federally. A good, happy marriage should be in the reach of all of us.
"

Tim wrote on May 17, 2008 6:03 PM:

" Trickledown...I guess it didn't trickledown quit enough....look at the context of the post and specifically the statement and use a little discernment. it was a discussion of ethnicity and male and female, let me spell it out for you, ethnicity doesn't matter, sex, (male or female) matters "

NVGal wrote on May 17, 2008 6:05 PM:

" Tim – I am taking parts of your argument to mean that married people with children have benefits that are completely protected under the state’s family code, when they don’t. Pre-nups completely bypass the family code altogether. Wills can be written so that offspring receive nothing. A spouse can sign away his or her rights as the beneficiary to an insurance policy, and there is nothing state mandated to say that a working man with a stay at home wife and children has to have an insurance policy. The state doesn’t mandate the morals of a marriage. So if marriage between a man and a women alters the states family code all of the time, and men and women make a marriage work for what is best for them, not what is best for the state, then why can’t two people of the same sex do the same thing?
Men and women marry for all sorts of reasons, they can marry to receive benefits, even though they are just friends too. Now is the state going to have to mandate which man and women can marry? Do they have to prove their love? Do they have to have to have their own biological children? Will the family code now trump pre-nups and wills? You must give all of your assets to your children when you die! I hope they are really good kids.
"

Tim wrote on May 17, 2008 9:04 PM:

" " Tim: This sentence of yours is wrong, too:

"If you develop a loving, close, and committed bond to a friend you have had for 30 years, they will not be able to receive your benefits when you die."

If this close friend is of the opposite sex, you could run right down to Vegas and immediately give them your benefits. It is only if that close friend is of the same gender that you can't. "

Trickledown, you are just to good for me! I didn't think of that, your rapier wit is to much to handle..I am humbled. "

steph wrote on May 17, 2008 10:07 PM:

" Tim, you said the following: "The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. It’s because they involve children." The court did consider that children of homosexuals deserve the same protection of their family unit as children of heterosexual families. This was a big part of the court's decision. Not all heterosexual couples choose to raise children, yet they are granted the right of marriage. Here, gays are not receiving preferential treatment; they are receiving equal treatment whether or not they are sexually involved--same as for heterosexual couples.

Do you really not know any homosexual couples who truly love each other? What a shame. You'd be richer.

You also state that "Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman.." I would say instead that there is no difference between a gay man and a heterosexual man when it comes to rights (and responsibilities.)

Is marriage about sex, or is it about family? Or sometimes, is it about neither? And again, I ask, whose business is it, anyway? If my gay neighbors marry, or a gay couple I know at work marry, how are my rights infringed upon?

Tell you what--let your church decide who it will marry in your church, and I will argue for their right to refuse to marry homosexuals, should they want to. But when it comes to the state granting civil rights, I argue that homosexuals have the same fundamental rights as heterosexuals. "

Tim wrote on May 18, 2008 12:14 AM:

" pharper wrote on May 17, 2008 4:16 PM:
Another reason your argument is flawed is because a person isn't born incestuous or as a polygamist but people ARE born gay. Therefore, gay marriage and polygamous marriages/incest are completely separate issues, as the latter are both lifestyles, not human characteristics. Being gay is a trait that people are BORN with,

Twice you say people are born gay, just because you say it with conviction doesn't make it fact. please link me to that info...in the mean time take a look at this: From Dr. Dean Hamer, the "gay gene" researcher, and himself a gay man:

"Genes are hardware...the data of life's experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what's installed at the factory and what's added by the user."

(2) From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:

"Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development."

(3) When "gay gene" researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."
"

Tim wrote on May 18, 2008 12:26 AM:

" pharper, due to the 300 word limit I couldn't get every thing in I wanted...here is a little more that questions your statement of "fact" on homosexuals being born that way.

From "The Gay Gene":

"(1) There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but 'component' is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. 'Linkage' and 'association' do not mean 'causation.'

(2) There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public."

--Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.

The American Psychological Association says:

"Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation...However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
--From the A.P.A.'s booklet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"

(11) The national organization P-FLAG ("Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays") offers a booklet prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association. Entitled, "Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology," the pamphlet says:

"To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."

"

napaman wrote on May 18, 2008 1:15 AM:

" After reading what people have written all I have to say is "Live and Let Live".

Does this decision affect you? Most likely doesn't. So why should you care.

There're more important this to worry about in this world. "

Paddy wrote on May 18, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Please! The arguement and comparison of gay marriage and interracial marriage is rediculous. An interracial marriage WILL produce offspring. No matter how many times a gay marriage tries it will not.
An interracial. traditional, marriage is a marriage between a man and a woman. This is a traditional pairing of two people that has been recognized by all cultures and all peoples of the world for millions of years.
I can't recall a single instance where homosexual relationship has been recognized as anything other than abhorrent behavior. Oh, except in this new culture that some insist is "American".
I am repulsed and insulted by this twisted social instrusion that will only set off the next round of debate over what is "acceptable" and who has the "right" to do all manner of currently uspeakable acts on others. "

Tim wrote on May 18, 2008 10:37 AM:

" steph wrote on May 17, 2008 10:07 PM: Tell you what--let your church decide who it will marry in your church, and I will argue for their right to refuse to marry homosexuals, should they want to. But when it comes to the state granting civil rights, I argue that homosexuals have the same fundamental rights as heterosexuals. "

Steph, I haven't been in a church in over 30 years, please don't try and pigeonhole me as some sort of religious fundamentalist.

NVGal wrote on May 17, 2008 5:11 PM Citing the bible as a reference is completely flawed to me because there are many religions and many bibles.

pharper wrote on May 17, 2008 1:12 PM What I'm seeing here are "slippery slope" arguments and references to the Bible.

Please show me where anyone referenced the Bible as proof texts?

One person said she would pray over the matter, another said she was a Christian but supported her gay relative..and a couple of vague references to the Bible but nothing of substance.
Steph mentioned some 'christian cults',
and Trickledown made his usual witty repartee about who Jesus would marry.
Sorry nobody used the Bible in this conversation to shoot down gay marriage .
Look I've enjoyed the spirited debate and many of your well thought out comments.
Time for me to stop beating a dead horse. "

John Richards wrote on May 18, 2008 2:43 PM:

" Just because not all heterosexual marriages result in children, does not negate the societal concept that the raison d'être for marriage is to establish a stable environment in which to conceive and bring up children. By definition, gays don't qualify. "

John Richards wrote on May 18, 2008 2:58 PM:

" Part of the court's reason for approving gay 'marriage' is that we can't discriminate on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. I have news for them, we do so all the time. For example, laws prohibiting public nudity require a female to cover her nipples, while males are not required to do so. Clearly, some discrimination is good and serves the public interest. One of those exceptions is marriage, where gender is clearly an integral part of the institution. "

pharper wrote on May 18, 2008 5:34 PM:

" Tim, I may have said that people were born gay, but I didn’t say it was genetic. Just like some people are born with a certain sense of humor (no gene for that, but it’s no one’s choice to be humorous either), so are people born gay or straight or bisexual or what have you. It may be entirely psychological, but it does NOT mean that people aren’t born gay. I will admit that I know little about the “gay gene”; all I know is that people are born gay, no matter what the scientific reason is. It is a CONSCIOUS decision to be a polygamist or to be incestuous, and being gay isn’t a decision at all. That’s my point when I say that they can’t be compared; being black or white or gay or straight are all things people can’t help.

Ask any gay person whether or not they chose to be gay—the answer will be no. Most people realize that they’re gay very early on; others don’t realize it until as late as middle age, even after they’ve married and had kids. They don’t suddenly “decide” to be gay; they only realize that they are gay, and there’s an enormous difference between the two. Clearly you don’t know any gay people.

The reason I say that people referenced the Bible, by the way, is because I can’t think of any other reason why people would be “offended” or disgusted by gay people—there’s no social, physical, or mental reason to be, unless you’ve been brainwashed by a religious text.
"

NValleyGirl wrote on May 18, 2008 6:18 PM:

" Paddy: Newsflash! Not all heterosexual relationships produce children either, NO MATTER how many times they try. So according to your logic they probably shouldn't be extended the privelage of marriage either, if the sole goal of marriage is for reproduction purposes only.

There are millions of people who would NOT refer to a homosexual relationship as abhorrent behavior. Homosexuality has been around for centuries. So tolerance is un-American but hatrid and intolerance, plus an elitist attitude equals American, right?

I am repulsed by some Napans reactions to this ruling and their obvious treatment of homosexuals as second class citizens. "

steph wrote on May 18, 2008 8:48 PM:

" The extension of equal rights to gay people who choose to marry will also serve to support families (children) with two same-sex parents.

Tim, I apologize for presuming your objections were based in religion. I was wrong.

I'm curious where you cherry-picked your quotes from--talking points put out by a religious institution?

If we're talking science, you do realize that there is a whole world of knowledge and understanding awaiting discovery. The human gene is not completely understood, certainly not by lay-people like you and me. The book on what determines sexual orientation is NOT closed.

What if homosexuality is determined by hormonal influences pre- or postnatally? If people are born with a natural predisposition to homosexuality, then are they legitimate people who deserve equal protection under the law?

"

Paddy wrote on May 18, 2008 9:10 PM:

" NValleyGirl

No, this is not a "Newsflash"... I understand that there are married couples unable to have children. It's very painful for them. Don't take it lightly.
There are also couples who have decided they never want to have children, for whatever reason.
Please don't confuse my logic with yours. Mine is based on historic and pre-historic fact, not the emotional ranting of an educational system that has brought us to very dark period in the United States' very short history. Try and open your mind to the reality of the majority of the human race.
"

NValleyGirl wrote on May 18, 2008 9:42 PM:

" Paddy: NO one is making light of the fact that people cannot have children, so don't even go there. I am just following your "reasoning" for not extending marriage to include homosexuals based on their inability to procreate. Your words, not mine.

Well if you follow the "majority", the "majority" thought that women shouldn't vote, the "majority" thought that interracial marriage should be banned. Clearly the "majority" isn't as "open minded" as you would like to paint them to be. I don't need to "open my mind" to the majority of the human race, I am not a sheep, I can think for myself, thanks. "

steph wrote on May 18, 2008 10:50 PM:

" Paddy, there are homosexuals who do procreate and raise their own children in a same-sex two-parent family. The court considered specifically that these children deserve equal protection of their families under the law. "

Paddy wrote on May 19, 2008 8:31 AM:

" Sorry Steph. It's physically impossible for homosexuals to procreate. They can adopt and/or use invitro fertilization. But there's something missing in a household without a man AND woman's perspective when raising a child 24x7. Spare us from any debate to the contrary: Not all marriages work... not all partners are good parents... etc. Any point that can be made goes both ways.
There are so many reasons human beings have established the institution of marriage between a man and woman and I've heard all the propoganda being spouted about what losers billions of human being must be to have a different opinion from those that think a same-sex marriage has the same value as heterosexual marriage...It's not and can't be the same.
Cultures adopting this path are taking a big step into a moral morass that will leave us all lamenting how we've become so enfeebled. I'm tired of the minority continuing to dictate to the majority, hiding behind the black robes of 'justice'. "

pharper wrote on May 19, 2008 9:04 AM:

" And Paddy, consider this: many homosexual families adopt children that would otherwise never have a home or family. The world is already full of children without people to love them; why should we prevent qualified people from adopting and giving these children a home and a family? Procreating may be one of the purposes of marriage, but people procreate outside of marriage all the time, and while gay couples may not have children of their own, they can and often do adopt children who might never otherwise have a family--just like some heterosexual families. Procreation (or lack thereof) is a TERRIBLE reason to use in support of a ban on gay marriage. "

pharper wrote on May 19, 2008 9:38 AM:

" So many reasons? Like what? What reasons, specifically, are there for marriage to be between a man and a woman only? We've already heard the feeble and unsupported procreation reason, now how about the others? Yes, it's true that a child should be exposed to both a man and a woman's perspective, but just because they are being raised by gay parents doesn't mean they're completely isolated from other genders; that's simply not how it works. I know more than one person raised by gay parents who is very well-rounded and open-minded. The bottom line is that children need to be loved and taken care of; it doesn't matter what kind of parents they have, so long as they are cared for, healthy, and happy.

So, now that we know why the procreation argument is a sham, what are the other ones?
"

Paddy wrote on May 19, 2008 9:47 AM:

" Pharper....

As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5). This includes adoption.
A family of this kind is better than no family at all. It doesn't require marriage.
"

Paddy wrote on May 19, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Pharper
I'm not surprised you're resorting to belittling comments regarding my statements. They're not 'feeble'. In your eyes, perhaps, but your preconceived views are obvious and make logical debate against those contrary opinions a waste of time.
I'm very aware that there will be interaction with all genders. My point is the 24x7 perspective needed by having a male and female in a household is critical in providing immediate answers/solutions to a yound mind that isn't available in a same-sex marriage. Have you raised children?
I don't argue that children raised by same-sex couples can't be 'well-rounded'. I argue that they've missed out on certain interactions and experiences that can only be found in a household made up of a male and female.
Calling the "procreation arguement" a "sham" is another indication you're not exactly educated in anthropological perspective of human nature. Go ahead and write your own. I'd might even read your version of debunking the "sham".
"

freeport56 wrote on May 19, 2008 10:56 AM:

" UInfortunately, the California Supreme Court is wrong. They have stepped beyond their role as a court and legislated from the bench. They have for all intent and purpose tol;d every Californian that your vote and the law do not count.

While you do not see the effect on your life or your family. The court has just changed thousands of years of tradition held in every country on the planet. Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. They have changed the definition, how sad. "

a teacher wrote on May 19, 2008 12:56 PM:

" The largest estimate I've ever heard about the rate of Homosexuality in the US is 10%. That leaves 90% to procreate. So that's a non issue.

There s more data on same sex parents and it indicates that there is little difference in the well being of the children in these famillies as compared to hetero parents. Science is saying that this is a non-issue.

It's all irrelevent anyway because young people are overwelmingly in support of gay rights and marriage. In 20 to 30 years, when us old folks pass on, people will scratch thier heads and say, what was that all about.

"

NValleyGirl wrote on May 19, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Freeport56: The CA Supreme Court did exactly what it was supposed to do, just because it is a ruling overturning something that YOU believe in doesn't make it wrong. They ruled against a discriminatory law.

When the ruling came down my family didn't change. I am still married to a man, we still have kids. Did your family change? Are you no longer allow to marry or be married to someone of the opposite sex? The definition of marriage didn't change, it just includes more people now. "

MichelleG wrote on May 19, 2008 2:08 PM:

" I have read numerous opinions posted here on this board, and I find the level of hostility and rage expressed by some posters vehemently against the Supreme Courts decision to be shameful. Though we as a country certainly face many flaws, I think it is often forgotten that we live in a country where we are blessed to enjoy a justice system that is one of the fairest in the world. We forget that our nation was founded on the people’s desire to secure the blessings of liberty and to promote the general welfare for EACH citizen. The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Should I interpret this statement to mean only straight men are created equal? Only heterosexual people are entitled to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Thanks to these freedoms we enjoy, we are entitled to speak our opinions no matter how hurtful and damaging they can be, and several of the posts I have read are both hurtful and damaging to a group of people that have done nothing to deserve such remarks of hate and intolerance. You don’t have to understand homosexuality, and you don’t have to embrace the lifestyle, but you DO have to respect the lives and rights of other human beings, as they have respected yours. Being gay does not equate to being a pedophile or engaging in bestiality, as some have so ignorantly suggested. My proposal to those so offended by the S.C.’s decision: take a look at yourself and ask why you are so threatened. I’ll bet you are hard pressed to find any legitimate answers.
"

psychochik wrote on May 19, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Man, reading some of these comments by you people make me one step closer to leaving Napa.

I cant believe I call some of you my neighbors.

I guess the old saying, ignorance is bliss, is alive and well in Napa.

Come on people, open your eyes ! Its 2008 ! We're not living in the olden days when African Americans were slaves and not allowed to even look at a white person, women are pieces of property and gay people couldnt speak of it at all. We are living in a day and age where diversity is what makes our country as great as it is.

Oh wait, its Napa and nobody likes change. Grrr, get over people, this is reality !! "

TrickleDown wrote on May 19, 2008 3:04 PM:

" Paddy: you make the following statment:

'My point is the 24x7 perspective needed by having a male and female in a household is critical in providing immediate answers/solutions to a yound mind that isn't available in a same-sex marriage. Have you raised children?'

By this rationale divorced parents who do not remarry and those whose spouses die create substandard households for answering questions. Should we not allow children to be raised in these substandard situations where children are only getting one gender's perspective and only getting answers/solutions from one gender (just a reminder: over 40% of marriages end in divorce in US). "

big rod wrote on May 19, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Thats whats wrong with this country,everyone has a comment just like i do. I hated gays because i thought it was wrong-until one of my family member told the family he was gay on x-mas day 7 years ago ! Boy was wrong about my thinking ! They have been a pair for 7 years and i see the love they have for each other and who am i to say thats wrong !! i'm sorry for being hard headed :) "

peytonsmom wrote on May 19, 2008 5:50 PM:

" I'm glad to see this pass, so many families feel un"real" because they weren't legal now those families can. Any family is just that, a group of people who love eachother and can create an enriching home. Glad to see SF taking the first step in a more open legal union.

My aunt and her partner have been together for 17 years (which is longer than most married couples I know) its awesome to see them being recognized like this.

before I go:
jfreelancer wrote: " Proof that you can't believe everything your read . . . California is not the nation's biggest state! Texas is first, Alaska second and California third, every 5th-grader knows that! Someone should tell the Associated Press!"

Acutally square mileage wise, Alaska is bigger... just FYI "

realitybites wrote on May 20, 2008 9:49 AM:

" The California Supreme Court created a right for same sex couples to marry when no such right exists. There is no definition of "marriage" found anywhere in the constitution. The bogus decision opens the door to any union being considered a "marriage". This decision is legistation, plain and simple. Read the dissent.

The Federal Government does not recognize same sex unions as "marriage", thus, there are no federal tax benefits. Furthermore, a Constitutional amendment will make this decision mute. "

realitybites wrote on May 20, 2008 11:49 AM:

" I agree with the dissent of Justice Baxter. Strict scrutiny is not the standard of review that the court should apply because same sex couples are not a suspect class. Rational basis review is the appropriate standard the court should have used.

This decision does open the door to arguments for incestuous and polygamost "marriages" in the future.

What's amazing to me is that the supporters of the decision who post here can't simply discuss the merits of the court's decision without being appauled by the fact that others don't agree with it. "

napaiscool wrote on May 20, 2008 1:04 PM:

" If two smokin' hot chicks want to get married. I say. ALRIGHT. As long as I can watch!!! "

NVBlogger wrote on May 20, 2008 1:29 PM:

" What is truly appauling is the prejudice and hatred that has been expressed below against people who are our neighbors, friends, coworkers, family. Gay people (unlike the flimsy comparison to pedophiles) have done nothing to deserve the hostility that is clearly simmering in many of you. As for a rational discussion of the merits of the decision - makes it a little difficult when the opposing party compares marriage between two adults to "marriage" to their dog or plant, no?

MicheleG - Great comment - couldn't have said it better, so I'll leave it at that. "

realitybites wrote on May 20, 2008 2:41 PM:

" NVblogger: Despite your clear overreaction - I have not expressed any "hatred". I have engaged in an informed discussion related to the California Supreme Court decision. Justice Baxter makes the same argument in his desent regarding what todays society deams "unacceptable" unions can look to this obviously poor decision to support an argument in the future that polygamous or incestuous unions be given the status of "marriage". I'm sorry the lot of you here feel in necessary to sink to name calling or personal attacks to support your position in favor of a court creating a new definition of "marriage" which flies in the face of the voters, the legislature and history. Same sex couples already have rights to unite in California - it's called the Domestic Partnership Act. It's just not "marriage" according to the majority of California voters, the Federal system and the vast majority of states in the U.S.

The fact is, based upon the court's erroneous decision, it won't be long till someone seeks to use this decision as precident to say their "right to marry" their gerbal has been violated by our discriminatory society. Who's to say the love between a man and his gerbal isn't worthy of constitutional protection? Are you willing to say that NVblogger? "

nvblogger wrote on May 20, 2008 3:47 PM:

" RealityBites - Quite to the contrary - I did not have clear "overreaction". I was simply pointing out that the expressions of hositily and hatred is more appauling then a reluctance to debate, especially when the opposition continue to introduce bestiality as justification or support for their arguement.
It does, however seem that you are looking to provoke an overreaction with your comments about a man and his gerbil. It is simply not constructive to a debate to continue to harp on the man/animal scenario.
Many have responded to your comments regarding the courts decision to "fly in the faces of history, the votes, etc" with their examples of past history where the voters were simply wrong.
Why do you not address the previously posed question regarding the "declaration of Indepenance “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Should I interpret this statement to mean only straight men are created equal? Only heterosexual people are entitled to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
What is it that you are so afraid of (beyond of course your neighbor wanting to marry his gerbil)? "

a teacher wrote on May 20, 2008 5:01 PM:

" "The fact is, based upon the court's erroneous decision, it won't be long till someone seeks to use this decision as precident to say their "right to marry" their gerbal has been violated by our discriminatory society. Who's to say the love between a man and his gerbal isn't worthy of constitutional protection? Are you willing to say that NVblogger? "

You know that is so rediculous that is is almost beneath commenting.

Almost. "

John Richards wrote on May 20, 2008 5:50 PM:

" Hyperbole or exaggeration is often a valid technique to illustrate a point. If you are a math teacher you will know what "taking it to the limit" means.
The California Supreme Court has started us down a slippery slope where the plain meaning of words doesn't matter anymore, all in the pursuit of political 'correctness'. "

John Richards wrote on May 20, 2008 6:06 PM:

" I urge everyone to read the full text of the dissenting opinions, which starts on page 128 of the PDF document link above. Quite an eye opener! Unlike many of the posts here, the logic is irrefutable and without extraneous or emotional side issues. "

steph wrote on May 20, 2008 6:41 PM:

" The constitution serves to protect and uphold the rights of ALL people. Excluding law-abiding citizens from equal protection, or singling out citizens for preferential treatment is against the constitution.

As for your claim that incestous marriages could be protected, you are wrong. There is a scientific basis for making incest unlawful, and that is to protect children from exploitation by older relatives AND to protect children from high rates of birth defects.
"

steph wrote on May 20, 2008 6:43 PM:

" All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hmm...sound familiar? Gay people now have equal protection of the law that grants rights and privileges associated with marriage. "

steph wrote on May 20, 2008 6:52 PM:

" "In 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving had married in Washington, D.C. to evade Virginia's anti-miscegenation law (the Racial Integrity Act). Having returned to Virginia, they were arrested in their bedroom for living together as an interracial couple. In 1965, Virginia trial court Judge Leon Bazile, who heard their original case, refused to reconsider his decision. Instead, he defended racial segregation, writing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

So many parallels....

"In 1967, 84 years after Pace v. Alabama in 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that:

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Same can be said of gay people. You will know in your heart that I'm right when you discover that someone you love is gay. If you already know someone, it's not too late to apologize.

GOD BLESS THE USA! "

realitybites wrote on May 20, 2008 7:40 PM:

" Everyone seems to agree that there is a right to marriage. The question is to what (or whom). The fundamental right to marriage is between A man (singular) and A (singular) woman (not their relative). So says history, the voters and the legislature. The power of our political system stems from the voters. No one here has the right to "define" marriage without the agreement of a majority of California voters.

As to the ridiculous claim that there is a scientific reason which warrants refusing the right to marry to relatives, animals or plants - the same can be said for same sex couples as the last time I checked they cannot procreate naturally? Is not the love between a human and their pet "worthy" of a union? Why not - says who - certainly not the California Supreme Court? Why not allow a "human" to marry whatever they want? Who is to decide? What about 15 years from now?

Read the dissent of Justice Baxter! "

nvblogger wrote on May 20, 2008 8:59 PM:

" RealityBites - As long as you continue to compare 2 consenting adults and their rights to marriage to an animal or plant who can't consent - how do you really expect to have an intelligent discussion? You really expect to be taken seriously? Not even worth commenting on anymore.....
I suppose 100 years ago, you would have been arguing that that the majority felt blacks were an inferior class of people with no rights, or women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or a black couldn't marry a white?
Oh wait, I get it...procreation defines the right to marry. So if a woman is sterile for some unexplained medical reason and is "scientifically" unable to procreate, then she doesn't have the right to marry.
You are conveniently ignoring or not addressing a lot of well written comments regarding the ignorance that the majority of voters can have a certain point in time and have demonstrated in our history.
The courts do have the rights to define who can and can't be joined in a union (it is after all a legal contract.
The opinion of the a dissenting judge isn't really relavent now is it, he was afterall the "dissenting judge"?
I ask again - is that all you are so worried about is your neighbor asking for the right to marry his pet? Really, I ask, what is so scary about recognizing that a gay/lesbian couple have equal rights?
"

steph wrote on May 20, 2008 9:29 PM:

" It's not so much that the courts can define who can and can't get married as that they can REJECT unconstitutional laws that restrict the rights of Americans.

Fortunately in our great nation, the majority of voters cannot legally legislate away the rights of minorities. "Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans dissapproved of interracial marriage."

Fortunately, the US Supreme Court wisely rejected the wishes of the majority in the case of interracial marriage. "

Abrie wrote on May 20, 2008 9:44 PM:

" I thought America was supposed to be a free country. Not somewhere where everyone discriminates against people. Everyone should be able to do what they want to do and marry who they want to marry. This country is insane. "

Tim wrote on May 20, 2008 10:00 PM:

" This is EXACTLY the point I made earlier, Dan Ross as well as others thought it to be "spectacularly bizarre" and "hysterical" reasoning..but the dissenting Justices didn't, I quote Justice Baxter: "The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deep-
rooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations
of social policy. Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our
laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority
overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deep-
rooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The
majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community
values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to
marry that contravenes express statutory law.
That approach creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this
perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory. Who can say that, in ten,
fifteen, or twenty years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis
to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the
laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer
constitutionally justified?"

This is the slippery slope that so many of you said we were crazy to broach, and yet the dissenting Justice's found it to be troubling as well.

Many of you said we were likening gay marriage to pedophilia or beastiality....you are so wrong!! we said changing the definition of marriage opens the door to those who have those perversions to apply the same "marriage rule" to their case..the dissenting Justices agreed.

"

Tim wrote on May 20, 2008 10:19 PM:

" Steph, this point is for you, you continue to liken gay marriage to interracial marriage, saying they are one in the same argument.

Justice Corrigan disagrees with you. I quote " The majority refers to the race cases, from which our equal protection
jurisprudence has evolved. The analogy does not hold. The civil rights cases
banning racial discrimination were based on duly enacted amendments to the
United States Constitution, proposed by Congress and ratified by the people
through the states. To our nation’s great shame, many individuals and
governmental entities obdurately refused to follow these constitutional imperatives
for nearly a century. By overturning Jim Crow and other segregation laws, the
courts properly and courageously held the people accountable to their own
constitutional mandates. Here the situation is quite different. In less than a
decade, through the democratic process, same-sex couples have been given the
equal legal rights to which they are entitled.
In Perez v. Sharp we struck down a law prohibiting
interracial marriages. The majority places great reliance on the Perez court’s

statement that “the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of
one’s choice.” However, Perez and the many other cases
establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common
understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The majority recognizes this, as it must.
Because those cases involved the traditional definition of marriage, they do not
support the majority’s analysis. (continue to next post) "

Tim wrote on May 20, 2008 10:26 PM:

" (Continued) The question here is whether the meaning of the
term as it was used in those cases must be changed.
What is unique about this case is that plaintiffs seek both to join the
institution of marriage and at the same time to alter its definition. The majority
maintains that plaintiffs are not attempting to change the existing institution of
marriage. This claim is irreconcilable with the
majority’s declaration that “[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal
institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between
a man and a woman.” The people are entitled to
preserve this traditional understanding in the terminology of the law, recognizing
that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different. What they are not entitled to
do is treat them differently under the law.
The distinction between substance and nomenclature makes this case
different from other civil rights cases. The definition of the rights to education, to
vote, to pursue an office or occupation, and the other celebrated civil rights
vindicated by the courts, were not altered by extending them to all races and both
genders. The institution of marriage was not fundamentally changed by removing
the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. Plaintiffs, however, seek to
change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been
understood, into something quite new. They could certainly accomplish such a
redefinition through the initiative process. As a voter, I might agree. But that
change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate.

Interracial and gay marriages are different. "

steph wrote on May 20, 2008 11:32 PM:

" Plaintiffs sought to EXTEND marriage rights, not to change its definition. My heterosexual marriage is NOT changed by extending the same recognition and responsibilities to a homosexual couple. I have given you concrete reasons why I would not support incestuous relationships and why I would not support pedophilia, yet you continue to want to confuse the issue, by threatening that specifically allowing law-abiding consenting adults (two of them) to marry, then all forms of combinations of adults + children/plants/animals/inanimate objects will result. However, there exists no legalization of such binding relationships, so there is, in fact, no precedent and THERE WON'T BE. Further, I have drawn the parallel between bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage but you have not considered them. I will not translate them any further. The dissenting opinion says that marriage was understood to be between a man and a woman, and that Americans agreed with that definition. But in fact, Americans in the 50's did not believe that marriage rights should be extended to couples of mixed race, and as is the case here, they were wrong.
It is YOUR side that does not want the court to define marriage, and that is what the minority opinion judges are attempting to do as a justification for denying equal rights homosexuals. The constitution does NOT define marriage, and that's why your side wants an amendment. In fact, the 14th amendment, as I pasted for you to read below, prohibits this. In fact, by California law, as the majority opinion eloquently stated, homosexuals already have the same rights given in domestic partnership, and so to deny them the same designation (without DEFINING marriage and therefore not CHANGING "the definition" of marriage) is to deny homosexuals the same class rights as heterosexuals. "

steph wrote on May 20, 2008 11:40 PM:

" "But that
change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate. "

WRONG.

It is NOT legal for the majority to restrict the rights of the minority.

It IS the duty of judges to protect the unique rights of ALL law-abiding US citizens, afforded by our constitution and by our tradition of liberty and privacy.

If the state should have a compelling interest in supporting marriage, it does so in order to foster stabilizing family units. This is as good for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals and is good for society in general. "

hudds5 wrote on May 21, 2008 6:34 AM:

" I knew a guy who was so miserable in his marriage he would use the phrase, "stay gay". Now he should be happy that others can share in his misery of marriage. "

realitybites wrote on May 21, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Nvblogger & Steph: Tim has correctly pointed out the assertion made by the dissent that this decision "opens the door" to any number of unions. So, your contention that my argument is ridiculous, about a man wanting to marry his gerbil, isn't supported by the discussion in the actual decision.

I disagree that the same sex couples are a suspect class or that they ever had a fundamental right to marry. The court has now granted them a right (albiet temporary) which has never been recognized - thus, the court enacted legislation, struck down the Domestic Partners Act and trampled on the voice of the majority of California Voters, when they should have given deference to the will of the people.

The dissent is relevant and in many cases the dissent later becomes the majority as times change (as was the case in many US Supreme Court decisions).

There is no fear in my words, nor hatred. I could really give a damn about who marries who or what. To me, this is a separation of powers argument which reflects upon the system of government my tax dollars pay to support. As a voter, I have a say and my vote, along with the majority of California Voters, should not be cast aside so that the court can legislate from the bench. "

realitybites wrote on May 21, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Steph: It is for the majority to dictate what our society is willing to recognize as worthy of protection. That's why we currently can't marry our relatives or pets or hundreds of wives or husbands - because THE MAJORITY says so - not the court. There is no discrimination here, same sex couples are not a suspect class, never have been, nor has there ever been a right for same sex couples to marry - they have no such fundamental right - never have. They have the right to form a civil union, because California is a progressive state, but even this isn't recognized by the Federal government. God Bless the USA! "

mominapa wrote on May 21, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Good luck and Godspeed to all gay couples who want to marry. To all dissenters - Oh, get real. How can two gay people possibly compromise you, your marriage or your way of life. If you have medical insurance, you will not lose it if gay people want to marry. If you have a gay child, embrace him or her or lose him or her. If you have a problem with this ruling, you have as much right as any of us do to voice your opinion, but please do it with some semblance of responsibility. Gay people do not exist to grab your little boys or girls. Gay and pedophile are not one and the same thing. You are only stressing yourself out if you obsess about this ruling. God will not strike you dead if you are nice to a gay person or hope that they receive the same rights you enjoy. Bigotry is the sin. Not homosexuality. "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 9:46 AM:

" Realitybites, you are like a fly in the window, you will not stop confusing the issues of two adults vs. adult + animal or adult + child, no matter how many times it is pointed out that this is a fallacious argument.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry this issue is so important to you. I will vote against your amendment. I will place my faith in my children and their generation, which has shown remarkable enlightenment on this subject.
The next generation will make this argument moot, except to look back in appalled amazement that so many people were so vigorous in defending ignorance and punitive values that hurt good people. "

nvblogger wrote on May 21, 2008 10:29 AM:

" well said steph.
"

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Realitybites--on what basis do you make your claim that homosexuals are not a suspect class? I think you're mistaken, and I think it's quite obvious you're mistaken. Further, protection of children requires strict scrutiny, and children of homosexual unions deserve the same protection and rights as children of heterosexual unions, hence, strict scrutiny. I'm proud of the four majority opinion justices--three of whom are Republicans. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 21, 2008 12:06 PM:

" steph,

I would like to address this comment from you;
"you will not stop confusing the issues of two adults vs. adult + animal or adult + child, no matter how many times it is pointed out that this is a fallacious argument."

You consider other variations of not-acceptable unions as a fallacious aurgument. But what you fail to see is as society keeps moving the 'line in the sand' to the 'left' we are breaking down the values that made this country great.

Once the homosexual community is 'inside' this 'line' we can expect the group that is outside this line to start fighting for 'thier' rights. So what is the next group to attampt to get inside the line? Plural marriage? Adult + child? Mothers + sons? Dads and daughters? Adults and animals?

So you see it is relavent. Sadly as each of these groups move inside the line we erode the values of our society. REALITY CHECK, like it or not we have to draw these lines. The question becomes where?

So I ask you steph, were do YOU personally draw the line, and what do YOU say to those groups that YOU dont want 'inside the line'?? "

foss valley wrote on May 21, 2008 12:45 PM:

" The people of the state voted and four judges are deciding our fate, this is. facism, socialism, and communism. The slippery slop has been created, legalize poligamy beastiality and every other disgusting thing someone can think of because it doesent matter what a vote of the people says because judges rule us. "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 1:18 PM:

" 2c, I've made my position abundantly (redundantly) clear on the other groups that you mention, the groups that, unlike homosexual unions, have no legal protection and therefore no precedent for qualifying for marriage rights. I've even used all-caps to express my opinion. You're welcome to re-read what I've written if you're still not sure. "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 1:21 PM:

" Weren't we "moving the line in the sand to the 'left'" when we got legal protection for people of color to marry people of other races? I don't consider this a "left" vs. "right" issue; I consider this a moral issue of right vs. wrong, and I stand in the right with the court, on the side of protecting the legitimate right of homosexuals in this country to marry. "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 21, 2008 1:24 PM:

" Realitybites & Justmy$.02: Pedophilia & animal marriage, that is actually the cornerstone of your argument? That is what you two are going to hang your hats on? With straight faces even?

How do you both miss the fact that both of those scenarios involve one party uncapable of being able to consent versus two adults. I am not sure if you both are being purposely obtuse or if you really don't get it.

Somehow magically everyone will forget that pedophilia causes a small child harm. Do you honestly think that the US will make provisions for this criminal behavior and let a 45 year old man take a 6 year old wife? Give me a break your arguments would be laughable if they weren't so sad, and hold as much water as a thimble.

Homosexuals are tax paying, law abiding citizens who have families that deserve protection and relationships that deserve recognition. The both of you should be ashamed of yourselves with you constant comparison of their lifestyles and of those who practice beastiality or pedophilia. "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 1:27 PM:

" This may help some of you: bestiality is illegal. Incest is illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. None of the above pairings have legal protection; none of the above are entitled to domestic partnerships. Therefore none of the above are entitled to marriage. On the other hand, homosexuality is NOT illegal. Homosexuals have legal precedent to form legally recognized partnerships. The court ruled that distinguishing homosexual unions from heterosexual unions amounts to unequal protection of law-abiding adult citizens and their children, and thus rejected the ban on homosexual marriage. "

realitybites wrote on May 21, 2008 1:35 PM:

" The dissent of Justice Baxter explains why same sex couples are not a suspect class - here is a portion of the dissent:
"As the majority also notes, the issue is one of first impression in California.
I find that circumstance highly significant. Considering the current status of gays and lesbians as citizens of 21st-century California, the majority fails to persuade me we should now hold that they qualify, under our state Constitution, for the extraordinary protection accorded to suspect classes.
The concept that certain identifiable groups are entitled to extra protection
under the equal protection clause stems, most basically, from the premise that because these groups are unpopular minorities, or otherwise share a history of insularity, persecution, and discrimination, and are politically powerless, they are
especially susceptible to continuing abuse by the majority. Laws that single out
groups in this category for different treatment are presumed to “reflect prejudice
and antipathy — a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or
deserving as others. For these reasons, and because such discrimination is
unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means,” the deference normally
accorded to legislative choices does not apply. (Citations ommitted) . . .
Recognizing that the need for special constitutional protection arises from
the political impotence of an insular and disfavored group, several courts holding
that sexual orientation is not a suspect class have focused particularly on a
determination that, in contemporary times at least, the gay and lesbian community
does not lack political power."

I hope everyone here takes the time to read the entire decision (including the concurring and decenting opinions) for yourself. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 21, 2008 1:53 PM:

" JustMy$.02, realitybites, and Tim:

You three won't drop the idea of close-relation marriage or pet/person marriage because you like the slippery slope arguments. I am a sucker, so I will bite and show you that we have little to fear from these (regardless of what some judge says).

More than of you have focused on the effects to children of being raised in a same-sex household, though it is easy to poke holes in these arguments. Now for marriages between
Mothers and sons or Fathers and daughters, rather than having some claimed (though false) effects to offspring, the offspring have well-known deficiencies due to inbreeding depression, etc. For this reason, marriages between close relations (brother/sister, parent/child) will remain illegal and it will be incredibly easy to make a scientific case against them...assuming people decide to agree with science and the religious don't come out in force for sibling reproduction based on Genesis.

Now, for pet/person, lest you forget I should remind you that marriage is in the state's eyes a contract between two people and carries with it the right to make decisions for the other person should catastrope strike, carries certain parenting rights, etc. So, for this reason, it will be effortless to keep pets out of marriage by preserving its contractual role (if one remembers that pets can't enter into contracts).

Something tells me that fear of losing the slippery slope argument approach will leave the three of you ignoring these simple arguments for why we needn't fear your red herrings. Oh well. At least I tried. "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 1:56 PM:

" So the gay and lesbian community has political power? We'll see when you all try to pass that 14th amendment. I find Justice Baxter's disqualification of gays from protection status totally weak. He sounds bitter, not blind. Just because "several" courts have rejected gays from suspect classification does not mean all have done so, and doesn't make it right. Clearly the majority opinion agreed. "

rogers wrote on May 21, 2008 2:09 PM:

" realitybites...your statement "There is no discrimination here, same sex couples are not a suspect class, never have been, nor has there ever been a right for same sex couples to marry - they have no such fundamental right - never have."

Apparently the California Supreme Court disagrees with you, as did the Supreme Court in Massachusetts where it is legal for people of the same sex to now marry. Your statement, that there is no discrimination here, is beyond naive. Most of us don't live our lives by simple majority definitions. And, believe it or not, those lines in the sand are constantly moving and always have. That's why the courts must become involved, not because they are activist judges, but because society itself constantly changes and the laws must be reviewed for relevance and fairness.

Such a change may offend your moral center or that of your church but as to your assumption that the majority is beyond reproach is fallacious. Nazi Germany prior to and during WWII certainly constituted a majority opinion within those borders, but it is difficult for anyone these days to defend that movement as a moral majority. At times in our own history the majority has caused grievous harm to certain minorities through its actions and inactions.

What has made this a great nation has been our ability to look at ourselves and redefine ourselves as we have grown and changed as a society. Fortunately our founding fathers had the wisdom to foresee this and they built in a mechanism to alter the constitution of our country. These are the amendments.

As an aside, did you know that the state with the highest percentage of lasting marriages is Massachusetts. Like Dorothy said,"We're not in Kansas anymore Toto..." "

realitybites wrote on May 21, 2008 2:29 PM:

" Wow, more name calling and bashing.

It's not a "slippery sloap" when you destroy the fundamental definition of marriage without the consent of the populus?

The definition of suspect classifications comes from stare decisis - not Justice Baxter.

If the majority of society doesn't have the right to define "marriage" - who does?

Last time I checked same sex couples don't procreate without the assistance of technology. They "raise" children because society has deemed them to be acceptable for that purpose. Thus, they have political power - who do you think lobbied for the Domestic Partnership Act - the Nazis? "

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 21, 2008 2:30 PM:

" steph, please go and re-read my origninal remarks on this blog (somewhere near the bottom). You will find I feel gays do have a right to pursue a life of happiness.

My concern, as a conservative, is the moral decay of our society. Give an inch, someone will try and take a mile. You claim that various other unions are illegal. Sure today they are, but once a morally corrupt situation like gay marriage becomes 'accepted' the aurguments to make those other unions not illegal will begin.

And you will see a re-occuring pattern. Thier aurguments will be identical to racial reforms, womens rights, gay marriage etc. They'll keep taking a little by little acceptance untill it becomes mainstream. Now the things I just mentioned, racial reforms, womens rights, etc. are absolutely a right and should be protected by our laws.

But my 'RHETORICAL' question still remains, where do we draw the line. Because a line has to be drawn. Personally I thought legal unions was a perfect solution, not that I believe in the sanctaty of the word mariage (see my original post).

I also find it ironic that you think being 'illegal' will somehow protect society from the problems these other unions will bring. Being illegal certainly hasnt protected our society from the problems caused by a certain segment of immigrants has it? But thats another aurgument. ;) "

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 21, 2008 3:06 PM:

" TrickleDown,
Nice try, I'll give you an A for effort! But I would like to address your comments;
"More than of you have focused on the effects to children of being raised in a same-sex household, though it is easy to poke holes in these arguments. Now for marriages between"
Now I personally have never said anything about the effects of children raised in a same-sex marriage, but for you to say its easy to poke holes but dont actually poke any holes then move on is, well a horrible argument. Then you offer this;
". . .For this reason, marriages between close relations (brother/sister, parent/child) will remain illegal and it will be incredibly easy to make a scientific case against them...assuming people decide to agree with. . ."
Will remain illegal you say? For how long? Years? Decades? Centuries? Assuming people agree with who. . . YOU? If not you then who? This is exactly the point I (personally) keep making, once we get gay marriage to be accepted as a social norm, what or who is going to be next in line to make their chosen lifestyle an accepted social norm? Hence somewhere we must draw a line, thats a reality liberals dont want to face.

And I agree the pet/person is extreme and laughable, but I use it to make a point. Somebody, somewhere, someday is going to make that argument, if you dont agree that lines must be drawn this argument will happen someday.
I have no fear of losing the slippery slope argument, because the situation is the slippery slope. Gay marriage is an erosion of the morality of this society (personal opinion) and is in fact a stepping stone to the next level of perversion that will attempt to permeate our society.
"

MichelleG wrote on May 21, 2008 3:57 PM:

" Reality Bites – I really haven’t seen any name calling here, only people defending their position as passionately as you have done in your last 17 posts. As for posters Steph, NvBlogger, NvalleyGirl (and many others here), it’s people like you who defend the rights others with an open mind and heart that make the Napa community still feel like a nice place to live. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 21, 2008 4:30 PM:

" JustMy$.02: It is pretty funny that you semi-quote me and leave out the word that answers your question when you ask "agree with who?" Science, that is who. Science clearly shows that it is detrimental to the health of a society to allow inbreeding---there are tomes of research showing this. You are searching for a line in the sand and science clearly provides it as the effects of societal health would be horrible if inbreeding were allowed. Why do you think it is that inbreeding is illegal already? This reason hasn't gone away.

Is there detriment to society in allowing homosexuals to marry? Massachussettes, where it is legal, has the lowest divorce rates in the nation. Arguments such as same-sex marriages not providing gender-balanced parenting are invalid unless you are also going to take children away from single parents. I haven't heard or read a single non-fallacy-based reason (slippery slope, you might recall, is an argumentative fallacy) for the allowance of marriage between any two, non-closely related, consenting adults. Do you have one?

Finally, why is it that you say "liberals" must face this issue of drawing a line in the sand? Do you think that only liberals agree that homosexuals deserve the right to marriage? Check Vice-president Cheney's position on this, and you aren't going to hear anyone argue that he is liberal.

Funny side note: our vice-president's first name is not allowed in a post, else it gets rejected. I guess he is unmentionable here. "

realitybites wrote on May 21, 2008 4:51 PM:

" Michelle: Comparisons to Nazi's, bigots, "fly on the window" - this is just a few of the comments directed at those who disagree with the opinion.

I respect that people are passionate about the plight of same sex couples. It seems I'm not allowed to express my opinion of the court's decision and what I see as judicial error without folks taking it personal or trying to tie the decision to race or women's sufferage or claiming those who disagree with the court's logic are bigots, Nazi's or flies on a window, just to cite a few.

Oh, the poor homosexuals - you must be a racist or a bigot or a mesogynist if you disagree with the decision - please.

"

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 21, 2008 5:08 PM:

" TrickleDown,

If science clearly shows that in-breeding would be detrimental to the health of a society, what would science say about no-breeding?? I have said before (read first post in this thread) that homosexuality is biologically wrong. I stand by that statement.

You said;
"I haven't heard or read a single non-fallacy-based reason (slippery slope, you might recall, is an argumentative fallacy) for the allowance of marriage between any two, non-closely related, consenting adults. Do you have one?"

Yes, but you don't want to hear it. Allowing gay marriage is theologically, biologically, and morally wrong! The allowance of such does lead society down a path that decays our society. Thats not a fallacy thats a fact.

However, you are correct in that more than just liberals think homosexuals deserve equal protection under the law, read my first post I am one of those. I am arguing we should have stoped at legal unions because of the 'next in line' unions that will be looking for acceptance from society.

Im looking at the future and current decay of our once great society, your looking at today. Moral decay is all around us and is only getting worse. Give an inch they try and take a mile.

Gay marriage is just one more step down that slippery slope. Thats reality. "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 5:13 PM:

" To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must meet all of the following criteria:

The groups' characteristics are immutable. The group shares a history of discrimination. The group is politically impotent. The group is a discrete and insular minority.

Now, you can't look at that definition and with a straight face say that homosexuals don't CLEARLY fit the definition.

Now, you can't honestly say on the one hand that the majority of Americans feel homosexuals should be discriminated against, and on the other hand use their political power (?) as the basis for rejecting strict scrutiny.

Doh!
"

TrickleDown wrote on May 21, 2008 5:20 PM:

" JustMy$.02:

I didn't catch this quote from you until a reread:

"Sure today they are, but once a morally corrupt situation like gay marriage becomes 'accepted' the aurguments to make those other unions not illegal will begin."

You called me out asking who the authority should be to draw the line, and I pointed it out that a very clear, scientific argument can be made why siblings shouldn't marry. Unbiased science says this. Now, however, you post a zinger calling gay marriage morally corrupt! According to who? God? Whose god? You want to draw a line in the sand because you call something corrupt, but why should your arbitrary line be chosen?

This statement by you which I quote perfectly illustrates why the law presented to the Supreme Court was overturned: it was a law based on an arbitrary line in the sand and that line's position is not defensible in any way. Notice that it is easy to defend why all of the slippery slope cases you provide should not be allowed without resorting to someone's artificial morals and only basing the case on the funciton of marriage in society.

You stand by a line drawn arbitrarily in the sand, and unless moving that line will prove a detriment to society the law should always rule that that line can be moved if its position takes away people's rights. "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 5:46 PM:

" Here's my line: protecting children. I *wish* I could protect all children from exploitation, from irresponsible and selfish parents (both heterosexual and homosexual), and divorce and serial parental relationships, and abandonment and chaos and abuse and neglect, but I can't. I wish people were more responsible when it comes to raising children, but so often they aren't. I think the anti- folks here would do well to take a long look at why it is that this issue energizes them so? When we have people like Britney Spears, the poster child for irresponsible marriage, who enjoys all the rights and privileges and recognition of whichever marriage she's on currently, and all the while her children sit at home with God knows who doing God knows what? Why do people get so worked up over a serious, loving, mature same-sex couple who want to marry and raise children in a calm, loving, nurturing, stable environment, while Miss Spears procreates with abandon? This is inherently unfair! You know, I'll be honest, I can understand people's initial feelings of discomfort and unease with homosexuality, especially when we were all taught it was immoral and evil, and we don't have the same proclivities--it can be hard to understand certain stereotypical affectations and such. But you know, if you open your heart and get to know a few gay people, laugh with them, learn from them, you will see that being different is not of itself a bad thing. I'm speaking of course, about otherwise (to overuse my favorite word) responsible, respectable people. At some point you may realize that it's true that people are born this way, and deserve all the same rights (and responsibilities) as heterosexuals. I hate to have people feel they must hide who they are--this is damaging. "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 6:03 PM:

" I believe it is not immoral to be born gay. I don't see homosexual marriage as immoral. I believe it is immoral to hold oneself up as being more moral strictly on the basis of classification when that classification really says nothing else about one's character, and especially when that classification has a 50% failure rate. I think this is where the real energy of this argument comes from. I think certain people like feeling morally superior without having to work very hard at it. But you know what Jesus says about that. Put your stones down and get to work on your own marriages and be good parents to your own children if you want to make a difference. And with that, I'm off to kiss my awesome husband! "

steph wrote on May 21, 2008 6:59 PM:

" What I meant about a fly in the window was that I keep hearing the same arguments over and over and over and over (and over) that homosexual marriage is going to lead to bestiality, pedophilia, and incest. Over and over, like a fly trying to fly out of a glass window. I didn't mean it as an insult. I just get exasperated when I and others put forth rational counter-arguments to this claim and then the same argument is rehashed and then we clarify our argument against that claim, and then the claim is made again, over and over and over. Buzz buzz buzz!

I'm quite pleased with the almost academic back-and-forth here. I think we've all been fairly respectful of one another. Everyone has the right to disagree and state their opinion. We haven't resorted to the usual PC shut-down of dissenting opinion, or shaming of one another, right?

Hat is off to my "opponents". I'm sure I'll stand on your side on other articles! :) "

realitybites wrote on May 21, 2008 7:21 PM:

" Steph: Apparently your unable to read the opinion of Justice Baxter who accurately articulates the basis for "strict scrutiny" analysis to apply. Doh! Your definition of when to apply strict scrutiny is flawed.

I don't agree that homosexuals are "powerless" politically, nor are they discriminated against. What do you call the Domestic Partnership Act?

The real energy in my opinion comes from my disgust with the judicial abuse found in the logic of the majority opinion. I could care less about what you or anyone else here claim to be the "moral" high ground of homosexual virtue.

I could give a damn about all of the "moral" accusations and irrelevant justification to support the flawed abuse of power espoused in the recent California Supreme Court decision.

"

realitybites wrote on May 21, 2008 7:28 PM:

" Hey trickle: Who are you to say I can't marry as many wives as I want? Isn't that a line in the sand that has no scientific justification? Who does it hurt? Unlike same sex couples, I could procreate without "science" and if I could afford it - who cares? Your "moral" line in the sand for the homosexual cause is just that - a moral line in the sand. The decision opens the door - it legislates away the vote of the populus, for now, and only in CA. There is still no Federal recognition and thus, no tax break or inheritence exemption. The constitutional amendment which is sure to pass will make this decision moot and irrelevant. "

Napaopinion wrote on May 21, 2008 7:34 PM:

" TrickleDown. Who is god? You must be joking. Going down that path won't solve anything. Religion in the United States plays a very signifigant role, and is fundamental to the way that most carry out their lives. Cite the law, post your opinions but do not insult the foundation of many Napa households. Doing so only makes you look like an ignaramous, it's indeed factual that gay marriage isn't supported by the bible and OUR...(yes yours too) creator God and Jesus Christ. Whether or not this decision will be upheld is for man to decide, all God could do was warn us not to eat fruit from the poisonous tree. We'll soon find out if the people of the U.S. heed the warnings. My belief is this is the wrong thing to do, however, all I can do is pray and know that my decision is the right one for myself and my family. Don't let your passion mislead you into alienating the masses in a misguided attempt to spread the word. It's not over yet. "

NVGal wrote on May 21, 2008 8:37 PM:

" What other California civil contract can you enter into besides a marriage contract that is gender specific? I don't know of any other one. Morality, ethics belongs in the hearts, minds and actions of people entering into contracts, not in the contract themselves.

I would even start to argue now that marriage as a civil contract should not exisit. They should all be domestic partnership contracts. Marriage is not just a noun, it is a verb too, it should not be reduce to some legal contract. The state doesn't protect my marriage, I protect it. You enter into marriage every single day. You enter into a California civil marriage contract one time for the duration of your partnership.

"

foss valley wrote on May 21, 2008 9:03 PM:

" why don't progressives ever support democracy when it isn't in their political interest. (prop 187, now this) Why vote! "

pharper wrote on May 21, 2008 9:52 PM:

" The problem with your religious beliefs here, though, Napaopinion, is that they have no place in the government or in judicial rulings. The reality is that the only "valid" reason anyone can come up with for banning gay marriage is rooted in religion, whether people outright say it or not. People tend to look to religion for their morals; by saying it is a "perversion" or "immoral" behavior (I realize you didn't say this, but other people did) is something that comes straight from a religious text. The earth has six billion people; procreation is another invalid reason, and comparing it to polygamous marriages and incestuous relationships is just a last-ditch attempt to try to disgust others. Fortunately for those of us who recognize that it is science that can be proven (and not multi-faceted, differently interpreted religious beliefs), our founding fathers VERY specifically said that church and state are to be separated. Banning gay marriage would be a ruling rooted purely in religion, even if people claim otherwise. That's unconstitutional. So whether you agree with the ruling or not, religion CANNOT play into it, or it is completely unconstitutional--by the way: the Constitution says nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman, so it really is just a matter of bigoted religious zealots claiming that homosexuality is somehow detrimental to society--even though it's clearly been around forever. "

NVGal wrote on May 21, 2008 9:53 PM:

" Certain contracts can limit the number of people involved, but they can't limit the gender - a proprietorship is 1 person, and S corp is 75 or less... so there goes the multiple wives theory. A plant or an animal can not enter into an contract. If you want to get married, go to a church, but I say don't forget your domestic partnership license.

If churches want to limit marriage to a man and a woman, I don't have a problem with it. But stopping someone from entering into a civil contract based on gender discriminates.

"

TrickleDown wrote on May 21, 2008 10:30 PM:

" Napaopinion: It is worth re-looking at the post I made. I didn’t ask “who is god?”, but rather “whose god?”---a subtle difference, I know, but your misunderstanding between the two led you to call me an ignoramus (WWJD?). Though you are quick to lecture about the god you believe in, going so far as to tell me that he is my god too (he isn’t), you forget that there are a number of religions in this country, and I was pointing out that if a person calls another morally corrupt solely on religious text and dogma, then the question is begged how are we to decide whose text and whose god should be the authority. You are very clear and obvious in your statements of who you think it should be, but my point was that without proof that there is even a god, much less proof that yours is the correct one, why should we choose yours or any one else’s religion’s teachings? All the religions like to tell us they are the “one true faith,” all without an ounce of proof, therefore it is wrong and inconsistent to use any single one of these as the basis for societal rules. "

Tim wrote on May 21, 2008 10:31 PM:

" steph wrote on May 21, 2008 1:27 PM:
" This may help some of you: bestiality is illegal. Incest is illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. None of the above pairings have legal protection;

Steph, I find it hard to believe you are that naive. Do you really think that those perverts who want polygamy, who want pedophilia, who want incestuous relationships are a bunch of hillbilly rubes??
They are organized and well-heeled, pillars of the business community! (check out their slick websites) they could be your brother, your sister your neighbor, heck, they are just like you or I, except for their sexual preference. (where have we heard that before.)

They are jumping for joy with the majority ruling, they got their wish...the rules for marriage have changed.

Polygamy is against the law now...but not if the ACLU has anything to say about it. They are going to have a field day with this one, the court has made their job that much easier.

Don't you realize that they are working overtime to give these groups their "rights"?

Don't believe me? Try this headline right from the ACLU website: "ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight"

"Living arrangements are really the most intimate kinds of decisions people make," said ACLU of Utah Legal Director Stephen Clark. "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives, and not live in fear because of whom they love. So certainly that kind of privacy expectation is something the ACLU is committed to protecting.
"We believe you can't discriminate against us because of our life choices,"

Gee, imagine that!

Continue to next post. "

Tim wrote on May 21, 2008 10:57 PM:

" You think that is bad? How about this from the ACLU website:
"The ACLU of Massachusetts' represented members of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) because, while the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children, we do advocate robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit struck at the heart of the First Amendment. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something people find reasonable. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people reject.
As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."

They were instrumental in getting a case dismissed of a boy who was raped and murdered by a nambla member.

Or this one: The case is New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747. The ACLU in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court argued that the possession of child pornography should be legalized. Twilight of Liberty summarizes:

"The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.

The ACLU has been fighting for the rights and freedoms of gays, lesbians and transgenders since 1972.

Isn't it wonderful that the ACLU is looking to give these other groups that have been discriminated against their freedoms and rights as well?

Now that marriage has been shown to be more than just between a man and a women...let the games begin!! "

NVGal wrote on May 22, 2008 6:33 AM:

" Even someone like Richard Rameriz, who viciously killed lots of people, has a right to marry. He is awaiting execution, but was allowed to marry while in prison awaiting death. But two same sex people, can not.

Protection of marriage between a man and a woman hasn't lead to the protection of children when it comes to child pornography, incest, men whating to be with a boy etc. So I don't get where everything is going to fall apart if same sex partners enter into a marriage contract. Gays can enter into any other contract they wish, except one. "

NVGal wrote on May 22, 2008 6:58 AM:

" I have changed my mind, the whole man/boy, man rapes and murders boy sickens me. Not from the act, but from the sexism. In the news recently young girls were forced into marriage to much older men. Where's the strong reaction? In Mexico, young girls are pluck off the street and from their homes, raped, murdered by men and their bodies thrown into the desert. How did marriage between a woman and a man protect them? Girls are raped and murdered more often than young boys, by men, but no one wants to shut down marriage between a man and a woman.

The sad and sickning part is, is when you read Tim's post on the man raping and murdering the boy, you are disgusted. Your reaction is "we can't have that now can we", see it really does open doors for all sorts of reall bad things.

When it is a man raping and murdering a young girl, Polly Klass, for example, what's your reaction? Not the same is it? "

realitybites wrote on May 22, 2008 8:44 AM:

" Steph: Thanks for the clarification and kind words. Though I don't think the point of my argument is to compare homosexuals to polygamy or beastiality. My point, which I have maintained from the inception here, is that the decision drafted by the majority opens the door to other "unions" being recognized as "marriage". It takes the decision out of the hands of the populus - for now. Let the democratic process work.

NVgal - your argument about corporate structure and sole propietorships does not have any logical nexis to why polygamist should be "discriminated" against or why their love is not worthy of the term "marriage"? Who is to say? Your argument seems to suggest that because the LEGISLATURE (not the flipping court) decided to limit membership in an S Corp this somehow justifies discriminating against the rights of polygamists to marry? If that was the case, this decision would have never infringed upon the legislative decision to create the domestic partnership act or the will of the voters in passing Prop 22. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 22, 2008 8:59 AM:

" Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Slippery slopes are so fun. Sure they make it so we can't discuss the issue at hand, but at least the people making the arguments get to feel like they are actually making valid argument points.

We are still yet to hear a solid argument against marriage between any two consenting, non-closely related adults that doesn't move to slippery slope or appeal to religion. Anyone? Anyone? "

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 22, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Wow NVGal I find your post almost laughable. You started out with this gem;

"In the news recently young girls were forced into marriage to much older men. Where's the strong reaction?"
Wheres the strong reaction? The state of Texas went in and removed over 400 childeren, this story is in the nightly news shows almost daily! The leader of this cult is in prison for arraging others like these! where do you get off thinking theres no strong reaction??

Heres another gem;
"In Mexico, young girls are . . ."
Sorry but you lost me at In Mexico, were not talking about the erosion of society in Mexico are we?

Finally you make a semi-intelligant argument with this;
" Girls are raped and murdered more often than young boys, by men, but no one wants to shut down marriage between a man and a woman."
The problem here is you missed the 'cause and effect' point people like myself are truly trying to make with this rediculous example. Rape and murder are NEVER acceptable, but what do hetero and/or same sex marraiges have to do with that?

Then you end in fine form with this;
"When it is a man raping and murdering a young girl, Polly Klass, for example, what's your reaction? Not the same is it?"
What do you mean not the same? Of course its not the same, where Mr. Davis is concerned (the Polly Klass killer) I would be the first in line to personally put a bullet in that sick bas%$#@ head (please refer to the discussion on capitol punishment)! What point were you trying to make with this?? "

MichelleG wrote on May 22, 2008 9:29 AM:

" Realitybites, unfortunately it does appear to me that some of the things that have been posted here about the homosexual community are in fact quite bigoted. There have been some mean spirited and pretty ugly comparisons that have been made here about the homosexual community that are beyond ridiculous, and they are being made by people simply as a result of ignorance and fear. This is my personal opinion and it applies to some comments, but not all, and is not necessarily directed at you personally. I have read your posts and points many times over and I understand that you would like us all to fully comprehend the dissent of Justice Baxter, and to see that the decision of the Supreme Court “"opens the door" to any number of unions.” While this could perhaps be true to some degree, I must say that I respectfully disagree and believe the plant/man animal/man scenario is incapable of happening. As other posters have so eloquently stated in various ways, the necessity to provide adult consent to enter the union of marriage cannot be provided by plants or animals for obvious reasons or by minors under the age of 18 (who by the way are not only not allowed to marry without parents permission but also unable to do things such as smoke and vote). One final thought - I’d rather be compared to a fly in the window than have my quest for human rights be compared to pedophilia or bestiality. If you or anyone else is able to take a comment that insignificant so seriously, imagine how the homosexual community feels with the horrible names they are called, and with the harshness they are judged on a daily basis. Just a little something to think about. "

realitybites wrote on May 22, 2008 9:31 AM:

" NVgirl: I believe your missing the point of Tim's posts. This is about the decision and the effect it will have on other groups seeking the same protections regarding their right to marry. No one is claiming that homosexuals are somehow responsible for the rape of a young boy. Nor is your argument that heterosexual marriage is suppose to have protected Polly Klass even remotely relevant to the discussion regarding the California Supreme Court's decision to define "marriage".

"

realitybites wrote on May 22, 2008 9:45 AM:

" Trickle: Solid argument? How about the fact that prop 22 passed by a majority of the California voters and the Court overstepped it's authority by legislating? Same sex couples are not a suspect class, they never have had a "fundamental" right to marry and by this decision the will of the people has been usurped by a few irrational judges. The argument, whether you choose to consider it or not, isn't about the limited scope you choose to focus on. It's about the bigger picture here - the decision itself IS a slippery slope!

Thanks again STEPH - it truly has been fun and I look forward to being on the same side in future discussions! "

NValleyGirl wrote on May 22, 2008 10:45 AM:

" Trickledown: That is not likely to happen. Apparently slippery slopes are just too much fun to get off of. You may find reference to the dissenting opinion as if it were the Holy Grail of all legal briefs ever written. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 22, 2008 11:05 AM:

" realitybites: A beginning California Civics book would explain for you the difference between the inititive passed in prop 22 and an actual constitutional amendment initiative. The court didn't do any legislating: the people did the legislating by creating a provision to the Family Law code that was found to be unconstituional. We, as Californians, could similarly pass an provisional initiative by majority that defined marriage to be between a 27-year-old male and a 27-year-old female only, and it would be quickly overturned by the courts as unconstitutional. This wouldn't be legislating from the bench, it would simply be a matter of checking that a provision fits within constitutional law. Prop 22 didn't, just like my example wouldn't. Now, if the proposed constitutional amendment passes the courts will have to respect it. Look it up, the facts are there.

As much as you would like to point the finger at the court, the court did what it is expected to and should do: serve its role in checking the legislative branch. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 22, 2008 11:10 AM:

" realitybites: you said 'The argument, whether you choose to consider it or not, isn't about the limited scope you choose to focus on.' Unfortunately for you, it is. Should one of your other slippery slope marriage cases come before the court, it will be decided independently. The decision handed down does nothing to allow any (read again: ANY) of the still-illegal marriages you keep bringing up. You can rest assured that your dog will stay unmarried this weekend. "

steph wrote on May 22, 2008 11:16 AM:

" I have NO love for the ACLU, and it is precisely because of their ardent support of pedophiles that I despise that smug bunch--they have NO discretion and are anti-American.

The reason I bring up the legality vs. illegality issue is because the majority opinion pointed to the current legality of homosexual unions, via domestic partnerships, as justification for their decision. You see, the homosexual plaintiffs are law-abiding citizens who face only second-class classification and rights, though their activities are not illegal--they are quite legal.

The same cannot be said for bestiality and pedophilia. These are illegal activities and rightfully so, for the reasons I and several others have pointed to over and over and over and over and over again here.

My line in the sand is wherever it needs to be to protect children. If I had my way, many heterosexuals would not be allowed to raise children.

Incrementalism IS something I fear, frankly, as children are sexualized in our country at an earlier and earlier age. In New Hampshire, 13-year-old girls can marry with parental permission! Most states allow 16-year-olds to marry! Heterosexual marriage! Where's the outrage? I'd say that slope's been slipped, and it sure wasn't by our homosexual friends.

Where's the outrage over teenaged (and younger) prostitution on the streets of SF or even Santa Rosa? You know who I blame for that? Heterosexuals who call themselves parents, that's who. Bring on the outrage, because how DARE I hold parents accountable for protecting their children!

And you want to punish a couple of gay guys who want to get married....

Let's focus on the issue at hand, and I'll join you to fight the pedophiles. "

realitybites wrote on May 22, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Trickle: your ridicule and insults lend nothing to your refusal to address the issue. I'm sure the dissent of Justice Baxter is below your elementary civic text. I don't agree with your assertions - there is no "fundamental" right for same sex couples to marry in my opinion. The CA court created one out of thin air, while overturning the domestic partnership act - without the authority for same. You call it "discrimination" - I call it creating a right where no such right EVER existed. The fundamental right to marry that has exhisted for centuries is not between 26 yr olds, despite your flawed argument, its between A MAN and A WOMAN. The slippery sloap was not created by me or any other blogger here - it was created by the California Supreme Court who decided to redefine marriage - which means it's now subject to further redefinition. I don't need you to explain the difference between the constitutional amendment that will pass and prop 22 and the domestic partnership act. Still doesn't change the fact that for me, there is no discrimination in passing legislation that defines marriage - as it has ALWAYS been defined, while granting same sex couples all of the rights they would have anyway by the domestic partnership act. "

entity wrote on May 22, 2008 12:33 PM:

" Stop pushing your religion on people! You're free to not same-gender marry within your church all you'd like - as far as government is concerned, marriage is a contract with tax benefits, nothing more. Let me make this clear: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A VESSEL FOR YOUR RELIGION.

Gay is not pedophilia, gay is not beastiality. People will not marry animals, because animals cannot consent. Stop the comparison to child pornography - people ARE injured with that. Beastiality? Animals can't choose. Gay relationships? A decision by two adults that results in personal happiness and enrichment, the same as hetero relationships. Lame excuses, all. Let gay people have the benefit of legal recognition. You can keep complaining about the "immorality" in your little church meetings, while everyone else gets on with their lives and doesn' t begrudge someone's lifestyle choices that don't hurt anyone. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 22, 2008 12:41 PM:

" realitybites: Thouth, in your opinion, there is no 'fundamental right' for same sex couples to marry, a very similar argument can be made that there is no 'fundamental right' for couples made up of a man and a woman making it so marriage should only be allowed for them (is there anything, besides tradition and religion, that makes it so they deserve this right over same-sex couples?).

So you agree with one justice and not the others? Should we all base our lives on one justice's decision? No, that is the reason supreme courts are made up of more than one person.

To apply your words to another case: women got the right to vote last century "where there was none before" in nearly the entire written history of women. Should this have been a valid reason to keep them from voting---the fact that they didn't have the right before? One group had the right, another didn't, due to an arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Was this right? Using your capital letters, I could just as easily say "voting is for MEN" and "it has existed for centuries" this way.\

Unfortunately for your argument, slippery slopes preceed our state supreme court by millenia.

Your <'as it has ALWAYS been defined'>> argument is incredibly weak. Just because things have always been a certain way doesn't make that way right. People owned slaves for thousands of years, was that right? For thousands of years we have killed animals at will to the point of extinction, was that right? Marriage was historically not allowed between people of different races, was that right? "

entity wrote on May 22, 2008 12:42 PM:

" None of you are winning me over with this "it was always a man and a woman's right, not anyone else's" stuff. Owning land used to only be the prerogative of rich white males, too - times have changed. It used to be "unthinkable" that a woman could possibly vote meaningfully as they were "too moody and irrational" - or that a black person could own land, or in fact BE anything other THAN owned, themselves. It used to be unthinkable that anyone but a king could rule. Welcome to the modern world of basic human rights for *everyone*. "

NVGal wrote on May 22, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Tim draws the line between same sex marriages leading to other forms of relationships or marriages, such as man/boy. So if he says that a same sex marriage leads to the man/boy marriage/relationship, then you have to draw the line and say that a man/women marriage leads to a man/girl marriage. The strong reaction in society over young girls forced into marriage is nothing compared to an older man/ younger boy being forced into a marriage. Why? They are both the same crime, both morally and ethically wrong.

I also object to Tim’s point on the man getting off charges of rape and murdering a young boy as an example of not allowing gays to marry. My point is that men rape and murder young women, but men and women marry all the time. So he is either trying to spare gays by not allowing them marry by saying “hey, see what happens, marriage leads to all sort so unsavory acts and unspeakable crimes, so I am stopping at men/women marriages to spare you all the pain” or he is using the man/boy rape murder to sensationalize a crime committed against a child to scare people into thinking that these unspeakable acts upon boys will occur. Unspeakable acts that have happened man/girl for centuries, where no one ever in society has drawn the line from a man/women marriage to a man/girl rape.

So either this logic is not true, same sex marriages really don’t lead to all sorts of unspeakable relationships, or he wants to extend protection to young boys, but not young girls.

Childern have no gender when it comes to crime,and you can’t link crimes against them to who you want to marry. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 22, 2008 1:28 PM:

" There are good arguments against laws and there are bad arguments against laws. I have made a short, simple list of some good arguments and some bad ones with reasons they are good or bad. Anyone out there have an argument why we should not allow same-sex marriage which is similar to the good arguments listed below, or do they all fall under the bad ones? Anyone?

Examples of good arguments against a law:

-If this is passed, it will have the following adverse societal effects... (laws that are going to damage society should be avoided)
-If this is passed it will have the following adverse economic effects... (the economic effects of a law should be weighed against any possible gains the law makes)
-If this is passed, the following people will be harmed or made unsafe... (laws that put people into danger should be avoided)

Examples of bad arguments against a law:

- If this is passed, it will change the way things have always been (we wouldn't have women voting, would still have slavery, and so on if this were a good argument)
- If this is passed, the next thing you know _blank_ law is going to pass (would never pass any laws if this were good argument as every passed law opens up the possibility of future laws being passed).
- My belief system says this is wrong (establishment of a religious doctrine as law is a no-no say the framers of the constitution) "

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 22, 2008 2:29 PM:

" Okay TrickleDown I'll play!

-If gay marriage is passed, it will have the following adverse societal effects... It will be another step in the wrong direction and will help to furthur the moral decay of our society.

-If gay marriage is passed it will have the following adverse economic effects... The litaney of lawsuites and/or voting initiatives will cost taxpayer multi-millions in a time when the money could be spent more appropriately. This is aviodable if the gay community would accept the domestic partner alternative that already exits.

-If gay marriage is passed, the following people will be harmed or made unsafe... Admittingly no one will be harmed or made unsafe, but hey 2 out of 3 aint bad! "

TrickleDown wrote on May 22, 2008 3:17 PM:

" JustMy$.02: Thank you very much for addressing these---I say this sincerely. Now we can have a real discussion.

1. In order to say that same-sex marriage will "be a step in the wrong direction and will help to [further] the moral decay of our society" one has to establish whose morals we should base this decision on and then demonstrate how it will lead to the further moral decay you say it will. Whose morals are we to use? And how, exactly, will this lead to further moral decay (warning: we are treading precipitously close to a slippery slope argument here)?

2. Here, I repeat your second argument with a replacement of terms: the lawsuits and voter initiatives are being brought about by choice ('the money could be spent more appropriately') and the resulting economic costs are completely 'avoidable if the [anti-equal rights] community would accept the [supreme court ruling] that [was just passed]'. There needn't be any economic repercussions for allowing all non-closely related couples the right to marry.

3. Thank you for being honest in this one.

Responses? "

rogers wrote on May 22, 2008 3:34 PM:

" JustMy$.02...What evidence do you have that gay marriage is another step in the wrong direction other than your personal intolerant and religious beliefs. People in this country screamed when the military, after WWII, began to desegregate the ranks. It was predicted that our military would fall apart when we allowed blacks to eat, sleep and work beside their white counterparts. Didn't happen. In fact most today would agree the military and society are far better off having made that change. How do you know this too isn't a change for the better?

I can only judge people by their actions. My gay friends and colleagues have never been anything but supportive and respectful of me (I'm straight). I find them to be sensitive, caring and giving individuals. They do more good will for their community through their volunteerism than many good Christians who limit their "good will" only to their church's sanctioned efforts.

They have their problems, just like all of us, with jobs, bills, relationships, etc. What they do in their bedroom is their business, not yours. It's part of the American demand and our constitutional right of privacy. When you denigrate and attack my friends as perverts and immoral, you attack me.

I don't know if you have any gay friends or members of your family who are gay. If you did it might change your opinion or at least soften it. You might try talking with someone who is gay to hear their perspective. But I doubt you will. From what you have written, I suspect you are more than willing to let your dogma rule your life. I find that a perversion in itself. "

NVGal wrote on May 22, 2008 4:28 PM:

" It boils down to this – while trying to create the mass hysteria effect of unwanted relationships, such as a man forcing a boy into marriage or bestiality or whatever, you give far too much weight to them. If you say that an unwanted side effect of a man/man marriage would be a man/boy marriage, I would agree, only if you agree that the unwanted side effect of a man/woman marriage is a man/girl marriage. The man/girl marriage is being played out right now, and people are, shocked. But that’s about it. They aren’t running around saying that man/women relationships shouldn’t exist. But they are with man/man marriage. And when you draw the line and not allow man/man marriages and create hysteria over the fact that it might happen to a young boy, you’ve given the young boy more weight in society than a young girl. You choose to do nothing more than shake your heads as you watch TV when it’s a girl, but you will mobilize yourselves to put petitions on the ballot when it’s a boy.

You can’t see the sexism in your own mass hysteria over other forms of unwanted relationships. Young girls have been forced to marry men 4 times their age, force to have as many as 8 children, it’s going on right now, and yet you do nothing. But yet you will mobilize yourselves and fight fight fight against same sex marriages on the off chance that someone might want someday to marry their dog.
"

Tim wrote on May 22, 2008 4:34 PM:

" NVGal wrote on May 22, 2008 1:01 PM: I also object to Tim’s point on the man getting off charges of rape and murdering a young boy as an example of not allowing gays to marry.

NVGAL...HURRY... LOOK UP!! because the point of my post just flew over your head.

What are you talking about? Have you no discernment??
My point had nothing to do with tying the murder to gay marriage.

It had everything to do with the ACLU defending nambla members.

Trickledown, let me ask you a question, please read this quote from the ACLU:

"Living arrangements are really the most intimate kinds of decisions people make," said ACLU of Utah Legal Director Stephen Clark. "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives, and not live in fear because of whom they love. So certainly that kind of privacy expectation is something the ACLU is committed to protecting.

Now the ACLU is linking the fight for marriage rights for polygamists to the fight that gays and lesbians had for marriage.

Tell me, do you think that they will try and use the same arguments to get polygamists their right to marry?

This is a stepping stone, a touchstone or a connecting of the dots, you cannot deny it because they themselves have said they will use it.

they will fight for the polygamists using the gay marriage as a precedent...A precedent is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

This is your slippery slope. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 22, 2008 4:46 PM:

" TrickleDown,
I too would much prefer honest discourse, thank you, and your welcome.

Now on to the good stuff.
1. Without trying to slide down that slippery slope, lets think of societies morales as a gage. On the far right you would have puritanical beliefs such as an eye for an eye, women not speaking until spoken to, the showing of any flesh a crime, etc. On the far left we would be on the border of anarchy, lawlessness, pedifiles, sodom and grimore stuff (not trying to be religeous, just an analogy).

For the sake of argument lets say the needle is currently in the middle. Now consider the last 50 years, which direction has that needle gone? And how far do we let it go? When do we 'draw the line'?

2. We live in a democracy. This issue has been voted on in virtualy every state and only one, Mass, has legalized it (maybe Hawaii, im not sure), and one has had its supreme court overtune the majority vote. The majority should never sit back and let a select few overturn a democratically derived president. It will be money well spent to keep the majority opinion alive and well.

BTW, thats the beauty of a true democracy, when the 'majority' opinion changes so should the law, ie. racial rights, womens sufferage, etc. But the 'majority' is not in favor of gay marriage and therefore the gay community should accept domestic partnerships.
"

pharper wrote on May 22, 2008 8:19 PM:

" JustMy$.02-- Just like women should have accepted the fact that they couldn't own property (because they could darn well produce children and cater to men!) and black people should have accepted the fact that interracial marriage was illegal (because sure, they could marry people of their own race!)? Sorry, but no. California is currently a blue state, which means that the majority are FOR gay marriage, not against it (I realize this is a generalization, but let's face the facts: California has one of the largest gay communities in the world, plus we're a very liberal state, even if Napa isn't). It's very dangerous for you to say that this issue should go to the people, because unless there is some HUGE turnaround, the people will vote that marriage is not only between a man and a woman.

And Tim, I realize your dislike of the ACLU is pretty darn strong, but I have good news for you: just because they (one organization) use those arguments doesn't mean the rest of us do. And just because they think they find similarities between polygamists and loving homosexual relationships doesn't mean anyone else does. Yes, they may use those arguments, but do you really think they'll win? No, not with troopers like you on the job! But seriously, they're grasping at straws with that, and it's a shame that they would insult the gay and lesbian community by comparing the two. But just so you know, what they say doesn't contribute to the "slippery slope," because the reality is that they are patently wrong.
"

a teacher wrote on May 22, 2008 9:36 PM:

" "1. Without trying to slide down that slippery slope, lets think of societies morales as a gage. On the far right you would have puritanical beliefs such as an eye for an eye, women not speaking until spoken to, the showing of any flesh a crime, etc. On the far left we would be on the border of anarchy, lawlessness, pedifiles, sodom and grimore stuff (not trying to be religeous, just an analogy)."

I love this right wing version of what the left is about - to sum up, the further left you are, the immoral you are.

I know people on the "right" who are hedonists and beleive that the gov't has no right to tell you what to do and that includes who you love, and who you marry.

I know people on the "left" who are priests and hold to a very strict moral standard - some are anti-abortion, for example

Yours is a cartoon characterization and your analogy suffers for it.

Furthermore, democracy is not about 50%+1. That is why we have a constitution and a bill of rights, to protect the other 50%-1.
"

steph wrote on May 22, 2008 11:57 PM:

" pharper, the majority of Californians voted to ban gay marriage. I'm afraid we who support gay marriage are, in fact, in the minority for now. I have hope in the next few generations, but for now, I think we're outnumbered significantly. "

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 23, 2008 7:59 AM:

" Come on teacher I know your smarter than that! I’m not talking about individuals. I agree 100% there are immoral individuals from all walks of life. We are talking about the collective morality of our society, which admittedly changes over time. In the late 50's Elvis was shaking his pelvis and outraging many. Today that seems pale in comparison to teenage girls simulating sex in public on a dance floor. In the 60’s the Rolling Stones couldn’t sing the words 'Lets spend the night together' on television, how tame is that in comparison to what you hear on MTV today?
You cannot deny that the collective morality of American society is shifting left! That has been my contention throughout this blog.
It is also my contention that we must look at where we are heading (morally) and decide as a society where we draw the line and say, enough is enough. That is my point. I have never said gay marriage is the straw that breaks the camels back (hope you can handle another analogy) and destroys the American society. I have only said it’s another step in the wrong direction.
For the record I do not advocate moving backwards towards a more puritanical type of society. But we must decide as a collective where to say enough already, and stop the decaying morals of what’s acceptable behavior in American society.
"

JustMy$.02 wrote on May 23, 2008 8:17 AM:

" Oh, and teacher about your democracy comment. Please tell me as a teacher you realize there were more than 13 amendments originally put forth to be the bill of rights. So how come only 13 made it? Because they had to be ratified by the states, ie. voted on. And guess what, the 13 that got ratified won a MAJORITY of votes! The beuaty of American democracy is that the 50%-1 have protections, but rest asurd those protections only exist because the 50%+1 voted to allow those!! "

roni8877 wrote on May 23, 2008 8:36 AM:

" Enough all ready..when I was a child growing up in Napa we all knew there were gay teachers teaching in our schools and by golly we survived it! I am 68 years old and for the life of me I do not understand why it is my business what anothers persons sexuality is. Gay marriages will have no impact on me what so ever.
If we are a free country and beleive in equality then Gay Marriages so be it.
"

a teacher wrote on May 23, 2008 9:41 AM:

" "You cannot deny that the collective morality of American society is shifting left!"

Yes I can. It has nothing to do with left or right. Those terms are about politics and have nothing to do with morality.

Morality is a pendulum. "What goes" varries from era to era. If you look at the history and popular literature of the "roaring 20s", they'll remind you of the 60's. If you examine the history of many long standing societies, you'll find they change their morals periodically, and they don't collapse.

If you are concerned about the decay of American morals, I suggest that you turn your attention to the media which sells sex(and the American public which eats it up) and our capitalist economy that will sell anything, including our children. "

TrickleDown wrote on May 23, 2008 9:54 AM:

" JustMy$.02 (part 1):

1. Your argument does not show that this is going to cause any detriment to society. Saying that this is a step in the wrong direction is the same thing that was said when women stopped wearing only dresses and started wearing trousers---these sorts of things are always said, but not always true (unless you believe it wrong women wear trousers now?). You haven't provided anything that illustrates that society is going to be worse off if marriage is made legal for two consenting, non-closely-related adults. Will society erode if this is allowed? Am I missing where you illustrated this? Everyday, old social norms are being overturned: the question is why you think that allowing a significant percentage of the population the same rights with their significant others that are allowed to the heterosexual community is the step too far?

"

a teacher wrote on May 23, 2008 9:55 AM:

" $.02: I'm afraid that you need to retake a civics course. In order to have an Amendment to the Constitution it must be ratified by 3/4 of the legistatures of all the states. The original Constitution needed to be ratified by 9 of the 13 original colonies.

Ratification is usually 2/3 of the votes for the Senate and Congress, I'm unsure if that is the case for state legislatures, but I suspect that is true.

The founding fathers purposely made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they were very much afraid of the "tyranny of the majority". "

TrickleDown wrote on May 23, 2008 9:55 AM:

" JustMy$.02 (part 2):

2. You didn't really address my point that if the anti-equal-rights movement were to just go back to their homes and pay attention to more pressing issues, there would be essentially zero cost to this nation to simply agreeing with the court's decision and leaving the law as it is. Do you agree this is so? It is a choice that is being made by this movement to spend the money, and therefore only harms their pocketbooks because they want it to.

Do you really think that the majority in Alabama or Mississippi was against "separate but equal" when it was overturned with "Brown vs. Board of Education"? The majority in those states were wrong and it was supreme court that overturned their laws (and its own errant previous decision). The reason we have Supreme Courts at the state and federal level is to serve as a check system of the legislative branch, into which the populace falls. As you think that "the majority should never sit back and let a select few overturn a democratically derived [precident]", does this mean that we were wrong to allow the Supreme Court to overturn "separate but equal" laws? Were we wrong to allow the California Supreme Court to overturn interracial bans on marriage (in 1948!!!) or the U.S. Supreme Court to do so nationally in 1967? Should we have stuck with the majority opinions in these cases? "

anotherguyinnapa wrote on May 23, 2008 5:00 PM:

" Even being a conservative, I really do not understand how anyone can rationally be opposed to gay marriage. How does gay marriage hurt you? Here's how a gay marriage BAN can hurt you:
Suppose there are two gay guys--let's call them Adam and Steve. Adam works and Steve takes care of the house. Steve gets AIDS. If they can get married, Adam's health insurance will pay for Steve's medical treatment. If they cannot get married, YOU AND I will pay for Steve's medical treatment every April 15.
What's the point of marriage, anyway? It cannot be for reproduction because sterile people can still get married. You can get married after menopause. A vasectomy does not void your marriage.
So what's wrong with letting these people get married and love and take care of each other? Homosexuality is not for me, but hey, if these guys keep their hands to themselves and don't grab my arse, I don't have a problem with it. This is a human rights issue. Most gays are decent people and keep their bedroom habits to themselves. They're not hurting anything! Leave them alone and let them love who they want to love! "

anotherguyinnapa wrote on May 23, 2008 5:14 PM:

" JustMy$.02: If you're going to talk about economic effects, let's talk about all of them. 2008 is going to be the biggest "Summer of Love" since 1969, and it's going to happen right here in California. People from around the world will come here to get married, money in hand. They will spend money on all kinds of things: hotels, wedding planners, food, clothes, wine, cake, limousines. The hotel workers, wedding planners, caterers, tailors, winemakers, bakers, and limo drivers will take that money and spend it on more things. Like them or not, the gays will stimulate the California economy this summer like never before. What's wrong with that? Is their money not as green? "

petebo wrote on May 23, 2008 6:51 PM:

" Why do any of us need the government to say we can be married. We should be telling them but why do these idiots even care? Stupid argument over something stupid. Who cares. To need the approval of government is to be a fool.... All government is corrupt because absolute power corrupts absolutely. What a joke. Come on people, you really are more intelligent than you seem to exhibit. How about telling gov't to pound sand? Now that I would go along with all day long. Hit that frickin clown! "

winemd wrote on May 25, 2008 11:40 AM:

" I have been pondering whether there is a sociobiological argument for an aversion to homosexuality, at least historically. In other words, was there an evolutionary advantage to homophobia and/or proscriptions against homosexual activity? If you look at it as a survival of the species mechanism, possibly. If homosexual activity is discouraged by homophobia (although I am not sure this is the case now), and heterosexual activity is encouraged and more children are born, then the species has a better chance of survival. If homosexuality is primarily genetic, then homosexuals have obviously passed on their genetic material, since homosexuality has not died out due to the lack of direct procreation by homosexuals (especially male). Obviously female homosexuals can now be artificially inseminated and pass on genetic material, but that is a recent development.
Another argument, though, is that heterosexuals would have less competition from same sex homosexuals, so the heterosexual individuals would have a better chance of getting their genetic material in to the next generation. So homophobia works against heterosexual individuals’ evolutionary success.
I don’t know of any particular studies in this area, just an interesting thought. I don’t think there is a good scientific reason to ban homosexual activity and/or marriage in modern times, but this debate got me to thinking about this topic.
"

steph wrote on May 25, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Lots of folks with homosexual tendencies actually do procreate, sometimes before they come to terms with their sexual identity and sometimes after. "

nola wrote on May 30, 2008 7:01 PM:

" Marriage was created for Heterosexuals by God. Maybe if the" gay marriage" could be called a Union...something like ACLU...American Civil Liberty Union for gay persons, it wouldn't be so offensive for us who enjoy the TRUE meaning of the term marriage, which is a lasting, legal and yes, holy relationship between a man and a woman. These ACL"unions" could still be entitled to the same benefits offered by employment, etc. No, God does not condone homosexual behavior. Read Leviticus or Romans chapter 2. Anyway, we all WILL stand before God and account for our own behavior in the end, right? That is if you believe in God in the first place and if you don't, why in the world would you want to be called "married", a term created by God for a heterosexual relationship? Just have a good ole' ACLU shin-dig and reap the benefits legally and realistically. It would certainly make more sense. And for those of you who don't believe in God, does the thought of reincarnation FROM a frog ever cross your mind? Some frogs can change their sexual orientation, too. "

opinionated29 wrote on May 31, 2008 11:06 AM:

" I think its great that gay marriages are allowed. Who are we to tell someone that they can't express their love for their partner by getting married just because they happen to be of the same sex? Of all the ridiculous ideas. People should be supportive of people being in love and wanting that deep of a commitment, regardless of whether its straight or gay. "

nola wrote on May 31, 2008 5:51 PM:

" Let's be clear, Leviticus Chapter 18:22, I believe the descriptive word here is"detestable" as described to help us understand,"Don't do it", further Leviticus 20:13 instructs on what the instructions were to keep this very new nation, (just freed from Egypt's slavery), strong. DARE you read? New testament, Romans chapter 1:24-27 and again Romans Chapter 2:3-8 DARE you read...listen, I didn't write this....it is simply a good instruction coming from GOD..got a problem? Pray, talk to God about it...Tell Him He's all wrong about things..That you know better....Tell God He is too closed minded...I PROMISE you WILL get answers....Marriage is ceremony for a man and a woman, PERIOD. Why does the GAY community have to be so, "In Your Face" trying to degrade this ancient, God created, ceremony. Clearly, if you read the passages given above, you would KNOW how God feels about this behavior. Shaking your fist at GOD and saying, "I AM Gay and you WILL recognize me and my partner as MARRIED!!!!" is not going to change anything the Bible has to say about it, or change the mind of GOD! So, get over it and just be happy ...call it something else. Quit insulting "REAL" married people, (man/woman). C'mon, get creative ! Write your own book of life. The line is clearly marked and making the mistake of mocking God's word is a fearful place to tread. "

Dr. Faustus wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:34 AM:

" Nola - No one is forcing you or your church to recognize gay marriage. No one is forcing you or your church to perform same-sex ceremonies. No one is forcing you or your church to recognize gay marriages as morally or spiritually legitimate. In fact, no one is forcing you or your church to do anything. That's what makes freedom and democracy so wonderful.

In fact - dogmatically speaking - if two people aren't married in a Christian church then spiritually they aren't married at all. In the eyes of the Christian faith, a civil union is a sinful one - homosexual or otherwise.

So, then, I have to ask: If a heterosexual civil union is sinful, and a homosexual union is sinful, why aren't you pushing to end all civil unions? And what difference does it make if one sinful union is heterosexual and one is homosexual if both are doomed to perpetual sin? Don't you feel the moral obligation to legislate all sin away?

Why don't you just pray for them and move on? Since when is praying for a sinner not good enough?

And let's not forget that to disallow civil unions for anyone is to deny access to equal protections under the law. Refusing two unrelated and consenting citizens’ access to judicial privileges is beyond authoritative - it's totalitarian.

One might go so far as to call it theocratic.

This is one of the few instances where you either side with Jesus, or you side with freedom and democracy.

And I assure you, Nola, you cannot side with both.

So where do you stand? "

a teacher wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:36 PM:

" Actually, Dr. Faustus, I don't believe that you will find that Jesus had a stated opinion on homosexuality. So Christians don't have to choose between Jesus and freedom and democracy.

They can render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's. "

Dr. Faustus wrote on Jun 1, 2008 3:01 PM:

" A Teacher - I suppose if you want to get legalistic on the matter, then....

While Jesus never directly comments on homosexuality - as Nola pointed out - the bible does.

And if you believe that the bible is the inspired word of god than whether or not Jesus expressed a direct opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

I could delve deeper, but I won't.

The only way to resolve this dilemma for the individual Christian is to halt any and all attempts to ban such marriages in the state while reserving the right to refuse sanction of such marriages in their respective churches.

And before any of you raise the issue of California's initiative to define marriage let me make this point clear: a society cannot refuse any citizen rightful access to judicial processes. While some may choose to forgo marriage – and all of its legal and financial privileges – no one has the right to rob any individual of the ability to make such choices, or to pursue the secular benefits such a choice bestows.

In other words, you cannot legalize discrimination if such discriminations cannot be shown to prevent irreparable harm to the people at large.

But that’s if you want to get legalistic about the whole thing….

In any event, none of what you say solves the Christian’s dilemma. Or even addresses any of the questions posted. "

nola wrote on Jun 2, 2008 12:24 PM:

" You know what, Dr. Faustus, your right. If a law allows people of the same sex to marry, then go ahead if you please. Whether, you should or not, is another question. I hold myself accountable to the laws provided in the town I live in however, I am much more concerned with a higher court for which we all will stand before God, and account for our lives. Only then will ALL our questions really be answered. I still stand for what the Bible instructs us to do. It is a good safety zone to be in as I have experienced. Sometimes the laws are just morally wrong..sure, due process allowed them to become in place for us to follow, but in some cases they are still totally against what the Bible says. Remember, God writes this to protect us and help us know a better life. I think I'll lean on the side of God's word because His court system is pretty much The Final Word. Also, remember, our country was based on morality and God's word..."In God We Trust", swearing on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth. I can see where you are coming from and you make a weak argument. Marriage is legal and holy. Society has moved so much in the wrong direction it is hard to find the lines anymore,I guess. Everyone wants their "right" to do whatever they want, okay, but are we in a better society today because of it? "

musikluvr wrote on Jun 3, 2008 7:47 PM:

" Why should gay people not get married? Let them enjoy the fruits of love and the vicious depths of divorce, just like normal people. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: