Court OKs gay marriage

California's Supreme Court declared Thursday that gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement that was greeted with tears, ...

[Chris in Orange County CA]

I remember being taught to respect the President of the United States no matter who is elected. I still believe this to be correct. I find it disrespectful when it is said "This President is this..." and This President can do that...". We should stand by the person that we chose by overall majority. This is what once commanded respect among us and those around the world.
With that being said:
I would like to put my trust and belief that the people of the state of California will once again revote to keep the definition of "marriage" as it once was. "Gay" used to be another word for being happy, it no longer is. Marriage is not so much a state of being as it is an institution. The general opinion of those against my views is that they are racist and hateful. They are not. The homosexual/lesbian lifestyle is not a race, in fact, it is anti-race.
Should the vote of the people of the state of California concur, then I would respect that. I will then tolerate it, as I do many things, but, I will not have to accept it as the new norm.
The Traditional family, The nuclear family, The unclear family,...what's next?
In the end and if need be I will respectfully agree to disagree.

[Orange Curtain]

Well, the orange curtain still lives.

[Reality]

Good for them. People opposed to parts of stranger's personal lives really should find a more positive hobby.

[JWWW]

Socially Dysfunctional Rejects. Gross. Interspecies Marriage will be next..

[The Enforcer]

Four unelected California judges overrode the will of 35 million Californians (61%) who voted against gay marriage in 2000. Suppose those same four judges decided that slavery was a good idea too? Would we have to abide by that too? This issue is not about gay marriage but judical overreach. The matter has already been decided by the people. This junta of four unelected judges do not have the authority to overrule the will of the people.

[TomFromPV]

Hopefully we will be able to vote (again) on the issue in November.

Assuming we have the vote, the people of California can either squash the decision by the 4 judges or agree with it.

BTW, marriage is a very public thing and not a personal matter. It is declaration to the world that you've paired with someone. Well unless we start including polygamy too.

[the fourth horseman]

Yet another sign the apocalypse is upon us. It's a sexual preference nothing more. I think the supreme court should not be wasting our tax dollars on something so absurd.

[Chef]

I don't understand why people are against gay marriage. Well, actually I do. They're opinionated, meddling, religious bastards afraid of anyone that disagrees with their beliefs. Why can't people just mind their own business?

[Marshall]

This is a great day for California and for millions of Californians who have been fighting for equal rights for a very long time. I'm even more proud to live here today than I usually am.

Oh, and "Enforcer" - there is a federal constitutional amendment barring slavery. There has been since 1865. Take your straw man home.

[LOL]

Orange Curtain wrote:

Well, the orange curtain still lives.

It's so very enlightening when someone makes comments like this vs actually presenting their rebuttle.

[lynn]

just out of curiosity,will it be wife,wife or husband,husband. crazy.

[Someones mom]

Since the divorce rate is so high here in the U.S I don't understand why people think marriage between a man and a women is so great. As long as people can enter into a "union" with what they consider to be love and respect...I could care less.

[Neo]

Homosexual Marriage will be legal when Hell freezes over! It looks like Hell has frozen over and Satan has taken over!

[lynn]

it does say in the bible that god will give the devil free reign for a period of time,well here it is.

[Obomination]

Chef wrote:

I don't understand why people are against gay marriage. Well, actually I do. They're opinionated, meddling, religious bastards afraid of anyone that disagrees with their beliefs. Why can't people just mind their own business?

Let me try to take a stab at why I don't mind my own business. When a group can change the definition of a word, in this case MARRIAGE, I think we are on a slippery slope. How about the polygymists? Can we know redefine the word for them, too? I don't care about Gay Civil Union or what anyone does in private. I just think if we call a banana yellow, then it's yellow and cannot be redefined as blue.

[CCC]

Besides being a moral religious issue, homosexual marriage does affect everyone. Marriage provides certain rights and benefits. This is proven by the fact that it is such an important issue by the homosexual community.

This ruling, if it stands, may force all employers to furnish insurance benefits to all 'married' couples or to discontinue those benefits for all employees. This would definitely impact people outside the homosexual community.

However, this ruling would not change other current restrictions. The IRS still will not allow a homosexual couple, even if 'married' to file a joint tax return.

[KJG]

Think about this...

What impact exactly, do you think this ruling will have on you, and/or your personal family and your lifestyle?

I personally think some of the "gay" unions have better marital relationships than some of our "conventional" male/female partnerships in this era.
I don't have a problem with the ruling. How many other things have we all voted on and then have been changed by the Courts.
Thanks for reading my opinion. I am straight and married for 57 years.

[To The Point]

In 2000, proposition 22 was voted on by the PEOPLE, and gay marriage was rejected by almost 62 percent. Yet, the courts - specifically the Supreme Court -- overturns what the PEOPLE voted into law? Why do we bother to vote at all if the courts do whatever they want?

[huh]

Obomination wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me try to take a stab at why I don't mind my own business. When a group can change the definition of a word, in this case MARRIAGE, I think we are on a slippery slope. How about the polygymists? Can we know redefine the word for them, too? I don't care about Gay Civil Union or what anyone does in private. I just think if we call a banana yellow, then it's yellow and cannot be redefined as blue.

When some opponents of gay marriage try to argue for their view, after they ritually condemn homosexuality they will claim that gay marriage “damages society” and “undermines marriage” in some unspecified way and end by postulating deplorable consequences of gay marriage:“If we allow gay marriage, then people will want to practice polygamy and marry their pets.” Well, when religious nutjobs are reduced to arguing that gay marriage is bad because it might lead to something else, they’ve lost the argument. When they have to change the subject, it means they do not have any good arguments against gay marriage itself. Nothing in the principles supporting gay marriage provides any support for the legalization of any other type of relationship, much less polygamy. Over the centuries, heterosexual marriage shifted from being a merger contract between families or an economic and sexual arrangement to assure creation of legal heirs and caretakers for one's old age, and came to be understood primarily as a companionate relationship of mutual caring between two people who love each other. But once the affectional bond became the central element of marriage, the rationale for limiting it to pairs who would procreate lost its force. Gays want nothing more than to participate in “traditional marriage” thus understood — marriage for the benefit of the marrying partners: meshing a person's life with someone they love. No one is arguing that people should be able to have whatever marital arrangement they want; only that everyone should have access to marriage as it is now commonly understood. Nor are gays arguing for any legal rights other people do not have. They argue that they are uniquely denied a right everyone else already has — the right to marry someone they love. By contrast, an advocate of legal polygamy cannot argue that he (or she) is seeking anything akin to traditional marriage — unless the Old Testament is considered “traditional.” Nor can he argue he is being denied a right that everyone else has. He would have to argue that he desires and deserves a new right that no one currently has. Perhaps that argument could be made but it has not been so far. In fact, we may say that just as same-sex marriage is good because it allows more people to enjoy the pleasures and benefits of marriage, polygamy is undesirable because it deprives some people of the pleasures and benefits of marriage. In short: None of the principles supporting gay marriage offers support for polygamy. Rather the opposite. And polygamy is not likely to be widely advocated because — unlike same-sex marriage — it answers no needs and removes no inequities in modern societies.

[To The Point]

Chef wrote:

I don't understand why people are against gay marriage. Well, actually I do. They're opinionated, meddling, religious bastards afraid of anyone that disagrees with their beliefs. Why can't people just mind their own business?

Yeah ... pedophiles say EXACTLY the same thing that you do; which is why we DO have to mind other people's business. Perversion is perversion: it's bad enough it exists without the legal blessing.