After all these (okay, short) years of debate on the issue, I still do not understand how same-sex couples being allowed to marry is a threat to anyone or anything. How, exactly, do same-sex marriages tear at the fabric of society? It is not as if their existence suddenly convinces thousands of teenagers to think, "Oh, I'll just be gay now." Same-sex marriages have no bearing on the continued, effective existence of economy, religion, or polity. Our country will continue on regardless of the existence of same-sex marriage.

In short, if you don't approve of gay marriage, don't have one.

I want my rights back, and so do others alike who plan to marry in the future.

Prop 8 stripped off the option that was given for same-sex couples to marry, proving even today that we can easily take away the peoples' civil rights.

Whichever way the Supreme Court rules this issue will not be over – the losing side will protest and the fight will continue on. If the Supreme Court does rule that prop 8 is invalid I hope it will not annul the marriages made in good faith in California while same sex marriages were legal. We generally don't make a law retroactive like that and it would seem pretty vindicative to that in this case.

Doesn't the US Constitution mention the pursuit of happiness? This country has more pressing problems than same sex marriage. Whether or not same sex marriages comes, it won't have any effect on my 12 year same sex relationship. We just have to keep working toward equality for all Americans.

It's wrong, point blank. We are a Christian nation (regardless of what Mr. Obama says) and we have to hold on to those same values that our fore fathers believed in. God is what has made America great, and if we start spitting in his face with such filth and nonsense, America will be brought down. I just don't get the purpose of it??? Man and Man can't make a life or vice versa; if homosexuality was correct, wouldn't it make sense for the same sex to be able to procreate w/ each other?

How come this matter isnt closed the people of cailfornia voted and dont want gays to marry. "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society."
Aristotle

If the courts overturn this, it will be a very sad day in history!

What good is voting, if your vote doesnt stand?

what's often forgotten when debating the "issue" is that there are real people affected. my wife and I may no longer be married after 10am tomorrow. How do we explain that to our children? Why do we have to get jacked around when straight people pervert the concept of marriage with the 50% divorce rate? Our relationships being recognized somehow hurts that?

Marriage is between a man and a woman. When lesbian and gay couples can procreate naturally, then maybe we may need to re-think the definition of marriage. Until that time, what say we go with nature?

Even if the Calfornia State Supreme Court votes to uphold Prop 8, I think there is a good chance that the voters of that state will vote to repeal it eventually. As the article states, "the train has already left the station", and at the rate things are doing, in the next decade or so, there might be as many as ten states that have legalized same-sex marriage.

Supporters who are seeking to ban same-sex marriage, constantly argue that marriage is a 5000 year institution that is the 'bedrock of society'. Well marriage today is a little different than it was in 3000BC.

The Majority cannot take a vote and strip a minority of constitutional rights. This is the lesson of West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943). If the California Supreme Court were to sanction Prop. 8, it would enable a future majority of Hispanic voters of California to theoretically hold a vote and strip Caucasians of their right to vote. Once a constitutional right has been bestowed, it is irrevocable and free of the will of majorities. That is why the Supreme Court MUST, as a matter of law, invalidate Prop. 8.

The voters spoke. That should have been the end of it. Leave the marriages that have already taken place alone, but that should be the end of it. Votes don't count for anything (on any issue) if the Supreme Court overturns the vote.

Why not have a vote to eliminate the GOP? It is a religious belief. Just ask one.

In 20 years we will look back and think to ourselves..did that really happen? I don't care who you are or where you live...you know this is coming BECAUSE you can NOT deny people inalienable rights!

The religious right has led the abuse and discrimination against this minority for decades – one hopes that we can slowly begin to crawl out from under this oppressive yoke.

The only thing that matters to me is that the will of the people be accepted and approved.

Elections have consequences and I don't believe that politicians and judges should go about overturning something that the population voted on.

Just because an issue was voted on and one did not like the outcome, one should not go around trying to over rule and over turn the results.

Obama won California and Republicans should not go around challenging the results.

McCain won Missouri and Democrats should not go around challenging the results.

Why do voters even vote anymore when the courts will only over rule them! Voters have no say anymore and that sucks!

The Supreme Court of the U.S. needs to ultimately stop this insanity and rule in favor of marriage equality. I am ashamed to live in a country where I have certain rights but my neighbors do not. How can we continue to treat our brothers and sisters in this manner? And how sad for those California couples who may possibly be stripped of their rights. This seems to run contrary to our Constitution. It's a national shame that needs to be corrected.

The people of California voted (we the people) and have final authority with regard to the issue of same-sex marriage recognition. If the courts reverse the people's decision why should there ever be a vote put before the people again. The voting public should have a voice and if they don't....we have a government run by judges. People will have no input into any decision making processes just like socialistic governments who lord over the people.

Im so tired of this debate. What a huge waste of money.

I think government should get out of the marriage business. The govt should issue civil unions to EVERYONE. Is someone wants to follow that up with a chruch wedding great.

Church = marriage
Govt = civil union.

What I dont understand is how a civil union is different than a marriage now in the state of California? Does a married person get more rights than a civil unioned person (not sure of the adjective - maybe that's the whole problem...)

I personally feel like many of the gay activitist just want to put a stick in the eye of the church goers.

frustruated..

Citizens of this country can not use their religious meaning of marriage with which to have the government ban others from marriage.

Society can not say, you must be a heterosexual in order to be married.

If you want to protect marriage then ban divorce.

I always see the idea that you should ban gay marriage just dumb. I mean, if someone wants to marry just let them! It's not going to suddenly make the economy fall, or society as we know it to colapse. I mean, if you don't support it then just don't get a same sex marriage. I never understood why people get so angry at other people when thier choices don't even effect thier lives. It would be funny if they passed prop 8 and same sex marriage started to sweep the nation after going through the north. They'll just be like "Didn't we start this?" but really I think it's just a little over the top, banning it. Iowa, Vermont, and Maine don't have some gaping hole on the U.S. map now. Thier perfectly fine.

This issue is wrong in the sense of decency. Gay people aren't even allowed to be gay in most religions and countries. Many countries does not even have laws against gays, because gay people doesn't even exist in their countries. To my opinion, that is right in my book and many other peoples' as well. I really want this propostition to pass. If it does, then it will show a huge message to the gay and lesbian society that marriage of gay and lesbians are wrong. I do not see gay marriages as threats to society, but it shows that gay marriges in America will show to other countries the indecency and pure ugliness that it holds in having gay marriages. I know America isn't the first or only countries with gay marriages legallized, but it's (America) a good place to start for the anti-homosexual society.

my veiw on HOMOSEXUALITY ?
1) God created homosexuality, and thus 2) that nobody chooses to be gay, and 3) that there is a distinction between being homosexual and same gender sex acts.What's important about 3 is that many people, some fundamentalists and some gay men, mostly, argue that a gay man is homosexual because of his practice of "gay male sex" - defined as sodomy (anal sex).

But I argue that a man is not gay because he may or may not practice sodomy, but because his orientation (read innate - as opposed to "preference" which is choice) is of the homosexual kind. In other words, a male can be homosexual but not practice sodomy, or even have ever had sex before.

To illustrate sexual orientation as separate from sexual activity, And true science isn't. In the case of homosexuality, it doesn't matter that Moses or Paul didn't understand that homosexuality was a sexual orientation, Scripture states clearly that "to lie with mankind as with womankind" is a sexual act. Scripture does not condemn homosexuality but the specific sexual act of anal intercourse, which can be and is practiced by both gays and straights alike: "For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature..." (Romans 1:26)

Therefore, it is a lie to say that homosexuality is a sin. And it is even more egregious to brand all homosexuals as "reprobates" and "condemned" for sexual sins attributed to them due to Scriptural ignorance and the long standing tradition of that ignorance.

The greatest injustice that we can do to a person is to rob them of the truth and then tell them lies.

This is my veiw and i STAND BY THEM

It's rough when the courts turn against voters. Voters have in all but one case (Arizona, which was later passed) voted in favor of traditional marriage.

gay marriage is digusting they should get counsling not rights and im not a religious fundmendalist heck im 17 i don't beleive in gay marriage and i don't think it's right at all. And heck seperation of church and state means that even if states allowed gay marriage churchs won't recongnize it so it doesn't even matter. NO GAY MARRIAGE

As a proud gay man who has been an activist in this movement for equality , I do hope prop hate is annuled and we will all be treated equally, I lived with the same person for over 30 years, when he died I received nothing,we are doing this for future generations.

I don't think the people of California (or any state) should have a vote on this issue. Why is it up to the majority to vote on whether or not people in the minority have are allowed to have their civil rights? This violation of rights has gone on too long. Our legislature and courts have an obligation to do what is right., not just popular.

If the court over turns Prop 8 it proves that the People's vote does not count. Why vote in the first place? Majority said NO, but the court is just going to over rule the people. Seems to me that the Government of California and the Government of the United States have forgotten who thayt work for.

Does any one know why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

What is the point of gay marriage? Homosexuality is an unpredictable anomaly (birth defect) that randomly occurs during gestation and has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage. Marriage is a concept that fosters monogamy among the heterosexual population and was engendered by tribes to maintain order and hierarchy within a population.

Homosexuality and dissociative gender disorders do not apply here and the unfortunate unwillingness of the medical community to define this anomaly has led to the notion that is a third gender or a choice when in fact it is not.

If the Homosexual community (lobby) needs marriage perhaps we should define a homosexual marriage that takes into account the needs of this group, but by no means should we blur or mainstream this particular group on account of their desire to become that which they are not.

I hope the California Supreme Court rules against Prop 8 otherwise it will validate discrimination. Very simply, I am a straight person who can marry whom I choose to, so why can't a homosexual person have the same right . Anything else is Un-American. Sad so many people are so mean spirited and fanatical as to discriminate.

I hope this ruling turns out well. Ironically I picked the day before to be sick, so I'll have to watch for the ruling on my mobile browser.

Still, whichever decision the court makes, momentum is on the side of the gay rights movement. With 4 states already marrying gays and another 3 (hopefully) soon, it's clear that gay marriage is possibly nearing an endgame politically.

That or it's about to turn into another voting rights for blacks again, with the North and West allowing it and the South refusing.

What's going to happen in the country is there will be same sex marriage states and NOT same sex marriage states. For instance. I live in DC and DC is likely to pass same sex marriage at some point in the future. Maryland is already talking about if this happens, they too will become gay marriage friendly as to not lose a tax paying part of their population to DC. Virginia, oh the Good Old Dominion is so stuck on "traditional values" that when DC gets gay marriage, VA queers will move to DC in droves to protect their families, i.e., the kids they've had in those relationships that have NO RIGHTS, just their parents have NO RIGHTS. All of those anti-gay marriage states will finally get the message when huge numbers of their gay population leave, thus leaving everyone else to fill the coffers because their state chose to be bigoted, homophobic and downright hateful. It will serve 'em right.

If gay marriage is allowed, how do you tell polygamists no?
Thousands of years of human custom should not be so lightly discarded.
Besides, haven't we been hearing incessantly about how Obama and the democrats won the election and the rest of us should shut up and get with their program?
Did not California voters speak very loudly on this subject?
And despite the writer's comment about momentum being stalled, gay marriage proponents have yet to win a victory at the ballot box, only in courtrooms, something conservatives said would happen when the DOMA was passed in lieu of a Constitutional Amendment.

Problem is ... should marriage even be a state issue if it is deemed "sacred". If marriage indeed is "sacred" it is a religious term which should stay sacred under the individual and her/his respective religion.

Sacred marriage should not be granted by a state due to the ideal of seperation of church and state. On the other hand if marriage is not sacred what is the point in a marriage? For mere equal protection of property? And if so according to our founding fathers of our inherent due rights to life, liberty and property all accounted for and equally important in a partnership; regardless of gay couples of straight couples, they should all be granted equal protection of life, liberty and property in other words a contractual marriage or civil union. This is a mere binding document under the eyes of a legal standpoint in governing. No one should be treated equal by being "more equal than others".

If the state truely wanted to do the right thing, they would grant civil unions to all. This certainly would tick many off but it would be truely granting equality to all. Often times doing the right thing is the hard thing. The way it is handled today will certainly create factions in differing groups as we have seen in the past and continue to do so. It may also legalize marriages for a few years and annull it a couple years down the road, having various advocacy groups spend millions fighting a legal issue where the money could be better spent in improving education domestically or feeding starving children in war-torn countries.

How can the Supreme Court of California rule if an amendment to its own constitution is "constitutional"? By definition, an amendment to the constitution is outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, as an amendment is the only means the People have of overriding the court system.

"After all these (okay, short) years of debate on the issue, I still do not understand how same-sex couples being allowed to marry is a threat to anyone or anything. How, exactly, do same-sex marriages tear at the fabric of society? It is not as if their existence suddenly convinces thousands of teenagers to think, “Oh, I’ll just be gay now.” Same-sex marriages have no bearing on the continued, effective existence of economy, religion, or polity. Our country will continue on regardless of the existence of same-sex marriage.

In short, if you don’t approve of gay marriage, don’t have one." via Rob in Denver

I 100% agree with this! Why can't people just mind their own business? What/Who does/do Same-Sex Marriages hurt?

This is not a "civil rights" issue. To those who say it is, please consider what rights the Constitution is designed to protect. If we view the Constitution through the lens of the Declaration of Independence, it becomes quite clear that it was never designed to protect or promote gay "rights." One of the most poignant lines from the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

If inalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, they will coincide with, not contradict, His doctrine. Because it is God who grants inalienable rights, these rights cannot be withheld, controlled, or bestowed by government. So the next question America needs to ask is, "Do we have the right to choose wrong?" While we are given the freedom to choose wrong, it is not a right, and thus does not qualify for protection under the Constitution. If God were to grant the right to choose wrong, there could be no judgment, and no just God.

Same-sex marriage is not a threat to traditional marriage. It affects no one except for the two people involved, just as "opposite-sex" marriage does not affect me. This IS and will remain a civil rights issue. Whether it happens tomorrow or not, it will happen! Same-sex marriage will be legal and in my lifetime. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year...but it will in my lifetime.

If same sex marriage can be approved, polygamy should be approved, too. Why polygamy is banned by US constitution? Why Mormon could not polygamy? Does polygamy affect other people?

If same sex marriage can be approved, prostitution should be approved, too. Why a consent sex between two adults involved money is illegal?

If the same sex marriage won't destroy our society value, why prostitution and polygamy will destroy our society value and banned?

I just don't understand how one can argue against providing equality when it comes to marriage. Those who oppose same sex marriages would have my support if they can argue against them without using any religious references. When religious groups can interject religious dogma into civil law we cease to be a republic and border on a theocracy. Religion in this country is not suppose to intrude into civil law and Prop 8 and DOMA do exactly that.
When it comes to California it takes two-thirds of the legislature to agree to put it to the voters. It should take two thirds of the people to change it thru the proposition process.
Nazi Germany used its laws to remove legal protections not just from Jews but also Christians. We have a republic removed from religion to provide a equallity to all peoples of faith and those of no faith.

I believe that the people have a right to be heard, and that votes should matter. However, I don't think anyone's fundamental rights should be put up for popular vote under any circumstances.

Suppose someone proposes that people who are Blonde aren't allowed to marry. They get enough signatures and get that proposition placed on the ballot. If a majority of people think Blondes shouldn't marry, it becomes law and enshrined in the state constitution. Does anyone see a problem with this system? What is to prevent other groups or minorities from being persecuted in this matter?

Regardless of how the Court rules tomorrow, let us hope that the California State Legislature takes a look at how a Constitutional Amendment is ratified there, and make it a bit more complicated.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Its an unalienable right people, get with the program.

Coming from The Netherlands, I hope the Supreme Courts rules that proposition 8 is invalid. The proposition is discriminatory.

It is amazing how you can use words like "marriage equality" to make it sound like gay "marriage" is a right, and that you are being unequal and discriminatory by not legally recognizing gay "marriage".

First of all, there is no "right" granted under the constitution for any couple to have a gay marriage. If an individual chooses to live a gay lifestyle, then so be it - they have the right to live like they choose. However, no state or federal government should recognize a "same-sex" couple as having a legal marriage.

Oh boy ! Here we go again !

What if homosexuality and lesbianism were a result of bad nutrition. What if too much soy (organic estrogen) altered people's chemistry?
What if our scientists know all this, and they do nothing because they feel it's a way to control the world's population. What if it's all just a really bad experiment?

Aside from all that -- life on this earth is 'short' eternity is 'long', what if God doesn't want gay marriage? Strong language – 'hate the sin, not the sinner'.

In its previous decision, the California Supreme Court noted that religion did not enter into the legal question of marriage, that marriage was valid without any religious rite. It is first a legal contract. Marriage has gathered many legal concepts in the long history of English Common Law, among which is the protection against having to testify against one's spouse. Would that protection, and all others inherent in marriage be included in domestic partner laws, then they would be legally equivalent to marriage. The Massachusetts high court found even that unequal, however, noting that calling marriage by any other name is not truly equal.
How DOMA will fare in future cases before federal judges, federal Appeals Court and the US Supreme Court will be protracted, with those courts' decisions trying to find the narrowest path rather than taking on a broad Constitutional issue of whether or not the federal government was within its jurisdiction to make that specific law in the first place.

The California decision did make the point of placing the burden of proof on the state by naming gays as a suspect class, a legal precedent that will color all future court decisions.

For many of us more conservative voters in California, the issue is not just about who should be able to marry, it is about the ridiculous idea that a constitutional amendment – a MAJOR change to the basic laws of our state – should be allowed to pass with a simple, emotional majority. A 2/3rd majority is required to change the national constitution (and most other states if I understand correctly). A 2/3rd majority is required to repeal an amendment. To allow a simple majority to impose their will on the whole state is not good governance.

@Rob in Denver;

Part of the issue is that many religions believe that homosexuality is a sin and will not perform same-sex marriages in their churches. The fear is that with these types of laws being passed churches would have to perform these ceremonies under threat of legal action. While that sounds preposterous on the surface, examples abound of same-sex marriages being 'forced on' various professionals who would, by personal conviction and choice, not participate in these ceremonies. The best example is a photographer - I believe in Arizona - who declined to photograph a same-sex wedding, but was coerced into photographing the ceremony by threat of legal action.

The California voters voted to ban gay "marriage." What does the Supreme Court not get here? I don't object to "civil unions" but marriage is a pact made between a man and a woman for the purposes of sex and children. Homosexual partners cannnot have children so the argument should end there. Without marriage, where is the future of our civilization? A FEMALE still has to have babies and I think the institution of marriage should stand. Enough of this argument already. I denounce sexual abberation as a "state of being" or "normal." It is NOT. Sexual relations between men and women for the purpose of propagating the species is normal. Gay relations are NOT normal.

Prop 8 has been a nightmare. But i take heart knowing that Spain, Sweden, South Africa, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, and that vast swath of the North American continent, Canada, have legalized same gender marriage. And the northeastern states are leading the trend towards equality.

The train has left, and it left globally. America is behind the times on this. How sad that a land that once claimed "liberty and justice for all" remains so backward.

Two questions that often get overlooked in the gay marriage debate:

1) Why did society adopt a legal (apart from religious) institution of marriage in the first place? It must have an interest beyond recognizing two peoples' feelings for each other, and the current debate actually turns arguments that "private relationships are none of the government's business" on their heads.
2) A "right to marriage" is often asserted in discussions, but is there a "right to marriage"? If so, is this right denied to other consenting adults?

Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis

Marriage is for families – both gay and straight. My family prays that the California Supreme Court will overturn Prop. 8 and uphold the 18,000 same sex marriages. Once again marriage should be a family tradition for all loving couples.

The threat to so called "traditional marriage" is and always has been the "traditional marriage" divorce rate. By the time the religious moralists cease their endless tirades against gays and lesbians on the marriage issue and realize the divorce rate is their problem, marriage will indeed be dead. Thanks to their idiocy, marriage is already on life support!

Forget about religion. If gays want some sort of legalization, for economic benefits, ok. but they shouldn't claim equality, because their unions are completely different, anachronic. not equal. Please don't try to change the meaning of language.

What will be next? Polygamy? Legalized multiple partners?

And as for they adopting kids, are we not told constantly that kids grow up showing the education they received at home? Example of what will they see? Gay couples?

I wish the best for everybody. And in this endeavor, MARRIAGE is not.

Sincerely.

I have no issue with gays having civil unions...but it is neither their right nor perogative to redefine the institution of marriage to accommodate their special interest group.

Indeed, there is no logical or legal reason why an institution in which government has absolutely no business should be fundamentally altered to accommodate gays.

If this change is permitted and championed by the government, then none may rightfully deny the will of polygamists, bestialists and NAMBLA adherents from legitimizing their "alternate lifestyles" in the sanctity of marriage.

Our time will come. Just as the popular vote cannot over-turn inter-racial marriage or legalize slavery, neither will it stop gay and lesbians from our just rights. It would be nice if the California Supreme Court did the right thing and allowed gay marriage, but even if it doesn't, it will just be a bleak chapter. The end of the book has yet to be written and we will prevail.

What scares me the most is the fact that the voters (well informed or not) have been stripped of their power. If this was an issue involving gun control or some other issue, people would be screaming for justice that the voters voice did not matter.

Moral of the story, if you vote against a democratic "reform," expect your vote to count very little.

When did the voice of a few (the courts) get to make decisions and overrule the vote of the masses (the people)? There is something very wrong when we need to vote on issues and because a few don't like the outcome they take it to court! A few judges can change the will of millions of voters? It shouldn't be allowed to happen. This is just wrong!!!!

The bible says, "Go forth & multiply". Last I looked two men or two women can't multiply without the help of the opposite sex. That should tell you something about where God stands of the issue.

Why can the majority tell a minority what rights they can have???? This should have never gone to vote, it is up to the judges/gov't to make that decision. Prop 8 was a mess and an expensive joke. I hope the courts rule in favor and equal rights are to be had by all!!!!!!

I think Joneil is missing the point that gays and lesbians are fighting for traditional marriage too. I wan't the same traditional marriage as heterosexual couples. Just because the spouses are the same gender does not automatically make the marriage non-traditional.
For most modern couples, traditional marriage is one based on love and one legal partner.

Doesn't Ex Post Facto apply to the marriages that happened before the ban? You can't arrest someone for something they did before a law was passed, so why would you annul a marraige made when it was legal to marry?

If they do get annulled, I will be very angry...

being married has nothing to do with civil rights.bible says marriage is between a man and a women.

It is so unfortunate that people have much glee in stripping someone's rights away. What if the south were to strip African Americans of their rights, would those who voted against equal civil marriage then be so gleeful?

if the voters say no to gay marriage, then the court better upheld. otherwise why even vote? you gays and lesbians respect what the vote and quit whining.

It has nothing to do with being a "threat" , it has to do accomodating a minority of people who are choosing to do something different.

No one is saying these people can't be together but that has NOTHING to do with the right of marriage.

If you want to live together to ahead but asking the country to embrace your lifestyle simply because you chose it, isn't something guaranteed under our constitution.

if prop 8 is made to be invalid, then why not overturn other props? just because someone doesn't like it, that doesn't mean it should be overturned. respect prop 8 gays and lesbians. you lost deal with it.

this is respecting the law.

Were you asking me an opinion or just be "moderate? I didn't get it.

Since the election, the powers and principalities that opposed proposition 8 have reinforced one of the strongest but sometimes unspoken arguments in favor of proposition 8. It’s simply this, equating same sex marriage with traditional marriage is an attack on Christian values and an attack on the Christian church. Frankly the attack upon the Mormon Church doesn’t look like an attack upon the Mormon Church as much as it looks like the attack many Christians feared the sanctioning of same sex marriage represented, an attack upon ‘The Church’ and all Christian values.

There are obviously many common sins as defined by the bible; coveting your neighbors wife, adultery, maybe even some sins that can be called ‘victimless’ sins like, fornication, using drugs or excessive alcohol or paying for sex but common or not, they are all sins none the less. Sex between same sex partners is defined, by the bible, as sinful. Sanctioning a behavior that is defined as sinful by our core values—given to us by God– and representing it as the same as a traditional and even holy union is not something many Christians are willing to do. It doesn’t matter if the behavior is irresistible—as some gay folks say– or fashionable or if it falls under the umbrella of ‘everybody’s doing it’ or if it is just something that you enjoy and don’t want to stop doing. In this go-along-to-get along era of fluid morality, it is still behavior that is outside of Christian’s moral and ethical box.

At the root of all morality and ethics is a base belief that each person is responsible for what they do, their actions. Consenting adults do not engage in sex of any kind without making a decision to do it, it does not matter if you are heterosexual or homosexual.

Gay and lesbian folks, no one hates you and to claim many people supported proposition 8 because of hate is just a form of misdirection. Certainly no one opposes love. No one is even preaching at you and asking you to change. But don’t step on our side of the fence and tell us your values have to become our values. This is not truly a discussion about rights—every single right that falls under the heading of ‘marriage’ is available to gay and lesbian couples (power of attorney, access to benefits, rights of inheritance, etc., is available now) this is a disagreement about values. Yes values and the word ‘married’ is what we are fighting over. Opponents of proposition 8 may try to attack the money that supported the initiative—remember you raised and spent just as much money—but it wasn’t the money that voted for the initiative it was the hearts. And like it or not ‘married’ is a term that is sacred to our hearts and to our God. If you make us defend it, we will. If you show up at the churches, all the churches not just the Mormon Churches, with torches and lawyers, we’ll be there and we’ll leave a light on.

I strongly support gay marriage, but I hope that the Supreme Court decides to uphold Prop 8. The unlikely consequence of Prop 8 was a swing in momentum in favor of gay marriage. A court decision overturning Prop 8 will merely galvanize the anti-marriage movement, much the way that Roe v. Wade galvanized the anti-abortion movment, and potientally shift momentum back to opponents of marriage. For marriage supporters, it's better in the long run to be patient and let CA voters overturn Prop 8 on their own. And they will – remember that a "constitutional amendment" in California requires only a simple majority.

Gay marriages, illegal immigration, abortion and drugs will be the down fall of this great nation! What’s so shocking is this country is still in its infancy!
America has pushed God aside causing ‘moral values’ to incinerate!

I for one, agree whole heartedly with Rob. I am all about the ability for anyone, regardless of gender/sexual orientation to be able to get married.

I am particularly hopeful that the California Supreme Court will do the right thing and allow those thousands of marriages already sealed to stay intact. Let's protect love at all costs – whether it's between a woman/woman, man/man, men/women.

I would be absolutely crushed if the Cali SC upheld Prop 8. We can't allow the rights of the minority to be decided by the majority.

The issue which the Calif Supreme Court will decide is an important one. When it ruled (5-4) that the Calif constitution required that all Calif citizens be afforded the right to marry, it called that right intrinsic.

Thus, if it rules on the side of the legality of Prop 8, it (in effect) will be saying that (in Calif, at least) a majority can restrict (and perhaps even rescend) the civil rights of a minority.

The Court could not have simply disallowed Prop 8 on the ballot. The Court does not have the authority to restrict what propisitions may be offered. However, it does have the authority to interpret the legality of any proposition, once it has been ratified by the voters.

It seems, therefore, that should the Court uphold Prop 8 it will (in doing so) be inconsistent in philosophy with its original ruling.

It is so disheartening that this issue should be taking so much of our needed revenue (millions were spent on the referendum) when Calif (and the nation) is hard pressed economically. It is also so perjorative of our society that many states in our nation (and the federal government through DOMA) abuse the human rights of its citizens.

Our neighbors to the north and south, as well as our allies in Europe have gotten over this issue long ago. It's time we did so too.

It's always the same argument just evolving over time.
Religion declares some form of two people may not marry. Catholics to Protestants, Black to Whites, Men to Men.
All I see is a continued sense of narrow mindedness evolving into a platform of sexual freedom that has been going on for generations.
Society changes and so must laws and freedoms furthered.

As a middle-aged, middle class, stay at home mom with a fairly traditional marriage and fairly traditional values, how, exactly, does gay marriage affect me? What could happen? A gay couple could move across the street and my kids would find out? That could happen now. My kids are more interested in the sex life of insects than the sex life of humans. Until someone explains to my satisfaction how gay marriage affects me negatively, I'm going to view this as a basic human rights issue.

I hope Prop 8 is upheld because as a heterosexual man, seeing gays married takes away the value of my own marriage. For example– if gays can jointly file taxes, I won't feel special anymore jointly filing mine. Seeing them file two sets of papers instead of one asserts my dominance in society. Also, if gay people get married then everyone will want to get married and that will lead to more traffic which leads to global warming which will cause the polar ice caps to melt and flood the streets of Los Angeles and then how will I get to work?

The people voted on it. How is it illegal? The majority have spoken. That is how every election is handled. That's like saying Obama is an invalid president because there are several people who disagree and voted for McCain. Stupid.

I don't understand why the people who are for same sex marriage consistently call people who are for traditional marriage closed minded and not willing to accept someone else's ideas because essentially they are doing the same thing (being closed minded and not willing to accept someone else's ideas) by not accepting a majority of the people in California's ideas!

This is such a sad issue. If two people really care and love each other who cares what gender they are. There isn't enough love in the world as it is.

Marriage makes it easy to raise kids and saves money when two people live together. Why is this such a big deal? Straight people-only tax breaks?

Its disgusting we've reduced to fighting about things like this I think

I don't understand why this needs to be debated. Any court that deserves respect should recognize that every citizen has the right to a legal marriage. The legal definition of marriage cannot and should not be based on any Biblical definition. All citizens are of this nation are endowed by its Constitution unalienable rights, and I believe denying someone marriage based on them being a homosexual is clearly unconstitutional. Denying same-sex marriage is every bit as bad as denying Atheists or Hindus to marry. Clearly they are not valuing marriage's sanctity as Christians, they are expressing love between two people and having their unification recognized by the government. Shouldn't that be what marriage is about?

I'm sure the South would have voted to keep slavery legal, but that does not make it the right choice by any stretch of the imagination.

I could care less about gays and lesbians having equal rights. Under the constitution, maybe they should anyway. What scars me here is that a court of law is considering overturning the vote of the people. If that is done here, what will the/a government body want to over rule next?

No, acutally it does affect this country. prop8 was voted for and passed by a majority of california voters, get over it. Homosexuality is not as accepted across this country as the media would have you believe. The supreme court in california should not have the power to overule the will of the voters, and if it does it will be a sad day in this country. we already have to much law legislation from the bench. in a republic, majority rules and this country was started as a republic, not the democracy we have now. if the supreme court in california follows the law, as it should, prop 8 will stand. if they chose to ignore the law then they will overturn it.

The constitution was not written to limit rights but to grant them. No minority should be denied rights of the majority. We are not talking about churches–we are talking about civil legal rights. No marriage is harmed by a gay or lesbian couple being married. If you don"t like gay or lesbian marriage, then don"t marry a gay or lesbian! You don"t even have to send me a wedding gift, even if you are my friend or my family.

Strange idea of democracy, this. If what "I" want wins, yeah!! what a great country!!! etc etc etc. However, if "I" lose, booooooo!!! take to the streets! I mean like, I thought in a democracy we were supposed to respect the decision of a vote, where we liked it or not. Not take to the streets, as there are other ways of voicing dissent. To me, many so-called "liberals" are closet-fascists, negating the rule of democracy to impose their own views on everyone. And hey folks, I live in San Francisco! So I'm in the midst of it, but repeat: many gays and lesbos are, I think, as said above, closet-fascists, "liberal" only when things go their way, and totally illiberal if they don't.

A friend of mine that supports homosexuality once told me, "It (homosexuality) doesn't threaten anything except conservative Christians views about what’s "icky". My friend added, "And who is anyone to pretend to know what God's will is (regarding homosexuality)?"
Several topics should be addressed:
One primary issue comes down to whether you view the Bible as authoritative. If a person agrees with the claims made in the Bible, then the issues become very clear that homosexuality is sinful. (Romans 1:26-27; Leviticus 18:22; and more). If you don’t, you could go around in circles about God’s will.
The Bible alone, however, doesn’t have to be used to demonstrate homosexuality and how it breaks the God designed plan for nature and traditional marriage. It is apparent we were not created for homosexual behavior. There are paramount physiological, medical, social, and ethical implications for using the body in ways it was not intended. History has proved and will continue to prove that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Sexually, men and women were designed to “fit” together with the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation. Clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose.
Homosexuality is not a struggle for me personally; however, I am certainly not perfect and I have many other sinful areas that I need the support, correction, forgiveness, and love of others. I choose to love all people, as God calls me to.
Read the 10 commandments rights now and imagine living in a world where everyone followed them.

THEY WANT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE, THEN BAN DIVORCE AND MULTIPLE MARRIAGES. CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!!
Damn hypocrites.

Over 30 states have constitutional amendments forbidding gay marriage. Barring a US Supreme Court decision invalidating these amendments on federal constitutional grounds (or a federal statute requiring states to allow gay marriage), there exists something of a firewall that limits any momentum that so-called "marriage equality" proponents have. It is difficult to see how they can get beyond the northeast and perhaps the pacific west.

Only one state - Vermont, a very small and the most secular of states - has actually allowed gay marriage via the democratic process. Each other state has only allowed it via court decree and, with the exception of California, those states make it very difficult to overturn court decision. These state courts were intentionally cherry-picked by gay activists to create the impression of "momentum" or "inevitably" but it is difficult to see how in practice this momentum can take them much further.

Win or lose no matter how anyone feels this debate has destroyed the family. A great example is how the gay's reacted to the Prop 8 vote; how they treated those who exercised their freedom of speech. They want the right to marry however if they don't (or didn't) get their way they tried their hardest to destroy those who spoke up. Explain that to America, the gays have made a name for themselves and they seem to be proud of it. The hatred and the violence that was shown by the gay public is a very good reason that people feel that this is the downfall of America. Perhaps some sanity can be shown win or lose (is there really a winner or loser?)

Perhaps a spokes person like Perez Hilton will make it all better for the gays....

I am not sure this is really a voters right to chose, I am straight, but how can one say what is right or wrong if love is involved. This is not a religion issue either, this is between two people and if they love each other, why cannot they marry? So I leave in California now, but didn;t when the vote took place, I would say that everyone has a right to love whom they want. We need more love in this world

Those that oppose gay marriage are fighting a losing battle. It will be legal in all states within the next 20 years. Typically whatever social advances progressive nations in Europe have – we experience 20 years later. We can't have a nation where some states recognize gay marriage and others do not. It does not make sense!!!

Ps. I hope my parents will be able to get married. I was raised by my two mothers – who have been together for 25 years! Legalize my family!

How can the California Supreme Court rule the existing Constitution of California to be unconstitutional? Did the people not amend the constitution according to the law?

Does this mean that the California Supreme Court is actually not subject to the California constitution? but in some way above and superior to constitutional law?

That's very scary. This would be the final evidence that the rule of law in America has become nothing but a charade.

Many people I have talked to have no problem with gays and lesbians having EVERY right afforded by being married. They just have a problem with marriage being between anything but between a man and a woman. Why not come up with a new and different term, say pairage. It should have all the same rights, but not the same name.
And as marriage is a religious union, why does any state or government have to get involved? It is clear that the two sides will never give in...there needs to be a middle ground that both can live with.

People who try and deny someone of their freedom of belief,should have their freedom of belief denied also.

To Rob in Denver – An Explanation of Right-wing Fear Mongering:

The right-wing bigots are able to dupe suckers into following them by convincing them that if gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry, they will then try to take marriage rights away from straight people. I was stunned when a bigoted relative of my own made this argument to me, but it's true. I have never heard of such a ludicrous rationalization, that a group would fight for an equality they plan to strip from their oppressors.

As I told my relative, even if that were the big plan, if at some point in the (hopefully near) future gay men and lesbians had already won court battles fighting for the right to marry based on fairness and equality, how could a judge logically rule against an arugument gay activists had successfully made not long before?

It is silly paranoid fantasy, but unfortuntatley it works.

So basically, the expert right-wing fear/hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush and many so-called "men of God" are able to convince others that they must act to punish gay men and lesbians before they're able to strip their rights away, essentially punishing them for a crime they haven't commited yet.

Although these instigators wave the American flag ad-nauseum, they really have no respect for the Constitution of the United States, and their followers are, from my vast experience, simply ignorant of what the document truly means.

As for whether invalidating 18,000 marriages would be vindictive, that rather misses the point. The court created a right to marriage and then refused to hold the decision until an initiative could be voted on, thereby creating a flood of "shadow" marriages.

The initiative could not be clearer... only marriages between a man and woman shall be recognized as valid. Thus, in California, if plain English means anything in interpreting the law anymore, gay marriages cannot be recognized. However, I suppose that if these couples wanted to move to another state that recognizes gay marriages from other states, then these marriages would be valid since they were legal at the time. But, in California, there is no legal or logical basis to recognize them if the initiative is upheld. Then again, there is the Obama "empathy" approach to constitutional interpretation.

I understand that emotionally such a result may seem cruel or even vindictive but the court has no one to blame but itself for this mess.... it very easily could have delayed the implementation of their original decision to await outcome of the vote.

Isn't it interesting that the only places the gay-marriage has won are those that don't allow the direct participation of the people? I wonder if the California judges are going to go over the will of the people once again...

Look like ~ there's really too much of confusion on gender issues here in our country and around the world –
Marriage – is not for same sex individual [ is that really hard to swallow]
why people can't really understand it?
MAN – IS MAN
WOMAN – IS WOMAN!
..
we cannot change that! you can't put two holes together, or put poles together. That is a wildest dream!!
..
GAY AND LESBIAN WAKE UP!!! there are only two gender here in the planet. MALE AND FEMALE... and they are the only couple that has the right to engage in marriage.

I dont see how same sex mirrage would hurt anyone. People like Brittney Spears who get married and divroced in 55 hours are the real threat to mirrage. If you want to protect mirrage I say pass tougher laws regarding divorce and leave the gay folks alone.

I hope the California Supreme Court rules in favor of gay mirrage but if it doesnt, I hope every single year the gay rights people get enough votes to bring up the question again and again until it finally passes.

God Bless an America that allows us all to be free to pursue life, liberty and HAPPINESS. I am a proud active serving member of the military and I hope tomorrow my country does the right thing.

Canada, Mexico DF, England, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, South Africa are just a few of the many countries where same-sex marriage is upheld as a basic human right. None of these countries have seen the "destruction of society and family" as the Religious Right would have the stupidity that is America believe. In fact, it is the contrary; family and social ties are stronger, there is less crime and the community is stronger. It's a disgrace to live in America, "land of the free" and to know that the things our kids die for around the world are overlooked here. What angers me most however, it the audicity of the Catholic Church and its belief that "marriage is sacred." What a joke that is with a 50% failure rate. The fact of the matter is that the ONLY WAY AMERICA will EVER accept US (yes, I'm a gay man) is by CHANGING THE LAW UNDER THE COURTS. As a country, there are too many stupid and ignorant Catholics and Evangelicals out there professing to know God. They don't.

I still do not understand how the federal government, or state government for that matter can lawfully keep anyone from getting married. The basis of their argument is based in religion. Am I the only one that remembers the founding fathers stating the importance of separation of church and state? Without it, then we would all have to fall in line with what the ruling majority believes. This is just another way for the far right to control what people do in their lives. For those that believe that being gay is a choice, I say to you this...who in their right minds would choose to live a life of constant persecution and be denied the same rights that our neighbors enjoy. Think about that and the next time hatred spews from your mouth...just shut it!

If marriage doesn't mean man and woman, what does it mean? What do the words "family" and "parents" mean? Where do babies come from? These questions aren't so easy to answer once gay marriage is allowed, are they? I do not want to have to explain to my children, or even worse, have schools teach my children, how two men can be "parents", have sexual relations, and have children.I don't want sex education to include and it shouldn't include how two men and two women have sex with each other. I don't want to and should not have to explain to my children why their teachers are wrong when they explain parents can be two mom's or two dad's. This will happen if gay marriage is legalized.

America is only as good as the families that make America. The very existence of gay couples does not threaten the fabric of Americas, but legally recognizing gay marriage does. The family, a man and a woman having and raising and loving children, will be. destroyed. Two men and two women can't have children, so they have to adopt. Poor children who were not able to choose to be raised like that and who will be faced with very difficult identity and moral issues from a very young age.

And just because traditional marriage is facing a very difficult time with high divorce rates does not mean that we should now allow gay marriage. Because one system is damaged does not mean we should add a completely flawed and already broken one.

If gay marriage is legalized, the rest of society will be affected, as the fundamental system upon which our society is built, the family, is changed. Schools will have to teach the multiple definitions of parents and family, and gay sex in sex ed, and ... And children have a right to be raised by a mother and father, and to have a mother and a father, or at least a system that provides the highest probability of having so.

Throughout the history of mankind, no major civilization has recognized the right of allowing any two people who love each other to marry. So who are we to reverse the wisdom of mankind and history??

This issue is much deeper than a simple "if you don't approve of gay marriage, don't have one". That bounds the issues from many to only one, and tries to set the debate on only one aspect. The main issue here is: Does the voter have the unequivocal right to make constitutional amendments? Of specific interest is, does a constitutional amendement depend on when one is being "politically correct" (e.g., a vote this year would be very different from a vote 50 years ago)? This specific issue is about the voter's constitutional rights; that should not be confused with anyone's moral or individual political views.

Throughout history, nations, cultures, and the three major religions- Christianity, Judasim, and Islam have all objected to what homosexuality and now gay marriage represent. The Defense of Marriage Act will eventually be challenged because the gay and lesbian organizations don't like the provision that states (around 45- the majority) don't have to recognize gay marriages alowed in other states (around five- the minority) and they don't like that. Once again, the citizens of their respective states are having their majority decisions determined by elections against gay marriage to be overturned by court actions by these aforementioned organizations. What happened to the majority ruling in elections? Finally, stop comparing this gay and lesbian agenda to the civil rights efforts- there is no comparision when a person's race is something that they're inherently born with while homosexuality is a chosen behavior and lifestyle!!!

Why is gay marriage banned? I could think of other group more worthy of the ban...such as...

1) Men with sexual assault records
2) Alcoholics
3) Drug addicts
4) Serial Killers
5) Terrorists
6) Racists
7) Megalomaniacs

Oh...wait...as long as they are heterosexuals...it's ok...the logic is confusing...

I have a loving, same sex partner and two wonderful daughters. We enjoy our lives in a California. We had a "wedding" on March 14, 2009. It was attended by my partner's fundamentalist Christian siblings. Every one was happy for us and inclusive. I would love to be able to complete our wedding with a marriage certificate.

It amazes me how far we are in America in regard to gay marriage. Im not religious but i hope and pray in my heart that someday people will be accepted and loved the way they are. Even if the California Supreme court votes to take away this very important civil right, I believe it is a matter of time when two adults will be able to marry anyone they wish. The Republicans used this issue to win in 2004. Thats the only reason George Bush won!!!!! by using hate !!!!!!! Wake up America!!! We all pay taxes and we all deserve to be treated equally!!!!

I live in Canada. Same sex marriage has been legal here for years. The country has not collapsed into anarchy just yet. California, wake up. The only people that same sex marriage really effects are same sex couples.

It is ridiculous to have a ballot to determine minority rights. If that method were always used, blacks in Mississippi would still be using separate lunch counters and riding in the back of the bus.

I said it before and I will say it again...the Supreme Court, the Senate, and even the President have no business in anyone's bedroom. Same is true with abortion and all issues that require decisions made using the heart as well as the mind. Let each person live their life and be accountable for their life. Let's all be adults again, shall we? Remember when we didn't need the government to tell us what to do next – we just did it? Are there not enough appropriate challenges in this country at the moment for our political and judicial leadership to focus their massive insight upon? There are plenty, sad to say.

"Marriage" as it's been for a very long time is a religious ceremony. Are all gays religious? Do they want to amend the bible too?

Supporters of Prop 8 aren't the angry, hate-filled people the gay community is painting them to be. Most simply believe that homosexuality is wrong. To approve of this measure would be to say that its OK, when in reality its not. It's not OK because the Bible speaks clearly on this issue. I suppose that doesn't mean much to those who don't believe or don't care about the Bible, but for those that do there isn't room for debate on the issue: the Bible has made that determination all ready. Supporters have simply chosen to follow it.

Supporters of Prop 8 believe in treating everyone fairly and kindly (not hatefully), but not to the extent that we have to violate our own moral beliefs.

Since the inception of this country, government has been "by the people and for the people." The question that remains regarding Prop 8 in California, is whether the High Court respects the majority vote given by Californians in last November's election. After all, if the Court has the ability to out-speak the volume of people (remember that millions of votes separated the two sides – millions), then this suggests that we now live in a country no longer "by the people and for the people." Rather, it suggests that an elected or appointed official has a voice that exceeds the volume and expanse of an "ordinary" citizen. I am confident that tomorrow's decision will uphold one of this country's greatest pillars – the ability of the masses to decide the values and policies of our great country.

heres the bigger issue...say california voted to legalize gay marriage....

and then the courts overturned it...even though it is the will of the people...do you really want the court taking away votes that the people cast thereby effectively destroying the vfoundations of the constitution....come on people...dont let courts take away the will of the people...no matter which side your on!!

Sorry for the people that are blind to the actual laws that are being enforced here. It has nothing to do with "equality" although by the way Adam & Steve portray it, it does. IF Adam & Steve are allowed to marry in California it strips Adam & Eve and organizations that have a belief far and beyond our current state of disculture of thier current right to say no. et al. – it would allow Adam & Steve to sue a Church because they were denied entry into it because they are not man and woman, it would allow Adam & Steve to force Adam & Eves' children to recognize that Adam & Steve are reproductive families. In a nutshell – equality is not at all what's at stake – what it is, is just another small little piece of our values being disemboweled for the smokescreen of "equality" – It prevent's Adam & Eve from saying NO. PERIOD.

While the end result is important to both sides, the question being addressed is a procedural issue. The CA Supreme Court must decide if Proposition 8 qualifies as an Amendment (a simple addition) or if it represents a significant change to the CA Constitution. If it qualifies as an Amendment, it stands. If it looks more like a significant change, then it has to be redone because the procedure required is different from the one that was used. The court will not be ruling on the merits of Prop 8 or the controversy between the two sides. It will simply be ruling on whether the proper procedures were followed. To say the court would be disrespecting the "will of the people" of it annuls the Amendment overstates the situation. They would simply be saying that the organizers did not follow the required procedures.

Marriage has been defined throughout humanity as a man and a woman for thousands of years. There is no need for some court to try to redefine it now. It should still be between a man and a woman.

Also, there is no federal constitutional right to gay marriage. Sexual orientation is not a protected class in the US Constitution. People are just making this new "right" up out of thin air. Read the constitution.

When will people realize that same sex marriages strengthen the fabric of society rather than weaken it? When my husband and I got married, we were granted all kinds of rights (state and federal) pertaining to property ownership, financial planning, and our eventual decision to have children. All of those things made our family more stable and therefore allowed us to contribute more to our community (both in terms of money and emotional energy).

All those "defenders" of marriage need to quit attacking it. It's rampant divorce and strangers marrying strangers on reality TV that are eroding the sanctity of marriage, not allowing legal recognition of fully committed same sex couples.

Hopefully the California Supreme Court sees the wrong that Proposition 8 represents, and let everyone have equal rights. What is the point of the separation of Church and State if we allow religious matters interfere with human rights??? Even if Prop. 8 wins tomorrow, the California populace will eventually see the unfairness it has caused and will call to repeal it, it is only a matter of time.

I think the narrow-minded agenda of LDS or the Mormans spending over 20 Million in California to help pass the initiative should be looked at. For a church..they certainly had a political agenda and deep pockets to help strip away civil rights of Americans. I don't think it would be in the best interest of the California Supreme Court to start taking rights away now.

I hope that the Supreme Court upholds the will of the voters. There are some who don't see how this issue affects those who believe in traditional marriage. First of all I have to say that it's not just teens and young adults that can be effected by this. I think that I can clarify my point of view via an experience I had last year. My children go to public schools and last year the CA state senate attempted to pass a bill to force all public schools to include homosexual and transsexual materials to balance out heterosexual materials. In going to a school board meeting (K-8 board meeting) when this was discussed, they told us that if it became law this was not just related to instruction during sex ed classes. They said that reading materials in all grades would have to promote a balanced picture of all sexual orientations. So if they had books that appeared to promote heterosexual relationships/marriages, they would have to add books about homosexual relationships/marriages as well as transsexual ones (how they would do this for K-8 I do not want to ever find out – but anyway would be inappropriate in my estimation). They also said that parents would not have to be notified when this material was taught or read in class (parents would have to be proactive and hope for a sympathetic teacher). Fortunately it didn't get the gov. signature. As a parent when you are trying to instill traditional values, upon which this country was founded, and the schools not only undercut you, but then make it difficult for the parent to determine exactly what they are doing – it can have a profound effect on young children and the families involved. If the Court overturns Prop 8 we have been told the state education codes would force the same changes that was discussed last year (except for the transsexual part).

Ban it ! Dont plan it !

If this country continues to push the issue of rights for gay marriage then what about the rights of those who want to have more than one husband or one wife? I think this issue opens up a whole big can of what's next. Is America really ready to go down this road of the unknown? It will be a free for all for every sexual perversion you can image with people clamoring for equal rights. Where do we draw the line?

Are we a democracy or court-ocracy? As a citizen I am angered by the arrogance of the courts. This is tyranny. The vote of the citizens has been clear again and again - they have stood up for what is right (and against what is wrong).

If you are for gay marriage, but also for democracy and fair-play, make a choice. Either we live in a free country, or in one where sneaky lawyers coerce us to live under their twisted values. Forcing my state to recognize gay marriage isn't right.

How was this perversion allowed to get this far?

A classic example of a biased press leaning so far to the left that it needs a crutch to appear to be upright (or forthright). California has it right and common sense will prevail in the majority of the remaining states. Just because three tiny states, whose total populations are a statistical blip in comparison to the total US population, have voted one way does not mean the rest of the country has gone brain dead.

However, the actions of these state legislatures should be a wakeup call. Biased media coverage (both press and entertainement media) will attempt to make the decisions of these states appear to be progressive and the "in thing". Change is not always good. Acceptance by the general public of the suggestions made by the media, that the actions of these state legislatures does represent the majority opinion of Americans, would mean the rest of the country has gone brain dead.

Americans must think and reason for ourselves, rather than marching in step with some "cool" comedian or liberal news editor. In many cases these people are simply trying to justify or normalize their chosen lifestyle. They are not interested in what is right but rather they are interested in making their lifesyle choices seem right.

It's a religious issue, because fundamentally all led religions want to have mind control over both members and non-members of their religion. The "afterlife" is both the carrot and the stick. Marriage "made in heaven" is part of the carrot. Transferring and transforming independent morality into the creed and hence authority of the religion, becomes the stick.

It seems that when you believe in the totally irrational, you don't feel really secure, unless you know everyone else irrationally believes in it also. Then the Emperor has clothes

Rob,
Same-Sex marriage advocates want it preached in our schools that being Gay is acceptable. There are stories about two gay penguins having a baby, etc. So those who support Traditional marriage want the Right to have that not being taught.

And yes, this will effect the economy. The moral foundations of society are based in family and churches. if you change what a family is–from a man and a woman who may raise kids to any two people who love one another–then the real family will appear less important.
Straight people will have less incentive to get married. And that will be a big problem in the coming years.

The state asked me what my thoughts are on gay marriage. I voted, and Prop. 8 passed with 52%. My wife voted against Prop. 8. When the subject ended up going back to court we were both felt it is insane to ask people to vote about how they feel on an issue and the turn and say their voice does not matter. For the court to overturn the results of the election would be incredibly discouraging. What would be the point of holding an election for anything.

This issue is one of the chief reasons I eventually lost my faith. I could never reconcile the commandment to deny fair rights to so many who had done nothing wrong.

Make no mistake: opposing gay marriages imposes a great deal of pain on people who have done you no wrong. I fear that eventually, the only people left in the Church are going to be the kind of human beings who can somehow reconcile that act with their concept of the ultimate good, and that is a very scary thing.

Gays must repent and recognize that what they are doing is a choice and that its undermines the sacred insitution of a blessed union of a man and a woman under the bibical ruling. Gays only want this overtuned so that it "legitimizes" their agenda so that theycan "feel" accepted. If youre gay, thats fine, your decision, however dont force your beliefs and morals on the public if you dont want them to tell you how they feel about your choices.

Those who oppose same-sex marriage and civil rights for gay and lesbian people, unconsciously have aligned themselves with Muslim Clerics in Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc. In these countries the evidence of the monstrous things that people do in the name of religion is not only committed, but committed publicly and proudly. Homosexuals are the victims because no one will stand up for them and that makes it easy for those who want to appease the radical Muslim right to get their support. In the United States, the GOP has learned that opposing gay and lesbian rights will also get them the support of the Christian right. What intelligent people must realize is that gay and lesbian rights, including marriage, is not a religious issue ... except for those who want to gain from it!

Inequality, under any other guise, would be thrown aside, except that the haters are still hating. There is no recourse to their hatred except that they want everyone else to hate the same things that they hate, even it it turns out that we end up hating ourselves.

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment. And the second commandment is to like unto it; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

In this great Christian statement, based upon the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, to his disciples, there is no room to hatred nor discrimination based upon any thing whatsoever.

A nation that is not united is dis-united, and will fall apart. A nation that allows discrimination will not stand. Love bears all things and is forever – and the failure to love goes against the Commandments.

This seems to read that proponents on traditional marriage need "it" more, and I presume that means victory.
That seems like a biased position.
Do we need to continue this debate forever? Or can we just allow people who do no harm to have their reasonable rights, marry as they wish, and go on and work together on real issues like climate change, the failing oceans, the economy, and world hunger?
It's an attention economy, and this is the wrong thing to garner so much attention.

Excepting same sex marriages by a government that believes in the seperation of church and state is like believing that we are the chosen planet . We need to take are place in the universe and learn exceptence through understanding is the only path we need to resolve the ignorance we have towards that which makes us human . The greater question we should be asking is how many people that make our Laws dye thier hair .

While some are looking at this as a civil rights issue, I am looking at it differently. The voters of California voted. Shouldn't their votes be respected? If courts begin debating and overturning measures put in effect by the people, then why vote at all? If this trend were to continue we would no longer be a democratic nation...

Wow, this is shocking, still baffles me how we are having this debate. It really infringes our personal rights, it does not matter what you call it, just give us the rights we deserve. I guess there is no seperation from church and state. I cannot wait until tomorrow, and hopefully this is over for good.

Next thing you know – people across the counrty will stage protests and flood the legal system because they want to marry their favorite sheep.

We need to regulate religion.

I don't understand how a small group, not even 1% of the population can change the idea of what marriage is. Marriage is between a man and a woman. We as a society together make the rules of what is right and wrong, and if we don't want gay marriage then it should not be. Marriage equailty? That is an interesting repharse fo the issue. If you don't believe in gay marriage then the logic would be that you are against marriage equality? If you don't believe in gay marriage then you are considered to have "outdated" ideas. I don't like the way this subject is being debated. Why are gay rights being compared to racial equality and so forth? It is not a right to change the way people think to fit your own agenda. From now on the sky is no longer blue the sky will now be green. Pass it on and we will get everyone to change their idea of what color the sky is. Californians voted and the supreme court should stay out of the issue.

as far as I'm concerned, the supreme court has no business denying gay marriage, whether I agree with it or not. If marriage is strictly religious, then the state should have nothing to do with it (but they obviously do). If the government is allowed to have laws on marriage, then it ceases to be at all religious. Outside of religious arguments, there is really no argument against gay marriage, so they kind of have to allow it, or they are denying citizens rights based on sexual preference or whatever you want to call it.

Religions can go ahead and not recognize gay marriages, or not allow them in their churches, because that's their prerogative, but I don't see how the state can deny people rights based on religious ideals.

I thought majority rule through voting as in any democratic system.

If we are a country based of what the people want about democracy. Then the courts should follow what the people have voted for twice. This is not the first time California has passed this law. The only reason those marriages were allowed was because the courts overturned the other vote. If the courts over turn this vote, it pretty much means as the public it does not matter what we think or how we vote the courts will be able to dictate the law.

When we talk about rights, yes we all have rights. But sometimes not these kind of rights like "same sex marriage." I think the young generation will be confused. How can they have kids? What do their kids think about their parents. They don't know who's the father and who's the mother when you have the same sex couples. If same sex is legal, then polygamy and prostitution should be legal too. These are rights too. How can anybody justify the differences among them. For example, if I can marry a gay person, why not a man with more than one wifes or one wife with more than two men. I also would like to know why porn is legal and not prostitution. They are are related issue. If prostitution is wrong, then porn is wrong too.

First, here is I think the best compromise. Why does government have to be in the business of defining marriage? Why can't we have the government see everything as civil unions and leave marriage to the churches. Same-sex marriage does not affect America. People against it like me is because marriage is something that we hold as sacred in our religious views. I am disappointed with from what I heard how churches have been attacked because people voted and stuck up for what they believe in. People voted for what they believe in. Is that really wrong to do? Does that give people the right to attack churches for sticking up for their religious beliefs? No it does not.

Gay Marriage: Lets get serious people, marriage is only, only between a Man and a Woman period. These type of situations only MESS up the Kids for life.

As a Californian, I really hope that my state does us and the nation proud and recognizes this as a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.

Let's put gay rights aside here, that's another discussion. The people of California voted no two times on gay marriage, it's banned, the people want it banned. Now a court has the audacity to choose whether or not that vote counts?
Really people? What if the tides were turned?

Same sex civil unions and selected states sanctioned same sex marriages currently have no federal bearings. Our government is essentially telling us not to date or fall in love with any non-citizens. Civil unions and marriages or not, our lovers/partners/spouses will be evicted once their visas expire. How's that for IN-equality?

The folks who have quote (married) while the marriage court cases pending take a risk. The courts are ruling on their perception of law, not how inconvenient their ruling of law may affect people not willing to wait until a ruling is made. If the ruling is to prohibit same sex marriage and revoke all Homosexual marriages in California well get a grip, get over yourself, your unwillingness to wait for a court is your problem not anyone else’s. Move on or to Vermont.

Prop 8 was about religious fundamentalists forcing their views into the California constitution, thereby discriminating against gays as well as churches that support and provide gay marriages. It will be a sad day if the court lets it stand, but ultimately marriage equality will come and the bigots will lose this batttle for what is fair and right.

If there is no absolute moral values, then why we say no to POLYGAMY and Prostitution but try to allow sodomy to prevail. Homosexual marriages should not be allowed in this country just as polygmay or prostitution because both are moral abominations. But if we allow one, then we have no legal grounds to say no to the others.

I like watching the opposition try to come up with coherent answers as to why any of this matters at all. Obviously they don't want to admit that it's a simple wedge ploy to divide the uneducated/religious and keep them cheerleading for their "team" instead of cheerleading for "America" and the idea of freedom it was based on.

I wish people could properly segment things that they think it's ok for THEM to do from what is ok for other people to make personal choices about. That is the freedom this country was founded on. We need to get back to that.

The simple fact is, in this country, we are supposed to have the right to do anything that is not covered in a law that specifically states we cant do that particular thing or class of things; and we are SUPPOSED to have REAL GOOD reasons to tell people what they can't do because it deprives someone else of life and liberty, and their own pursuit of happiness. Gay rights, drug laws, prostitution laws, and blue laws don't meet that mark.

As time has passed people have forgotten that, and they think "America" is whatever they personally view as "correct". It's sad really.

Morals and personal philosophies aside, a country that says a substantial percentage of its population is legally unequal to the rest of its population – on religious principles – is not honoring the spirit of the country that fought for freedom from religious persecution two hundred years ago.

America is the land of possibility.

If tolerance is unpatriotic, we had better reexamine other "social deviants" like protestants, puritans, blacks, atheists, and the all-encompassing category of "heretics," who count, among their numbers, such inconsequential heathens as Nicolaus Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Jesus Christ.

My thought has been a sort of scenario:
If they rule that Prop 8 stands (meaning no Gay Marriage) but the 18,000 marriages are equal, wouldn't that stand as unequal and go against the equal protection under the Constitution (state or federal)?

I am firmly in support of Gay Marriage, just curious about the what if?

How does the same sex marriage tear the fabric of society? I think the question ignores the fact that the fabric is being torn apart when a man annouces to his family he is a gay. Becoming a gay will tear apart people from one another. I guess it matters little whether the gay relationship is recognized as marriage by law or not. The fabric is already torn apart. People do not naturally accept gay marriage as an alternative to hetero sexual marriage. It can be forced upon people by court decisions. But it will never be accepted as something natural.

Society torn apart cannot last very long. Homo-sexuality is as ancient as bible story itself. History tells us that every civilization that recognized homo-sexuality fell apart soon after.

to Rob in Denver – Gay marriage is simply absurd. It is like when Indiana tried to define PI to be exactly 3 instead of 3.14159... Gay marriage is like saying 1+1 no longer equals 2. Two males cannot reproduce, two females cannot reproduce, but a male and female can reproduce and live together as a family. How am I supposed to explain to the children why two men are pretending to be a family?
Those under 30 have grown up with TV shows like 90210 telling them they can't help being born that way. Those over 30 know they aren't born that way but choose to live their perverted lives. Gays will never be equal even if they do get gay marriage passed from the simple fact that they are not normal and know they aren't normal because they cannot reproduce.

Why do homosexuals think they are SO special? Why do we have to hear that homosexuals are normal, while Christians are treated like KKK members for not wanting to give special rights to homosexuals? And yes I'm calling it special rights, because thats what it is. You don't give everyone the right to marry because of who they are attracted to. The dictionary definition of a marriage is a man and a woman. It's special rights to give homosexuals the right to marry and not give multi-partner partners the right to marry. or people who are attracted to an animal, and no, i'm not saying its the same thing, but all categories are receiving special rights if one gets to marry and the other doesn't, because marriage has never been defined in those ways.

Rob in Denver, you are wrong. Allowing gay marriage does make thousands of teenagers across the country suddenly say, hey I may be gay. Institutionalization breeds acceptability.

The government should only recognize civil unions. There should be no mention of sexes in these unions, just consenting adults. Even polygamist weddings would be ok some say, and yes maybe, so what? Ever see a kid messed up because they had too many dedicated parents? Me neither.

The Gays already have exactly the same marriage rights as we Straights: any American citizen has the right to marry anyone they wish of the opposite sex as long as that person 1)agrees to marry them, 2)is legally competent to enter into a marriage, 3)is not already legally married, 4)is of legal age or, barring that, of the state's minimum age with parental consent. The "right" they have is identical to the "right" we have.

We shouldn't have to change the meaning of a word – nay, of an entire institution – because a small minority of people want it so. If homosexuality is a choice, they choose it knowing full well the consequences of that choice. If it is genetic it then becomes just another illness, a disease, syndrome, or condition just like Multiple Sclerosis, Tourette's, Down Syndrome, etc. Any genetic condition which causes a biological entity to perform or function in any manner that is not the proper performance or function of that entity is a disease. The only real difference between them if homosexuality is genetic is that the others mentioned are DISABLING diseases and, as such, entitle their sufferers to rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the phrase "sexual preference", nor will you find "sexual orientation". The Founding Fathers would've been appalled at the very idea. Nowhere does our law say we have to tailor our society around a few people's sexual deviance. Perhaps one day the majority in this country will think like you do but until that day the current majority opinion on this issue is the right one, or do you not believe in democracy?

I personally agree with Rob in Denver, gays having the right to marry is not going to affect society in terms of "making" straight people gay. But what I fear is that the courts decisions (appointed decisions not voted by the people, for the people decisions) may become law and many seem to increasingly find this o.k. One day, during a presidential election, is the highest court going to go against the vote of the people and "decide" the loser of the vote is actually the winner, because the majority of that court is ideologically aligned with the minority who want the loser to win? What's the point of showing up at the polls?

"The Golden State has had a reputation for being a trend setter on policy matters over the years, but on this issue, at least, it seems lagging."

Ah, here's an unbiased article! By this reasoning, Utah must be incredibly progressive, since they had polygamy before they joined the union, and let's face it, if same-sex couples have the right to marry, what possible justification can there be for legally discriminating against polygamy? And check out the legal age of marriage in various states.

In the past, and currently in several states (and in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for a few years) cousin marriages are legal. In Sweden, half-siblings can marry. So why not siblings? Birth defects? So what? Are we going to test every couple who gets married to see if they might have a higher chance of producing "damaged" children?

You wonder how this issue might affect society and our understanding of the marriage and family? Use your imagination–if any one of these possibilities doesn't trouble you, try combining them, because that will have to be legal too. Sometimes slippery slope is a fallacy–sometimes it's just reality.

The writer is correct. The tide has already turned in favor of equal marriage rights all across the country. It's coming, regardless of which way the CA court rules.

If anyone thinks that national equality in marriage remains decades off let them take note of the past few months; with four states legalizing gay marriage, including Iowa, and with an activist judge nowhere in sight, there has NOT been the great "back;ash" of outrage that the social conservatives have been smugly predicting. On the contrary, we have had a great national yawn. Gays are too familiar now, and there won't be enough people ready to take a stand against equal rights anymore, and those who do are mostly repellant 21-percenters who will be the best argument against their own positions

My concern is the way gay marriages will affect our young people minds.
How can they know what is normal and what is not .
All these supporters of same sex marriages will not be alive today if the normal parenting had not given them birth.
The choses of individuals to have friends , and how they get involve with them , should be their privet life and not a influence on the large society
that want to keep strong families and protect them from confusion.

Even if it is legalized, it is still wrong, and it always will be–and the majority of Americans agree.

Gay marriage will never be a threat to my way of life, or my marriage, or my income or my well being. Gay marriage should be approved. I am a heterosexual female and my husband and I are for equal justice for all. We are living in te 21st century now, and some people want to bring us all down to th dark ages. Wake up.

The voters have spoken. It is democracy at work. This is why we can have peace and the rule of law in this country. Please respect this important process - voting.

The voters should not be disenfranchised by the judiciary. If the side that lost the vote is not satisfied, they may certainly put a new measure on the ballot, and try again. I think we would all feel better if our votes counted.

I think the entire flap is over one word-using the word MARRAIGE. I do think that it should be reserved for a man and a woman {and I am not Miss California} It is a very spiritual union and how God intended. However– we have people among us who did not ask to be born with more estrogen or more testosterone and they are genetically gay. Teaching Sunday School with 3 yr olds–I had 2 boys who were very feminine yet very bright and they both grew up to be gay. These gay people want some degree of the American Dream and if they can select another NAME other than marriage– I think they should get every right that the hetrosexual population has by law. Then if one is ill and needs to be with thier partner or make decisions at thier death– I would call it BOUND. Would the gay/lesbian people be happy with saying we are getting Bound to each other? Just reserve the word Marriage for those made ONE in eyes of God. Enact Laws where people can get legally Bound and enjoy every legal right that married men and women have. Just my input~

I live in South Africa (where same sex marriage is legal) and am constantly amazed at how this issue is still being debated. In a country where our history has been scarred by hate and discrimination, I believe we have moved on to create a society that is accepting of all people irrespective of race, gender or sexual orientation. If anything, our country thrives and is stronger thanks to our diversity. Isn't it time America did the same?

If straight, traditional, Godfearing couples want to defend marriage DON'T GET DIVORCED! I cannot be held responsible for your inability to have a good marriage. Frankly, with a 50% failure rate it's befuddling that anyone would want to fight for it, let alone defend it, including gays.

I think it's an open and shut case. You can't hold a vote on something that discriminates by sex/race/religion/etc.

As someone who volunteered, gave money, and participated in the rallies againts Prop 8 here in Los Angeles, I can tell you that I'll be more than glad to have the CA Supreme Court UPHELD the marriage ban. It will only wake up, fuel, and encourage this generation even more to stand against discrimination.

It astounds me to hear over and over people saying that rights have been taken away from Gays and Lesbians by not allowing them to marry each other. The civil rights argument is a total deception on the part of gay activists in an attempt to confuse the issue and convince people that those who choose to live that lifestyle are somehow being discriminated against. People who chose to live the gay and lesbian lifestyle have always had the right to marry, just not to each other. How can you take away a right that has never been given?

Marriage between a man and a woman has always been the norm and, whether anyone likes to or wants to admit it or not, the only marriage sanctified by God. Nowhere in the scriptures, or in any authentic historical document, do we find God's acceptance or endorsement of homosexual relationships in general, let alone marriage. To the contrary we only find condemnation of homosexual practices.

Open acceptance of a lifestyle that has been condemned by God will only serve to destroy our nation. The hand of God was recognized by our founding fathers and the writers of all 50 state constitutions. Should we continue down the path of ignoring that God, who has blessed and preserved us a nation, and continue to openly accept and promote abominable lifestyle practices and activities, we will only bring down the wrath of God upon us. How can we expect God's blessings upon us as individuals and especially as a nation if we do not live in accordance with his commandments?

Same sex marriage is not the law which God intended for his people
to live. It is that simple. If some choose that way of life, that is their choice. And some day they have to answer for it. In the meantime, we do not have to accept it. We do not have to bend to their(gays)choice
and change our society to acommodate their decisions. It is wrong and the gays know it. They should make their own way and not expect
the rest of us to agree with them. They know what they are doing is the
wrong way, but they insist on having their way. Therefore, they have to
suffer the consequences. I don't know what else to say. It is quite
simple....

Just as Roe vs. Wade, gay marriage is another prime example of why there needs to be a seperation between Church and State. Given our country may have been founded on the Christian Chuch, but what we have became now is so much more. As long as we allow religon to play any part in our government we will continue to fall behind. When removed from the equation what valid rational does one have to not allow Gay Marriage? Gay men and women pay taxes as Americans, defend our country as Americans, and contribute to our progression in every facet of growth as a Country and culture. When one adopts this perspective it makes it impossible to defend measures such as Prop 8, making it no different then prohibiting equal rights to persons of color or women, which was also once defended using the "Good Book" as the primary rational. We have managed to progress past this backward thinking and I have faith that we will move past issues such as Prop 8. I only hope that it is within my lifetime.

I read a comment that someone posted AGAINST gay marriage saying, if we approve gay marriage, what is next rights for incest or pedophiles? Someone who was FOR gay rights said two consenting adults should have the right to choose as they please, they were against pedophiles because that is between an adult and a minor. Yet, they didn't care if a brother and a sister wanted to be married because if they were consenting adults, who is he to judge.

That is when I made up my mind to vote YES ON PROP 8. See how quickly this person was to back up incest, because of his/her "whatever floats your boat" attitude, and his/her "it doesn't affect me." What will be next? We as a society have lost our morals and values.

I'm all for marriage rights for all citizens. I'm also not sure that referenda are the right way to make law (couldn't voters approve all kinds of unconstitutional measures?)

The question is, what are the legal grounds for the California Supreme Court to overturn a voter referendum? How will the Court make its legal case without legislating (we'd then have everyone – the voters and the courts legislating, when it's supposed to be the duly elected legislators and governor who make law)

Forget about the marriage issue, Californians are risking losing their freedom if this passes, by a court that can ignore the will of the people and their right to ammend their own constitution.
Hello tyranny.

Only a vague allusion is made in the article to the 29 or 30 states that have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The vast majority of this nation (including California) believes in and upholds traditional marriage. Genderless marriage is in almost every case where it has been legalized a creation of judges legislating from the bench. The harm that genderless marriage will do to freedom of speech and religion is bad enough. The harm it will do to children who have a right to a mother and a father will be even greater. I understand that traditional marriages individually are not always perfect but that doesn't mean the institution is flawed. Genderless marriage will never be marriage, even if lawmakers or judges succeed in redefining it to say it is. Two women together or two men together will never create a baby. Any children they have will be the result of a third party who is the natural parent of the child they have. How that benefits that child is beyond my comprehension. Ultimately, the whole marriage debate isn't about marriage at all; it's about power and whether or not this country will allow a small minority to dictate to the vast majority. Fair minded people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be concerned if that is allowed to happen.

Clearly a liberal news organization is represented here. Those who support traditional marriage are in far greater number than the opposition, yet the fringe of extremism is what is represented here. How unfortunate it is that our society sees basic morality in a completely "new" way. It's a more "enlightened way" as if all the ages past have been somehow misinformed and wrong. No matter how you look at it, homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia, and any other moral degenerative action is wrong, period. It comes down to this; People wanting to be accepted for their immoral and self gratifying actions. Personal accountability is a thing of the past, as so will our great country. Watch and learn as this trend continues.

Gay marriage sould be ban. Is abomination unto God.

is still amazed me why it should be allowed at the first place.

Even if they win in court, we should still apply.

Those people practising it is hooligans.

thanks,
mercybrown