May 25th, 2009
08:04 PM ET

Decision day in California

Joneil Adriano
AC360° Producer

On Tuesday, the eyes of the nation will be watching California, during what is being billed as the "Day of Decision" by marriage equality activists all across the land. Why? Because the California Supreme Court is expected to issue its highly anticipated ruling on whether or not Proposition 8, the controversial ballot initiative which amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage, should be upheld or invalidated.

After the oral arguments in March, many court watchers predicted that the Supreme Court would respect the will of the voters and allow Prop. 8 to stand. If that is indeed the case, those who support same-sex marriage will hold protests across the country. If the justices surprise everyone by overturning it, those protests will become celebrations.

For those on both sides of the issue, the stakes are high. For one thing, there are an estimated 20,000 gay couples who are, for now, legally married in the state. Will the court allow those marriages to continue, or will they be forcibly annulled?

Also, California is the biggest state in the union in terms of population. Whichever side wins tomorrow will claim a big victory - and momentum.

But taking a step back for a moment, it does seem as if the train has already left the station. Since the California court took up this issue, three other states have begun granting same-sex couples the right to marry: Iowa, Vermont, and Maine. New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey are poised to follow.

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. Northeastern states are the ones driving the agenda now.

In deed, a new front has already been opened up in Massachusetts, which started performing the first same-sex marriages five years ago. There, a lawsuit filed on behalf of 19 gays and lesbians - including the widower of Gerry Studds, the first openly gay Congressman - challenges provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibit the federal government from recognizing lesbian and gay couples.

This lawsuit alleges that the law discriminates against married lesbian and gay couples by denying them rights like Social Security spousal benefits, family medical leave, and the ability to file taxes jointly.

No doubt challenges to another DOMA provision - that which allows states to deny recognition to legally performed same-sex marriages in other states - are in the works. President Obama has said he would like to see DOMA repealed.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to underplay the importance of a California victory for supporters of marriage equality. They want it just as badly as their opponents.

But these days, it does seem that proponents of traditional marriage are the ones who need it more. For more than a decade, they have marched across the country easily passing one same-sex marriage ban after another. But that movement seems to have now stalled, and marriage equality activists are the ones on the offensive.

soundoff (182 Responses)
  1. michael smith

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:14 am |
  2. Victor Juarez

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:13 am |
  3. Antonii De Joya

    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
    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:13 am |
  4. L Rivera

    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...

    May 26, 2009 at 12:12 am |
  5. Bill

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:11 am |
  6. Frank Sellers

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:11 am |
  7. mike,texas

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

    May 26, 2009 at 12:10 am |
  8. John

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:09 am |
  9. Steve in Bama

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:08 am |
  10. Heather Clayton

    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!

    May 26, 2009 at 12:06 am |
  11. Dave

    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 😉

    May 26, 2009 at 12:06 am |
  12. Bob in Laguna

    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....

    May 26, 2009 at 12:05 am |
  13. Bill

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:04 am |
  14. Chrstopher DiDieu & Danny McCloskey

    Damn hypocrites.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:03 am |
  15. Ed in Cincinnati

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:02 am |
  16. janet

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:02 am |
  17. Dr. Donna K Buechler

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:59 pm |
  18. DaveinSC

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:59 pm |
  19. Frank

    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?

    May 25, 2009 at 11:57 pm |
  20. Blake

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:57 pm |
  21. Mike

    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

    May 25, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
  22. Eli

    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!

    May 25, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
  23. Bryan

    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?

    May 25, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
  24. Sofrito

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
  25. Sergio Gonzalez

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
  26. David Fagan

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:52 pm |
  27. Adrian

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:52 pm |
  28. John

    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!

    May 25, 2009 at 11:50 pm |
  29. C. Potter

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:49 pm |
  30. Harold619

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:46 pm |
  31. Oreste Ona

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

    May 25, 2009 at 11:44 pm |
  32. tim in california

    this is respecting the law.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:44 pm |
  33. tim in california

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:43 pm |
  34. Marc M

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
  35. tim in california

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:42 pm |
  36. Skyler Mays

    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?

    May 25, 2009 at 11:41 pm |
  37. scott

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

    May 25, 2009 at 11:40 pm |
  38. Justin Taylor

    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...

    May 25, 2009 at 11:38 pm |
  39. Stephen Grant

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:38 pm |
  40. Tom

    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!!!!!!

    May 25, 2009 at 11:36 pm |
  41. JJ

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:35 pm |
  42. George Aaron

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:33 pm |
  43. Bruce

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:32 pm |
  44. Charles OMalley

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
  45. Oreste Ona

    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.


    May 25, 2009 at 11:30 pm |
  46. Paul, CA

    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!

    May 25, 2009 at 11:28 pm |
  47. Terry Schmer

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:28 pm |
  48. Bryan Kirchoff

    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

    May 25, 2009 at 11:27 pm |
  49. Drew in SF

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:27 pm |
  50. Elizabeth

    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.

    May 25, 2009 at 11:25 pm |
1 2 3 4