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. Ajax

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 1:01 am |
  2. Tim, Minnesota

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 1:01 am |
  3. Ken in SF

    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?

    May 26, 2009 at 1:01 am |
  4. Bob

    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?

    May 26, 2009 at 1:01 am |
  5. Sarah

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

    May 26, 2009 at 1:00 am |
  6. Stan

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 1:00 am |
  7. Tom

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:58 am |
  8. Nhia

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:57 am |
  9. Peter

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:56 am |
  10. Eugene

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

    May 26, 2009 at 12:56 am |
  11. Drew

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:56 am |
  12. Luisz Bobirca

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:56 am |
  13. Larry Gentry

    We need to regulate religion.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:55 am |
  14. Nathan

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

    May 26, 2009 at 12:53 am |
  15. Ovidio

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:52 am |
  16. Megan

    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...

    May 26, 2009 at 12:51 am |
  17. Ron San Bruno, Ca

    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 .

    May 26, 2009 at 12:48 am |
  18. Brenda Cooper

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:47 am |
  19. John MacDaniel, Huntsville AL

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:46 am |
  20. Francisco Cardenas

    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!

    May 26, 2009 at 12:44 am |
  21. buddyhead

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:41 am |
  22. Ben

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:41 am |
  23. Chris

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:40 am |
  24. JasonJackson

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:37 am |
  25. andy

    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 🙂

    May 26, 2009 at 12:37 am |
  26. Rob in Florida

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:36 am |
  27. CeCe

    How was this perversion allowed to get this far?

    May 26, 2009 at 12:35 am |
  28. Chuck in Denver

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:35 am |
  29. what-next

    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?

    May 26, 2009 at 12:33 am |
  30. morton skulnik

    Ban it ! Dont plan it !

    May 26, 2009 at 12:32 am |
  31. Eric in CA

    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).

    May 26, 2009 at 12:31 am |
  32. Ryan Fredrickson

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:31 am |
  33. Jason in Sacramento

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:30 am |
  34. Liz in Seattle

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:29 am |
  35. Justin

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:28 am |
  36. John M

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:28 am |
  37. Joe

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:26 am |
  38. tom

    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!!

    May 26, 2009 at 12:26 am |
  39. Sean

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:26 am |
  40. Wayne

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:25 am |
  41. john

    "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?

    May 26, 2009 at 12:24 am |
  42. Laurie

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:23 am |
  43. Dave

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:23 am |
  44. Eddie Belini

    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!!!!

    May 26, 2009 at 12:22 am |
  45. Shelley Hanks

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:22 am |
  46. Bruce

    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...

    May 26, 2009 at 12:21 am |
  47. R.R. Winston

    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!!!

    May 26, 2009 at 12:17 am |
  48. Andy

    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.

    May 26, 2009 at 12:17 am |
  49. Jared

    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??

    May 26, 2009 at 12:17 am |
  50. AJD62702

    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!

    May 26, 2009 at 12:14 am |
1 2 3 4