Home › Breaking News
State Supreme Court overturns ban on gay marriage
STORY TOOLS
More from Breaking News
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.
Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"
"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."
In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.
"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody - not just in the state of California, but throughout the country - will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
---
Associated Press writers Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves contributed to this report.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Finally a step in the right direction!
Posted by keem_s on May 15, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If someone is bi-sexual can they marry one of each?
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
keem_s that's polygamy, big difference!
Posted by keem_s on May 15, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is polygamy not allowed?
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
keem_s, probably because there isn't enough polygamist out there verbalizing their desire to have it legalized. Majority of polygamist are "undergroung". Polygamy and same sex marriages are two totally different topics!
Posted by whatever on May 15, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
God help the state of CA. I always knew it was a cess pool, and now it just got deeper.
Posted by unclneal on May 15, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Definitely a step in the WRONG direction roll_it_up... this is horrendous and disgusting. There needs to be a constitutional amendment against this stuff.
Posted by tweetybyrdrt on May 15, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's time for the silet majority to stand up and put a stop to this. What is wrong is wrong no matter how loud the few supporters protest. this country, that was built on morals and conservative values is being dragged down by the feel good, touchy feely, politically correct Liberals.
Posted by latina79 on May 15, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think they should have a separate name for gay couples, not marriage. My question now is how are we parents going to explain this to our small children when they are publicly out in the open? MTV is bad enough..
Posted by rissaronie805 on May 15, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't see what the big deal is, two people love each other just the same...be tolerant of anyone who is willing to love, gays are tolerant of ignorant people such as yourselves and trust me...that is no easy feat even coming from a STRAIGHT female!
Posted by surfing93035 on May 15, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did the bible say Adam & Eve or Adam & Steve?..I guess God made a typo. When societies embrace what is wrong in the eyes of god, that society is ultimately doomed. Yet another reason why people don't vote. The people voice what they want and 4 idiots make the call.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
latina79, weather gay marriage is legal or not, it isn't going to keep your kids from eventually seeing a gay couple. Gay couples are out there, like it or not. Marriage being legal for them isn't going to make "the gays" come out and start having mass ceramonies of public affection. How do you explain to your children when you see a man and a woman with PDA? It's all about education.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
surfing, marraige and religion are two seperate issues....seperation of church and state.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ems_strange you obviously have a very sick mind to compare same sex marriage to beastialilty. I suggest you read a dictionary to determine the HUGE differences in the two.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ems_strange you obviously have a very sick mind to compare same sex marriage to beastialilty. I suggest you read a dictionary to determine the HUGE differences in the two.
Posted by Split on May 15, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this is just wrong and latina79 I agree with you they should find another name for it cause the term marriage should only be used between a man and a woman...
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like the 'woodwork' is about to be emptied.
Posted by Poppa on May 15, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now Larry Craig can move here and be the conservative republican he really is.
Posted by sdetatae on May 15, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Brava!
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ems_strange, does that mean that athiest and religions that do not believe in your god should not be allowed to marry as well? Marriage is not a religious right, it is a right given to us from the government. Not all married couples are religious.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on May 15, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ems_strange, thank you for assuming that I am gay because I support gay marriage, very intellegent of you. Weather or not you recognize atheists, they are still allowed to marry. Because marriage has nothing to do with religion!
Posted by oxnard40 on May 15, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On the plus side.
Now all the Gay weddings that will be planned in CA may be the upsart the economy needs. Put a high tax on Gay marriage and it will solve our budget crunch
Posted by BeaHappi on May 15, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If gay couples are happy and not hurting anyone and want to be formally committed to each other then who really cares?
I'm heterosexual and married. Gay marriage does not threaten my marriage nor does it make it any less valid.
There are bigger fish to fry in this world then worrying about the sexual orientation of others.
Live and let live people...
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ems…..
I do believe some of what science fiction writers say, just as I believe some of what is said in the bible. As a pagan couple, my wife (a beautiful 51-year-young female) and I were married by an ordained minister of faith, are quite happy thank you. So why shouldn't a gay couple be married and happy like the rest of us heathens?
And no, you would not recognize us as we look like all the other tax-paying-working-stiffs around you.
Posted by Ms_California on May 15, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ems_strange, I totally disagree with you regarding the "religious" factor between marriage and faith. You can be married to the one you love without have religion involved. Marriage is the UNION between two people who love and care about each other enough to spend the rest of their lives together. Many people do not get married in churches or even have religious ceremonies anymore. Many times the couple have different religious backgrounds. What is the difference other than the pipe don't fit in the hole, reasoning behind gay couples uniting in the union of marriage. People who are gay are typically secluded when it comes to PDA, they don't want people giving dirty looks or attacks on them. It really doesn't bother me at all to be honest. We are all living with each other now so what difference does it make? If two people love each other, then more power to them! Would you all feel the same if your child was gay?
Posted by oxnard40 on May 15, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More Gay Marriages will lead to more Gay Divorces.
More money going to lawyers, court system, and the State economy.
Gay Marriages rule!
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 15, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Awkward thought of the day...
Throughout the bible, instances of slavery, incest, murder and rape are condoned and even mandated by God's law.
Most people choose to ignore these things. But bring up the idea of giving two consensual adults the option of consumating their same-sex committment to each other and suddenly the world is going to hell in a handbasket?
Nice way to pick and choose which of God's laws are to be upheld.
Can the hypocracy get any thicker?
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh it gets thicker alright, every Sunday morning.
Posted by GramMars on May 15, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In a world where there is so much true evil, poverty, war, crime and abuse, how can people get so worked up over the fact that two people of the same sex love each other? Why should my gay (adult) children not have the same rights as straights? My children work hard, pay their taxes, care for and love their children. I know of a lot of straights that can't even manage that.
Posted by UdontKnowMe on May 15, 2008 at 1:29 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The phrase “we (I) (you) simply must--”designates something that need not be done. “That goes without saying” is a red warning. “Of course” means you had best check it yourself. These small--change cliches and others like them, when read correctly, are reliable channel markers."
L.L.
Posted by GramMars on May 15, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
UdontKnowMe: YOUR ignorance is showing.
Posted by Ms_California on May 15, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So if a woman is baren and unable to reproduce should we not allow her to be able to marry (a man)?
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Copulation is spiritual in essence--or it is merely friendly exercise. On second thought, strike out “merely.” Copulation is not “merely”--even when it is just a happy pastime for two strangers. But copulation at its spiritual best is so much more than physical coupling that it is different in kind as well as in degree. The saddest feature of homosexuality is not that it is “wrong” or “sinful” or even that it can’t lead to progeny--but that it is more difficult to reach through it this spiritual union. Not impossible--but the cards are stacked against it. But most sorrowfully--many people never achieve spiritual sharing even with the help of male-female advantage; they are condemned to wander through life alone."
L.L.
Posted by oxnard40 on May 15, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
UdontKnowMe. Are you for real?
Homosexuality has been a part of every society and culture since the dawn of time.
Right or wrong it is nothing new to us or our future generations.
Posted by shaver_one on May 15, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Latina79:
How do you explain it to your kids? Try telling them the truth.
Surfing93035:
Remember the 1st Amendment doctrine of Separation of Church and State? God, whoever you may believe she is, has nothing to do with this.
Oxnard40:
If you discriminate against Gay marriage, by placing a high tax on it, you will have to place that same high tax on Hetero marriage.
ems-strange:
Would you prohibit hetero marriage between a Jew and a Hindu? How about a Southern Baptist and a Shinto? Buddhist and Lutheran? Catholic and Methodist?
UdontKnowMe:
We all know you. You are the same person who was and is opposed to a 'black' man marrying...or even dating...a 'white' woman. Remember, that was once against the law, too.
Posted by GramMars on May 15, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Shaver_one: BRAVO!!!!!
Posted by oxnard40 on May 15, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
shaver_one I'm not discriminating against it.
I'm just looking at another avenue for state revenue. Put a higher tax on all marriages. Raise the fee to get the marriage license, etc...
Posted by oxnard40 on May 15, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me clarify.
New Marriage licenses,etc...
Posted by oxnard40 on May 15, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let me clarify.
New Marriage licenses,etc...
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is not the fee for the license; it is the price one pays for the years afterward. Just ask my long-suffering-wonderfully-tolerant wife about it.
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually the term should be, 'Born Again Pagans'. For we have seen the light!
Posted by shaver_one on May 15, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hedonistic, Altruistic Born-Again Pagans!
BTW: Anyone who feels that Gay marriage will destroy marriage, in general, must have a pretty shaky marriage of their own. The government doesn't belong in my bedroom...or your bedroom.
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well...that is generality I can't agree with shaver_one, but I understand how easy it is to make.
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Beware of altrusim. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
If tempted by something that feels “altruistic” examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!"
L.L.
Posted by 2smokingbarrels on May 15, 2008 at 3:07 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by keem_s on May 15, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ROLL IT you didn't answer my question, WHY is polygamy not allowed (illegal) WHY ??? Who does it hurt? Why should we care? Why should the government care? Why is the government even involved with marriage in the first place? WHY? Please respond with a deeper more thought out answer, ok?
Posted by rebel123 on May 15, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What possible difference could it make to anybody if two people, regardless of gender, decide to get married.
Posted by camarillomom on May 15, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of you people with nothing better to do that worry about other people, why don't you do something about the young girls with walking around half dressed. I have sons and I am amazed at what mothers let there daughther go to school in! I am not a prude, but how is a 15 year old boy going to study with a girls boobs in his face everyday at school?
Leave the gays a lone! Being gay does not make you a pervert. You can be black, white, gay or staight and be a pervert!
Go feed the homeless or raise money for a carity...but to sit around and worry about what 2 adults do it's a waste of time!
Posted by camarillomom on May 15, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of you people with nothing better to do that worry about other people, why don't you do something about the young girls with walking around half dressed. I have sons and I am amazed at what mothers let there daughther go to school in! I am not a prude, but how is a 15 year old boy going to study with a girls boobs in his face everyday at school?
Leave the gays a lone! Being gay does not make you a pervert. You can be black, white, gay or staight and be a pervert!
Go feed the homeless or raise money for a carity...but to sit around and worry about what 2 adults do it's a waste of time!
Posted by Adam_Monroe on May 15, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The arguments against gay marriage sound very similar to the arguments against INTERRACIAL marriage...
Listen to yourselves....this country is no longer based on marriage in the religious sense. Marriage in this country is a LEGAL status that should be allowed to be available to all that want it. If a black man and a white woman can get married in New York, and first-cousins can get married in Alabama, then why shouldn't two men or two women be allowed to obtain the many financial and tax benefits of marriage in San Francisco?
Posted by zoezoe on May 15, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And God says "stand by everybody 'cause I'm getting real mad."
Posted by latina79 on May 15, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
camarillomom-'how is a 15 year old boy going to study with a girls boobs in his face everyday at school?'-lol i know what you mean. School uniforms could be a solution?
Posted by del on May 15, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah...the earthquake in China was just a warning!
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 15, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
camarillomom-'how is a 15 year old boy going to study with a girls boobs in his face everyday at school?'
Same way its always been done, with a smile and a sincere hope that the teacher doesn't call him up to the board. He wouldn't want to accidentally poke someones eye out.
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 15, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK
Voters approved a ban on GAY marriage. That means the majority in CA, do not approve GAY marriage.
I dont approve GAY marriage. Marriage is intended to raise a family. GAY couples can't have children together, so they will not be raising families together, why should they be married.
This opens the doors for scams. Straight men may get married, just for Tax credits, insurance benefits, military housing benefits, etc. And what about immigrants, who get married for citizenship. Great now we will have thousands of GAY immigrants bringing HIV (GAY make up a majority of the HIV infected population) to the United States.
MARRIAGE IS INTENDED TO RAISE A FAMILY, not so some gay couples can take advantages of the system that made benefits, so that married couples will get assistance in raising children. I also don't think that GAYs should raise children. If you cant make em, you shouldn't be raising them. And adoption agencies should not place children to GAY parents. GOD made sexes, so that we can reproduce, not so we can confuse the real meaning of sex with lust. SEX is intended for reproducing, period, and the enjoyment we have during sex is intended to encourage reproduction. THATS FACTUAL SCIENCE, THATS LIFE! AND SEX IS THE MIRACLE THAT CREATES LIFE.
If you want to be GAY fine it doesn't bother me, but getting married, just de-values what Marriage stands for: RAISING A FAMILY.
Any argument about love and giving GAY's the right to love whoever should not apply. They still have the right to love whomever, the only thing that is missing is the Tax breaks, benefits, which when written were intended for families, not SEX. Love who you want, but keep marriage for raising a family.
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 15, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon_2000,
By your logic, the 20+ million straight married couples in the U.S. who do not have children are also desecrating the institution of marriage by failing to raise a family.
Nice strawman argument. It holds no water, but I suspect you already knew that.
As for the assertion that gay couples are unfit to raise children, that point has already been proven false over and over again.
And as for the assertion that gays are somehow the biggest HIV threat in society, um, no. Studies have shown that it is people who have multiple partbners that are most at risk for contracting and spreading HIV and AIDS, not homosexuals.
As for the immigration rant, that has to be the most baseless, irrelevant and pointless exercise in unfounded mouth-spewing I've read all week.
Thanks for the laugh.
Posted by GramMars on May 15, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon_2000 -- Gays can and do raise families, sex isn't all about reproduction, lots of straights get married and don't have kids, marriage isn't all about raising a family and gays should be entitled to the same benefits as the rest of us.
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 15, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, but GAYS cant create a family naturally, nor raise a family naturally.
SEX is enjoyable because Hormones are released during intercourse. These hormones are also the hormones that are required to reproduce, so SEX is all about reproduction. Because we enjoy it does not change the purpose of SEX.
A Gay couple should not have the same assistance that a Straight couple with a family should have. The straight couple is taking a large responsibility, in raising our future. The work it takes to raise an honorable member of society is much more important that pleasing GAYs who want dicounted healthcare, tax breaks, etc. Again Love who you want but don't take away from the VALUE of raising a family, by allowing GAY marriage you are disgracing the VALUE of straight couples raising children. And for all the people who say what about GAYS that already had children. If they already had children, then they are Bi-sexual, not GAY. GAYS should hate bi-sexuals since that contradicts the "I was born this way theory". Obviously you were not born that way, you experimented and for some reason decided that SEX was better with the same SEX. That is based on learning, not on Instinct or being born that way.
Posted by UdontKnowMe on May 15, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To all of the people who think I ever mentioned once anything about racial marriages: Get the facts correct. I have never once said anything about racial marriages. Get your facts straight! As to why my comment was removed is completely absurd. I have continuously read veiled threats, and sick comments referring to possible premeditated actions numerous times on this website. I guess I see how the rules get bent here! However I again see this same pattern here. I stand by my beliefs, if you don't like it , oh well!
Posted by GramMars on May 15, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon_2000 -- so gays can't raise an "honorable" member of our society; gays are asking for "discounts" to raise children. What a crock.
Posted by sdetatae on May 15, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon - "the straight couple is taking on a large responsibility"
A. Why is raising a family always "responsible & good"? I know of many irresponsible families & many that are too large in this day & age of population growth
B. If this is a responsibility... Don't you want people taking it on that i. want to, i.i. have planned it out responsibly, i.i.i. are loving ?
I understand all of us have different ideas & standards, but I don't understand telling people that they have to live by another's specific rule if it has nothing to do with that other's life. I don't understand telling someone they don't have the right to do something most others have a right to. I don't understand the thinking that you are better than someone else purely because they are different / live life differently than you do.
my two cents.
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 15, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon_2000,
Exactly how does a gay couple "devalue" a straight couple?
Sure, if gays had a habit of raising smarter, harder-working, more respectful children, it could make a straight family seem less desirable. Is that the kind of "devaluation" you speak of?
I'm sorry to tell you this, but there are plenty of straight couples out there that are doing a fine job of devaluing marriage without any help from the gay and lesbian community.
And as far as I know, nobody is getting any kid of discount on health insurance based on sexual orientation. Likewise, tax breaks are not a product of sexual orientation.
By the way, when people refer to children being raised by gays, they are not referring simply to couples who have a child from a previous relationship. Thanks to that thing called "science" that you mentioned earlier, we have things like invitro-fertilization.
And thanks to their willingness to take care of the children of "straight folks" who abandoned their kids, gay couple are adopting and doing a fine job of raising these kids.
Now, if you don't mind, please take your bigotted remarks back to whichever cave you happened to have found them in.
Posted by SayItLikeItIs on May 15, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is Polygamy illegal yet cheating on your wife or husban not prosecuted?
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 15, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just like a bunch of GAYS. You try over and over to prove that your are equal to a Straight couple, but you will never be equal to a straight couple. YOU CAN NOT HAVE CHILDREN NATURALLY! YOUR ARE NOT EQUAL, NOT EVEN CLOSE! ANY ARGUMENT THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, WHEN YOU ARE NOT EQUAL DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. When you can actually have children together naturally then I will be the first to support GAY marriage, however, GOD chose not to allow GAYS to have children, so blame GOD that you are not equal, don,t blame straight people, or society for not making your relationship as important as a relationship who raises a naturally born child.
Any ways what is it that GAYs want to achieve by getting married, recognition that they are GAY, recognition that they are in love, benefits, or just to create a pity us, we are not equal, cry baby crap. YOU ARE NOT EQUAL PERIOD GET OVER IT.
GAYS devalue marriage, by taking the benefits, that our government made for the intention of raising a family. I'm sure the military thought that by giving a married couple A larger home credit, it was the intent that the larger home credit would go to getting a larger home for a family, not so that two GAYS can live in a multi bedroom house. The rewards granted by our government for married couples are intended to reward couples who are raising the children they birthed, or adopted (I dont think GAYs should adopt children). The rewards are not granted because two people are in love. Come on people get it straight it has nothing to do with sexual preference, it has to do with raising families (naturally) and your argument about science can now make a GAY woman pregnant, does not hold water, they are using MENS sperm, so she is actually being given the gift of life by a MAN (NOT HER LOVER), the only difference is that it is not inserted through a penis. And GAY men will never ever ever, be able to be scientifically given the miracle of life. You need an egg, which is produced in a womans body.
This is why I think that GAYS are ignorant, their argument about being equal is not agreed upon by the majority of people, that is why the people voted this way. Ignorance is the fact that GAYS can not accept that if everyone was GAY, and did not have sex with the opposite sex, the human race would perish. Again the Science argument, well what about test tube babies? We can take organs out of our bodies and simulate, the act of SEX between a Man and a wwoman, again we come to the same conclusion we are simulating Straight SEX, not GAY sex, otherwise we would mix sperm with feces, or tongue with vagina, I just wouldn't work.
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 15, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another point. Naturally all animals have Sex with the opposite SEX. Sure some animals engage in acts that resemble SEX, however they are not having SEX, nor would any species survive if it did not have SEX with the opposite sex. This leads me to believe that SEX between Man and Woman, is 1 millions times more valuable to society and LIFE.
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 15, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MR E Man
Non of my remarks are bigoted, purely facts, that you would like to deem as bigoted, so that you can defend your cause, by ignoring facts. Pure ignorance. And about GAYS raising children, who is going to give the Birds and Bees speech, and how would a child interpret this if they are being raised by people who don't practice REAL SEX. Very confusing, and chances are that the child will have sexual confusion, that Straight children don't always have. Why is it that most GAYs have been mentally damaged, either through rape, molestation, or physical abuse? That is another fact that you will claim is not true, just to justify, to yourself, that your cause is relevant, when It is not accepted by the general public, nor by nature.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 15, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ROLL_IT_UP ,While I disagree with this totally. I wanted to add to your comment. It doesn't take a priest to marry someone. Thats why people go to Vegas , Even in some state Notary Republics could marry people. And Athiest do not believe in ANY GOD.
Well all I can say is wait until its on the BALLOT in NOVEMBER and see if the people vote against it. Then it will not be legal or recognized it Calif.
How do two people of the sex have natural intercourse??? Can't be done. Sex is not suppose to be harmful but ask any doctor about sex (rear-end) and they will tell you that its very dangerous and can cause many problems. How can two woman have Sex? With a artificial device????
Bash me if you like, BUT I have always been against this and always will. It will just show your character. We all have opinions and here is mine.
Posted by ironwoman on May 15, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have gay friends and neighbors. I don't care. I am not gay but I respect those who are. There are many gay people in this world that have good intentions, are very nice people and wouldn't hurt a fly.
Don't be so harsh...there are worse things in this world that we have to worry about.
Posted by hemlock1262 on May 15, 2008 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Preserve the institution of marriage! Only sane, healthy, heterosexual marriages can protect the family and children! Sane, healthy, godly, Christian heterosexual marriages like:
Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley;
Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman (who were so drunk they didn't know they got married for 4 days);
Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton;
Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman, who he cheated on with Boney Mahoney;
Newt Gingrich and his first 2 wives, both of whom he cheated on, the first while she was recovering from cancer;
Britney Spears and that trash boy-toy;
Yes! Yes! These are Exemplars of All That is Wonderful in Heterosexual Christian Marriage! Truly something to be preserved!
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 15, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon,
I'll concede to your "facts" when you start presenting some.
No, I'm not gay. I'm a heterosexual male with a wife and several children.
I DO NOT feel that my marriage can ever be devalued by the personal life decisions of others. Why? Because my relationship is not affected by gays, straights or bigots.
I am neither threatened by gay marriage, but if you are, perhaps you need find more constructive ways to strenthen your own relationships.
You like using words like "natural." Are you aware that it is perfectly natural for some animals to actually change their sex? Are you also aware that some plants and animals are born with both sex organs?
Also, you state that "most GAYs have been mentally damaged, either through rape, molestation, or physical abuse," yet there is NO evidence that this is true in any way shape or form.
You can continue spouting off false assumptions about gays all you want, but your dedication won't make any of them true.
By the way, your points about gays taking your so-called benefits are so completely seperated from reality that I'm actually dumdfounded as to how you managed to form them into words.
You say that gays should not be able to marry because they cannot procreate. Based on your lack of real-world knowledge, if you are the sole authority on the procreation, I will pray that you choose to refrain from exercising that ability.
Good night.
----
And to Hemlock, thanks. That was great.
Posted by themaxwellclan on May 15, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whether you are gay or straight....PAY CLOSE ATTENTION NOW! Your arguments back and forth over this issue are masking the REAL problem here, and that is the fact that the Supreme Court of California overruled a proposition that was put into place by the VOTERS...HELLO!!!!
Is anyone else not noticing this? Judges are continually overruling what the majority has voted for, thus making the voting system meaningless! Is anyone else bothered by this as much as I am?
Looks like government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is no longer....and THAT is the scary part, folks.
Posted by sparks240 on May 15, 2008 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm all for dudes getting married. That leaves more women for me. By the way holdenon_2000, my neibors dog is gay. I have cleaned the mess off my dog.
Posted by Mr_E_Man on May 15, 2008 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's an interesting point, themaxwellclan.
But think about this. The whole reason we have a supremen court is because all too often "the people" are hoodwinked into voting in favor of laws that should never have been allowed on the ballot.
It happens, because some politicians, religious figures and polical activists thinks they can circumvent the constitution by using emotion to trick voters.
If you don't think voters can be tricked, may I remind you who the current president of the United States is. He was elected based on devisive politicizing and has since made a mockery of our laws and values.
Or, you can look back even further. Remember segregation? Probably not. You can thank the Supreme Court for correcting that embaressment as well.
Posted by ironwoman on May 15, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That was a good one sparks!
Posted by hemlock1262 on May 15, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh how I hate those unelected activist liberal judges overturning the will of the -- wait a minnit!
All seven members of the California court have been confirmed by the voters.
Kennard -- confirmed 2006 with 74.5%
Corrigan -- confirmed 2006 with 74.4%
Werdegar -- confirmed 2002 with 74.1%
Moreno -- confirmed 2002 with 72.6%
Baxter -- confirmed 2002 with 71.5%
George -- confirmed 1998 with 75.5%
Chin -- confirmed 1998 with 69.3%
And waita ding-dang-ka-ding-dong minnit! Six of those seven librul judges are Republican appointees!
Posted by avuncular2008 on May 15, 2008 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It always strikes me as fascinating the degree to which the religious right is fixated on what goes on in people's bedrooms. As for beneftis, etc., I believe in Canada gays enjoy all the benefits of married couples. Lo and Behold, Canada is a pretty healthy nation both finacnially and socially; the sky has not fallen.
Posted by onapproach on May 15, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yuck!
Posted by pfg93003 on May 15, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now we can marry sheep and the little ones can call out for their Daaaaadddd!
Posted by mauid2005 on May 15, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cheez Its and Rice!!
Why is it wrong for two people who love each other and want to show their commitment to each other by getting married just because they are two men or two women? Who are you to decide who people love? Next, you're going to try and tell me that a "non white" person can't marry a "white" person - oh wait, THEY CAN!
Not everyone is Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Baptist, Mormon or whatever other religion is out there ... Are you going to damn them also? And what ever happened to the separation of religion and government? Same sex couples have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with either.
Times are constantly changing and no matter what, there is nothing that anyone can do about change other than to accept it and move on. And if you choose not to accept it, you still have to move on.
Posted by mauid2005 on May 15, 2008 at 10:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon_2000: you posted "Marriage is intended to raise a family. GAY couples can't have children together, so they will not be raising families together, why should they be married."
I disagree. I'm a straight married woman who can't have a child because someone's God thought it funny to take that privilege from me. Does this mean I shouldn't be married anymore? Your point doesn't make sense because there are hundreds of children with no parents that are raised by childless couples all the time. And some of these couples are also GAY.
Posted by mauid2005 on May 15, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cont.
you also posted "SEX IS THE MIRACLE THAT CREATES LIFE."
Wrong. Science also creates life. Amazing, isn't it?
Posted by adaptif on May 15, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry to say this is a step in the wrong direction. Same sex is simply that SEX and is 100% unnatural. Plus voters voted no but once again the government does what they want to get more in their own pockets. This just shows NOONE LISTEN TO THE VOTERS.
Posted by mikeb6804 on May 15, 2008 at 11:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The civil union is legal and already exists in California. It affords all rights to gays that they will get from marriage. Giving gays access to marriage is just one more move to ram their lifestyle down our collective throats. Marriage is for a man and a woman. Sorry!
Posted by keepermel on May 16, 2008 at 6:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not everyone has the right to everything. A diabetic does not have the right to a candybar (unless they want to kill themselves). A child under 18 does not have the right to vote, drink, and many other things. Someone who breaks the law does not have the right to freedom. A child does not have the right to what ever they want when they want it, and we can all agree what kind of problem that makes if they do....What I am trying to say is that everyone that wants something does not always get it or need it. If everyone was created egual....all race aside....there would be no poor, no rich, no movie stars and no criminals in jail. Everyone is different in the choices they make and the life decisions that they live, but that just means that they choose what things they have the right to. If I choose to not work...no paycheck. If I choose to kill someone....jail. If I choose to eat McDonalds for every meal....fat. Everyone has the right to your own choices...but not the right to everything you want.
Posted by patticakepatti on May 16, 2008 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a scientific fact that a brain of a homosexual is different than that of a heterosexual, plain and simple. We are all individual with different tastes, likes and dislikes. Is there not enough bad in the world today?
The haters of this out there all appear to refer back to the bible, hmmmmmmmmmmmm, makes me think they are participants in organized religion. Why is is that all the haters are christians? Doesn't that go against everything they try to shove down your throat? Who is to say the bible is real??? Perhaps it is just a best selling book from way back when.
I am a heterosexual who is more than happy to share this earth with homosexuals. They have never hurt me nor have they ever bothered me. What they have done is fixed some absolutely horrid hairstyles that heterosexuals created, they have made me laugh until I thought my stomach was going to explode, they have been among the dearest of my friends offering support at very difficult times...The list goes on and on.
Now lets cover the statement, "humans were put here to procreate." I know lots and lots of married couples (man/woman) who are married and do not have children. Some because they don't want too and some because they can't, but really want too. Why would your dear god do this if we were put here to procreate??? Are the couple who don't want children condemned because of their outlook? Are they going to rot in this so called he!! of yours?
Everyone has a right to their beliefs and who's to say it is right and wrong??? I think organized religion is wrong, but I respect those who believe in it.
For those of you who believe we are here to procreate, are you or is your wife pregnant right now??? If not, how come? Does this mean that married women should always be pregnant because that is what we were put here to do??? Am I going to your he!! because I stopped procreating after only 2???
Get a life people and put your hatred towards something that really needs attention. Your god wouldn't want you to be so hateful, or would he?
Posted by keepermel on May 16, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How come when Christians disagree with something due to their beliefs they are called haters and racists. But if anyone disagrees with their "beliefs" or agandas they are free to speak their mind with praise and tolerance? I do agree that there are those who do not give Christians a good name with the way they say things....but the same thing could be said for other supporter of other things. What I think some people do not understand is that alot of christians see the legalization of homosexual marrage as yet another decline in the morals of this country and the world. I know that it hurts my heart to see the country that was created with the pursuit of God as it's purpose has become so Godless. And yes that is why we left Europe..for the right to freely seek God in the ways we individually feel we would like to. The seperation of church and state was to protect the religious from being told what religion they HAD to choose. NOT to make the country as far away from God as possible.
Hate is never the answer for anything. And you can always love people and not like what they do, which is the true Christian attitude that should be presented. But EVERYONE has the right to their oppinion or beliefs...Christians as well as everyone else. But if I can't change laws to push my "agenda", neither should anyone else. Majority voted and it should stand.
Posted by patticakepatti on May 16, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Being homosexual has nothing to do with morals. What you so-called christians are trying to do is prevent someone from loving another human being. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it is their genetics.
You can't honestly tell me that someone is going to purposely put themselves in a position to be ridiculed and chastized by someone such as yourself.
You are entitled to your opinion, everyone is, just keep to the facts. And if you are going to preach about the bible and what it says you should or shouldn't do, then by all means you yourself should do so as well. After all, doesn't it say, "love thy neighbor as thyself....."
Posted by holdenon_2000 on May 16, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How come if I dont agree with Gay Marriage, everyone thinks I hate GAYS. I do not hate GAYS, I have a few friends who are GAY. I think they have the right to love whomever. Marriage in the United States was always between a Man and Women, until recently. Our laws that provide benefits (yes you will get a tax credit if your GAY partner is not working, you can claim them a a dependent and get a tax break) for Marriage, were made with the intent of supporting a healthy family. The housing credit the military gives for married families is intended to provide more house for a family. I don't think that the reason for any benefits was to support someones love for another. I will openly support GAY marriage, as long as GAY relationships are not supported by my tax dollars. Here is a prime example Man number 1 makes 75K per year, He sees that by getting married to his unemployed friend, he can use them as a dependent, and get the $1,000 tax credit per year, Over 20 years this is $20,000 that he avoided paying in taxes, by marrying his friend (lovers or not). Now the unemployed friend will benefit by sharing the medical insurance that the working mans employer provides, costing non GAY families more in health care to support, a man who may never had gotten married had the benefits not been there.
The first thing a GAY person says when a straight person disagrees with them, is your are filled with hate. Not true I don't hate GAYS, I just don't approve GAY relationships being given the same value as a relationship that can naturally bear children.
Who ever said SEX does not create the miracle of life, is a fool. Science is simulating SEX. So science is performing straight SEX in order to create life. So even science concludes that GAY sex will never support life.
Where does it stop, can I marry with my cousin? It really does not hurt anyone else, or involve anyone else, and if we decided not to have children, the claim that our children could be deformed, is not valid. So now we should let Cousins, Brothers, Sisters, marry each other, since the constitution states that a marriage is between two people. It never states that the two people must not be related. If GAY marriage is allowed then we must approve inter-family marriage as well.
This is a step backwards for civilization, our family values are being undermined by allowing people to marry who together can not raise a family naturally.
Posted by venturapagan on May 16, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a Wiccan female, and I plan to marry my boyfriend in the next year or so. Neither of us has any intention of having children (he's got a grown son), but, by getting married, it will help us financially when we buy a house, file taxes. Plus, in a medical emergency, I or he could make health decisions for the other; why would these reasons be any different for a same-sex couple? They're not going to be getting any other benefits besides what others get for being married, and as long as they're happy, it's no one else's business. I'm not getting married to "legitimize" Wiccan marriages, and I don't see how it would be the same for gays. We'll all be happy productive, tax-paying members of the same society. Blessed Be!
Posted by keepermel on May 16, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
so patticakepatti, what you are trying to say is if a man is genetically (Brain is known to be different) attracted to a 4 year old boy then I should leave it alone because he did not choose to be that way? And an alcoholic has no problems because that is just the way they are wired and we can do away with AA and any other group with the purpose to help them over come those "attraction" or desires for drugs and alcohol. How about the person who finds themselfs attracted to the neighbors dog? Your argument makes no since. And you did prove my point about people not giving christians the right to tell their side without being called haters. NOTHING in my post said anything hateful. Your Quote: "then by all means you yourself should do so as well. After all, doesn't it say, "love thy neighbor as thyself....."" I believe that was EXACTLY what I was saying....and exactly the opposite of how you treated my comments and my right to tell my opinion.
Posted by srcheek on May 16, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon_2000: so if a heterosexual married couple are unable to have children, should they not be allowed to be married? Or shoudl adoption, in vitro fertilzation, surrogates be banned because it doesn't fit your very limited view of what defines a family? People like J Lo or Britney Spears can be married multiple times yet they aren't making a mockery of marriage because they're straight. But a gay or lesbian couple who are committed to each other for life cannot get married? Here's a simple solution for you ignorant, close-minded, judgemental people: if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry someone who is your own gender. There you go, problem solved. And you would do well to remember that religion isn't a part of every person's life. I married my husband because I love him, not because it's the "Christian" thing to do.
Posted by surfmedic91 on May 16, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
keepermel, a few of your comments are a bit untrue. A diabetic "does" have the right to a candybar but must make the decision/choice not to eat one. Someone who breaks the law "does' have the right to freedom or else all of us with speeding or parking tickets would have no freedom.
ravensnest13, good luck the Wiccan stuff. Just don't push it on any of us.
holdenon, it's not just gays who make the comments about discrimination.
Posted by venturapagan on May 16, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
surfmedic- not "pushing" anything, just making a point. (We're not allowed to "convert" anyone.) The point was, reasons for marriage most often have nothing to do with religion or child-rearing or sexual orientation, but LOVE and commitment. And it IS about discrimation; gays and Wiccans/pagans have been persecuted by the Religious "Right" for years, just because they don't fit into they're narrow-minded, judgemental doctrine. Neither group wants anything more than equal rights and treatment, and not to be harassed. And THAT was my main point. Have a blessed day!
Posted by surfmedic91 on May 16, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
raven, anything that is relatively new takes time to get used to and the Wiccan belief is new compared to the majority of other beliefs of a religious nature and not just by the religious "right". What is surprising to me is that the military recognizes the Wiccan belief. What happens is you do convert someone and how do you "convert" someone who has no religious beliefs?
Posted by ReadMyLipsNoNewTaxes on May 16, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally I have no problem with gay marriage. It does not affect me.
BUT I have a HUGE problem with a court overturning the will of the people. The citizens of California voted on this a few years back and they didn't want it. All it takes is a few bucks and someone to go crying to a judge and the wants of the citizens are turned over.
This happened with Prop 187 as well.....
Posted by patticakepatti on May 16, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon_2000 you said:
I don't hate GAYS, I just don't approve GAY relationships being given the same value as a relationship that can naturally bear children.
So anyone else that gets married say, a senior citizen's who lost a spouse and falls in love again, a young widow who lost his/her wife/husband to war, these kind of marriages should not be acknowledged either because they are not going to procreate???
And then you have the nerve to say:
This is a step backwards for civilization, our family values are being undermined by allowing people to marry who together can not raise a family naturally.
I'm sure all of your "GAY" friends love you for this comment. Go read your bible!
And srcheek, stop putting words in my mouth. Now you're displaying your true lack of morals to even suggest these situations fit in the same category. Addiction is a "disease" truly a sad one and has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. As for the pervs that do what they do to innocent children, I'm not even going to jusitfy that with an answer, there's no comparison, deal with the subject at hand here.
Posted by keepermel on May 16, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Surfmedic, Thanks for the correction, but I think you got my point. The law breaking I was refering to was murder and other harsh crimes. Not simple parking and driving violations. And I did make the point that the diabetic would be chooseing to put his own life in danger by eating that candy bar. Sometimes I have a picture of what I mean and it does not translate to type.
Posted by venturapagan on May 16, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
surfmedic-I don't get what your point is. The fact that the Wiccan symbol is now acknowleged by the military so families can have it engraved on their family member's tombstone is somehow wrong....or? Why is that a problem? The Wiccan religion is not "new" per se; based on much older religious beliefs than xtianity (7,ooo yrs.older). But, still it boils down to if it's not sanctioned by the bible/your god, it MUST be wrong or immoral (re:sexual identity, religious beliefs). This is why gays are very welcome, and come in droves to our faith because of descrimation they get elsewhere. Even Wiccans have a hard time getting "officially" recognized religious marriages. So you see, both topics kinda go hand in hand. We understand this plight.
Posted by hotwildflower on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
holdenon_2000...I am willing to say I am a right wing conservative, but you are really making us look bad here!! Your arguements are really off base.
First off, a gay couple already has the right to health insurance through an employer as law in the state of California in the form of domestic partnership.
Secondly, any dependant, married or not is going to be a tax credit to you if you are supporting them. My dad just claimed my 48 year old brother (let's not get into that) but I can assure you, they are not gay.
THEY ALREADY HAVE THE BENEFITS!
I don't begrudge two people from joining together, I do wish there was another form of joining other than marriage. I do believe that should be reserved for a man and a woman. I don't understand why a civil union was not sufficient, but this really isn't an issue that I will fight over...there are far more important issues at hand to worry about.
Posted by bugmenot on May 16, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Giving gays access to marriage is just one more move to ram their lifestyle down our collective throats."
DID YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE THOSE WORDS?!
Posted by moorparkman2000 on May 16, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I used to be against same-sex marriage, but honestly, I am so tired of this debate that I don't even care anymore...Every time I would offer my opinion on this matter, I would get called a homophobe and a bigot by liberals who for whatever reason have a pretty strong conviction about this. Frankly, I think there are more important issues at hand than gay people marrying, such as the growing deficit, global warming, energy security, China, immigration, Iraq, terrorism, oh, and the all-important one, the ECONOMY, stupid.
Seriously, if all you fervant supporters or opponents to same-sex marriage put the same energy and intensity of your opinion into other more important matters, we could sure solve a lot.
Posted by jbh50 on May 17, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The real arguement here is why we allow justices to decide against the wishes of the majority in the state. Now, we are going to spend more cash to just vote against their decision.
But, why should anyone be surprised? Its California! The state where all the fruits, nuts, and peace nics hang out!
Posted by jill on May 18, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good for them! It's about time.
A suggestion for gay couples: Don't overdue the public displays of affection. It is such a turnoff. Not because you're gay. Overdoing it in public, straight or gay, is a turnoff, but it would be to your benefit to tone it down and stop the over-the-top gay parades. We don't have heterosexual parades. It's not necessary.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.