Federal Appeals Court Rules Prop. 8 Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

But backers of the controversial, voter-approved law quickly signaled that they planned to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A KPIX-TV CBS 5 poll conducted shortly after the decision came down found an overwhelming majority of Bay Area residents agreed with the appeals court ruling and said the Supreme Court should let it stand.

RELATED CONTENT: Download The Complete CBS 5 Poll Results (.pdf)

The appeals court ruled 2-1 to uphold the decision of a lower court judge, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, who determined in Aug. 2010 that Prop. 8 was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians. The panel also rejected claims that Walker, now retired, was biased in his ruling because he is gay and in a long-term relationship with another man.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted,” the ruling stated.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of the majority opinion, went on to write: “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”

RELATED CONTENT:
Download The Complete Court Ruling (.pdf)
Download A Summary Of The Decision (.pdf)

Reihardt, who was appointed to the appeals court by President Jimmy Carter, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge Michael Hawkins, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

Judge Randy Smith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, dissented, saying he disagreed that Prop. 8 served no purpose other than to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. He insisted that the ban could help ensure that children are raised by married, opposite-sex parents.

KCBS’ Doug Sovern and Barbara Taylor Report:

Tuesday’s ruling did not mean, however, that gay marriages would resume in California anytime soon as the decision of the three judges appeared to pave the way for a likely Supreme Court showdown over the issue.

“No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people,” Brian Raum, one of the lawyers hired to defend Prop. 8, said in an e-mail sent to CBS San Francisco.

“We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage — tried in San Francisco — turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court,” Raum added.

Margaret Russell, a professor of constitutional law at Santa Clara University School of Law, told CBS San Francisco that the Supreme Court did not need a conflicting circuit-court decision in order to take up the case, but rather just four justices who deem it worthy of review.

Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008 and outlawed same-sex marriages just five months after they became legal in California. Two same-sex couples then brought a lawsuit in 2009 seeking to overturn the measure.

PHOTO GALLERY: The Proposition 8 Court Battle

American Foundation for Equal Rights President Chad Griffin, who formed the legal team that waged the court battle on behalf of the two couples, called the three-judge panel’s ruling “a historic victory.”

More than 150 people who gathered outside the federal courthouse at Mission and Seventh streets in downtown San Francisco also greeted ruling with cheers. They held signs and waved rainbow flags.

“I’m ecstatic. I recognize that we have a ways to go yet. We may have one or two more legal steps,” said Jane Leyland, who was gathered with the courthouse crowd.

Leyland married her longtime partner, Terry Gilb, during the five-month window when same-sex marriage was legal in California before Prop. 8 was enacted. An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples tied the knot during that time.

State officials had declined to defend Prop. 8 in court, leaving it in the hands of proponents of the measure to mount a defense, after they concluded that the law could not be defended on constitutional grounds.

Both Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris hailed Tuesday’s decision. In a statement sent to CBS San Francisco, Harris called it “a victory for fairness, a victory for equality and a victory for justice.”

Brown also issued a statement, in which he said, “The court has rendered a powerful affirmation of the right of same-sex couples to marry. I applaud the wisdom and courage of this decision.”

(Copyright 2012 by CBS San Francisco. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments

One Comment

  1. Ken Kellogg says:

    And the Pro Prop 8 people will keep appealing..all the way to the Morman Church if necessary

    1. Peter B. Towle says:

      Absolutely!

      1. Early bird says:

        Feds have no power.
        Read 10th Amendment.
        Power belongs to people, and states.
        – – – – – GOOGLE EXCLUDED INCOME
        Ignorance of the law is no excuse for being a federal tax slave.

      2. az-heat says:

        The 9th Circuit likes to use International Law, so why not use Islamic Law?Sorry, I forgot, Islamic Law has other solutions to the problem.

      3. The One says:

        And the lib commies in this country wonder why the rest of the world hates us.

        http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php

        Animals.

        Keep pushing. Judgement day is coming. It will be swift and merciless no matter how much you believe Obama has the power to falsely sanctify your depraved and disgusting ideologies.

      4. your god isn't real says:

        @The One

        lol, you mad bro?

        but seriously, judgement day is coming? swift and merciless? did i just see you on the street with a big sign and a megaphone?

        and also, the idea that a god would hate anything is ridiculous. hate is such a petty, human emotion, and if god hates anything at all then he’s no better than i am, and i don’t believe that is possible. it sounds like critical thinking isn’t exactly a strength of yours, but try thinking for yourself for once.

      5. Pajama Mamma says:

        @your god isn’t real:

        where does The One state God hates anything?

        You should spend less time spewing your liberal theories about “critical thinking” (a Marxist favorite by the way) and perhaps concentrate a bit more on “reading comprehension” instead.

      6. IntelectOne says:

        I said it be and I want to say it again . Did the San Francisco Federal Judges miss what the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) put into Law? That is a Federal Law that ‘Defines Marriage as between One Man and One Woman’. Clearly, the Judges are actively changing a Federal Law and that makes their decision Unconstitutional. Their decision to redefine marriage to a pseudo-marriage is Null and Void.

      7. BillCNC says:

        Why don’t you go read what bush called a “god damn piece of paper”, … it’s right their and it trumps DOMA!

      8. S1 says:

        Everyone is for self choice and everything, but the nonsense keeps going everyday day.
        Since when do we need everything in our lives to be regulated.

        http://www.dailyjobcuts.com

      9. The Moral Majority is Neither says:

        To all the crazies quoting scripture below, I am sorry to inform you that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and God are all pretend. Grow up and deal with it.

      10. BillCNC says:

        To bad you have your head where the sun don’t shine!

        Try looking up the statistics for that. I know, … facts confuse you, but heterosexual sex IS THE BIGGEST CAUSE OF AIDS TRANSMISSION.

        Turn off FAUX NOOSE and your IQ raises by 25 points automatically. And after not watching them for 6 months, … you MIGHT have an IQ over 70.

      11. JunkleJoe says:

        @Pajama Mamma: God hates “everything”? Where did you read THAT? Certainly not in the psot you repsonded too…

    2. Ardg65 says:

      Hey MORAN, is Mormon church not Morman. If you are going to attack someone at least know your enemy. ANd while I am on the topic, why don’t you say that the prop. 8 supporters are going to appeal all the way to the 52% of people that voted for it? Oh I know, the morman church put a gun to their heads and made them vote for it, right? Facts don’t matter to liberals.

      1. BillCNC says:

        Hey Ardg65 , … it’s Moron, … not “Moran”

        Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

      2. Ardg65 says:

        @BillCNC. Apparently, sarcasm is a foreign language to you sir!

      3. Paula says:

        You poor, sick individual.

        This is about a person’s right. If you don’t agree then don’t worry, But to impose your beliefs on someone else is not legal nor ethical.

      4. Jim in San Mateo says:

        They do matter. The first fact is that the “tyranny of the majority cannot overrule the rights of the minority”. That fact has been established since the birth of this country. The second fact is that “separate is not equal”. This was established by the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. The third fact is that, even through conservatives wanted one, they could not come up with a valid reason for the law (one of the key points to the Walker/Weir ruling. Those are the facts.

        One more fact: the Mormon Church broke the laws regarding non-profit religious organizations by bankrolling the Proposition 8 campaign in California and were fined for doing so.

      5. ranger says:

        Just like the majority of people at one time though Jim Crow laws were the right way to do things. You cannot have freedom for all by giving double standards. I’m not a liberal or conservative, but its amazing the amount of people that think stopping this is they’re job in life. I expect this ruling to never change even at the supreme court. Especially those that follow the constitution cannot create a double standard within the people if everyone has the right to be equal

      6. BJ says:

        Let’s clear up the facts here:

        — Mormons make up a very small percentage of the 52% of the population that voted for Prop 8. They made up an even smaller percentage of the 61% that voted for Prop 22 (Prop 8 was only needed because libs challenged Prop 22).

        — The Mormon Church donated very little money to the initiative. MEMBERS of the Mormon Church contributed significant amounts of time and money to support the initiative. There is a HUGE difference. The Church was fined for failing to properly report $37k. That amounted to a rounding error in the total fundraising for the initiative. Their fine – $5k. Big whoop. Total expenditures by the Mormon Church was less than $200k. That covered transportation, lodging, meals, etc for employees that worked on behalf of the initiative.

        — Comparing the rights of two men to get married to slavery or the Civil Rights movement is demeaning and degrading to all minorities. We are talking about defining a WORD. A word that has been defined in Western Culture as a union between man and woman for thousands of years.

        — Of course, given your position I’m sure you’ll be fine when the Supreme Court gets this and sides with Prop 8. Then you will have the will of the people AND the judiciary in agreement.

      7. ranger says:

        @BJ Its not degrading to compare it at all. i’m not comparing the experiences but the law itself and thats the difference. Please tell me how the will of the church should be what is followed by the government? The government cannot force the church to do something, and the church cannot force the government to do something as well. its called separation of church and state for a reason.

        Last i looked Catholics were very very much against what mandate Obama has put in regarding birth control. They have every right to be because of that soupoused separation. this is NO difference and if you truly do follow this countries constitution then you have to agree every person is equal in the laws eye. Anything other then giving equal rights makes you a hypocryit.

        As for the people that do not support it, well don’t force priests to do gay marriages if its against they’re beliefs, as again you cannot legally do that. I’m not for anything other then doing the right thing and should the supreme court vote in favour of prop 8, then the system has done its job whether i agree with it or not. I think that’s the true difference between us

      8. paperpushermj says:

        No… facts are to hard to get you’re emoting arms around for many. It seems we the citizens have no right to define what the criteria is for marriage. The Judiciary will redefine marriage to the point of Irrelevancy. Glad Im an old guy so as to not witness the future of Single Hit and Run Fathers Roaming the streets only responsible to themselves and a good time. Civilization created marriage to solve certain Societal problems that will still exist after the Cure is gone.

      9. mahtin says:

        @Paula

        You poor, sick individual.
        This is about a person’s right. If you don’t agree then don’t worry, But to impose your beliefs on someone else is not legal nor ethical.
        February 7, 2012 at 10:48 am

        This cracks me up as a response, because it is the same response pro lifers are giving the abortion issue & you want us to pay up for the murderers. Unbelievable.!

    3. Anita says:

      And you want tolerance?? Rational thinking is dead in California.

      1. zrodfx says:

        Tolerance is for people without convictions….

      2. Michael Kriegel says:

        Rational thinking has been dead for many years in California.

      3. JoJoscall says:

        No it’s not, it’s just that we have toooooooooooo many sleeping sheep that don’t want to be awakened due to all the brain washing that has taken place over the last two decades or more, this is the same thing as a frog which will stay in water until boiled alive by increasing the temp., one degree at a time, so are are freedoms and moral belief’s of our youth being taken away and replaced by the minority’s unhealthy agenda to socially make everything wrong a right and show it as acceptable in the sleeping sheep’s eyes. Shame on you for being so ignorant and shallow to allow these kinds of changes being made and not standing up against the face of evil.!

      4. David H says:

        Rational thinking never existed in California to begin with! Self indulgent, politically correct, sustainable garbage, but never rationality. Sorry, dear

      5. Flayer says:

        Is there ANYTHING you won’t “tolerate”?

    4. MK says:

      HEY little ken liberals want it and the majority do Not Now Go stand in the corner with all your little friends.

    5. Andrea Naticchione says:

      Here we go again !!! I wish SF would just fall into the sea. THey have no morals!!

      1. Paula says:

        Why don’t you go off and be by yourself.

        Your morals are hypocritical. No one asked for your opinion tbagger.

      2. Sam says:

        Geez Paula, you sure are tolerant of other people’s opinions! Liberals only agree with free speech when they like what is being said. Otherwise, if you have a different opinion, you are called names, put down, marginalized and are referred to as a “hater”. Hypocrite.

      3. Glen says:

        @Paula:
        Actually, the mere presence of a comments board solicits opinions from all readers so you’re dead wrong on that count. Also, your use of the pejorative ‘tbagger’ (and FYI , teabagger. If you’re going to insult people make some attempt to get it right.) indicates a high level of intolerance towards other people’s beliefs. This makes YOU the hypocrite.

        This is expected. For all the left’s preaching about tolerance and diversity, it only applies to tolerance of your beliefs and a diversity of your ideas. The Progressive Orthodoxy has no capacity for tolerance of any dissenting view. You represent this cliche splendidly. Keep up the good work. The rest of us get to see exactly where you’re coming from, and what you’re all about.

      4. Rooty says:

        Paula,…Meatpackers calling straights “T-baggers”…now that is a laugh…!

    6. Reality says:

      The Mormon Church has been bitter ever since they lost the right for polygamy. They should retry their case for multiple consenting wives in Utah again – something tells me they have a good shot now.

      1. Laura says:

        Are you Mormon? Are you basing your comment on you and your Mormon friends being bitter? I have known Mormons most of my life and that is the first time I have ever heard such a stupid theory on polygamy.

    7. VulpesRex says:

      @Anita To liberals in general, and gays specifically, tolerance is a one way street. They demand that everyone not merely tolerate their lifestyle, but embrace it. To disagree with them makes you a knuckle-dragging mindless bigot who has all the intelligence of a protozoa.

      They can’t fathom that intelligent people would disagree with/be disgusted by/hold legitimate convictions against their sexual deviancy. And gays have become masters at shutting down dissent.

      1. Dan says:

        You’re just wrong- They do not want to you embrace anything – they dont care about you. They just want to be able to marry the person they love. No more no less.

      2. Matilda says:

        You are correct. The left and the commies have learned long ago that whatever is tolerated will become normal. I don’t understand why so many people haven’t figured that out yet.

      3. Anita says:

        I agree with you totally. That is why we are at such an impasse. They are closed to rational discussion. Plus, they are so smug and think they have the moral high ground. The situation is pathetic and getting worse by the day.

      4. BillCNC says:

        Rational discussion, … I’m sorry, … their is no discussion, … IT’S THE LAW!

      5. BillCNC says:

        According to the constitution, … IT’S THE LAW!!!!

        Come out of the dark ages, … your not drawing on cave walls!

    8. IntelectOne says:

      Did the San Francisco Federal Judges miss what the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) put into Law? That is a Federal Law that ‘Defines Marriage as between One Man and One Woman’. Clearly, the Judges are actively changing a Federal Law and that makes their decision Unconstitutional. Their decision to redefine marriage to a pseudo-marriage is Null and Void.

      1. Mike says:

        I’m guessing you didn’t go to school–or if you did, then you didn’t ever read your social studies or government books. The courts decide what is constitutional and what is not. It’s their job to change federal and state law when its not constitutional. Not you, not your friends, not Republicans, not Democrats. Judges do it. It’s what the rule of law and the Constitution are there for. Your argument doesn’t really have a valid point, except to unintentionally point out that DOMA should also be struck down.

    9. Good Ole' Charlie Manson says:

      This is an issue for the states to decide; NOT the federal government. The 10th Amendment is pretty clear: …powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

    10. IntelectOne says:

      Did the San Francisco Federal Judges miss what the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) put into Law? That is a Federal Law that ‘Defines Marriage as between One Man and One Woman’. Clearly, the Judges are actively changing a Federal Law and that makes their decision Unconstitutional. Their decision to redefine marriage to a pseudo-marriage is Null and Void.

    11. tubaman says:

      they are the majority,a–hole,and they don’t like same sex marriage.The will of the people means nothing as long as you have activist judges who legislate from the bench!!!

    12. LandSteward says:

      The Mormon Church has nothing to do with the sodomites. If that were true then it would be tantamount to Sharia Law which it is not. You can’t legislate immorality, no matter how much you protest.

    13. CH says:

      Sure! Morman, Catholic, Baptist, Jehovah’s Witness, Presbytarian – pretty much all of them will fight this abomination.

    14. Chad says:

      You’re god is a comfort blanket for grown ups that are afraid of the dark. Grow up

    15. Jim In Frankfort says:

      Hmm, how did I know it was the 9th Circuit just from reading the headline. Why would a Federal Circuit Court located in California be used to rule on a California state law. I’m assuming the judges voted for or against Prop 8 shouldn’t that call their objectivity into question?

    16. BrianM says:

      It was a whole lot more people than just the Mormons who support Prop 8!

    17. CaliGal says:

      First off, if you’re going to comment on a religion–figure out how to spell it correctly. Second, it’s easy to blame the “Morman” church for the entire anti-gay marriage movement, however, it’s not accurate. The percentage of Mormons that voted for Prop 8 was marginal. Were it not for the thousands of other Christian, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim, and other religious, or non-religious voters–the prop would have never passed in the first place. Also, just being a Mormon does not automatically make you anti-gay marriage. Check out mormonsformarriage.com. Start looking at people as individuals, not groups. You might be surprised that we’re not all just sheep following a leader.

      1. BillCNC says:

        Your post is hog wash!

        the Mormon church (in Utah) pumped tons of cash into ca;California, Something they should have had their tax status unwound over.

        Now what makes you think it wasn’t the Mormon church behind it?

    18. Nance says:

      I don’t get it. Why are the courts involved with someone’s choice of how to perform sex? Soooo a wierdo that likes to have sex with monkey’s can have civil rights now too? I just don’t see it.

  2. Peter B. Towle says:

    The fact remains that God’s standards of Marriage are UNCHANGED and that is it can ONLY exist between one man and one woman. God says in His Holy Word “I AM THE LORD, I CHANGE NOT”

    1. Gnossis says:

      Lol what book and verse is that in? Peter B. Towle 1:24?

      1. Peter B. Towle says:

        Here are a few of many references: Psalms 102:25,Malachi 3:6, St. Matthew 24:35.
        God is NOT mocked!

      2. Moral Majority says:

        Romans 1:18-32 pretty much sums up how God feels about the depraved sexual perverts. It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

      3. The One says:

        And the lib commies in this country wonder why the rest of the world hates us.

        http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php

        Animals.

        Keep pushing. Judgement day is coming. It will be swift and merciless no matter how much you allow Obama to sanctify your depraved and disgusting ideologies.

      4. fedupwithyoulibs says:

        Not the one you read in Oscar Wilde.

      5. LTCB says:

        Try the Bible dufuss.

    2. Adam Evans says:

      Peter, keep your god out of our lives.

      1. tenaciousd1975 says:

        Leave your gays out of our God-ordained institution of marriage, then!!

      2. Tom Jefferson says:

        Tenacious; How about you get your god-ordained institution out of our secular government?

        I think Ron Paul has it exactly right, the government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

      3. Moral Majority says:

        Gladly, as soon as you rainbow twinkies keep your disgusting mental illness out of our lives.

      4. Peter B. Towle says:

        I am not putting GOD in your life, He will come into your life if you ask Him. His standards however do not change and we will all have to answer to Him someday for all that we have done with our lives.

      5. Rainbow Twinkie says:

        Moral Majority –

        Must be rough being in the closet.

      6. Sandy says:

        Adam keep your perversions out of our lives!

      7. Moral Majority says:

        Rainbow Twinkie – how do you figure? By the way, not everyone believes mental illness should be celebrated, no matter how much you cluck about it.

      8. God's Not Dead says:

        It’s Sodom and Gomorrah all over again.

      9. jasperddbgghost says:

        Get out of my son.

      10. Tom Tucker says:

        Adam, the fact of the matter is He is your God also. God is real and He exists. Deep down in your heart you know that (unless you have already seared your conscience to the point of uncaring). Ignoring God or purposefully rejecting Him does absolutely nothing to change that fact. The US Courts are correct only if you change the definition of marriage. In reality it matters very little what the courts say. The real issue is who are you going to follow…gay activist liberal judges or a Holy and Supreme God? Sounds like you’ve already made your choice. For me, I prefer to follow God. As long as you understand that you are responsible for your choices (and that they have eternal consequences), we’re good.

      11. Mono says:

        As a Christian, I am appalled by some of the comments I am reading her by so called Christians. These people know neither the teaching or the heart of Jesus.

        You religious snakes need to repent just as much, if not more than anyone else.

      12. Marilyn Banner says:

        I wish we could stop being so obsessed with SEX! Why can’t a Domestic Partnership consist of any two cohabitating adults, which could include roommates, a parent/adult child, 2 siblings, 2 lovers, 2 best buddies, or a husband and wife? Who cares whether they sleep together or not, it’s a domestic arrangement. Period.

      13. yana says:

        As soon as the gay agenda is kept out of mine!

      14. JackBnimble says:

        @Mono – if the word of God “appalls” you, you are not a Christian. At best you’re attending service at a 501(c)3 “church” with a congregation led by a Fabian Socialist.

        However, my guess is you’re a typical liberal atheist attempting to pin standards on other under false pretenses you yourself have no intention of living up to.

        Look in the mirror, see that log in your eye?

    3. Dan King says:

      Can you tell me why what your God believes should matter to me?

      1. joeamerican says:

        gays changing the definition of marraige bothers most of the people……

      2. owl gore says:

        Can you tell us why what you believe should matter to us?

      3. ECH says:

        Dan, whether you like it or not, respond or not, the true God is your God, too! He is not a local deity, or merely a private deity. He is Sovereign Lord of all, and we will all answer to Him as our Creator and Sustainer and Designer of marriage. Count on that! Read Romans 1:18-32 in the NT to give you a hint. Then read Acts 17:18-34, where apostle Paul went into pluralistic Athens and declared to these polytheists the same reality, the One true God, revealed through Jesus, His Son. That should matter to you. His eye is upon you each day. He is patiently calling you to come to Him in genuine faith through many different ways. After all, one day you, as all of mankind, surely will give an account of yourself, and how you lived your life, and what you did with the knowledge and talents given to you as one made in His image. That is why the gospel was given. 1 John 5:11-12 ought to make the matter all the more clear.

      4. saved by faith says:

        Because they are asking for a biblical ceremony. I have no problem with the gay community celebrating their union with a civil ceremony….a government approved legal ceremony. I take great issue with them wanting a “marriage” which God instituted between a man and a woman. If you don’t care what we or God believes, why do you crave that recognition for what you despise? (and please don’t trot out the worn out excuse that heterosexual couples divorce and cheat……….Christian doesn’t mean perfect. THAT’S the reason we need God.

      5. 4petessake says:

        Dan King: Can you tell me why what your God believes should matter to me?
        It’s not what God’s believes it’s what God created, he didn’t create same sexes throughout the entire world, but he did give us free will to go are own way regardless of how he created us. Why that should mater to you? Take a real close and hard long look into a mirror and ask yourself that question yourself. Who knows you may get an answer.

      6. Daniel Bryant says:

        ECH…outstanding!

        Those who willfully embrace this God-condemned ‘lifestyle’ (its actually a deathstyle) are without excuse come Judgement Day. They have been given the Truth and have flatly rejected it. They stand condemned though they mockingly celebrate their temporal and holly victory in a corrupt San Fransicko court

    4. Jose Arciniega says:

      So if that one man and one woman are brother and sister, I guess that’s o.k.?

    5. Nibbs says:

      right. and what about the people to whom the Bible doesn’t apply?

      1. Peter B. Towle says:

        The Bible applies to ALL of us ; but we have free moral agency to spurn it’s standards and take the consequences of doing so.

      2. Phil says:

        You’d LIKE the Bible to apply to all of us, that doesn’t mean it does. Keep your beliefs to yourself and nobody will bother you. You going to church and listening to ancient fairy tales, as spoken by a bunch of guys wearing different hats and dresses (sounds a little gay actually?) doesn’t bother me – go ahead, have a blast.

        In the same manner, 2 guys wanting to get it on, doesn’t affect you. Don’t like something gay-related on TV? Change the channel. Don’t like something gay-related that you read? Don’t read it. In the same way I have no interest in your religion, I choose not to read it or pay any attention to it.

        As for the argument that it’s part of your religion to try to “teach” others the “error of their ways”, GO AHEAD and do so and complain to the “sinners” directly and see how far you get. Don’t go whining to lobbyists and wasting millions of dollars to get laws put in place to enforce your beliefs upon people who are not involved in YOUR belief system.

        Some will argue that there are tax and legal benefits to married couples and they are worried that allowing gays to be married will make heterosexual couples less privileged. You know what? None of those legal / tax benefits should exist in the first place, they were put there by, you guessed it – people trying to legislate morality. And that’s the core of the problem – morals are subjective to each individual, and forcing your morals upon someone else is ridiculous.

        Get rid of the tax and legal benefits for married couples, GAY OR STRAIGHT, and you eliminate any legal standing to outlaw gay marriage, exposing the entire argument for what it is – religious whackos trying to force their ancient fairy tales upon others.

      3. Chris says:

        Phil, Keep “your” beliefs to yourself and nobody will bother “you”. We’re tired of getting the LGBT agenda shoved down our throats even though we don’t agree with it. Ok fine, you want to go get it on with some guy. Stop telling the rest of us about it. We don’t care about your views on it. Stop trying to push the envelope and change everybody else and the law to accept your views. We don’t accept your views. Get over it and live your life…

        So you’re saying because a few gays want to get married means that we should rid of tax and legal benefits for married couples? BTW those “ancient fairy tales” are what this country is based off of. Without them, this would not be a free country and you would most likely be persecuted for your beliefs and this wouldn’t even be an argument.

      4. Phil says:

        Actually, my wife and I have been married for 13 years now. If a gay couple wants to get married, it does not affect my life at all – I still love my wife, and she still loves me. If I woke up tomorrow and every gay couple in the country got married, it wouldn’t bother me at all. I’d still be married to my wife and living with the same benefits as I was yesterday.

        My comment about the tax breaks etc for married couples was probably not very clear. Why do they exist? They exist because religious groups want to promote “traditional” family lifestyles. Yes, I personally benefit from them being there, but I can clearly see the case for them being removed. How is it not discriminating against non-married couples? Or for that matter, even single people?

        At the same time, I don’t agree with the tax breaks for organized religion, but I can see the merit in them. I absolutely agree, SOME churches do SOME good (charity work, feeding the homeless, etc), and I think that should be commended. Unfortunately, a lot of that untaxed money also goes toward political causes – like the millions spent by Mormon and black evangelical organizations in support of Prop 8.

        As far as people not bothering you with their beliefs – I can’t count the number of times a Mormon or Christian has come knocking at my door trying to recruit me into their cult. Never once have I opened the door to a gay couple having sex on my doorstep.

      5. Ian says:

        Bravo, Phil. Well said.

    6. Eric Domejean says:

      Nobody is forcing your church or any for that matter to perform gay marriages. So get over your self.

      1. Endoxa52 says:

        Give it time.

      2. Sandy says:

        Eric, get yourself an education before you talk with the grownups.

      3. mia law says:

        Wake up from your false reality! This decision has implications that are already affecting the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion:

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

        Additionally, Judge Walker’s opinion was an extreme stretch of the Constitution, and went so far that it created new rights. No amendment or clause of the Constitution protects “privacy” or states that marriage is a right for all. Read the 10th Amendment, these issues are reserved for the states!

    7. Truth says:

      amen brother. mock God and you get what you ask for.

    8. Word to Peter's Mother says:

      What’s your point Peter? You want to live under a religious government, go move to the mid east. There’s plenty of people that can’t think over there that you would enjoy the company of

      1. tenaciousd1975 says:

        You do realize that the vast majority of America feel the same way 52% of Californians–who had their wishes overturned by gay judge!!–do. How about extending your love of civil liberties to the rest of us? Do we not get to chose what kind of society in which we get to live?

      2. JimS says:

        Dear Peter’s Mom,
        Get over it. You DO live in a religious country where a vast majority do believe in a higher power. And this is coming from a person who is agnostic (me) so if you think I have some religious agenda you are even more wrong. Marriage is historically both a religious and pro-family (procreation) based act and cannot easily be re-engineered after many thousands of years of human history. You can argue about it until you turn blue, but that is not going to change.

      3. Tom Jefferson says:

        Ten and Jim,

        And thats why we live in a Republic, not a democracy, to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the rights of the individual.

        “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner”
        -Benjamin Franklin

      4. Endoa52 says:

        Secular Humanism is a religion.

      5. JimS says:

        Mr. Jefferson,
        Denying gay Americans the use of the term “Marriage” in lieu of “Civil Unions” is not tyranny. If you think it is you need to move to Syria and then you will understand the word.

      6. Genuine_Christian says:

        This country was founded on Christian principles. You pervs are the ones that need to leave.

      7. Phil says:

        Actually this country was founded by terrorism and genocide too, so if we’re going to single out one of the factors involved in the creation of this country, why not pick those up too? Don’t pay your taxes and tar and feather the IRS agent that comes to audit you, then see how that goes.

        If you really want to be accurate, the majority of the founding fathers were in fact, NOT Christians (although some were). Most of them were Deists. For a fairly condensed summary, see here http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html (although if you are worried about bias, there are plenty of places you can find this information. Thomas Jefferson in particular is interesting due to his evolving views on religion over the course of his lifetime, meaning he actually put some thought into what he believed, rather than clinging to what he was born into).

        Many of the founding fathers were opposed to organized religion, particularly Christianity. However, they recognized the importance of free thought and free association, and realized the best choice was to allow freedom of religion and association to all.

      8. Chad says:

        “Marriage is historically both a religious and pro-family (procreation) based act ”

        WRONG . If the governments recognition of marriage was to encourage procreation, why then is polygamy illegal ? Polygamist marriages have the highest rate of birth. If the point of marriage in the goverments eyes was procreation, polygamy would be encouraged, not outlawed.

        WHO CARES what gay people do !? Whether or not the get married has absolutely NO EFFECT on your quality of life. You might not “like” it, but that doesn’t give you justification to deny marriage to others. There is no LOGICAL reason that gays cannot marry. Your personal beliefs (based on bronze age books written by anonymous, nomadic goat herders) are of NO consequence to the argument. IT DOES NOT EFFECT YOU.

    9. James Lockridge says:

      God doesn’t have any relation to U.S. law. Glad for you to enjoy your god and his standards, but please be civil enough to understand that they have no more role in the law than my standards or those of any other American neighbor with any other spiritual belief. I’m grateful that humanity – the love, compassion, and dedication we can have for one another – is being given a chance with this decision.

      1. ECH says:

        James….LOL…you need to not engage in empty, wishful thinking. Visit Washington D.C. and the state Capital or judicial building. See in the rotunda above Moses and the ten commandments etched into the government buildings long before you ever showed up with your opinions. The fact is, if you you knew your European History, which gives the roots of our Western legal system, you would trace its Christian influence in rights and liberties, more or less, into the expectation and framing our Constitution (i.e., Providence). Even the Deists present presumed upon a Christian ethical system. Or, perhaps you prefer Sharia Law instead, from another heritage, and have your head cut off.

      2. Chad says:

        ECH – why the hell are you talking about Sharia law ??? What on Earth does that have to do with this discussion. Enough with the strawman arguments. If you want religion to rule the government, go move to a Middle Eastern theocracy.

    10. Christine Craft says:

      god is gay.

    11. Christine Craft says:

      so you think that Stephen reinhardt is gay???? ha ha hhahhhhhhahaha..did jesus tell you that?
      and poor poor poor tenaciousd1975…this battle isn’t about who your church or churches or gods decide to marry or not marry..it’s about who can get married….in the civil sense..as in get a marriage license and be married in the eyes of the state…not some religious organization..please do the background info

      1. Billy von Oceanside, Ca says:

        What is the obsession to call it Marriage? I do not get it. You want to pretend that you are married like a man and a woman. Be who and what you are and give it your own name and sanction. Marriage is an institution that throughout history has been defined as a man and a woman or a man and many women. Many cultures endorsed this union through church or religion and some not. In some cultures the term means that the man owns the woman.
        It is a stupid argument. Government should get out of Marriage all together. It is discrimination to tax a person that wishes to be single more than a married or civil union person'(s).
        However, this society has a tradition of building around the family nucleus. If that is no longer the will then tell the Government to get the hell out. You can then call it marriage, union, or make up your own word like “kwanzian” or something. After two men are allowed to be married, I will ask to have several wives. There is historical precedence in that type of union. If a woman wants several husbands then go for it. However, when the people start auguring over property then they had better be sure they have a good lawyer up front. The lawyers always win.
        Let’s get rid of this thing called a democratic process and allow the appointed judges to make all the rules. That will “really” work…not. To think that because a society will not change the definition of a word violate someone’s rights is absolutely illogical. The gays still get special privlidges over single people and the polygamist are still discriminated against.

        Who are you people???? On both sides!!!

      2. Chad says:

        Billy – Why does it not deserve to be called marriage if all they are looking for is equal recognition in the eyes of the SECULAR state ? If they called it something else, then the right wing would be up in arms about “Special treatment”, then they would have a chance to feel the discrimination in the eyes of the law that gays deal with every day. Get over yourself, gays marrying each other DOES NOT effect you, in ANY objective way.

    12. dan says:

      [17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
      [18] But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

      Just a llittle snippet from “good book”. I’d look for my moral teaching elsewhere.

      1. dansBoyfriend says:

        @dan – you must reference a lot of Steven Pinker. He loves to quote this out of context constantly. Why not post the entire passage? Oh, that’s right. Because that would deflate your little rant now wouldn’t it? Does little Stevie tell you you’re his favorite when you’re smoking his bone too?

      2. John Fox says:

        dansbfriend is such a hypocrite, he seems to suggest it’s ok for those deluded Christians to spout sound bites, but not for others.

      3. Dan says:

        In what context does dansboyfriend find the following passage morally acceptable? There are time when killing women, children, and enslaving children is permissible? Please enlighten us.

      4. dansBoyfriend says:

        @(dainty)dan

        Post the entire passage here. That is the answer to your question and you know it.

    13. Randy Bobandy says:

      Where is the quote from the Jewish Zombie on the matter? Can’t seem to find one in the 85 different copies of the Bable I have.

    14. Bishop Pat says:

      Who cares about God?

      That’s your belief in the unkown. Have fun.

      Bye.

    15. Michael Lohr says:

      The how come Abraham, Moses and a host of others had so many wives?

    16. Mikey A says:

      Ugh, give it up. Not everyone believes in your fake floating man in the sky.

    17. sean patriot says:

      Marriage is a man made construct

      1. Phil says:

        As is religion!

    18. Billy von Oceanside, Ca says:

      Comment to Marty’s question below.

      Marty why don’t you and your partner copulate and bring forth a child? Ohh…Mother nature didn’t build you that way. I knew your ilk was delusional when I saw a story stating “Man is pregnant” You want to redfine the definition of the word “Man”

      Dude just be yourself and love that and quit pretending that you can live like heterosexuals. If you are not then be who you are. No one is violating your rights because you wish the redefine the definition of a word “marriage”.

      Marty

      So why can’t my partner and file taxes jointly and claim head of household? Why should I pay more taxes when we have been together 17 years? Longer than a lot of marriages I know. Why can’t we adopt a child and bring him/her into a loving caring home to be card for?

    19. John Fox says:

      So if you are a Christian, don’t marry a person of the same sex. That doesn’t give you the right to use your fables to tell anyone else what to do.

    20. asasd says:

      That was written by a man. Not by God. He was as smug as you.

    21. sean patriot says:

      From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, “[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust. Keep your holy book out of their lives. Its really none of your business at all.

    22. LLinLa says:

      Sorry, Pete. I support the voters in this instance and the man/woman concept but to “prove” your thesis, you need to do better. How many wives did Abraham, David, Solomon, et.al., have? When did polygamy change to monogamy by Biblical
      Standards? I understand your point but using “universal” verses out of context just makes your argument weak.

    23. asdasd says:

      I remember that old scripture written by people with no knowledge of science that proved Jesus hated gay people. It was right before he gave to the poor.

    24. Jan Vones says:

      You think the LORD screams in ALL CAPS?

    25. Stu in Iowa says:

      I can also whip my slaves according to the Bible. Are you ok with me owning slaves and whipping them?

  3. Factchecker says:

    Gay judges, no doubt.

    Can’t win at the voting booth….find hack judges to label something ‘unconstitutional.’

    1. Dan says:

      You’re one of those people that say they support the Constitution and have never read it, right?

      1. Factchecker says:

        Free elections are constitutional madam.

      2. Phil says:

        Doesn’t it seem a little silly that we need a 60% or 2/3 majority (whatever the case is) in Congress to pass something, but this passed with only 52% of the vote?

        Amendments to the US constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of states. If that’s the route you really want to take this, go for it, because it will fail miserably. There are far more important things we should be worrying about in this country right now.

    2. TiredofExtremes says:

      I love how you guys think it’s terrible for a judge to overturn a law you support (gay marriage) but think it’s absolutely ok when the law is one with which you disagree (gun control).

  4. zjak says:

    The sad thing is, if this gets all the way to the Supreme Court, with how the court is organized at this moment, the conservatives on the Court will side with the voters on this one, and it will be another hurdle to the supporters of same sex marriage.

    The best thing to do is to get this on the ballot again and let the people chose, with the current makeup of voters in CA, I believe that the people will overturn it.

    1. hurdle to gay marriage says:

      “the conservatives on the Court will side with the voters on this one”

      “The best thing to do is to get this on the ballot again and let the people chose, with the current makeup of voters in CA, I believe that the people will overturn it.”

      So, what you are saying is, lets bring it to the people of CA to vote on and decide (so long as that result is what WE want it to be), and we will keep doing so until we get what we want? Also, when you say “current makeup” I assume you are referring to the same voters who wanted man/woman marriages only will be the very same people to overturn their previous decision? Just wanted to make sure I was understanding this detached sense of reality properly…

      1. tiernanlaw says:

        LOL, exactly, they shout democracy, democracy, democracy, and when that doesnt get them what they want, FORCE it upon society by Liberal Activist Judges who ignrore the Constitution and make up their own laws!

      2. Chad says:

        “FORCE it upon society by Liberal Activist Judges who ignrore the Constitution and make up their own laws!”

        HUH ? The judge didn’t ‘make up’ any laws, he struck down a law as unConstitutional , the EXACT opposite of ‘ignoring’ the constitution. How old are you that your reading comprehension skills are that abysmal ?

        Was this story linked to Drudge or something ? Lots of illiterate people here today…yeesh.

    2. times says:

      When the people vote wrong, we get it overturned in an activist court. Then we pretend to let the people vote again when we think it will work in our favor. If they vote wrong again, we just go to our beloved 9th circuit again. How many times do the people have to say no before you realize it’s not all about you? The rest of us are not on this planet to service your needs. We have rights too and we are taking them back from you childish morons who have worked for decades to destroy this country. Go sit in the back now like your incompetent boob of a leader once told us.

      1. Zjak says:

        I have faith in the people of CA, they knows what’s best for them, they will overturn Prop 8 if its put on the ballots. Sure you can take it to the courts all you want, and fight for it all you want using the Judicial system, but the people will have the last say.

        BTW – I am no supporter of Obama, I am a Ron Paul supporter.

      2. times says:

        The people of California have said no to gay marriage more than once and YOU keep getting it overturned through your ridiculous laughingstock of a court, the 9th circuit. YOU don’t even let the people speak unless they agree with you. YOU are the problem.

    3. MK says:

      No the gays Do Not get to redefine marriage they have domestic partners and complete rights.

      1. Marty says:

        So why can’t my partner and file taxes jointly and claim head of household? Why should I pay more taxes when we have been together 17 years? Longer than a lot of marriages I know. Why can’t we adopt a child and bring him/her into a loving caring home to be card for?

      2. The Law says:

        Because you’re not a family, you’re not normal. What part of that don’t you understand phaygutt?

  5. Jonathan A Acord says:

    U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco struck down Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on gay marriage..Unquote This judge has No respect for the will of the people. We, the People have spoken, we do not want gay marriage.

    1. Adam Evans says:

      This is why civil rights should never be voted by the people. We have a lot of stupid people who would vote to keep Jim Crow laws if Black Civil Rights were “voted” by the people.

      1. EXFED4 says:

        Yours is an analogy that was cooked up for those without any reason or merit to support their position.

      2. Mark says:

        And if civil rights should be never voted on by the people, which people would you assign the task of defining those rights, and by whom would those people be selected? Usually this form of selection process leads to dictatorial rule. Adam, your view is incredibly naive and shows little thought regarding the details and consequences of policy execution.

      3. JMB says:

        Mark, they are called judges….

    2. JB says:

      did you even read the ruling? because you kind of just reaffirmed the point of the three judges.

      a majority vote is NOT SUFFICIENT to deny rights from a minority. it never has been.

      1. tiernanlaw says:

        There is NO RIGHT to gay marriage. Never has been!

  6. joeamerican says:

    liberalism is a mental disorder……proved once again

    1. Randy Bobandy says:

      Funny you can easily change that quote to “Religion is a mental disorder…..proved once again”

      1. joeamerican says:

        Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!!!!

      2. Phil says:

        Zeus and Hera, not Zeus and Harold!

        What makes you think your religion should be forced into law, but nobody else’s? Why don’t we enforce some of the rules in Scientology while we’re at it? They’re just as valid as Christianity. Actually let’s not do that, then we wouldn’t have any psychiatrists to treat the children abused by Catholic priests.

      3. Phil says:

        You may like this info then Randy: http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

        Study concludes that people with lower IQs are more conservative and prejudiced. From the article: “There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.”

        Do something smart, and drop the prejudice.

      4. Phil says:

        Sorry, that reply was in response to Moral Majority, not Randy.

      5. LeisureSuitLarry says:

        @Phil

        So who’s the “dumb” one who can’t type?

        BAHAHAHAHAH!!!

        Dolt.

      6. Phil says:

        Actually, it was due to the way the page refreshes and the reply nesting is a bit weird, not a typing error. More importantly, I noticed I was wrong and corrected it – something religious whackjobs will never do, because they can’t ever admit to being wrong!

      7. LeisureSuitLarry says:

        *ACTUALLY*, it has NOTHING to do with “nesting” since you addressed it directly to Randy, not Moral Majority. Couple that little attempt at a back-peddle with the fact you make reference to “religious whackjobs” while condenming prejudice not only makes you a liar, but a hypocrite as well.

        You MUST be a liberal.

        Dolt.

      8. Phil says:

        My point is, I can’t actually hit reply on the comment I was replying to, there’s only a link to reply from Randy’s comment, and when the reply opens up, that’s the only name you can see, so it was a rushed response, and I admitted my mistake.

        I think you meant “backpedal” by the way, while we’re being picky. DOLT

        Religion is fine, whackjob generally refers to extremists (and extremism in any form is often dangerous). I don’t mind if people follow a religion. I do mind if they want to force their beliefs upon others through legislation (which, by the way, ties up the time of government employees, who are paid for with taxes that ALL of us pay… except religious organizations, oops).

      9. Phil says:

        Yawn, lol.

        [X] Check. You have reading comprehension issues.

        The mistake was admitted before you ever even replied. Not going to admit to your typo? I see how it is. I lied? Ok, even as I’m typing this response, your response isn’t even on the screen, it’s again under Randy’s reply.

        Anyway, rather than trolling on and on about a red herring mistake (and direct name-calling now too), do you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion / any response to the linked studies (either of them) in this reply chain? Or

      10. LeisureSuitLarry says:

        I see. So you call names throughout this entire thread, then condemn another for doing the same. You don’t have an original thought in your head, liberals seldom do so why is that a surprise. Seems to be a trend with you.

        I never claimed I made / did not make any mistakes. You did. You lied. You were caught. You lied again.

        *THAT’S* a liberal.

      11. Phil says:

        Libertarian actually, but keep it up! What exactly did I lie about? You’re the one that started off with picking out minor errors rather than actually participating in the discussion on any sort of intellectual level.

        As far as your troll score goes, I’d say about a B+ on persistence, but around a D on entertainment factor. F on originality for spamming “liberal” over and over, but that also gives you an A++ on sticking to your principles!

      12. LeisureSuitLarry says:

        Got it. So now you lie about your lying.

        How’s that a Libertarian again?

  7. jesse marcel says:

    Why bother having free elections!

    1. Eric Domejean says:

      Just because you vote for discrimination does not make it legal

      1. Jonathan A Acord says:

        The people decided that so called Gay Marriage’ is not what they want period. This judge has made the will of the people a joke. The majority of people believe that marriage is only possible between a man and a woman, nothing else. Disrespecting people’s belief is wrong, gay marriage is a slap in the face and just plain disrespectful. If Gays want a union they can call it whatever they like.

      2. ArcherB says:

        How banning gay marriage discriminatory? Two men may not marry each other. I’m a man. I may not marry another man. The same rule applies to ALL men. The law does not state that two gay men may not marry. It states that two MEN of any sexual preference may not marry each other. I don’t see how this is discriminatory. It is applied equally to all men.
        (use woman in any place you see man if that’s your choice)

      3. Gordon says:

        What a willfully ignorant comment, Archer. That’s not the issue and you know it – you’re moving the goalposts of the argument. Feel free to refrain from being obtuse at any point.

    2. Bubba says:

      Why even bother having constitutions!

  8. stopthe says:

    I wouldn’t have voted for the ban, but I disagree with this ruling. This should not be a federal issue. This is a social issue, and we don’t need more big government social engineering.

    Issues like this should be decided locally, not nationally. It’s interesting that political correctness claims to champion “diversity”, yet cannot tolerate diversity of views and practices among localities: when it comes to governance, no diversity can be tolerated.

  9. Ethan says:

    The people of California voter to ban same sex marriage. When will these activist judges quit overruling the people? My vote is meaningless if an activist judge can say poof, what you voted doesn’t matter!!!!

    1. BPinTX says:

      You are exactly right, Ethan.

      1. Bubba says:

        I vote the Ethan and BP no longer have free speech rights!

    2. Chad says:

      It has nothing to do with ‘activist judges’ , and everything to do with the fact that the will of the majority does NOT equal the right to discriminate against a minority in the eyes of the law. THAT is the point. I’m sure there are enough hateful people in this country that would vote for a return to Jim Crow, or even slavery…but that does not mean that the law must discriminate against the minority.

  10. redrunner262 says:

    The will of the people is ignored once again. When ideas don’t win at the ballot box, activist judges will do just fine.

  11. BPinTX says:

    Whether you agree with Prop 8 or not, I never understood how ONE judge could strike down anything voted on and passed by the people as unconstitutional. What is more constitutional than an election?

    1. Bubba says:

      The Constitution limits what the government can do. Please look into it, it is fascinating.

    2. Gordon says:

      What’s more constitutional than an election? Um, how about someone’s natural rights as a human being? This argument is one of the worst ones against civil marriage. As a country, it has NEVER been the case that we allow the majority to vote on someone else’s civil rights.

      We literally fought a war with ourselves about granting rights to African Americans, and this issue is no different – you have the constitutional right to dislike gay people, to ignore gay people and to talk about how much you don’t like gay people, but you do NOT have the constitutional right to take away gay people’s rights.

      1. Ben says:

        Gordon, where in the constitution do gay people have the right to be married? Show me, and I will agree with you.

      2. Gordon says:

        You are totally, completely missing the point if you believe there has to be an explicit constitutional right to gay marriage for it to exist. For one thing, there’s no right to marriage at all in the constitution, so if that’s the bar you’re setting, then straight people are out of luck too.

        More importantly, there is sufficient precedent and caselaw to determine that denying anyone the right to same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Loving v. Virginia (1967) explicitly states that marriage is a “basic right of man” and a “fundamental freedom” – look it up if you don’t believe me. The 14th Amendment just as clearly states that all people are entitled to equal protection under the law, and the 1st Amendment requires the government not to discriminate on the basis of religion.

        That’s pretty much open and shut, as far as I’m concerned. The religious right may not use any Biblical arguments against same sex marriage because that’s not how our government operates. Since we allow straight people to get married, the combination of the 14th Amendment and the fact that our government already recognizes marriage as a fundamental right means that we are also required to allow gay people to get married or we are committing gross hypocrisy.

        Any other questions?

  12. James says:

    So much for the respect for people’s voting. Crying was huge for it to go to the ballot, it went to the ballot, they lost, and now he courts overturn it. Why vote!? The courts and Govt. of the U.S. are going to rule from now on. The people have no voice.

    1. JR Esq says:

      I should start by saying that I disagree with the ruling as a matter of law. However, this comment is totally misguided. If a majority of Californians voted to abridge the right to be free from self-incrimination, it can have no legal effect because of the backstop of the Constitution. So in principle, of course the Constitution will override a vote; unless the vote is somehow tied to amending the Constitution.

      As I said above, I believe the decision is wrong as a matter of law. That said, I agree with the policy underlying the decision. The point, though, is that policies be enacted legally and appropriately, lest we undermine the fabric of the law for political expedience.

  13. Jim in Houston says:

    Gee, what a surprise, the 9th Circuit Court makes a liberal ruling. Apparently the will of the people no longer counts in this messed up country.

  14. wrol1776 says:

    10th Amendment says we don’t care what a “federal” court “rules”. The “feds” can go to hades and burn.

    1. David Latham says:

      Hades is the “unseen” or “grave.” No flames. God loves all. Jesus is the Savior of the WORLD. 1 Jn. 4:14

      1. wrol1776 says:

        David, I guess God’s love did not stop Him from burning Sodom and all of its inhabitants to the ground did it?

  15. Quayle says:

    It is a nice little trick the left has foisted on us. The 14th Amendment, which never contemplated the issue of gay marriage, is the accordion law that expands to allow gay marriage, but contracts to prevent the abolishment of blatantly unequal laws such as affirmative action.

    The Asian kid not accepted to Harvard in favor of the less qualified”minority” is certainly not treated equal under the law, but ho-hum says the leftist, the 14th Amendment is unavailable for the very issues of race equality for which it was constructed.

  16. David Maxwell says:

    Ah the objectivity, Judge Walker is Gay. His “ruling” should come as no surprise.

    1. Eric Domejean says:

      So by your logic we should also exclude heterosexuals from this ruling also

      1. observer says:

        I think the main point is that one person should not decide this; it should be decided by the full spectrum of people by a vote, which it was. If it needs to be changed let the people vote and change it. This need not be a federal issue to be decided by a federal judge.

  17. Shaun says:

    Good to know a few lawyers in robes can overturn the will of the People.

  18. Reginald Winthorp says:

    So a judge can change the will of the people? Do we even still have a constitution? It sucks to be the minority, but that’s the way it works. I guess it really doesn’t matter, California will be bankrupt in a month, and is currently overrun with illegals. No doubt California will become the new welfare nanny state last held by Louisiana along with numerous natural disasters.

    1. Chad says:

      The will of the majority does not give it carte blanche to legislate discrimination against the minority. Did you sleep through civics class in high school ?

      “Do we even still have a Constitution?” YES, we do, and that is EXACTLY what this judge did…. he reviewed the law in light of the United States Constitution and ruled it UN constitutional. The Constitution is the BACKBONE of the ruling.

      Who are you people ? How can you lack reading comprehension skills in this day and age?

    2. Jayphly says:

      The courts are a part of the constitution. They interpret the law. That is what they did. If you do not like our US constitution then change it. Until then the separation of powers will continue and I for one will support this.

  19. EXFED4 says:

    How bizarre and unfortunate that such a small minority can wipe out the will of the majority. Here’s hoping that this foul practice will be eliminated, along with the practitioners.

    1. Adam Evans says:

      Ever heard of tyranny of the majority? This is why we have an Republic and not an direct democracy.

      1. joeamerican says:

        3 rats in black robes overturned the people’s will…..

  20. Adam Evans says:

    Hey people, Civil Rights should never be voted by the people!!!

    1. Quayl says:

      That’s just silly. The constitution can be changed by a vote of the people. All rights emanate form the people.

      The problem is that the 14th amendment was never about gay marriage, and would have failed if it expressly permitted it, but now it is being (ab)used for a purpose for which it was never intended.

      1. Adam Evans says:

        So, would it be ok back in the 1960s if the Civil Rights act was voted by the people in the south?

  21. dr says:

    God also commands married couples to multiply…………I wonder how the gays plan on doing this……….

    Oh yeah……….they get to recruit in places like the Catholic Church, Elementary Schools, and Penn..is State University….

    The gay manifesto is coming true….

    1. Adam Evans says:

      hey dr, my wife and I can’t have kids. Is my marriage should be illegal because we can’t “multiply?”

      1. Jonathan A Acord says:

        Marriage is a union between an man and a woman period. Not 2 men or 3 mean or a man and a tree. Marriage is also a sacred union between GOD and man. Christians believe this is so. So called Gay marriage is disrespectful to Christians, not to mention a slap in GOD’s face. The people have spoken: NO GAY MARRIAGE!

    2. Eric Domejean says:

      So we should also outlaw marriage in which no children are produced.

      1. Jonathan A Acord says:

        It has nothing to do with multiplying..Marriage is between and man and a woman…it cheapens the real thing.. the people have spoken..NO GAY MARRIAGE…it is wrong and UN American for a GAY Judge to over rule the will of the people!

  22. Gina101 says:

    Of course the 9th District ruled it unconstitutional. It’s the NINTH District, the most overturned appeals court in the country because of their leftist ideology.

  23. wrol1776 says:

    Nullification! 10th Amendment! Death to Tyranny and Long Live the Republic!

  24. Mike G says:

    I am not the least bit surprised that the sodomites won in the Ninth Circuit. It will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide this issue.

    1. Adam Evans says:

      Bigots! Bigots everywhere!!!

  25. joeamerican says:

    thank the progressives and liberals for appointing these rats in black robes…..

    1. Eric Domejean says:

      You are welcome. Have a nice day

      1. joeamerican says:

        we can thank these same people for the Community Organizer in the white house…….he has already succeeded n feminizing our military.

  26. Rob H. says:

    At first I was alarmed at this, but then I saw that it came from the radicals at the 9th Circuit, the most overturned appeals court in the country.

    If the people can’t even be allowed to decide what marriage is, what power to the people really have?

    1. Adam Evans says:

      The people should have NO RIGHT controlling who has a right or not.

      1. mm says:

        Then why have elections? Let’s just have a dictatorship. Fact is, the will of the majority is being overturned.

      2. libertarian rob says:

        i completely agree

      3. libertarian rob says:

        with adam evans*

      4. Genuine_Christian says:

        you have a right to marry anyone you choose, pervert, as long as the other person is not a close relative, of legal age, and of the OPPOSITE SEX. you need a therapist, not a justice of the peace.

  27. Syrin says:

    SWEET!!

    Now we can marry our dogs and our car’s tail pipe. Why stop there? Marriage is now meaningless. Gays had to scream “WHAT ABOUT US?” Civil unions not good enough. had to hijack a millenia old religious based institution designed for the purpose of raising children, something biologically impossible to do through a gay couple.

    When can we marry our Platystations?

    1. Eric Domejean says:

      Can your dog consent, can your car?

      1. Syrin says:

        Since when does that matter? Hell, let’s remove consent.

      2. Chris says:

        No. They can’t. But a 12 year old little girl can. THAT’S okay, right? I mean, since we’re CHANGING LAWS why can’t I marry a 12 year old little girl if I’m a 65 year old truck driver feeling lonely on the open road. WHY SHOULD MY RIGHTS BE VIOLATED??

    2. Adam Evans says:

      No, why? Dogs and Playstations don’t have consent.

      1. Syrin says:

        Oh, NOW critieria matters? Does a feuts consent to abortion? Then REMOVE CONSENT !! Why stop anywhere? You moral relativists should be MORE than happy with that!

        Who says a tail pipe can’t consent? What does it matter iif a Playstation consents? Sincewhen do you moral relativist ass bags give a DAMN about consent?

    3. Chris says:

      COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER MYSELF.

      If we are going to open this door, then you might as well pull the whole thing down. If it is “unlawful” for a man and a man to marry, but we’re now changing laws to accommodate said couple, when are the laws going to change so that a 65 year old man can marry a 12 year old girl?

    4. Tom Jefferson says:

      Same argument they used against interracial marriage.

      Google “slippery slope fallacy”

      And… Come into the new century, the waters fine!

      1. Justin Case says:

        You must want to marry your 12 year old cousin

      2. mm says:

        Notice how Tom Jefferson could not answer the question.

    5. steve says:

      I sincerely hope you’re in therapy, and also that you’re not parenting anyone, or in fact responsible in any way for another human life…

      1. steve says:

        my comment was for sweet Syrin

      2. BillCNC says:

        Please point out were marriage is even mentioned in the constitution, … I can show you were religion is regulated in the constitution!

        Fact’s please!

  28. OutInTheOC says:

    And so the Hate continues…………

    1. Justin Case says:

      As it should

    2. Satan says:

      Love the hate…….keep it up!

  29. Syrin says:

    Will of the people? F*** YOU !!!! You are there to be RULED UPON !! Your desire has no meaning!

  30. terry says:

    Will of the people overturned—again.
    9th Circuit—I would be suprised if they did not vote this way!

  31. Dan King says:

    I was married. We had children. Nobody commanded us to have children. We had children because we wanted to have children. Can you really be a good parent when you are only doing it because you were commanded to?

  32. Harpo says:

    This is the uber-liberal most over-turned court in the US, did anyone expect anything else out of Dem?

  33. Brian Edwards says:

    and yet the california nitwit court has absolutely no problem with how california legislators indulge the state’s porn industry…..below are just a few examples.

    1. only california may legally produce pornographic materials such as pictures and videos…it is the state of california that governs the porn industry – not the federal government.

    2. the porn industry is taxed at less than 1 percent profit…there is porn in 60 countries…no country is taxed at less than 25 percent. ….IF NANCY IS SO KEEN ON RAISING NEW TAXES, SHE SHOULD START WITH HER STATE’S PORN INDUSTRY

    3. california has passed more than 12,000 laws regarding state businesses in the past ten years. NOT ONE LAW HAS BEEN PASSED REGARDING THE PORN INDUSTRY.

    4. earlier this month, los angeles, passed a law 11 to 1 to legalize that all porn industry actors must wear a condom when making videos…..in 2004, pelosi, senators barbara boxer and diane feinstein and all california liberals in the state senate sided with the porn industry that condoms were not necessary despite the fact that many AIDS groups, the CA health dept, and CA/OSHA were strongly in favor of mandatory condoms for porn actors.

  34. Tom Jefferson says:

    You people that act as though your views on marriage have been universally held through space and time are so poorly educated its laughable.

    Go find an ethnographic atlas and do some studying. FFS

  35. George Johnson says:

    Not surprised that they found three gay judges.
    Liberals only wanted to allow the vote because they thought they would win. once they lost, OH no! The vote is illegal!
    As long as it went their way, the vote was great. Such hypocrisy….
    I don’t care about gay marriage, just call it something else. You don’t call a car a truck do you? But *I* want to outlaw liberalism. They’re destroying the country, bit by bit….

  36. Dennis D says:

    Next they will demand the right to marry their German Shepherd. They will find animal ” experts ” who will claim tail wagging is a a sign the relationship is consensual.

  37. Mateo says:

    I’m sorry, but I’ll stick with 17,00 years of history, social mores, and natural law.

    If gays were to be married, wouldn’t it have happened a long time ago? What society would have supported the viceration of the family unit? none.

    Why should we do it now?

    1. Jayphly says:

      Women throughout this history were and still are (depending on who’s religion you cite) Property and marriage was created to strengthen that property right. To marry means to bring together as in a contract. So it was done primarily for men to maintain their status quo, money and breeding females to use as they desired. Women weren’t allowed to do the same with men. The entire history of “traditional marriage” was to solidify and preserve a mans property rights.
      Marriage as they knew it was for money not religion.

  38. juimbo says:

    marriage is between a man and a woman…period…the gays just want to make a mockery out of marriage

    1. BillCNC says:

      I think Gingrich has done that all by himself.

  39. Nobody says:

    Whatever everyone’s views are on prop 8, they should be appalled that a judge can invalidate a law even though the people voted for it en masse. I really don’t understand what is “unconstitutional” about a democratic vote by a huge majority enacting a law.

    For 3 judges to overrule tens of millions of voters should frighten everyone. I know home much the anti-prop 8 crowd hates the law, but do you anti folks know how hard it was to get that issue on the ballot. It required many thousand- thousands of signatures to get it on there first. They should be able to appreciate how much effort was taken to define a 7,000 year tradition and bedrock of civilization, no matter how much they hate it, instead of cheer a victory through an illegitimate judicial decision.

    Who guards against the guards?

  40. Faxx Fantum says:

    What about love? Fine! Good! Love whomever or whatever you like, love your dad, love your mom, love your doggy, love your country, but a license for love is not needed… In fact, there is no check-box for ‘love’ on a marriage license. Love is about protecting the one you love. If you love an alcoholic, would you give them a drink? If you love a drug abuser, would you encourage them to use drugs? If we love a person, we don’t encourage hurtful behavior.

    Government endorsement of same-sex marriage is harmful to both individuals and society. Traditional marriage provides children with both a man and a woman as role models, lowers health costs, the abortion rate, mental disorders, and lowers cases of child abuse. Protect those you love, support traditional marriage!

    1. Chad says:

      what in the hell does the ‘abortion rate’ have to do with gay marriage ? I can tell you one thing : If you show me 2 guys getting married, I’ll point out that those are two guys that sure as hell won’t be getting an abortion. See, it’s a win/win for everyone !

  41. Gordon says:

    It’s hilarious to me that the “conservative” commenters don’t see their own blatant hypocrisy here. If you really believe that government should stay out of people’s lives, then why did you support a measure that intruded on gay people’s lives to begin with?!

    A *TRUE* small-government conservative would agree that government should stay away from deciding who can and cannot be married. You can’t have your cake and eat it too – if you truly want small government for yourself like you claim, then you CANNOT use government to regulate the lives other people.

  42. ken says:

    The last time I checked….This ban was a Constitutional amendment. And the 9th Circus court uses the constitution as a standard. They can’t declare the constitution unconstitutional. This ruling will most definitely be overturned on the Supreme court level.

    1. joe says:

      i think they are saying it goes against the federal constitution, not the state constitution which was ammended

  43. stoptouchingthatmabel says:

    Were you expecting anything different from the 9th circuit then you need to do a little research.

  44. David Moore says:

    WOW What a surprise!
    These idiot deserve everything that is coming to them

  45. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

    When you can design a commercially viable aircraft with no additional cost or accommodations, which can fly with both wings on the same side of the fuselage, I’ll agree that gay “marriage” is possible.

    1. steve says:

      You Win!! You get the award for the the most incredibly stupid post in this crazy, hateful thread.
      We’re the laziest people in the world. Must be, when so few of us actually think and formulate our own opinions, instead letting our media, legislators, pastors and god help us… other bloggers…come up with our beliefs for us.

  46. David B says:

    The family is the normal way of life in the Natural world…..dems and libs will do anything possible to change that! Families interfer with dems socialist wet dreams….The state is your family now 905 !Forget the will of the people! Dems have votes to buy! And a constitution to destroy!

    1. David B says:

      my name is 905, and I just became alive, I’m the newest populator, on the planet we call earth, my mon was a test tube and my father was the contents…….

  47. Boycott CA says:

    And let the CBS San Fransicko censorship begin. Must promote the agenda.

  48. joeamerican says:

    CA, the land of fruits and nuts……..going bankrupt after normal people moving out of state.

  49. Rainbow Twinkie says:

    NO BIG GOVERNMENT! Except when it suits our beliefs. Then we can tell you what to do.

    In the meantime, when it comes to OUR lives – which are clearly more important than everyone else’s…NO BIG GOVERNMENT!

    1. Ray says:

      Yeah really! Why does the government have to get involved in condoning disgusting behavior that may go on in private behind closed doors. We don’t want to know about it!

      1. Chad says:

        If you don’t want to know about what goes on behind closed doors, stop peeping in their windows and mind your own damn business.

  50. Robert A. Ward Sr. says:

    9th Circus, the most overturned court in the history of the United States.

  51. Canadianeconomy says:

    If you people could vote on anything, you would vote yourselves tax cut after tax cut and then end up with a county that implodes. Wait a sec…

  52. jerry5555 says:

    Every single time the people of this wonderful country votes on allowing gay marriage, they have voted AGAINST IT, EVERY SINGLE TIME!. It’s these liberal judges that are allowing gay marriages in states. Big Picture – A vast majority of Americans do not want gay marriages. But the liberal media and judges will try to have us believe otherwise.

    On another note, if two men can marry each other, why can’t women have more than one husband or a man have more than one wife??? Every argument that gay people make to allow their marriage rights can be made by polygamists. So polygamists should get their way too, right????????????

  53. Brian says:

    Marrying to Women should be legal!!!!!!

  54. Shea says:

    Children have a right to be raised by their actual father and mother. Decades of study confirm this over and over again. It is funny how proponents of of play (excuse me gay) marriage make it all about them.

    The government is not in the business of enshrining anyones romantics feelings into law. The government does recognise real marriage because it is foundational to a healthy society. It is the only institution that creates new citizens.

    And when people say it doesn’t hurt anyone they are simple ignornning the children who will are the victims of social experimentation by this selfishness disguised as love. It is only self-love.

    And lets not forget the loss of religious liberty it has created (First Amendment anyone?). In state after state groups like Catholic Charities can no longer offer adoption services because they won’t adopt children out to be experimented on.

    Think with your brains people. Think of the children.

    1. Chad says:

      “It is the only institution that creates new citizens. ” People don’t have to be married to make a child. And, if the governments endorsement of marriage was simply to promote procreation, then they would encourage polygamy…not outlaw it.

      Got any other arguments? because your previous one just went down like the Hindenburg.

  55. Scott Douglas says:

    Look on the brightside… I can’t wait until

    Gay Divorce Court is on TV next year.

  56. CMM says:

    Oh my, real big surprise here. That the 9th circus court would side with the gay community. After the decision, Obama took them out to luch to praise thier actions…..

  57. Packard says:

    The “Nutty Ninth” strikes again.

    Anyone care to bet on how many days it will take SCOTUS to once again overturn the latest from the California perpetrators of low comedy and buffoonery?

  58. Rob says:

    i guess when 51% of people vote to kill the other 49% all these drudgereport republicans won’t have a problem with that either and they will be mad when a court overturns that vote.

    1. Chad says:

      We can only hope ! I figured this story must have been linked to Drudge. It’s REALLY easy to pick their comments (parroting) out of a crowd.

  59. Genuine_Christian says:

    Tennessee passed a constitutional amendment by 81%, so those perverts won’t be getting married here, nor will we recognize their arrangement if they dare to visit.

    1. Gordon says:

      And your username is “Genuine_Christian”?

      Lol, you haven’t read your own Bible, have you? Particularly the part about “love your neighbor as yourself” or “judge not lest ye be judged yourself”?

      1. Genuine_Christian says:

        God calls it perversion, and I follow Him. Your stupidity leads you to believe that “judge ye not” gives you a license to do anything you want, but you distort the scripture at your peril. The great thing about God is He will forgive anyone who repents, even sexual perverts. The problem is that your heart is hardened and you seek to destroy this country that we civilized in the early 1600’s, but we aren’t going to let you.

      2. Phil says:

        Actually, there were plenty of civilizations here before Christopher Columbus ever “discovered” America. White Europeans and their descendants committed genocide to claim this land to make room to practice their own beliefs. How “civilized” is that?

        How about I go burn a church full of people on a Sunday morning and claim the plot of land for myself and build a Jedi temple to promote the Jedi Code from Star Wars? How “civilized” would that be?

  60. Jon says:

    I hate to break the news to all of you supporters of “gay rights,” but no where in the constitution does it say there is a right to gay marriage…or straight marriage for that matter. Marriage is a state issue and a people issue, not a federal government or court issue. If your gay marriage argument holds true, then polygamy should also be a right and brother and sister marriage should be a right and so on and so fourth. In this case, the people….not the governement, but the people of California have spoken. If the people of California don’t like the result, then they can put the issue on the ballot again and again until it is approved by the people as opposed to allowing the courts to dictate policy to the people. Rather than opposing your fellow citizens, you should be supporting their right to vote how they see fit. This country needs an intellectual revolution more than anyone knows…….

  61. Jeff says:

    I’m not the least bit surprised that an ultra liberal court made this decision. The gay agenda continues to progress.
    God has yet to make it possible that 2 gay guys can reproduce and never will.

  62. Roy N says:

    Why does California even bother to hold elections? If the outcome doesn’t satisfy the political establishment, they just overturn the election in the courts. The voters be damned.

  63. Philosiraptor says:

    Wait, aren’t civil unions the same as Marriage, but just a different title? Did CA already recognize civil unions before Prop 8? I don’t live there, so I’m not sure. Assuming they did, and both are the same, what constitutional rights were being violated by Prop 8? Could voters THEN go back to the polls to vote that Marriage is recognized as 1 man 1 woman, but Civil Unions grant the same rights as Marriage, with a different name?

    1. Chad says:

      It’s not the same rights that are included with marriage. It takes all of 2 minutes to find this out for yourself, you have the internet…….

      1. Philosoraptor says:

        So why not make Civil Unions and Marriage the same legally, but obviously called something different? Problem solved. It would seem any counter-argument to this would be nothing but agenda peddling.

  64. Kanchuk says:

    When the Liberal agenda needs a boost, and the voice of the People needs to be squashed… there’s no need to fear, the 9th Circuit Court is here..!!!!

  65. Bob Williams says:

    Out of curiosity, if it is unconstitutional, how did these judges allow the measure to make it to the ballot in the first place? Sloppy work?

    1. Chad says:

      Judges don’t put measures (propositions in CA) on the ballot. Any more bright contributions to this discussion ?

  66. Paul Kinslow says:

    If this hasn’t been intentionally made into one of the most unnecessarily divisive issues of all time by the pro-gay activists, I don’t know what is. To say: “the voter-approved ban on gay marriage” when voters merely reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage in Prop 8 is as shameful as all other language the activist and media have thrown at those opposed to legally redefining the meaning of the word marriage. It is a sacred institution that has existed for thousands of years to many people. Whatever happen to the moderate group of Gay activists that wanted to expand domestic partnership rights to make that union equal to marriage from a legal standpoint? For the whole of the Gay community to seemingly take this divisive “take over marriage” tact that had formerly been only advocated by the fringe extremist activists has only further divided our country.

    1. Gordon says:

      Haha, your “sacred institution” is a lot less sacred than you probably think. In the Bible, polygamy is accepted and approved of all over the place, as is marrying your inlaws. For centuries, loveless arranged marriages for political and financial profit were the norm. In the modern day, divorce rates have soared and we see celebrity marriages being formed and dissolved all over the place with no more concern for the institution than the paper it’s written on.

      Basically, straight people ruined the “sanctity” of marriage long before the gays were in the news. Next argument, please.

      1. Ben says:

        So Gordon, you witty fellow, in his entire argument you chose to attack the 2 words he uses to describe marriage. Fine, it isn’t sacred, but that doesn’t invalidate his argument that the gays are still changing the definition of the word. Look up the definition. Good thing you didn’t attack his main point…you might have to re-define the word.

      2. Gordon says:

        But Ben, you’ve already answered your own question – if you agree that marriage has been different things throughout history, then you can’t be too upset about changing a simple definition. Words change meaning over time, any student of linguistics can tell you that.

        And even if it is “redefining” a word, why is that such a bad thing? I would consider it the mark of an educated and logical person to correct things that are wrong, wouldn’t you? Since we as a society have advanced to the point that it is perfectly reasonable for gay couples to be involved in loving, monogamous relationships, why wouldn’t we change the definition of marriage to fit that? They are already living the reality of marriage in every possible sense except for a piece of paper issued by the government that entitles them to different civil benefits and responsibilities. How is that any different from straight couples?

      3. Terry says:

        so what is wrong with a civil union that give people all the legal protection of a marriage without insulting the church and it’s followers?. Perhaps this way is not controversial enough for you and all the rest that want to change the status quo of a two thousand year old sacrament that has served us well.

      4. Gordon says:

        Terry, we as a country decided a long time ago that “separate but equal” is nothing more than a pseudonym for discrimination. You’re also being obtuse – if you honestly believe that gay people are doing this solely because they want to irritate someone, you’ve been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and not actually talking to gay people about it.

        What gay people want is civil marriage, which is a contract between two people to share their lives together, but most gay people I know want it because it is doing the same thing for them as it is for straight people – symbolizing the love, commitment and devotion between them. A “civil union” may carry the same rights on paper, but a marriage means that you are swearing to love and be faithful to another person in front of your friends and family. It is about joining the great social tradition of forging a family from two distinct people, and “civil union” just doesn’t cut it.

        Perhaps I should frame it this way: if “marriage” is just a word and civil unions should be just fine for gays, they should be just fine for straight people too, right? Would you be willing to give up the term “marriage” and just settle for civil union? If not, then you have no right to tell someone else that THEY should be content to do so themselves.

  67. David B says:

    If seperation exists should it be applied to the press? Seperation of press and state? Freedom of religion and press are in the same half sentence together! Doesn’t a ruling about one apply equally to the other?

    1. David B says:

      If not..”and make no law” means make no law isn’t separation then unconstitutional?????

  68. John Sheridan says:

    So a court in SAN FRANSISCO repeals a gay marriage law, who could have seen THAT coming?

  69. SDLATL says:

    Luckily, the Supreme Court overturns most of the 9th circuit’s decisions.

  70. Hedley Lamar says:

    What this means is that gay marriage must now be legal in every state – not just California. So, the Supreme Court will have to decide if the people of California have the right to vote for a state constitution that the federal courts don’t approve. And…. if Obama is re-elected, there’s a good chance, he’ll get to name another supreme court justice. All you fence sitters out there better take that into consideration. Obama has already gone on record saying he thinks our constitution is no good. He’ll pick another judge like Ginsberg who also thinks our constitution is no good.

    1. David B says:

      That is ok, the US military is sworn to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic…..Who wouldn’t love to see every progressive/liberal/communist/ marxist/dem leader arrested by the US military for being an enemy of the Constitution! just like the first civil war this has been brewing over a hundred years and needs to happen soon…only this will be bloodlesss…..

      1. Chad says:

        David B – Why do you hate you fellow Americans ? What’s wrong with you ? you seem to hate the constitution quite a bit if you dream of the day when those you disagree with will be arrested ….. I cannot think of any idea or desire more “unAmerican” than that…

        Good luck man

  71. D2Boston says:

    Matthew 19:5

    Signed, a gay man from Boston who witnesses first hand the travesty that is gay marriage… it’s all around me.

    1. b says:

      D2 – you don’t have to define yourself in such a way… I eat too much, but I don’t have to call myself an overeatist…🙂

      God bless you!
      B

  72. Kwills11 says:

    So behavior creates a ‘class’ of people who are free from the tyranny of the majority who may pass laws to curtail behavior or freedom? Why are any people in jail then? Rapists, murderers, pedophiles, thieves, are just victims of the predatory majority who pass laws that are deemed necessary to maintain good order. Are polygamists then also protected?

  73. Munkee says:

    Not once but twice the people of California have voted against such blasphamey.

    When special interest groups don’t get the vote they want,they take it to court.

    Live with it already, gay “marriage” is against the laws of nature and against the peoples will.

    1. Peter B. Towle says:

      AMEN!

  74. Kevin Kelly says:

    We’re now one step closer to Communism. Three “judges” just overturned the will of MILLIONS (literally) of California voters.

  75. Jon says:

    I hate to break the news to all of you supporters of “gay rights,” but no where in the constitution does it say there is a right to gay marriage…or straight marriage for that matter. Marriage is a state issue and a people issue, not a federal government or court issue. If your gay marriage argument holds true, then polygamy should also be a right and brother and sister marriage should be a right and so on and so fourth. In this case, the people….not the governement, but the people of California have spoken. If the people of California don’t like the result, then they can put the issue on the ballot again and again until it is approved by the people as opposed to allowing the courts to dictate policy to the people. Rather than opposing your fellow citizens, you should be supporting their right to vote how they see fit. This country needs an intellectual revolution more than anyone knows…….Liberals cannot argue with fact and logic and religious conservatives always introduce God into the argument. Tragic

  76. OhioAnon says:

    I look at it this way, if it goes to the Supreme Court the law will be upheld because there is not Constitutional right to marriage. This leaves the states free to decide, thankfully Ohio has already banned gay marriage.

  77. Tom says:

    Ugh, what a horiable interperation of law just to get what you want.

    Look to all you prop 8 supporters the government has no business licensing marriage in the first place.

    To you prop 8 opponents. The courts do not exist to be some moral arbiter.

    You are both wrong!

  78. tgc says:

    Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

    1. Chad says:

      Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
      9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
      10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
      11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
      12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

      have YOU ever eaten a shrimp ? SINNER !!!!! SINNER !!!!! SINNER!!!!!

  79. Mike Rodriquez says:

    Let those who are worried about the darkness of evil descending on this country not fret for one second. The Bible tells us that God’s word is the same today as it was yesterday, and it is the same forever. That been said his words are instructive of both his love and his justice for “all” mankind. His example to all of us in dealing with those who are disobedient regarding their sexual behavior is both historical and certain. None will avoid their own eternal destiny made of their own choosing as proscribed for all by God’s words, who choose the path of fools.

    1. Peter B. Towle says:

      Very wel stated. Thank you!

  80. Hedley Lamar says:

    One last point…. Does this mean federal courts will try to force pastors and churches to perform gay marriages or face prosecution for discrimination?

    1. Chad says:

      They want their commitment to each other recognized in a contract with the STATE. This has NOTHING to do with the church . I highly doubt any gay person wants to be married in an institution which openly hates and discriminates against them.

  81. Tired tired tired says:

    It amazes me the people of California (one of the most liberal states) voted in support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Now the federal government is ruling that the ban is unconstitutional. What happened to states rights? If you want to live in sin, don’t force it down my throat and don’t expect for me to support it. Just like federal and state funds should never be used to pay for abortions.

  82. dbuck2 says:

    For me it’s not an issue of being for or against gay marriage, but rather that courts have empowered themselves to ignore the voice of the people. By doing so, they undermine both Checks and Balances and our Democracy itself. I really don’t care about gay marriage, pro or vs. The voice of the people should not be thrown under the bus just because politically-biased judges have an agenda. THIS is the beginning of the end of our country.

  83. Lucy W says:

    Exactly! Just another way of the government getting some more control over what we do in our own lives. Why did we ever let them start the practice of making us get a license to get married in the first place.

  84. MadCharles says:

    like this ruling wasn’t expected from this crowd..

  85. gc says:

    Civil marriage pre-dates religious marriage. And this country wasn’t founded on Christianity/Christian values.

    1. Shea says:

      Judging by your knowledge of history you must have gone to a gr8 skool.

  86. Yukiko says:

    Why is this ruling a surprise to anyone? The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is without a doubt the most liberal court in the entire Federal Court System.. The verdict was known before the court even convened. This court as far as I know has had more decisions overturned than any other.

  87. Smarg says:

    Stick a fork in us. We’re done.

  88. IntelectOne says:

    The Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) is Constitutional. That is a Federal Law that defines Marriage as between One man and One women. The California Federal judges have no ‘Right’ to change the definition of Marriage; so what they are doing is actively changing the law from the bench and that is Unconstitutional.

  89. RodgerB. says:

    Disgusting sexual deviants don’t get special rights. The courts are a joke, the people have already spoken very loud and clear in every state, ever time this comes up for a vote. No means no.

    1. Gordon says:

      Luckily gay people are neither sexual deviants, nor are they asking for “special” rights, so we can agree that this was the proper ruling.🙂

  90. retired military says:

    ” But to impose your beliefs on someone else is not legal nor ethical.

    LIberals have no problem imposing their beliefs on gay marraige and abortion on the rest of us.

    1. Eric Domejean says:

      Who is forcing you to have a gay marriage, or an abortion?

  91. SerfCityHereWeCome says:

    Hmmm…yet more LEFT-WING DISENFRANCHISEMENT of all the blacks and Hispanics who voted overwhelmingly FOR Prop 8. Yawn…so what else is new…?

  92. Tony A says:

    I am an atheist, so I will leave religion out of it. I don’t see how not allowing gay marriage prevents gays from sharing their lives together. Throughout history, governments have acknowledged the benefits of marriage to society. Marriage encourages men to take care of their family, so society doesn’t have to. With gay people, there is no chance of an accidental pregnancy that society would otherwise have to take care of. Gay marriage is of no benefit to anyone other than those in the marriage. Society benefits from traditional marriage by causing men to take responsibility for their family.

    To change this, there needs to be a lot better argument than someone feeling discriminated against. As a single male, I am being discriminated against by my employer since married coworkers get the additional monetary benefit of healthcare for more than just themselves. Allowing gays to marry and get this benefit would be even more discrimination against me. Why shouldn’t I also get to extend healthcare to an additional person like all my married coworkers? The additional benefits that married coworkers cost my employer could otherwise be spent giving everyone a raise, or expanding the business. I’d rather see traditional marital benefits reexamined, than extended to people who can’t logically justify why they are entitled to them.

  93. Michael says:

    The 9th is the most over-turned court in the land, so I wouldn’t get too excited about this ruling just yet.

  94. Obama01 says:

    Why don’t we use the modifier ‘the liberal 9th district court?” Isn’t this how conservative insitutions are treated? Anyone who thought this was NOT going to be the decision was dreaming. You can celebrate, libs, but an overwhelming majority of your state, a liberal state, voted for it.

  95. Terry says:

    Can anyone explain to me why we pay the governments, both Federal and local, to Govern us, when it seems that the courts are doing it anyway? Government from the bench is so wrong, as it ignores the will of the people completely. Surely in America, we are supposed to have a Government that listens to the majority?

  96. MR Reformed says:

    Don’t be too hard on the gays Christians.God is letting the perverts play in their sand boxes a short time before they start their eternal burning.

  97. David H says:

    I couldn’t care less about gay marriage, or who sticks what into where. BUT, there is no constitutional “right” to get married, to a male, female, doorpost, outhouse, or the pet cat. If I’m missing something, please feel free to correct me with a quote from the Constitution of the United States where it says anything about anyone getting married. (Or having the “right” to vote. You don’t, you know). That said, it will be a pleasure seeing the Supreme Court voting it down, and sticking it into the eye of the judicial activists who invent laws as they go along. Gay marriage proponents, you backed the wrong political horse.

    1. Gordon says:

      Wrong – just because there is no express constitutional right to marriage doesn’t mean it isn’t interpreted that way. Look up Loving v. Virginia, a Supreme Court case from 1967. The unanimous opinion of the court stated that marriage is a “basic right of every man”, a “fundamental freedom” that we should all have the privilege of enjoying.

      So nobody is inventing a law here, they’re taking precedent from a previous ruling and (rightfully) applying it to another group in a comparable situation.

  98. jessix says:

    Wasn’t it the 9th Circuit Court that declared “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” unconstitutional? This set a precedent until Obama and his justice department appealed the decision. This moved the decision to Congress which barely overturned “DADT” in a “Lame Duck session”. This decision cancelled the Court’s unconstitutional ruling which had set a precedent.

    Now Obama wants credit for cancelling “DADT” when hia actions destroyed the first “unconstitutional” precedent which could have been used to overturn DOMA and all the other anti-gay rulings across the country. Had the court decision been allowed to stand, “DADT” would have been ended immediately and every person discharged from the service due to “DADT” would have gotten immediate reinstatement with back pay.

    At some point marriage needs to be available to all who want such a relationahip and its benefits.

  99. Steffi says:

    I still don’t understand what Prop 8 supporters are afraid of, but I sense that they must be very insecure. Otherwise, why get your knickers in a bunch over a lifestyle that is not yours and, I might add, no one is trying to force on you. Why can’t you extend those who are not like you the same courtesy? I find Prop 8 supporters to be be very fearful of people with differing view , many to the point of being racsist. Which is precisely why I want nothing to do with them. And by the way, I am forever heterosexual but have no fear of gay people. In fact, I usually find them to be more thoughtful, honorable and truthful than your average religious nut.

  100. gonedaddygone says:

    It was the 9th Circus Court so the ruling should not surprise anyone..

  101. ThomYorke says:

    I don’t think the government should be in the marriage business. There should be no penalties or benefits in the tax code for being married. I do think churches have the right to marry or not marry who ever they want to. Freedom of religion. I know several people personally, however, planning lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry gay couples. I thnk that is pushing their agenda way too far. Weren’t progressives against marriage in the 70’s anyway?

    1. Mono says:

      This guy knows whats up.

  102. Rplat says:

    Of course they did . . . what else did you expect from that left wing 9th circuit?

  103. LADY CON says:

    Poor, stupid people of California – you had the audacity to think your VOTE mattered! The Golden State is ruled by the liberal courts – what the people want doesn’t make a krap! Do the words PROP 187 ring a bell! THAT is why you are overrun with illegals. Your citizens should have risen up over that one 18 years ago.

    1. Chad says:

      Heres the thing though… the poor and stupid people of California WON’T actually be effected by this… it’s all in their minds ! gay people marrying each other wont actually effect them in any way ! None whatsoever, it has no bearing on their lives!

  104. slim picnic says:

    I hoping this will put an end to the bigotry that is keeping me and my mother from finally tying the knot. I suspect though, that my 52 y/o cousin and his gradeschool lover will have to wait a year or two before they are free from the tyranny of the majority who believe that the age of consent is anything but a purely puritanistic and arbitrary number.

  105. David Axelrod says:

    9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals = DOPEY Liberal Leftists

    If they had any common sense, they would realize that there is no such thing as gay “marriage”, just as there’s no such thing as a square “wheel”.

    You can invent a square “wheel” if you want. You can even call it a “wheel”….

    But normal people with common sense will immediately see that it is NOT a wheel.

    Same for gay marriage……

  106. Edward Boothe says:

    Really makes you proud to be an American. If I was a younger man I would be getting the hello out of here

  107. John Svengali says:

    Three leftist judges do not outweigh the majority of voters in a state. That is tyranny. There is no inherent Constitutional civil right for a sodomous so-called marriage.

    The radical and legally remedial concept of civil union was not enough for these zealots! This absurd result is the best argument against allowing an inch when they invariably take the mile, as all leftists do.

  108. Cogito says:

    We do not need to vote. We have three coke-addled troglodytes to run our lives.

  109. HPS says:

    Wait did not the people vote on this??? so the people of CA are being IGNORED??? hummm can you say DICTATORSHIP..

    1. Chad says:

      Hm, actually , it’s the constitution of the United States being upheld. The will of the majority does not trample the rights of the minority. Have you lived here all your life ? Any sentient American should know that that is one of the founding principles of our country and our liberties.

  110. Bob says:

    Once again the leftist/Communist courts of California overule the voters.

  111. Mono says:

    As a Christian, I am appalled by some of the comments I am reading here by so called Christians. These people know neither the teaching or the heart of Jesus.
    You religious snakes need to repent just as much, if not more than anyone else.

  112. Joe says:

    Any two consenting adults can get married. Father daughter, fine. Polygamy? Fine. There seems no standard other than consenting adults. That’s the religion of the day.

    And the idea of who cares, let them marry? Any bets on whether private organizations / church will have to endorse, condone gay marriage? Will preachers need to perform gay weddings? Will it be a civil right such that you can’t speak against it without being harassed in the courts for a hate crime?

    We’ll see how long before morality is forced on those of us who may not agree.

  113. BullPasture says:

    Regardless of what one thinks of gay marriage this ruling should be of concern for everyone who believes that there should be a rule of law. The California constitution was amended according to the lawful procedure. This court simply threw out the rule of law and the democratic process. The attempt by the court to find a constitutional basis for this is pathetic. They shouldn’t go through the motions and should simply say “we Decree.”

    1. Gordon says:

      Lots of unconstitutional laws pass and have to be declared as such by the courts because that’s not how the courts work! Allow me educate you on our governmental process… the judicial branch of government does not have the standing to tell the legislative branch that something is unconstitutional BEFORE it becomes a law – we have judicial review, which means that courts interpret the laws AFTER they are passed to make sure they are okay to be enforced.

      That’s how it’s always worked – there is no throwing out of the rule of law or democratic process just because a court case didn’t go the way you’d prefer.

  114. yousuck says:

    Know where the highest rate of marital infidelity occurs? The bible belt. SANCTITY!

    1. Shea says:

      Other people do bad things! That means we can do worse things because others are hypocrites! Yeah!

  115. Justin_Case says:

    tHe article says, “Prop. 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008 and outlawed same-sex marriages just five months after they became legal in California.” To be clear and accurate – same sex marriage was always ‘legal’ in California until some people tried to say it wasn’t. When a court finally told those people that it was legal and had always been legal, they decided to write Prop. 8 to attempt to make it illegal.

  116. uhm says:

    If it was such a big deal to an omnipotent being. He would change it. You thumpers have no notion of deity, only a smug sense of self righteousness that makes you believe you’re better than others. Sounds like a page from the Hitler playbook. Creeps.

  117. Da Big Red Haole says:

    “What God has put together, let no man put asunder.” What two men put together I don’t even want to get near…and what in the world is this deal that you have to get a license from the government to get married in the first place?

  118. Billy von Oceanside, Ca says:

    You and your partner should copulate and bring forth a child? Ohh…Mother Nature did not build you that way. I knew your ilk was delusional when I saw a story stating, “Man is pregnant” You want to redefine the definition of the word “Man”
    Dude, just be yourself, and love who you are. Quit pretending that you can live like heterosexuals. No one is violating your rights because you wish the redefine the definition of a word “marriage”.
    What is the obsession to call it Marriage? I do not get it. You want to pretend that you are married like a man and a woman. Be who and what you are and give it your own name and sanction. Marriage is an institution that throughout history has been defined as a man and a woman or a man and many women. Many cultures endorsed this union through church or religion and some not. In some cultures, the term means that the man owns the woman.
    It is a stupid argument. Government should get out of Marriage all together. It is discrimination to tax a person that wishes to be single more than a married or civil union person'(s).
    However, this society has a tradition of building around the family nucleus. If that is no longer the will of the people then tell the Government to get the hell out. You can then call it marriage, Civil-Union, or make up your own word like “kwanzian” or something. After two men are allowed to be married, I will ask to have several wives. There is historical precedence in that type of union. If a woman wants several husbands then go for it. However, when the people start auguring over property then they had better be sure they have a good lawyer up front. The lawyers always win.
    To think that because a society will not change the definition of a word violates someone’s rights is illogical.

  119. Reason says:

    Keep your theology OFF MY BIOLOGY.

    1. True Reason says:

      Your biology comports with our theology. Duh.

      Denying your biology is the problem.

      And secularist make fun of Christians for ignoring settled science.

  120. xxfireboy says:

    “the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled”.
    That is and has to be the ultimate joke in America history!
    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, clowns have spoken again, what
    BS!

  121. Coralchristie says:

    Shouldn’t the headline be…”APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! IN CALIFORNIA”?

  122. picomanning says:

    The Ninth Circus commits Californication, rationalizing it feels the Constitution is more about men corning other men than respecting the voters of California!

    Your California vote has just taken it in the arse by an appeals court no less!!! Your choice: Smile and take it until you learn to like it, or come to your senses and show some persistent anger!

  123. kcsparky says:

    Leave it to the 9th Liberal Court of Appeals to once again stomp all over the voters wishes. But look at where the court is located…..is it really a big surprise?

    1. BillCNC says:

      To bad you cant read, … if you could, you would understand what the constitution says on the matter, … but then again I have never seen a right winger that likes the constitution that they are always squawking about.

      But then again, … like bush said, … It’s nothing but a god damn piece of paper and that’s how most right wingers see it!

      1. Jim R says:

        ..tell us, just what does the constitution say?? It says it is a government for the people, by the people. And Federal rights are not to interfere with states rights.

      2. Cka Redstate America says:

        Too bad you’re not intelligent and smart enough to make your comment without making unsupportable accusations.

        But, alas, that’s always the default tool of your ilk, isn’t it?

  124. Dan Jenzon says:

    This isn’t about gay rights. It’s the first step in tyranny where the Feds tell you what is right or wrong. Never mind the will of the people.

  125. jesse s. says:

    just another loss for the decent people of America. another attack on the catholic church, and more publicity for the gays further shoving their agenda down our throats. you gays should be ashamed of yourselves and i solely blame you and that dimwit obama for the destruction of my country. god will put you in your place alongside satan.

    1. BillCNC says:

      Try reading the constitution. It’s very clear on the matter!

    2. Chad says:

      The catholic ‘chuch’ is nothing but a multi billion dollar shield for an international cabal of child rapists.

  126. Stafford says:

    The government has no constitutional authority over marriage – period. Marriage should be left to individuals – if you want your contract between yourself and your partner blessed by a pastor/etc. that’s your prerogative – a contract between two individuals should be upheld and/or dissolved without needing initial consent from the government.

    1. BillCNC says:

      A contract is not valid unless their is a government to enforce it. Their the one with the laws that CAN enforce it.

  127. Ron says:

    What is unconstitutional, is the fact that activist Democrat judges are usurping the right of the people to make their own laws.

    Gays are not discriminated under current marriage laws.

    Straight men are not allowed to marry other men, and neither are gay men.

    Both groups are treated exactly the same under the law!

    Therefore, there can be no discrimination. PERIOD! End of discussion.

  128. David Reber says:

    Wow there are some intellectually bankrupt people posting today. I am a straight, married individual and a constitutional libertarian. The US government has absolutely no authority over marriage. It CAN be a state issue but courts are their to protect the minority.

    Remember we do NOT live in a democracy. Democracy is mob rule which leads to inequality and lawlessness. Majority rules is neither ethical nor legal in a Republic. People like Rick Satantorum and all other maniacal social “conservatives” need to stop worrying about others and worry about themselves. The most ironic thing is that the most conservative GOP candidate is Ron Paul, but he alone will allow individuals to live their lives as they see fit.

    Mu marriage vows are only as sacred and meaningful as me and my wife make them. No one else’s marriage has any affect on ours.

    1. Ron says:

      I love how liberals like yourself tell lies and call names because you have no moral ground to stand on.

    2. Shea says:

      And this is why Libertarianism is silly.

      Your marriage has a direct effect on society. Why? Because the family is the foundation of a sound society and it is why the government recognizes the need to protect this pre-existing institution. We are not a nation of one man islands. We are a society. Government is there in service to the family. And a family is contains father, mother and children – raised in a stable environment. The founders took this for granted. They were not libertines.

      1. David Reber says:

        Wrong. The family is NOT the bass of society. The rule of law is the basis of a humanitarian society. Perhaps you should follow Christ’s teachings of “Do unto others as you’d have done unto you”

      2. steve says:

        @ shea… Have to concur with David R. Your argument has some holes. Government does indeed exist to protect the individual, not the family. Social conservatives are a bit maniacal, in that they want to create a society that obeys the rules ‘they’ believe are true. I’m with a fiscal conservative step for step, but stay out of people’s lives as much as possible. It’s called Individual Liberty.
        America is full of people living together, marrying, getting divorced, cheating, living alone… so your idealized view of what America ‘is’ simply isn’t.

    3. Cka Redstate America says:

      “Maniacal social ‘conservatives'”? Please, get a grip, layoff the pap you’re ingesting intellectually and emotionally–and then try to respond without the all-too-frequent put-down that your tribe seems to use when its members cannot give a response that has value.

  129. gc says:

    “Marriage is a union between an man and a woman period. Not 2 men or 3 mean or a man and a tree. Marriage is also a sacred union between GOD and man. Christians believe this is so. So called Gay marriage is disrespectful to Christians, not to mention a slap in GOD’s face. The people have spoken: NO GAY MARRIAGE!”

    “had to hijack a millenia old religious based institution designed for the purpose of raising children, something biologically impossible to do through a gay couple.”

    Civil marriage predates religious marriage. And marriage isn’t for procreation. Get over it.

    1. David Reber says:

      That’s YOUR definition of marriage! Please tell me how two gay men getting married has any effect on your life. Please tell me, I am dying to know.

  130. gc says:

    “Government endorsement of same-sex marriage is harmful to both individuals and society. Traditional marriage provides children with both a man and a woman as role models, lowers health costs, the abortion rate, mental disorders, and lowers cases of child abuse. Protect those you love, support traditional marriage!”

    Right… but the 50%+ divorce rates AREN’T harmful?

  131. MarkP says:

    Well, this should make the arguments against Man/boy or Man/bovine relationships a bit more difficult to support.

    Future three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
    “Proposition ?? serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of man/boy and man/bovine relationships in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”

    1. gc says:

      Boys and animals cannot consent, so there are no slippery slopes here at all.

  132. John says:

    ah the 9th Circuit Court; the most overturned Court in the United States of America. Nobody takes a ruling from the 9th Circuit seriously.

  133. gc says:

    “Children have a right to be raised by their actual father and mother. Decades of study confirm this over and over again..”

    Wrong.

  134. Earl Hutchinson says:

    You can call a table a chair, and even sit on it, but it’s still a table.

  135. Jim Morri says:

    And the court wins three lolipops!

  136. Ethan Parent says:

    Let me get this straight (no pun intended), you pass a proposition to amend the state constitution to only allow traditional marriage and this law is unconstitutional? By the way, the federal government has no jurisdiction in this matter as long as it stays within the State of California. Read the 10th amendment.

  137. Chris says:

    Why not change the headline to read that ‘Federal Court Rules that the Will of the People is Unconstitutional’?

    Another example of the 14th amendment being prostituted by special interest groups and twisted into something it was never intended for. It was meant to protect freed slaves. Period. Not illegal immigrants, gay marriage, or anything else.

  138. D Wheeler says:

    When you stray for the truth you open yourself up to deception, which lead to destruction and death. For me I choose truth and life.

  139. Steve says:

    California… the financially and morally bankrupt state.

  140. Billie says:

    You hateful breeders just need to STFU. If you’re not at a minimum bisexual, you have no right to be commenting here.

  141. Lojor says:

    Then one day the king of Sodom said “You know what I think? It would just be fair to allow any two men or any two woman to marry, and, oh, lets give them the right to demand sexual favor from anyone who happens to come to town, wouldn’t that be great! So let it be written so let it be done!”

    We all know how this edict turned out. Now just wait for it, it is on the way.

    1. Chad says:

      Oh, I know ! I know ! It turned out with Lot offering his daughters up for gang rape by the towns people, and being called a holy man by god for this ! And THEN, Lot and his daughters fled the town to a cave where Lot’s daughters got him drunk every night and had incestuous relations with him night after night !!!!

      That’s a great story, from the “Good” book nonetheless ! …. and you people have the never to think that gays are ‘depraved’, when you worship a book that contains this ?

  142. Cka Redstate America says:

    No surprise that the laughingstock of federal district courts rules against the wishes of the majority.

  143. Ariel says:

    Gay “marriage” is an oxymoron. Call it “civil unions” if you want. Give them the same legal protection if you want, but “marriage” by definition, is between male/female.

  144. Midge Martin says:

    Prince is living proof that Little Richard and Liberace had sex …..

    —– http://911essentials.com

  145. Mrs. Fudd says:

    Activist judges overturn the will of the people. This state and this country are becoming more and more like Soviet Russia. Our votes mean nothing when activists can take everything to court and trample on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Thank you, 9th Circuit Court, for telling the world that the vote of the American individual means squat.

  146. TRE says:

    Love between two consenting adults is LOVE.

    Let churches pick and choose who they want to love.

    If anyone really cares about the precious “sanctity” of marriage, then make Divorce illegal. Then no one would enter marriage lightly. Not even a Kardashian.

  147. Straight says:

    These supporters are simply just a bunch of “busy body” strangers that are just trying to force their values on the rest of the people. Relationships are PRIVATE MATTER and its NONE OF A STRANGERS BUSINESS. This proposition is discriminatory because it specifically targets a certain group of society.

  148. Max Walters says:

    So much for democracy – the power of the people (majority) is dead. The minority groups are taking over.

    1. BillCNC says:

      Not to racist are you?

      Please tell us how many times “Marriage” is mentioned in the constitution and then please tell us how many times religion is restrained in the constitution?

      You know, … the very thing bush called a “God Damned piece of paper”!

  149. I Love Justice says:

    Woohoo! Now that the court can overturned the people’s vote, let’s wrap this up and let’s have the court work on how to legalize all the illegals since they also want their equality. I’m so proud to be a Citizen oft his country and State. Let’s go California, let’s go!

  150. Jerry Frey says:

    The issue isn’t God, it’s common sense. On the Titanic it was women and children first, not Bruce and Goose.

  151. eRtwngr (@eRtwngr) says:

    As sue as the sun rises in the east, the 9th Circuit will impose its liberal secular ideology on the people sand will be overturned in kind by the Supreme Court of the land.

  152. Justice D. Nide says:

    No surprise here; the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals usually goes off the rails on a crazy train and the Supremes have to re-track them.

  153. mtnjak says:

    It does no such thing. Based on the 14th amendment, gays already have the same rights as any other U.S. citizen. Equal protection is already included; a man (no matter who or what he’s oriented towards) is already garanteed his right to marry a woman. What the 9th circus is really trying to say is gays somehow need special protection and special rights and a redefinition of marriage based on ones own volition.

  154. John Wayne says:

    The gays have the same rights as everyone else. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. They just want to change the definition of marriage. That’s what it is all about. It’s definitely not about equal rights. Cause they can do what they want behind closed doors, but that should not be called marriage. Cause it isn’t.

  155. Ken says:

    It is the court’s duty to overturn the “will of the people” in this case because the majority attempted to enact a law that detrimented a minority. Prop 8 won’t stand up in any court. The Supreme Court might throw it out on a technicality, but there are numerous other laws being challenged up through the ranks right now, and one of them is going to force a ruling from them.

    Previous cases have set the precedent that gays are clearly a “suspect class” and that their relationships have equal protection under the law. Marriage rights will be no different. They will earn it sooner than later, and the bible belt will be furious for a few years…. then realize it didn’t make a big difference after all, and move on to hating someone else.

    1. CAnative Okie says:

      Ken, I’m not sure when or where it became the court’s duty to overturn the “will of the people” in any case that does not clearly involve the powers enumerated for the Federal Government in the Constitution. I defy anyone to lucidly argue that defining marriage is an enumerated power of the Feds. Absent that, it is a power left to the States, or to the People. See 10th Amendment.

  156. Jake says:

    Wow – so the unelected “elites” get to over-rule the will of the people in a democratically held election. Why even hold evelctions if the elitists can call
    the results invalid if it’s not to their liking?

    1. Cathy says:

      Don’t you know by now the law only works when it’s the liberal agenda, not the will of the people. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and will always be. These two men getting “married” make me ill.

  157. Ian says:

    I don’t understand the argument here. How does a gay couple being married affect anyone other than the couple getting married any more than a man and woman getting married affects people other than them. Them getting married doesn’t lessen the value of the male and female couples marriage and if there is a God, he will judge these people as they come to him. You cant use the argument of moral decline either because many people that are against gay marriage say that they’re for civil unions, so the moral aspect remains the same

    1. Ian says:

      I’m actually looking for responses. I like to know both sides of an argument so that I can make an informed, logical conclusion. How does gay people getting married affect anyone other than those getting married making this a topic of such discussion

  158. CAnative Okie says:

    Isn’t this fun? All of us “Religious Nuts” trying to convert the perverts by quoting the Bible and the Constitution to people who don’t believe in either. Why don’t we just wait and see what SCOTUS does with this? If my side doesn’t like it, then we can try to convince 2/3 of the state legislatures to call an Article 5 Convention to ban SSM (and activist judges). If the G&L crowd doesn’t like it, they can try the same for their point of view. Either way, let’s crank down the noise and save our energy. We have a Commie Pinko Liberal president to defeat.

  159. pjsmith says:

    interesting how this always comes up right before an election – ninth circuit times this just exactly about the same time every election year. why?

    so we can see more huge gay men terrorize little old ladies with styrofoam crosses? guess we all better be afraid to cross the gay community.

  160. JohnnyD says:

    Isn’t the ruling logical? The ruling stuck to guidelines of non-discriminatory legislation regarding a protected class. No one is being harmed by the right to marry who you wish, yet a section of citizenry is being harmed and discriminated against by potential legislation like Prop. 8 as well as any Marriage Protection Act.

    Bigotry and zealotry makes no sense, especially regarding the conservative’s hypocrisy of “smaller government” yet the overwhelming desire to intervene in the bedroom. That’s where you want to pick your battle? The bedroom?

    And if another fundamentalist (and I use that term the same way I would use someone filled with such insecure hatred like the terrorists of 9/11) brings up judgement day, I have an overwhelming theological reference for you that cannot be argued, “Do not judge lest ye be judged.” It must be so amazing to be pure and righteous. Flawless, eh?
    How many who spew such vitriolic hatred themselves live in a world of denial?

    Let the citizens of the United States be free to do what they want in the privacy of their own lives and homes. I mean, your stupidity doesn’t affect me, and I believe you have every right to remain a mental amoeba and chastise those who think and act differently than you.

    There are several organizations that welcome extreme intolerance. The Nazi Party. Al Quaeda. The Taliban. Join them, and see how much blogging and internet perusal you can pursue.

  161. JohnnyD says:

    It isn’t excepted. It has actually been accepted. Hence the ruling.

    Your argument is invalid. Gay rights doesn’t hurt you. It doesn’t affect your taxes. It doesn’t affect YOUR morality. So what concern is it to you what happens in someone else’s bedroom. Are you that voyeuristic? And absurdity of bringing in different species and inanimate objects is idiotic. Gays are human. Were you aware of that? They are actually red-blooded human beings that deserve every aspect of dignity, respect, and tolerance that we must also bestow upon Darwinian intellectual sloths.

    “…don’t force it on us…” Wow. What is being forced? Are they going to tie you to a chair and make you watch to girls make out?

    Its intolerance that will make us less of a nation. We might as well join the Taliban so we can persecute and murder those who don’t exist as we see fit.

    1. JohnnyD says:

      So why is divorce legal?

    2. gc says:

      Nice generalizations!

    3. skeeboMacbane says:

      Sorry bud your wrong rights are voted on not granted by judges. If you want to skirt the constitution then change the constitution. Until that happens you Pi$$ing in the wind.

    4. Phil says:

      Well said. Unless a couple of guys break into my house and start having sex with each other and ask me if I want to join in, it doesn’t affect me. Until then, live and let live.

      Lewis Black has a great bit about exactly this issue. Hilarious and yet sad because people can’t just leave each other alone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFnUJ3QosVU

  162. Jim L says:

    And yet another winner from the loony 9 circuit.

  163. Vince says:

    Marriage is not a RIGHT. Show me where in the Constitution that marriage is listed as a right. The Constitution DOES say that “powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.” What part of that do you gay rights activists not understand? Oh that’s right, I forgot. You only follow the Constitution when it suits you. Got it.

  164. GaryB says:

    The actions of unelected judges whose rulings invalidate the policy decisions made by elected officials has also been described with the political epithet, judicial tyranny. This ruling goes against the 14th amendment and has no foundation within the constitution. It is “We the People” who has the final decision not any government branch (Executive, Legislative, Judaical).

  165. Moose says:

    No news here.

    They 9th deranged circuit of appeals will be overturned as they always are after wacky verdicts

  166. Jim L says:

    Johnny d; “What is being forced”? . What in the world makes you think you have the right to change the definition of a word? I do call that forced. You can have your “gay rights” . You say I’m intolerant? It’s a lack of morality that makes us less of a nation. A nation without values isn’t worth very much. Change for the sake of tolerance is an incredibly weak concept.

    1. JohnnyD says:

      Move to Iran. They have no desire to change for the sake of tolerance. And they have a great deal of values under the Ayatollah.

      1. Jim L says:

        Really? Is that the best you can do? Your lack of intellectual argument says volumes. That is so typical of the left when they have no substance. They demagogue and call names. Please don’t waste my time any further with your diatribe.

  167. BillCNC says:

    Please tell us how many times “Marriage” is mentioned in the constitution and then please tell us how many times “religion is restrained” in the constitution?

    You know, … the very thing bush called a “God Damned piece of paper”!

  168. Ryan Mouk says:

    Watch out you bible thumping right wing conservative hypocrites……the gays are coming. HA!!!! Good win for freedom. Bad win for those who wish to control peoples lives through religious fear.

  169. JohnnyD says:

    I guess it depends what you decide to teach them, Mars. America! The great country of blacks being defined as property and women unable to vote. Yep, used to be a great country of freedom for all.

    I weep for the education that you will bestow upon your children.

    1. BillCNC says:

      Excellent Comment!😉

  170. eight ball in the side pocket says:

    hmmm didn’t post my comment Liberal Illness strikes again

  171. Sam says:

    Proposition 8 applied equally to all people. The judges actually have to twist facts and logic to conclude that the Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court is comprised of evil extremist radicals who cheated on the bar exam.

  172. malcom says:

    there is no equal protection under the law. Thats why NObama gives out waivers to union jobs for nobama care, thats why you legally discriminate against Whites in the hiring process and college acceptance and hide behind the word ‘diversity’. Freedom in America is only an illusion.

  173. ConservativeProf says:

    Perfect timing. Just before a Presidential election. Couldn’t be better for Conservatives.

  174. Malcom says:

    HOW DO YOU CATHOLICS FEEL NOW ABOUT SUPPORTING A RACIST, BABY KILLER, GAY LOVING LIBERAL LIKE NOBAMA??? you get what you deserve for supporting the Anti Chirst.

    1. BillCNC says:

      Sorry, … but blacks cant be racist, … Racism is only committed by those in power. Obama, … one man, … is not power.

      1. steve says:

        Blacks can’t be racist? That’s idiotic.

  175. hated says:

    Curses on all of you.

  176. Leland Williams Jr. says:

    TOTALITARIANISM. The People Decided but the DEMONCRATS have stuffed the COURTS with LIBERAL LACKIES, including the gay guy who wears robes. Down with the Democrats. Down with Totalitarianism. endtimesurvivalguide dought calm.

  177. akgr says:

    next up, equal protection for zoophiles and pedophiles! yay, 9th court! but if the 14th applies to marriage, shouldn’t I qualify for every other federal benefit?? where the F are my food stamps, education grants, and welfare checks!??!?

  178. skeeboMacbane says:

    To steal a line from the illegal immigration debate, what part of “civil” don’t you understand?

    If the current argument being made for overturning the voter’s ban of same-sex marriage—“It’s Wrong To Vote On Anyone’s Rights”–is an indication of the gay community’s understanding of basic civics, our real crisis isn’t marriage. It’s education.

    Arguing that citizens shouldn’t vote on “civil” rights is like arguing that teenage girls shouldn’t vote for the next American Idol. It is truly clueless.

    You want to abandon the “one man, one woman” marriage tradition? Fine. You believe that people should have the right to decide for themselves what marriage is, and it’s nobody else’s business? Great.

    None of this has anything to do, however, with what should be legal. Legal—you know, like the law?

    The geniuses pushing to overturn a popular vote on the definition of marriage in California can’t seem to grasp the most fundamental fact about laws: They all come from the people.

    It’s an old and once-proud concept known as “the consent of the governed,” one of the two founding principals of American democracy. The other is “the rule of law.” Everyone this side of the Taliban (and, alas, Gov. Patrick) understands this.

    When liberals like Governor Patrick spout the “citizens shouldn’t vote on civil rights” nonsense, he’s embarrassing both himself and the Constitutional Law department of Harvard U.

    Pro same-sex marriage advocates like our own MassEquity claim that voting on a marriage amendment would be “the first time in…history [that] we would be allowing one group of people to vote on the civil rights of another group of people.” Somebody needs to get them a subscription to the History Channel.

    Who do they think cast the ballots in favor of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote? Obviously not the ladies. Who do they think voted to end slavery in America and grant constitutional rights to black Americans—the Rainbow Coalition of 1866?

    Gay marriage advocates are utterly wrong on rights. The fact is, every civil right we enjoy today was approved by free people through the democratic process.

    The one major exception is abortion, and we can all see how well that turned out. The US Supreme Court acted via judicial fiat to strip citizens of their right to regulate abortion, and thirty years later we’re as angry and divided by the issue as ever.

    Once again, the issue isn’t abortion, or marriage, or love or hate. There is only one issue here: Democracy itself.

    The idea that our laws should be handed down to us from On High may be popular in Saudi Arabia and certain parts of Utah. But supporters of constitutional democracy understand that the “divine right of courts” is no more appealing for Americans today than the “divine right of kings” was in 1776.

    If they really want same-sex marriage, gay-rights advocates will stop fighting democracy and start debating the merits of their cause.

    Because it’s wrong to make rights without anyone’s vote.

    1. BillCNC says:

      It has nothing to do with what the people want, … it has to do with the LAW. Equal rights under the Constitution, … that’s it!

      If you want that tossed, … then change the constitution.

      1. Greg B says:

        I want to marry my daughter. And my mom. And my sister, all at once. Stop oppressing me and crushing fairness, Bill, you psychopathic bootlicker.

      2. BillCNC says:

        WOW, … I’m a boot liker for stating the law and the obvious? Go Figure!

        Now I will state something else that is quite obvious in your case, …

        You must be a right winger from the south. I hear their is plenty of folks like you down there who inbreed, .. so what the hell are you complaining about something that is not even in the state you live in?

    2. Greg says:

      Good post Skeebo. People seem to equate civil rights with natural rights. Civil rights are those rights bestowed by government. Government can decide for you what civil rights you shall have. These may conflict with natural rights such as free speech conflicting with discrimination. There is no reason for government to be in the marriage game at all.

  179. MBADave says:

    MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.
    Government should divorce itself from the marriage business in the first place, then all these issues evaporate. We don’t need to include gay citizens under our current marriage laws, we need to get rid of current marriage laws for hetero citizens. A marriage is the private business between (usually) 2 people… NOT the 2 people AND the Government!!!. It is NONE of the government’s business to know whom I am married to, or even IF I am married. This is my own business! If Churches, etc want to define their own religious sacraments, FINE. Its strictly voluntary.

    1. Greg says:

      Government is in the marriage business because it figure out that it could collect a fee for marriage licenses. You are totally correct. Government should just drop the marriage business altogether. All the idiots arguing one way or another are missing the point. Why do we grant the government the power to tell us who we can or can not marry.

  180. Tim Crowley says:

    It’s a good day for Justic, Equal Rights and the American people. A sad day for ignorant bigots.

  181. skeeboMacbane says:

    Too bad they skirted the very law they are supposed to uphold.

  182. Satan says:

    Love reading all the hate……keep it up.

  183. Greg B says:

    The constitution is 220 years old – generations of gays should be able to sue every government entity in sight for billions! All government at all levels has been shattering the constitution RE gays for 200+ years! Wow – who knew?

    F*CK YOU, judicial oligarchs.

  184. Depeche Moder says:

    Love the gays I know, but this is wrong. Marriage should be man and woman. Sorry my gay friends and co-workers wont tell you yo your face.

  185. Thomas LoCurto says:

    Laws banning interracial marriage had popular support in the south as well when the Supreme Court ruled those laws illegal. The will of the people can be wrong – that’s why we have a constitution and a judicial system and the reason that we are a Republic and not a direct Democracy.

  186. pete says:

    >”14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.”<

    Another one that only applies to the few above the many.

    Where's the "equal protection" of MY Christian beliefs?

    Where's the "equal protection" of unborn babies?

    Where's the "equal protection" of MY insider trading? (Congress only changed insider trading laws to block politicians and their families and buddies from trading for a year or two while the discuss who, when, and how they will control an IPO to operate. Now they can only trade for 30 days prior to a bill being signed.)

  187. Jayphly says:

    This country was built upon certain inailienable rights. God given rights. When it was signed slavery was an accepted practice and the constitution did not apply to slaves as well as many other groups such as indiginous peoples. Over time the evolution of our interpretation of the constituion by amendments or court rulings has extended the constitution to include these people which went against the will of the people at that time. We even went to war over it. Many peoples blood was spilled to defend it. I find it hard to believe anyone comenting on this thread would ague against this historical progression. This decision is reflective of that history. We all have the same rights under the constitution.
    Now, to those on this thread that question the judiciary branch of government, why don’t you propose a new constitution? Since the separation of powers includes the three branches of government you will need to accomplish this. The judiciary in case you missed elimentary school is one of the three branches of governmet meant to creat balance.
    It seems to me that there are so many people willing to invest time in posting responses that they should have a better use of their time in learing about the constitution we have rather than ranting foolishly and without intelligent thought about how bad it is. This is what we have inherited. Please do your homework and understand that the separation of powers was meant to be a check and balance system wich would keep us safe from majority rule or tyrrany.
    This is the USA. The greatest country man has ever had the honor of creating. Learn about it. it will serve you well. Then maybe you can explain why you would want to destroy it but getting rid of or subjugating one branch of it, the judiciary

  188. Greg says:

    Gee, no reason??? How about only a man and a woman can create children. Science still hasn’t figured out how to make babies without sperm or an egg. Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman to remain together to raise the children they bring into this world. Further, the government should not be in the marriage business as it is a religious ceremony dating back thousands of years.

    1. BillCNC says:

      I guess you’ll pull out all the stops to deny someones equality rights, … wont you.

      Ok, … let’s go off of your presumption that it’s only reserved for a man and a woman because they can have babies.

      Now what are you going to do to the “Man and a Woman” couple that are sterile and cant have kids, …. Well Mr. Smarty pants, … What’s you silly reasoning now?

    2. BillCNC says:

      Also, … let’s take the marriage ceremony, …

      We are gathered her in the presence of, … WHO? (makes gawd just another guest)

      By the power invested in my by the WHO? (seems that the government has the power, … now doesn’t it. Gee, … I wonder why?

      Apparently, … your not only wrong, … your wrong on several accounts!

  189. Inifffub says:

    must check Vestidos de noche online shopping

  190. tv amr says:

    Pretty nice post. I simply discovered your web site and desired to claim that Ive truly enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any event We’re subscribing to your rss and that i we imagine you write again as soon as possible!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More From CBS San Francisco

Get The New CBS SF Bay Area Local App
Got Our Weather App?

Listen Live