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.”

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.)

  • Ken Kellogg

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

    • Nance

      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.

    • BrianM

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

    • CaliGal

      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.

      • BillCNC

        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?

    • Chad

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

    • Jim In Frankfort

      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?

    • Peter B. Towle


      • BillCNC

        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.

      • The Moral Majority is Neither

        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.

      • Early bird

        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.

      • az-heat

        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.

      • The One

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



        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.

      • your god isn't real

        @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.

      • Pajama Mamma

        @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.

      • IntelectOne

        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.

      • BillCNC

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

      • S1

        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.


      • JunkleJoe

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

    • Ardg65

      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.

      • mahtin


        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.!

      • BillCNC

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

        Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

      • Ardg65

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

      • 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.

      • Jim in San Mateo

        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.

      • ranger

        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

      • BJ

        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.

      • ranger

        @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

      • paperpushermj

        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.

    • Anita

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

      • zrodfx

        Tolerance is for people without convictions….

      • Michael Kriegel

        Rational thinking has been dead for many years in California.

      • JoJoscall

        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.!

      • David H

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

      • Flayer

        Is there ANYTHING you won’t “tolerate”?

    • MK

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

    • Andrea Naticchione

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

      • Paula

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

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

      • Sam

        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.

      • Glen

        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.

      • Rooty

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

    • Reality

      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.

      • Laura

        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.

    • VulpesRex

      @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.

      • BillCNC

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

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

      • Matilda

        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.

      • Dan

        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.

      • Anita

        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.

      • BillCNC

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

    • IntelectOne

      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.

      • Mike

        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.

    • Good Ole' Charlie Manson

      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.

    • IntelectOne

      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.

    • tubaman

      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!!!

    • LandSteward

      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.

    • CH

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

  • Peter B. Towle

    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”

    • Gnossis

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

      • LTCB

        Try the Bible dufuss.

      • Peter B. Towle

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

      • Moral Majority

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

      • The One

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



        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.

      • fedupwithyoulibs

        Not the one you read in Oscar Wilde.

    • Adam Evans

      Peter, keep your god out of our lives.

      • tenaciousd1975

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

      • Tom Jefferson

        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.

      • Moral Majority

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

      • Peter B. Towle

        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.

      • Rainbow Twinkie

        Moral Majority –

        Must be rough being in the closet.

      • Sandy

        Adam keep your perversions out of our lives!

      • Moral Majority

        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.

      • God's Not Dead

        It’s Sodom and Gomorrah all over again.

      • jasperddbgghost

        Get out of my son.

      • Tom Tucker

        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.

      • Mono

        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.

      • Marilyn Banner

        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.

      • yana

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

      • JackBnimble

        @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?

    • Dan King

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

      • joeamerican

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

      • owl gore

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

      • ECH

        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.

      • saved by faith

        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.

      • 4petessake

        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.

      • Daniel Bryant


        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

    • Jose Arciniega

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

    • Nibbs

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

      • Peter B. Towle

        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.

      • Phil

        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.

      • Chris

        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.

      • Phil

        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.

      • Ian

        Bravo, Phil. Well said.

    • Eric Domejean

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

      • Endoxa52

        Give it time.

      • Sandy

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

      • mia law

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


        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!

    • Truth

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

    • Word to Peter's Mother

      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

      • tenaciousd1975

        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?

      • JimS

        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.

      • Tom Jefferson

        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

      • Endoa52

        Secular Humanism is a religion.

      • JimS

        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.

      • Genuine_Christian

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

      • Phil

        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.

      • Chad

        “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.

    • James Lockridge

      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.

      • ECH

        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.

      • Chad

        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.

    • Christine Craft

      god is gay.

    • Christine Craft

      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

      • Billy von Oceanside, Ca

        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!!!

      • Chad

        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.

    • dan

      [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.

      • dansBoyfriend


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

      • Dan

        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.

      • dansBoyfriend

        @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?

      • John Fox

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

    • Randy Bobandy

      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.

    • Bishop Pat

      Who cares about God?

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


    • Michael Lohr

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

    • Mikey A

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

    • sean patriot

      Marriage is a man made construct

      • Phil

        As is religion!

    • Billy von Oceanside, Ca

      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”.


      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?

    • John Fox

      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.

    • asasd

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

    • sean patriot

      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.

    • LLinLa

      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.

    • asdasd

      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.

    • Jan Vones

      You think the LORD screams in ALL CAPS?

    • Stu in Iowa

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

  • Factchecker

    Gay judges, no doubt.

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

    • Dan

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

      • Factchecker

        Free elections are constitutional madam.

      • Phil

        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.

    • TiredofExtremes

      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).

  • zjak

    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.

    • hurdle to gay marriage

      “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…

      • tiernanlaw

        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!

      • Chad

        “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.

    • times

      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.

      • Zjak

        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.

      • times

        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.

    • MK

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

      • 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?

      • The Law

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

  • Jonathan A Acord

    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.

    • Adam Evans

      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.

      • EXFED4

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

      • Mark

        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.

      • JMB

        Mark, they are called judges….

    • JB

      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.

      • tiernanlaw

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

  • joeamerican

    liberalism is a mental disorder……proved once again

    • Randy Bobandy

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

      • Phil

        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).

      • LeisureSuitLarry

        Got it. So now you lie about your lying.

        How’s that a Libertarian again?

      • LeisureSuitLarry

        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.

      • Phil

        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!

      • Phil

        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

      • LeisureSuitLarry

        *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.


      • Phil

        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!

      • joeamerican

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

      • Phil

        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.

      • Moral Majority
      • Phil

        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.

      • Phil

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

      • LeisureSuitLarry


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



  • jesse marcel

    Why bother having free elections!

    • Eric Domejean

      Just because you vote for discrimination does not make it legal

      • Jonathan A Acord

        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.

      • ArcherB

        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)

      • Gordon

        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.

    • Bubba

      Why even bother having constitutions!

  • stopthe

    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.

  • Ethan

    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!!!!

    • BPinTX

      You are exactly right, Ethan.

      • Bubba

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

    • Chad

      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.

  • redrunner262

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

  • BPinTX

    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?

    • Bubba

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

    • Gordon

      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.

      • Ben

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

      • Gordon

        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?

  • James

    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.

    • JR Esq

      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.

  • Jim in Houston

    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.

  • wrol1776

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

    • David Latham

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

      • wrol1776

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

  • Quayle

    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.

  • David Maxwell

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

    • Eric Domejean

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

      • observer

        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.

  • Shaun

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

  • Reginald Winthorp

    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.

    • Chad

      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?

    • Jayphly

      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.

  • EXFED4

    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.

    • Adam Evans

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

      • joeamerican

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

  • Adam Evans

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

    • Quayl

      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.

      • Adam Evans

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

  • dr

    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….

    • Adam Evans

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

      • Jonathan A Acord

        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!

    • Eric Domejean

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

      • Jonathan A Acord

        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!

  • Gina101

    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.

  • wrol1776

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

  • Mike G

    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.

    • Adam Evans

      Bigots! Bigots everywhere!!!

  • joeamerican

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

    • Eric Domejean

      You are welcome. Have a nice day

      • joeamerican

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

blog comments powered by Disqus
Shine A Light On The Holiday Season With ‘Giving Tuesday’
Food For Families Drive

Listen Live