August 5th, 2010
12:52 PM ET

The buzz on Proposition 8 ruling

A federal judge in California struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday, ruling that voter-approved Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution and handing supporters of gay rights a major victory in a case that both sides say is sure to wind up before the Supreme Court.

As soon as the ruling was handed down, iReporters, celebrities and politicians began to share their thoughts on the potentially landmark decision. Columnists and news and political organizations soon followed with opinions that varied from calling the ruling one of the biggest decisions in our lifetime to seeing it as a completely overreaching attempt at judicial activism.

Here's what they had to say:

'Unforgettable lesson'

"We strenuously hope that [U.S. District Judge Vaughn] Walker's decision will be upheld by the high court. But no matter what happens, the trial in San Francisco delivered an unforgettable lesson in what Proposition 8 and same-sex marriage really mean.

"From now on, it will be harder for opponents of same-sex unions to continue mouthing canards. The public as well as the courts have had an opportunity to hear the facts. The debate over same-sex marriage will never be quite the same again."
- Los Angeles Times editorial

'Discrimination, prejudice'

"Proposition 8 was based on discrimination, prejudice and religion. The Constitution protects rights of the individuals that often the majority would take away from the minority. That's why we don't vote on these issues."
- iReporter Cliff Olney of Watertown, New York

'Extreme judicial activism'

"Today's decision by a federal district judge in San Francisco striking down state constitutional protections for marriage and inventing a spurious federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage is an example of extreme judicial activism. Moreover, it is an affront to the millions of California voters who approved Proposition 8 in 2008 after months of vigorous public debate.

"Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The people of California, and the United States, have made clear in numerous ways that they have not consented to the redefinition of marriage. For the past two decades they have considered the arguments advanced by some for overturning marriage as it has been understood in our country. In state after state — 45 in all - they have chosen to reaffirm the meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They have done so because they understand that establishing same-sex marriage would transform the institution into a set of private interests rather than buttress it as a multi-generational reality binding mothers, fathers and their children biologically, socially and legally."
- Chuck Donovan of the Heritage Foundation

iReport: What's your take? Tell us your thoughts on Proposition 8 ruling

'Instant landmark'

"The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults.

"As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker's opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail."

- New York Times editorial

'Unforgettable lesson'

"Years from now, when all Americans finally are permitted to marry the person they choose, we'll look back on today's ruling by Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker as a historic milestone - a moment when the opponents of equality were exposed for the hypocrisy and absurdity of their arguments. Defenders of the 2008 initiative presented just two witnesses, neither of whom could offer any credible evidence that gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage or that barring gays from marrying promotes any legitimate state interest.

"It wasn't poor courtroom maneuvering that led to this outcome. Says David Boies, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs: 'They didn't fail because they're bad lawyers, they failed because there isn't any evidence to support the argument they're Advertisement advocating.' "
- San Jose Mercury News editorial

'Filled with broad pronouncements'

"In reading so far, I think a notable feature of Judge Walker's decision is its judicial maximalism - a willingness to reach out and decide fundamental constitutional questions not strictly necessary to reach the result. It is also, in maximalist style, filled with broad pronouncements about the essential characteristics of marriage and confident conclusions about social science. This maximalism will make the decision an even bigger target for either the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. If that's right, it magnifies the potential for unintended and harmful consequences for gay-rights claims even beyond the issue of marriage. ...

"If the Ninth Circuit and/or Supreme Court decide to reverse Walker's ruling, they will be more likely to deal with this issue in a way that will set broader precedent. A minimalist decision for [same-sex marriage] by Walker could have left this matter undecided and thus would not have forced a higher court's hand."
- Dale Carpenter column on the Volokh Conspiracy

A decision written for Justice Kennedy?

"Is that the end of it? Oh, no. Judge Walker is already being flayed alive for the breadth and boldness of his decision. The appeals road will be long and nasty. Walker has temporarily stayed the ruling pending argument on a stay. (Rick Hasen argues it may be wise for him to stay the order pending appeal for tactical reasons.)

"Any way you look at it, today's decision was written for a court of one - Kennedy - the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity. The real triumph of Perry v. Schwarzenegger may be that it talks in the very loftiest terms about matters rooted in logic, science, money, social psychology, and fact."
- Dahlia Lithwick column on Slate

Too soon to celebrate?

"As well-crafted as this decision is, it is too soon to declare victory. As proponents of gay rights know all too well, many courts have not been as fastidious about excluding religious rationales from their constitutional decision-making. One need only remember Justice Burger's 1986 opinion supporting the constitutionality of laws banning sodomy because such condemnations were 'firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards.'

"More deeply, we must recognize that even when we win these cases, it is only because our opponents' core objections have been, however properly, ruled out of court. Until we directly address them in the public sphere, we will not have truly won the culture war for marriage equality."
- Kenji Yoshino column on NYTimes.com

'Disturbing episode in American jurisprudence'

"The 'trial' in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence. Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people's right to vote for marriage."
- Response on National Organization for Marriage website

soundoff (737 Responses)
  1. Brian

    Why can’t the Tea Party-Republican-Rightists and gays get along? Based on the news over the years, there is plenty of overlap between the groups’ membership.

    Here is an article about a gay man coming out as a Tea Partier.

    FUNNY

    http://www.dailygoat.com/?p=2100

    August 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      Beacuse the right can't understand that 'Freedom' means being able to have your own opinion and lifestyle, without having someone else's values imposed on it.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zack

      This is a case of politics and lobbying overrule the will of the people. For the people by the people. The people voted and were overruled. That's a shame. A disgrace even.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Murray Rizberg

      Sorry, Zack, but most of the people are flat-out stupid.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Well said

      August 5, 2010 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zack

      Murray, that's no call for gov't runamuck! It's very easy to call the people stupid. But that doesn't make the default rulers smart.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Katy

      Zack–
      it seems that you forget that the Architects of our nation PLANNED for the people to be overruled by the government. That's what Congress and the Electoral College are for. Sometimes the people make uninformed or horribly biased decisions, and that's why the Founders created things like courts.
      I understand your point of view, but I (clearly) disagree.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zack

      Katy-

      If voting mattered they wouldn't let us do it. I'm just sick of the two-faced nature of the system. Sick and tired. Everything's a lie. Everything is pointless. What a shame. I figure we'd be done away all together if they didn't need us to row the paddles from the bowels.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Katy

      Voting DOES matter, but–most of the time–only as a guideline for the decision-makers.
      And if you hate the way our government works so much, why not leave the States? I'm not trying to be catty or snarky by saying this, but if that's really what you feel you mean to your country, then don't be a citizen. People have sacrificed life and liberty for the nation in which we live. I'm truly sorry that you feel powerless and ignored as a citizen, but not everyone can get their way–even, sometimes, the majority.
      As much as I sometimes hate the decisions made by lawmakers OR the voting majority, I still have to accept it. I can fight if I so choose, but some things aren't worth a tantrum.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zack

      You are a goodlittle soldier Katy. I'd probably leave if I could afford it. The lies and deciets of our National Gov't are nothing new. They have a long history of abusing its citizens. And for a long time good little soldiers were content with their TVs and Cadillac cars. But that stuff is wearing thin. Just because you are satisfied with eating it...don't mean I am-or ever will be.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Because, and I'm trying to remember the quote, "Republicans (and other conservatives) want to make government small enough to fit under the bedroom door."

      August 5, 2010 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • LanceD

      "None can love freedom but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license, which never hath more scope than under Tyrants." John Milton

      August 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • sfsocla

      It is amazing how many people forget we live in a REPUBLIC, our founders set us up that way so that a majority could NOT oppress a minority. We live in a nation that touts freedom & equality but too often we do not live by the words we preach. Equality & justice absolutely must prevail.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      What happened here with Prop 8 was a great example of ignorant people trying to pass a law to suppress a second class citizen and our democracy being well designed enough to defeat a law created out of rule of the mob. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all, not just one very narrow breed of people.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Doug

      This never should have been voted on in the first place.. The tyranny of the majority should never ever be imposed on a minority.. If this were the case, blacks would still be slaves, Rosa Parks would have given up that seat.. No way should we vote on this type of thing... The minority would lose every time !!!

      August 5, 2010 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      First in Arizona, now in California, Judges are overturning the will of the people. Is this a democracy or a Judgocracy?

      August 5, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Doug

      Let's vote on who can have children... Since they seem to want to vote on my life, I want to vote on theirs... The fact is the heteros are polluting this country with welfare babies that we pay for.. Let's vote !

      August 5, 2010 at 5:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • S

      You are an idiot Mark. When the people vote, it becomes the law of the land, period. That is what a democracy is. There is no middle ground. A majority rule was the basis for all this country's decisions and when the majority is overruled by tyrannical judges, that is flat wrong.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jennifer

      "S" the only idiot is you we live in a Democratic Republic not a Democracy. Please take an intro to Poly Sci and learn a little something about the country you live in.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      Why would the church spend $millions on Prop 8? One reason may be that it helps to divert our attention from child abuse.
      What is more sinful? Consenting adult sharing love in their own bedroom? Or 50 year old priest taking advantage of a 6 year old kid?

      August 5, 2010 at 5:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • yeppers

      Majority rule is the rule of the land... But lets not forget the majority of americans once favored slavery, against interracial dating and interracial marraige was against the law until the late 80's in the south.

      August 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • MRichards

      Well Brian, they said being a gay republican is like being gay with a bad hairdo year round. it's a big NO NO 🙂

      August 5, 2010 at 6:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jessy

      ...seriously...how is them being gay gonna bother ANYONE but THEM! HUH! I HAVE GAY friendS! Ilove them like...like anyone else imfriends with! They are a LITTLe and I mean ALITTLE diffrent then me or any one else that is sraight..THATS IT! If god danmsthem well..likeI said that dosent affect us! AND WHEN TWO PEOPLE LOVE EACH OTHEr THEY SHOULD BE ALLWOED TO DO ALL THE THINGS STRIAGHTS DO! They shouldnt have to feel ashamed, they shouldnt be ridicueled, they should be comfortablle, they should be ACCEPTED! THANK YOU!

      August 5, 2010 at 7:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      At all those who feel that the voice of the people were over turned in this ruling.. let me just say: A person (1 person) knows what they want.... people, are stupid and will vote in fear... and if history hasn't proved this to all of you already, fear is what drives this nation. THANK GOD for our judicial system that recognizes that the people don't always do whats right, they do what's comfortable for them. Well, let me just say, the people were spoken for today by Judge Vaughn Walker. He knows that we can not be a great nation with prejudice and discrimination. God Bless Judge Vaughn Walker!!! BLESS HIM

      August 5, 2010 at 7:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      I Agree ! Zack its a shame people are stupid enough to vote for something that denies right to a paticular group ,opps isnt that called Discrimination. This Country was founded on Freedom ,lets keep it that way! Gays and Lesbians have every right to marry .

      August 5, 2010 at 8:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • CoffeeDawg

      Sometimes the will of the people is wrong. It was in the case of civil rights and it was in the case of Prop. 8. The founding fathers asserted that there are certain inalienable rights – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The will of the people, as important as it is, cannot override these! Prop. 8 tried to...

      August 5, 2010 at 9:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • tony

      Oh Zack, by your logic a close 52 to 48 vote, would allow men to make laws regarding women or vice versa, and that Bush was not really President of the USA.

      August 5, 2010 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • john333

      AMERICA NEEDS REAL HUSBAND AND WIFE FAMILIES
      something else is SICK.

      August 5, 2010 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • RoJLo

      Thank you Katy for your intelligent response. Gays, at the end of the day, will have the right to marriage and the US will have once again become the beautiful country that our forefathers intended. Gays shouldn't be considered a second class citizen. How dare these people put these rights up for a vote? I'm glad i am an american. We should all be glad we live in America. Good Bless America and the courts for kiling these monsters.

      August 6, 2010 at 3:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Jared

      Isn't it funny how all the pro gay articles are from national newspapers or news organizations and those against had to be taken from outspoken pro marriage group's websites. And we still say the media isn't liberal or doesn't influence the debate. Currently most americans are against gay marriage and yet obviously not one news organization feels they can say anything against gay marriage. Interesting.

      August 10, 2010 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse |
  2. TT

    One Judge stealing 7 million votes is nothing to celebrate about. Not to mention the judge himself is gay...There is nothing 'landmark' about this. It's outright activism that will be overturned.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Interesting

      Agree 100%. But you know what

      August 5, 2010 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nicole

      A law passed by 4 billion people will be overturned if it denies the rights of others.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      California has over 37 million people so I'd hardly say 7 million people spoke for the majority on Prop 8. Only that the church buses were running more often that day. Discrimination has no place in the USA!

      August 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lee

      What an absurd standpoint. The rights of a few should NEVER be determined my many! If we left everything up to a popular vote, women still wouldn't be able to vote, votes from a minority race would only count as 3/5 of the vote of a white man, etc, etc. This boils down to a person's right to pursue happiness. This is not up for a vote! Thee are TOO many people like you who are afraid of anything that looks or acts differently than they do.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • jason

      Whatever, TT. I am pretty sure when schools and restaurants were desegregated and black people were finally afforded the same as whites, that there was some ignorant person (or 7 million more in the South) who called it "outright activism." Grow up.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • No Hate

      It's actually about equal protection. If the majority of voters turn out tomorrow and say that all blue-eyed people are no longer permitted to marry, then it's just so? That's just the way it has to because someone decided that they are somehow bad or evil? Or what about saying that all Jews must register with the local city hall or wear a star on their chest? One group can not use their majority status to make laws that only apply to a minority group – that is all the judge is saying here, that the state must have some compelling reason to enforce a law that only applies to a minority of it's population.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mary

      That's exactly what people said about Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that black children and white children should not be forced to attend separate schools.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Javier

      It is time to re-group in a big state and separate from the union if things are going that way. You see, full freedom can not ever be acheived...the state must have constraints if not, the anarchist have won, since the begining of time rules have been set to preserve humanity...everybody knows that we as humans can surely bring down our own civilization in short order due to the rights of individuals as oposed as the rights of all as a nation.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tod

      Maybe because civil rights are not supposed to be voted on in the first place.

      We live in a Republic – the minorities have rights too.

      We didn't vote on slavery, we didn't vote on women's suffrage, we didn't vote on interracial marriage, but suddenly we can vote on gay marriage?

      And even if the judge is gay, so what? Should only gay judges preside over straight related issues? Should only white judges preside over black or Hispanic issues?

      There are rights for religious minorities, and last I checked, that truly was a person's choice..

      August 5, 2010 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • DG

      I always love hearing people complain about activist judges. Some rights, like FREEDOM, don't get to be voted on. Why is it that the same people that try to 'defend' marriage (like it will suddenly be meaningless) deny same-gender individuals from forming their own marriage are the ones that support Britney Spears and her celebrity annullment, or Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor that have gone through how many spouses? Is that the marriage you're defending?

      You either are for freedom, or you are not. Saying you believe in freedom, then promptly holding a vote to decide which ways you think people should be free to marry, only makes you a hypocrite. How you manage to justify that is beyond me.

      People opposed many other rights that should have been taken for granted. This doesn't deserve a vote, this deserves a simple statement: your marriage does not end just because someone else's began.

      Stop acting like you'll be hurt by what consenting adults have chosen as their desired marital state.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Every judicial decision that the religious wing nuts don't like it "judical activism." Find a new cliche to throw around.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • CuteKate

      To agree that the vote of many can take away the rights of few is an unamerican opinion at the very least.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • kate

      Nicole – 4 billion people? You are aware that there are no where near 4 billion people in the U.S., right? Or, are you suggesting that China has the right to vote in U.S. elections too? Maybe you are from Chicago, they have a creative way of pumping up the voters from graveyards. Or, are you suggesting that gays be given the right to vote as many times as they want?

      August 5, 2010 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sane John

      kate- you idiot, she was saying that no matter how many people vote to deprive others of their rights, whether it's 8 or 8 million or 8 billion, it's not allowed in the US.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Judicial Activism = when a court issues a ruling that you don't agree with.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • fart

      Who cares? Marriage IS gay.
      Let'em have it.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chaos

      Um, judicial activism would be ignoring the equal protection clause. Sorry but you don't seem to even know what you are talking about.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • air strong

      note, TT, that making the point of the judge being gay means nothing, who's to say a straight one wouldn't have been biased to vote yes to prop 8?

      August 5, 2010 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • martimus

      so how do you think the public wouldve voted on slavery in 1865? pretty sure the majority wouldve wanted to keep it.
      seperation of church and state should make this one obvious. If the religious people are so upset then maybe the gays should just leave it at "domestic partnership" and get the same rights as married couples.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • jim

      you do understand he is a conservative judge, whose original nomination by Reagen was denied because his opponents thought he was too anti-gay. He was later appointed by GB senior. Do some reading people before posting your rants.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • liamsdad01007

      TT – 6,401,482 voted against Prop 8. A differnce of under 600,000 votes and less than 5% of the total votes cast. Out of a total population of just under 37,000,000. So barely a majotiy of actual voters supported Prop 8, and less than 25% of all residents of California.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • tomjones1234

      Liberalism is quite a paradox, no? You all speak so much about standing up for basic human rights but you champion the "right" to kill another human being (abortion). You call those who do not believe in the same things you do close-minded, fanatical or idiots as the person above demonstrated. There is no truth anymore, only political correctness.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Doug

      YOU ARE WRONG ! But if you are right, well I think it's time we vote on who can have children...

      August 5, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • PK

      I am sure there are still cities and towns in the deep south that would vote its illegal to be black, brown, jewish or any other number or races/religions/ethnicities if they were given the chance to. If they did would you support that because it was voted to be ok?

      August 5, 2010 at 5:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Doug

      So you think a straight judge should make all the decisions for gays... ? Okkkk, then let's make a gay judge make all the decisions for straights... Now that's what I call fair and so do you !!!!

      August 5, 2010 at 5:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matt

      Spoken like a true member of the 3rd Reich. Minorities dont count, so $crew em right? You don't think a lot do you?

      August 5, 2010 at 5:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • james

      i totally agree the judge being gay is a conflict of interest and his decision will be overturned ,ya'll better run out and marry your bowling buddy quick

      August 5, 2010 at 5:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bryan Harrelson

      do you think it would be fair for the judge to be straight? why is that any better?

      August 5, 2010 at 5:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • A

      I could care less one way or the other if gay people want to live together or get married. But the people voted on this issue and now it is being overturned. I can not wait to see the voter turn outs for the next "so called" vote, because it really does not matter what the people say. Scary!

      August 5, 2010 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      In our not-too-distant past I'm certain that that if there had been a vote for equality for African Americans, it would have been voted against by the majority. Luckily our governing system is set up to protect the rights of minorities.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Damon

      @Nicole
      The issue may be black and white to you, but wether or not gay marriage should be considered a right, quite frankly, was what people voted on. However, the people's votes currently mean nothing because of one gay Judge's opinion.

      You obviously don't see the importance of voting, and making it count. Hypocritically, I would wager that you were one of the millions who cried foul when voting didn't work in your favor with Bush.

      August 5, 2010 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • DarthWoo

      The judge's orientation really has nothing to do with the outcome of this case. As so many others have mentioned, he is a Reagan appointee who had been criticized for being rather insensitive to gays. But again, regardless of his orientation, anyone who actually read the content of the trial or watched the reenactments can see how poorly the defendants made their case in favor of Prop 8. There is a reason that the defendants were so in favor of a lack of cameras in the courtroom for this trial: their witnesses would be too embarrassed to be recorded. All but two of the defense witnesses dropped out of the trial after depositions. The two that remained had little to no credibility on the matters on which they testified, one going as far as to cite "It's on the Internet" as his source. If this had been a criminal trial, I'm sure that the defendants would be appealing on the basis of incompetent representation by now.

      August 5, 2010 at 8:36 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Karen K Baker

    You cannot vote for or against equality, all are equal!

    August 5, 2010 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Exactly, the governments purpose is to protect its citizens rights and freedoms. When it comes to those freedoms the majority should not be able to vote away a minority's rights.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tod

      But some people are more equal than others. Animal Farm

      August 5, 2010 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Commy pig, lol.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Justin

      ...but some animals are more equal than others.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Texas Pete

      So then you are advocating polygamy (men marrying several women)???

      August 5, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Carlos Sotelo

      Both a gay man and a straight man can marry a woman. I dont see the inequality.

      Srsly, in a decade we will be debating wheter or not bestiality is illegal and how people are born with zoophilic tendencies and how they are treated "unequally"

      August 5, 2010 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • S

      Social deviants are not, nor should they be, equal.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:17 pm | Report abuse |
  4. John

    Why don't they stay out of these peoples' bedrooms? Who cares if they marry? It doesn't affect the rest of us in any way and we are after all a country that preaches separation of church and state, so religious views are invalid. It is all such a waste of time.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      Maybe you should go back and read what Separation of Church and State means. It means they cannot force you to practice any one religion. Not to keep religion out of the state or the state business.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Hmm, and looking back on history and even in present times we can see so many great examples of when the church was directly involved in the state and didn't corrupt, persecute, murder, wage holy war, and other bad things. Oh wait, never mind.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • daveincali

      no john, you are wrong. seperation of church and state means exactly what it says. now stop trying to rewrite history to fit your views.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • CuteKate

      Sorry John, the supreme court ruled that separation of church and state means the government cannot support a religion – any religion – even your religion.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bubba

      >Maybe you should go back and read what Separation of Church and State means.
      >It means they cannot force you to practice any one religion. Not to keep religion out of
      >the state or the state business.

      But this is provably false. Even IF it meant they cannot force you to practice any ONE religion, that would mean that you are allowed to practice ANY religion, including contradictory ones. If all religions are valid, even contradictory ones, then how could you possibly allow such chaos to have anything to do with the state or state business? Answer: You can't. The logical meaning, then, is that you just don't allow ANY religion to intrude on the State or State Business.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • LanceD

      When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near. -Will Durant

      August 5, 2010 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      I agree with John. Separation of Church and state means the state can not propose a religion on you. It has been grossly misrepresented. Read about it.

      August 6, 2010 at 6:52 am | Report abuse |
  5. KK

    TT – even 7 million people cannot legitimately vote to deny any segment of the population the basic human rights which are deserved by all. I affirm your right to marry the person you choose – thank you for returning the same respect.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tobias

      If 7 million people voted to legalize slavery would that make it right?

      August 5, 2010 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • ifyouseenkay

      what basic human right was violated?

      August 5, 2010 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • HorseShaver

      I wonder how many of us will vote to legalize pot in november? more than 7 million?

      August 5, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • air strong

      should gay marriage be weighed in the same political teir as slavery or pot smoking?

      August 5, 2010 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
  6. zack

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38567228#38567228

    August 5, 2010 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
  7. JR

    What a crack up, it's a "Activist Judge" whenever he rules against your wishes, LOL.but a dedicated jurist when he rules in favor of your wishes, let's face it, he's just a judge doing his job as he sees it.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark C

      Its so true. How many conservatives were whining about "activists judges" when they recently tossed out half the gun control laws on the books? (I don't disagree with the ruling, but it was about as judicially active as you can get). How many of them were crying about "local control" and "not being dictated to by Washington?"

      August 5, 2010 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Retired CAPT(USN)

      Wow, this is so ironic...don't these clowns know that this judge was nominated by President BUSH???? Only Dem-nom judges can be "activist" or so I've been led to believe. Would someone please give a Civics101 to these people who think it OK for voters to deny something so basic as "Equal Protection Under the Law"? And, is anyone reading the Facts that show (again) that all the right/anti-gay crowd does is fear-monger? No evidence to support their oft-repeated lies whatsoever. None! They are a joke.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • JB in FL

      Guys/Gals...

      I'm a proud Republican and I'm FOR this ruling. Happy to see that our rights and freedoms WILL be respected. Just taking a little offense though to the "clowns" and "conservative" comments, as if the only people dissenting on this issue are republicans. Let's not dumb it down to a "us against them" political mudslinging. We're ALL Americans.. I know plenty of Dems here in the south that aren't too happy, but to them I say...I respect your opinion.

      Anyway...score one for freedom yesterday. Yay!

      August 5, 2010 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      FYI the "activist judge" was nominated by Reagan....

      August 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • dmwj2

      JB is right... I am sure there are many many DEMS that support PROP 8

      August 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Better get used to it

      JB in FL – I think you are referring to Blue Dog Democrats from the south there....they are democrats in name only. They more closely resemble wolves in sheep's clothing, or more correctly, conservatives in liberal's cloaks.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:33 pm | Report abuse |
  8. DopTopper

    She is no better than Sarah Palin.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Mark Yelka

    Majority voting would have upheld that interracial marriage should still be illegal. The argument that the majority should win is not ethically right. The minority needs to be protected against the tyranny of the majority.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • ifyouseenkay

      and who protects me from the tyranny of the minority? or, are you suggesting that the minority cannot be tyrannical?

      August 5, 2010 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Of course they can. But this isn't the case here. Ultimately, the gov can't interfere with religion correct? Religious people say yes. Then if marriage is sacred as a religious function the gov can't say anything about it otherwise they would be interfering. Therefor in my own opinion, the churches and priests should be able to decide for themselves whether they will marry gay couples or not. Since in all practicality their is no one agreed upon religious view on anything, those that are for gay marriage, go for it. Those that aren't, don't marry them. You don't have to participate, but to say you cans set the standard for everyone else is ridiculous and least of all fair.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bubba

      ifyouseenkay:

      What rights are you being deprived of? In what way are you being tyrannized?

      August 5, 2010 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sane John

      2 guys getting married isn't tyrannical towards you unless you're forced to be one of them.

      That's like saying that if you believe drinking alcohol is wrong, and I'm over here drinking a beer, then I'm infringing on your rights. Your belief that alcohol is wrong only extends to you being able to decide not to drink or even to not support anywhere that sells alcohol, it does not extend to my right to drink alcohol so long as I'm of legal age.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • zomge

      @ifyou If you can tell me how it negatively affects you in any way then perhaps it would be tyrannical, however, I am sure you will be unable to provide any rational reason.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • CherylS

      Some religions believe it's a sin to drink. If they got all of their people together and voted a ban on drinking, it would interfere in my right to drink. Just because they don't believe it doesn't mean they can force their beliefs on me. It's exactly the same thing with the gay marriage ban.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Lol, that actually happened in this country and boy did that work like a charm. i think drinking rates went up in fact.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Texas Pete

      Ummm, there is no such thing as a "Right to drink"

      August 5, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      You're missing the point...

      August 5, 2010 at 5:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • ddz

      I think man is a genetic freak of nature that doesn't belong on Earth (look at how we're ruining it). I think this is all a freak accident and that we only evolved this far thanks to some random help from aliens (NOT the Scientologist aliens, either).

      August 5, 2010 at 5:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ben

      Please don't tell me that this is about religion. Our government has always interferred with religion. What this boils down to is millions of people stating that they believe one way and the government saying, "So what?"

      August 5, 2010 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
  10. McCluck

    Thank you justice. Religious hypocrites go cry. It seems you wont be forcing your unjustified fairytale morals down others' throats today. It hurts not being able to control everyone else doesnt it? I have never heard a good anti-gay rights argument and it seems the judge saw through all your unjustified religious hate as well. Im not gay, but im also not a bigot so this serves as a victory for me too.-although not as much as a few of my good friends. Good luck down the road with the appeals!

    "I try to deny myself any Illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps ent!tles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves." – Christopher Hitchens

    August 5, 2010 at 2:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Draconis

      Look mate, you're using blanket statements there. I am entirely for government not having a place in marriage, but I am also very faithful. Granted i'm not christian (i'm actually asatru) but the fact remains that to accuse religion of being the core of prejudice is simply ignorant. You HAVE to have met at least one kind christian SOMEWHERE. Gods know I have, they're called my family.

      August 6, 2010 at 3:13 am | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      There are many very nice religious people. As stated blanket statements are not correct.

      August 6, 2010 at 7:07 am | Report abuse |
  11. ImNoExpert

    I think there must have been some sort of behind the scenes deal between conservatives and liberals who have connections to the Judiciary Branch. The Conservatives traded gays right to Liberals with this ruling in exchange for gun rights with the Chicago Handgun Ban earlier this summer lol.

    Why can't work as smoothly as this all the time?

    August 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • RapidRon

      ImNoExpert: that's awesome as I'm for both! =]

      August 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
  12. David B

    Let's say 7 million people voted to reinstate slavery. Would you still say "the will of the people" should be heeded?

    As others have mentioned, human rights are not subject to the will of the majority.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Amer1can

      Yea, they shouldnt have paid attention to the American people either when they voted for BLOBAMA. Good Point!!! Why have a ballot then?

      August 5, 2010 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Amer1can

      BTW, The gays wer all jumping for joy when they saw prop 8 on the ballot. They lost FAIR AND SQUARE! You say?

      August 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • DG

      Amer1can, are you intentionally being ignorant, or does it just come naturally to you?

      You vote in an election, you're making a choice about upcoming leaders.
      You do not vote about freedom. You are either for freedom or not. Don't act like you should be free to do as you wish, and then promptly start telling others what they are free to do, putting it to some absurd vote. You're not hurt by marriage between two consenting adults, no matter their genders. Stop acting like you are.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      How does defining a word change anyones freedom? Gays are still...being....well gay...before or after this resolution passed.

      August 6, 2010 at 7:13 am | Report abuse |
  13. Cory

    Who cares what they do in private life, As long as they keep it out of our schools and don't push their life style on our children.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • McCluck

      you mean like the religious do to children every day?-lol

      August 5, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      The children don't need it pushed on them anyway. 10-30% of them are already gay as it is.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tod

      1) It's not a lifestyle, it's a life

      2) You push straight marriage on children all the time – wedding rings, kissing in public, Disney movies with married princesses

      3) You push religion on children all the time – Christmas, Easter, Good Friday (which really wasn't so good for Jesus actually)

      August 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • kRock

      Oh but of course.. gay-pushers. Don't you see them lurking around school yards?
      So ridiculous people still think like this.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sane John

      kRock> only the Catholic schools

      August 5, 2010 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • dre

      kinda like saying I dont care if your gay just stay in the closet. I think the best thing gays can do is come out show all the different faces to our community.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      You're a bigot John. Please don't tell me you your one here decrying discrimination against gays and then making discriminatory remarks like that about Catholics. By the way, I'm gay and Catholic. Don't be such a bigot and hypocrite

      August 5, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shane G

      Push? Yeah..like we are really all up in the schools recruiting.."come on now..you gotta be gay! Join today"

      August 5, 2010 at 9:34 pm | Report abuse |
  14. RapidRon

    Those crying about this ruling sound just like the right-wing that has been crying, obstructing, hating, spreading-hate, anger and misinformation and trying to control peoples lives as they see fit.

    Why don't all you haters do something productive with your lives, better your families and neighbors and spread some tolerance, intelligence and happiness, instead of coming up with new ways to make life WORSE for so many, and the world a darker and uglier place? Some of us are sick of your BS.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Carlos Sotelo

      I only agree with ur last sentence.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      Hey look stop making statements that are blanket. People have a right to disagree.

      August 6, 2010 at 7:15 am | Report abuse |
  15. Juliana

    The argument that children need both a mother and a father doesn't make sense to me. Even if it is true that it's best for the children to be raised by both a male and a female, that doesn't mean that you have to put it into law. There's no law outlawing single mothers or fathers. Are we going to pass a law that all mothers bearing children must marry the father? Are we going to ban divorce?

    August 5, 2010 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Retired CAPT(USN)

      Nor do I hear these bigots rushing to give abandoned children (incl foster children) ANY parents. As the Judge said, there is zero evidence that children in gay marriages are better or worse off than children raised in hetero marriages. We all know how many incompetent non-gay couples who fail to raise decent children, don't we? The Palin family comes to mind...

      August 5, 2010 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • dxp2718

      Children *are* better off with two parents. Having backup is really useful when raising a kid! But the gender of the parents really shouldn't matter one bit. Not every mother is super-feminine or every father super-masculine. Some girls talk to their dads when they get their period, and some boys play sports with their moms. What a child needs is two loving, responsible parents of any gender.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:27 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19