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

'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)

    The bigger issue is the legislation of morality. I am still perplexed as to how states, such as NY, being required to recognize a "gay union" also prohibit and or ban being able to marry them. Isn't this directly implying that "gays and lesbians" are separate but equal? This was struck down in Brown v. Bd of Ed.

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

      I'm looking forward to the Supreme Court case, and the resulting decision that will give same-gender couples nationwide the right to marry and equal rights and protection under the law as any straight couple.

      The lawyers aren't taking anything for granter, but I wouldn't be surprised if this case even picks up a vote from Roberts and even Alito.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  2. wrack

    I don't know what makes me happier: that the legislated discrimination is finally in its death throes or that the frightened, ignorant people are crying so hard. I guess I can just enjoy both!

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

      I sure am!

      August 5, 2010 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Right there with you.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Moses

    The Bible "Marriage" ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN

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

      That's nice. We are speaking of legal marriage here, not sacramental. If anyone attempts to force a church to perform a gay marriage ceremony, I would vehemently defend their right to refuse to do so. However, since this is a legal construct that grants rights and responsibilities on the parties involved and does not require the involvement of any religious body, the Bible has nothing to do with it. Oh, and marriage existed long before the Bible was written.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • McCluck

      When pedaphiles hurt people, its wrong. Nice try. When gay people are gay, it only makes people who have unjustified hate angry because their bigots.

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

      Pardon me, Moses, but maybe you're having a hard time understanding this but we don't live in a theocracy. This is a legal matter, not a religious one.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • owen

      Yeah, and in the Bible the wife is the husband's property. Good idea.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tod

      Which Bible? The Satanic? The Hindu? The Islamic? Oh, and what religion do Justices of the Peace represent, because last I checked, they didn't represent ANY religion.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • God

      I am not too thrilled that you are using me to promote inequality....For your benefit, I am hoping you give this some thought.

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

      Your bible marriage – not the American one. The American marriage is for adults – all adults. What the bible says is completely unimportant.

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

      The Bible: Wrong about everything.

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

      Lol, see! God has spoken!

      August 5, 2010 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Yourmom

      The Bible doesn't define marriage. It defines a Christian marriage, which of course is not the only type of marriage that exists.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Equality4all

      AHA – God has spoken! It's about damn time...

      August 5, 2010 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Absurd

      How is it that a 2000 year old book is able to define a WORD that only originated about 700 years ago?

      August 5, 2010 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ms Mac

      Yes... the bible DOES say that... but can you show me ONE verse – just ONE SINGLE LITTLE VERSE – that says it is YOUR job to judge people? Look all you won't find anything. Your religious "opinion" – just like mine – is NOT WARRANTED. Equal rights to all – and IF there is any judgement to be made – it will be made in the end by the ONLY ONE who SHOULD! Just remember...we both will answer to the same JUDGE one day, as well. Will HE like what he sees when HE reviews YOUR hate-filled, holier than thou rhetoric spewing little life?

      August 5, 2010 at 5:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Goyo

      As clearly indicated in the decision (which you read in full, right?), the concept of marriage in the Bible has NOTHING to do with the law of the state of California, nor should it.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • EVIE

      For those who believe in the Bible. And if you are going to quote the bible, remember not to cast the first stone, and that it is not for you to judge, but to be judged by G-D.

      I am Woman,Catholic, Hispanic and a Republican. I Grew up in San Francisco. watching my whole life for Gay rights. And I am happy for the Gay community, it's about damn time.

      I am your worst nightmare. I am a minority, woman, educated, religious, politically active, right wing, and support gay rights.

      And there are more of me, hundreds of thousands. We will stand together and rid this country of all this BS. Live your live, let others live theirs. Somehow that just seems so difficult for idiots like you to comprehend.

      Now go crawl in a corner and cry.

      August 5, 2010 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • allen

      Where do we draw the line? YaY we are equal!! Anybody can marry anybody!! Ok, fine.. A 50 yr old father wants to wed his 22 yr old daughter.. Is that wrong? We all want to be equal right? Think on that. The federal government has no right to meddle in a states affairs. If the state voted it, it should pass. Just like in Arizona! If you dont like the state then move to some other state that has laws you like. We are a republic. States govern themselves. Dont agree with Prop 8? Move to Vermont!!! For all you who think this ruling was a landmark case for equality, just wait.. You now have given the right for judges to overturn a majority vote.. Hmmmm.. You mean if the majority votes for something, but a judge makes a ruling on it that the majority and all the voices are being drowned out by one judge!! Yep!! Be careful what you wish for!!!

      August 6, 2010 at 1:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Draconis

      No offense to you and yours but the key words there are 'the bible'. First ammendment rights include the freedom to chose your faith, so even those who are not christian must abide by your rules? How is that fair? How is that freedom?

      August 6, 2010 at 3:20 am | Report abuse |
  4. CN

    TT–read the ruling.

    we don't put fundamental rights to a vote. period.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Mark Yelka

    The Bible? You really wouldn't want to enforce all of the sadistic rules found there, would you?

    August 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Moses

      The ruling is Sadistic

      August 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim

      Mark Yelka, The Bible is about redemption. Before you can see the need for redemption, you need to see how you fall short of the law. That is why God was so harsh at times. But he paid full price for every single sin you have committed. Fear God.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • CuteKate

      I'll only fear your god if you fear my invisible pink unicorn. She's very nasty with bigots.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sane John

      Moses> How?

      August 5, 2010 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      So Tim, why then does a verse in Leviticus mean there should be discriminatory laws against a segment of the population when all the anti-gay religious people should instead be fighting to ban Red Lobster for selling shellfish because of another verse in Leviticus? Leviticus says shellfish is an abomination too, but seafood restaurants don't seem to tear down the fabric of moral society. Oh that's right, shrimp tastes good and it's easy to quote bible verses when they confirm your already held bigotry while ignoring the ones that are inconvenient.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • air strong

      moses, tim, f$%# your god, my invisible power man is stronger than yours fear him. <3 see my point? spit bible verses all you want i'll beat em down. thats from a necromancer, shaman, daemonologist. have fun with that.

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


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

      No, we won that war already remember.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
  7. debi-d

    When California voted to ban gay marriages I thougth this is tragic. It was a vote for discrimination and should not have been allowed. It would be like voting to re instate slavery, because a majority rules does it make it right?
    I live in Canada where we have had gay marriages for years. It has not harmed our society or our family values. Those come from the family itself and Mrs Doubtfire said it best that a family can be one father or two mothers but what makes a family is having people love and care for each other. Judgement is not for us. For all the bible thumpers "God created everything under heaven and earth, and God does not make mistakes" Only man.
    There are far more important areas of the world where we should focus. Letting 2 men or women marry should be the least of our worries.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
  8. XC

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Otherwise, call it by a different name.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • The Mooseter

      God made Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve

      August 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jack Daws

      Surely, God made Steve too.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Duane W

      Marriage is between a man and a woman until the man or woman invite another man or woman into it. It seems those who cast sin throws the first stones? What is the current rate of divorce to to infedility? I would love to see how these statistics stand up against gay couples. I would almost bet that the hetero population has a much higher infedility rate yet we consider marriage something only for a man and woman? Seems to me when we do not even value it how can we expect or ask others to respect it?

      August 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • The Mooseter

      With no intention of Steve and Adam getting it on. Notice how reproductive organs dont work that way?

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

      Marriage was constructed by humans. We can make it anything we want to. You wanna follow a nasty religion – that's your prerogative, me, I like other people and don't care to hurt them just to make you feel high and mighty.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • tarheelguy87

      He also made Cain and Able not Cain and Mable.

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

      Hey XZ, are you God? Do you know everything and are the ultimate being of truth? No, you are just a person with a bias like any other, myself included. Plenty of religious people are ok with gay marriage. Are you or any other person in a positions where you can define something so contradictory? Ultimately, if we can't get past are own biases and let people just be then we just do more harm than any good.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |

    After reading several comments posted by opponents of Prop 8, I am more confused at their interpretation of what they think a marriage is or should be. Simply, a marriage is a legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. I did not read any definition of marriage that states it has to be between a man and a woman. A marriage is what we want it to be.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Moses

      No a marriage is not what we want but a sacrement from God

      August 5, 2010 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • McCluck

      Prove it and i will agree. Till then you are stupid for believing in nonsense. Your are going to hell, and by hell i mean no where.

      August 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • daveincali

      a sacrament from god? that's odd...when i got married, there was absolutely no mention or thought of god. and my marriage is no less legit to the state nor to myself or my wife.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • CuteKate

      There's no such thing a god, but there is such a thing as marriages. Guess you are wrong again.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
  10. brad

    Just remember anything that makes midwesterners feel awkward or icky has to be a sin. Im sick and tired of christians trying to push their agenda down the throats of everyone else. I dont care what your bible says. The same part of the bible that says gays are wrong also says its ok to have slaves, kill your children, knock up your brothers wife, the list goes on and on. Dont give me that its for the children crap either. Children are just the convenient excuse for your bigotry. The only thing certain is religious zealots will never think straight because they believe god is on their side.

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

      I wll pray for you and god Loves and forgives you

      August 5, 2010 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • eric

      I always find it humorous, and amazingly sad, when a NON-adherent to a religion seeks to explain all its evils. Especially when they have NO idea what the text actually says, what the context is, etc. The Bible condones NONE of the things that people say it does regarding killing children, etc, etc.

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

      The bible also says those who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. I don't see people rushing over to Wal-Mart on Sunday with oozies to enforce that one. You can't pick and choose the ones you want to enforce.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bry

      Moses, stop being a condescending martyr. If Brad is gay he doesn't need the forgiveness of your god or anyone else.

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

      Hey, I'm a Midwesterner and I'm atheist too. There are plenty of atheists in the Midwest and gays too. We just sunburn easy and drink pop.

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

      and moses me and my 6 foot broadsword forgive you <3 idiot

      August 5, 2010 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      (sigh) its soda silly. Not pop.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charles

      Hey Brad. Remember, Iowa has had legalized gay marriage for more than a year now.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sunday Uzis

      CheryIS – that's because they have to do the killing on Saturday, which is the REAL Sabath. 🙂

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

      -Dave Once again with the blanket statements, you forget red cross and the hundred other organizations like it. Now, i'm for gay marriage it is not the govs place to dictate such things. But DO NOT judge all by the few otherwise you become what you hate, a bigot and a fool.

      August 6, 2010 at 3:27 am | Report abuse |
  11. Anthony, NYC, NY

    Seems to be a well reasoned opinion. Minority rights in a majoritarian society should never decided by vote.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Ian Anderson

    What two harmless words, when put together, make the most vile expletive?

    Activist Judge.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • McCluck

      religious majority?

      August 5, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • DS

      "Right" and "wing"

      August 5, 2010 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Nick

    when it comes to this issue, the liberal position is 'to each his own'. Okay, i can understand that. I may not agree, but i can accept that and move on... to each his own... But then, we look at something like the medical issue. your position there is 'we're all in this together'. You want to force conformity even though some may not like it and make those who do not like it, subsidize or effectively live in the same shoes as everyone else. Taking the ruling on prop 8 a bit further, we know that this will eventually, and i mean very soon, affect our education system. What is taught to our kids. Well, what happens when i say i don't agree with that, and therefore, I don't want to pay may share of education money into an education system which i cannot use because i strongly do not agree with what is being taught? Where will the liberal opinion fall in that situation? Will that be a 'to each his own' moment or a 'we're all in it together' moment? My money says it will be a 'were all in it together' moment... hypocritical?

    August 5, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • wrack

      you fail to see equality as a "we're all in this together."

      August 5, 2010 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Alan

      This nonsensical "argument" was one which was used by the Prop 8 proponents leading up to the election. I defy you to show me just how letting two people who love each other get married is going to be detrimental to the school system. It's not going to happen because there is no connection at all. This is just a scare tactic which, unfortunately, was very effective in getting people to change their views and vote for this discriminatory proposition.

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

      Nick I'm not sure how medical care and education has to do with my ability to enjoy the same rights as you do. We pay taxes, we take up arms for our nation and we vote. Shouldn't we be afforded the right to marry those we love? Or is your argument based on a religous view? Should all Americans share that religious view? I'm not sure you understand how it must feel to be scared to hold your partner's hand in public, to get kicked out of a hotel, to get beat up because who you are. I'm not sure you understand how when you're a teen ager you'd rather be dead that be gay and have to get extensive counsling to avoid your suicide. We go through a lot just to learn to accept ourselves only to be discriminated by others for something we can't control. IF there's any choice to be made here, it's that of the religous right to ignore the message of unconditional love and acceptance from Jesus Christ.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • jason

      Yes Nick. I am quite sure that there were a bunch of rednecks in the South in the 1960's who had very similar viewpoints about the way desegregation would effect their children's education, and they probably felt the same way you did about change. No one is going to be teaching your boy that he should marry other boys, only that he can. Besides, I don't know where you went to school, but nobody there taught lessons about marriage there.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nick

      my point is that i do understand the individual right to live they way they wish to, however, the recent medical legislation i find to be a contradiction to that. I also feel that it is not fair to be forced to subsidize something like a public school system that is not teaching what i want my children to learn. isn't that similar to what you are saying about this issue? you want representation when you are forced to pay taxes? i am merely stating what appears to be a contradiction in what the liberal position is. As for jason's comment, you are what is wrong with blogs. You need to have a little bit of dignity. Just because you are hiding behind your keyboard is no reason to be completely rude in your comments. It would be much more productive to be able to have discussions without such rudeness.

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

      Actually, Nick, I see this current decision as a conservative position. Certainly libertarian. Keep the government out of personal decisions between consenting adults. Equal rights and the pursuit of happiness upheld. Its not against a liberal stance but its certainly not an exclusively liberal/progressive notion.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • dmwj2

      Just what is wrong with what Jason said? He is absolutely right! You would not believe how many white parents yanked their kids out of publics schools after desegregation began. Also... what about folks with no kids... since they don't have a dog in the hunt, why should they have to pay taxes for public schools? You are a very shallow person to even suggest this scenario... nothing is going to change in schools, and we ALL pay school taxes for the good of society – whether we have kids or not.

      August 5, 2010 at 5:39 pm | Report abuse |
  14. bvilleyellowdog

    The ruling was definitive – not based on technicalities. The prop 8 proponents defence was pathetic. The ruling will stand. 50/50 the SOCTUS does not even bother taking it.
    That "activist judge" was appointed by Reagan.

    August 5, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Retired CAPT(USN)

      Correction: He was originally appointed to a lesser judgeship by Reagan. Nominated to his current job by President BUSH. Damn Republican activist judges!! LOL

      August 5, 2010 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Jeff

    How about the basic fact that California voteed again for something and another judge says our vote don't count. Not only are the ballot issues worded to confuse people, now if we vote it doesn't matter. Why vote anymore?

    August 5, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Alan

      It doesn't matter what Californians voted for and what they voted against. No person or group of people has the right to tell another person or group of people that they cannot have a basic right that everybody else has because they're not like everybody else. It's that simple.

      August 5, 2010 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tired!

      You are right...the voted doesn't matter when it is in contradiction to American law and is therefore unlawful. Votes matter...they only matter when they do not set out to violate the rights of others. Voting matters when it results in just, equitable actions and laws.

      August 5, 2010 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • dmwj2

      Why do you guys keep harping on the 7 million votes. Those votes were not lost, they were just illegal. Get over it!

      August 5, 2010 at 5:44 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19