Supreme Court appears deeply divided over same-sex marriage
March 26th, 2013
12:40 PM ET

Supreme Court appears deeply divided over same-sex marriage

  • The Supreme Court is hearing two cases this week in the appeals to state and federal laws restricting same-sex marriage.
  • The court today first tackles an appeal of California's ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8.
  • Tomorrow, the justices will hear oral arguments over the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
  • Live updates below. Also, read the full story.

[Updated at 12:48 p.m. ET] We're signing off on this end for now - check out our main story for more detail and analysis as it comes today. We answer your questions here, and want to hear from you here.

Don't forget to join us again here tomorrow, when the Supreme Court hears the second round of debate on same-sex marriage: the Defense of Marriage Act.

[Updated at 12:31 p.m. ET] Director Rob Reiner, who watched today’s oral arguments, is a vocal critic against Proposition 8. Here's what he had to say after court adjourned:

“Today is a historic day for all those who believe in freedom and equality. After more than four years of working our case through victories at the federal District and Circuit courts, we finally had an opportunity today to present our arguments in support of marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans before the highest court in the land. This case has always been about the love shared by two individuals and about the central promise from our nation’s founding that all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness.

[Updated at 12:11 p.m. ET] Andrew Pugno, general counsel for, tells reporters outside the court that he believes both sides of the argument have agreed that it is impossible to know with certainly how society would change by redefining "a fundamental institution such as marriage.

[Updated at 12:04 p.m. ET] “Today we feel we clearly presented the winning case for marriage,” says Andrew Pugno, general counsel for, who is speaking with reporters now.

[Updated at 12:01 p.m. ET] Charles Cooper, lead counsel defending Proposition 8, told reporters that he couldn't sum up his argument in a couple of sentences. "We believe Proposition 8 is constitutional," he said, making a brief statement.

[Updated at 11:48 a.m. ET] Kris Perry, a plaintiff in the Prop 8 case, just spoke, saying: "In this country as children, we learn that there's a founding principle, that all men and women are created equal. … Unfortunately with the passage of Proposition 8, we learned that there are group of people in California who are not being treated equally."

"We look forward to a day when prop 8 is officially eliminated and equality is restored to the state of California."

[Updated at 11:45 a.m. ET] Republican Ted Olson and Democrat David Boies, who joined forces to argue against Prop 8, are speaking outside the courthouse now. What's important from today, Olson said, is "the American people were listening to the argument. The other side, nobody really offered a defense."

"We're very gratified they listened, they heard, they asked hard questions, (but) there is no denying where the right is, and we hope the court (rules that way) in June."

[Updated at 11:43 a.m. ET] According to Toobin, there were a lot of questions along these lines from Justices Scalia and Alito: We don’t know the effects of same sex parenting on children, so why don’t we wait and let the states go experiment? Why do we, the Supreme Court, have to get involved in this process?

Toobin said Roberts also seemed sympathetic to these questions.

[Updated at 11:39 a.m. ET] The attorney general and the governor of California have refused to defend Prop 8. So the question, Toobin says, is "Who can defend the law? Who has the standing?" The answer to that question will be key to resolving the case.

Conservative Justices Scalia, Alito and Roberts were "very hostile of idea of the court imposing same sex marriage," according to Toobin. The four Democratic justices seemed favorably disposed.

Justice Kennedy seemed like he was in the middle, he said things that would "give comfort for both sides," Toobin says. Kennedy suggested the issue was brought prematurely before the court.

[Updated at 11:37 a.m. ET] The justices seemed very focused on how Prop 8 affects children, with Justice Kagan at some point suggesting that California have a law allowing same-sex marriage for people past child-bearing age, Toobin said.

Kagan said, according to Toobin: “I assure you if two 55 year old people, there aren’t a lot of children (coming from that marriage).”

[Updated at 11:34 a.m. ET] "This was a deeply divided Supreme Court, a court that seemed groping for answers," CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said after watching the arguments. "Now I think its even harder to predict the result of this case after hearing this argument."

[Updated at 11:31 a.m. ET] Oral arguments have wrapped up, according to CNN Supreme Court producer Bill Mears. They went just a bit over schedule, lasting about one hour and 20 minutes.

[Updated at 11:23 a.m. ET] While we wait on word from the courthouse, consider this: A new CNN/ORC International Poll indicates that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage. In the same survey, 57% of respondents said they had a family member or close friend who is gay or lesbian.

Here's a look at the issue, by the numbers.

[Updated at 11:06 a.m. ET] The same-sex marriage debate is a huge issue, and the lawyers inside were penciled in for an hour to make their cases. Doesn't sound like much time, but to be fair, the oral arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare") last March lasted roughly two hours.

Tomorrow's DOMA arguments have been given one hour and 50 minutes. We'll see if they stay on schedule today.

[Updated at 10:46 a.m. ET] If all is going to plan, Jean Podrasky, a lesbian whose first cousin happens to be Chief Justice John Roberts, is inside the court hearing the arguments.

"I know that my cousin is a good man," she wrote in an op-ed this week. "I feel confident that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law."

You might see a lot of red avatars with a “=” equal sign in your Twitter feed today. Supporters of marriage rights for same-sex couples are wearing red today to show their support – both on their persons and their social media accounts. That includes Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

[Updated at 10:39 a.m. ET] You can find a reminder of who’s who among the nine justices here.

Try clicking on each photo to learn more about the men and women who will decide the legal fate of same-sex marriage (for now anyway) – see where they were born and educated, their career highlights and their religion.

[Updated at 10:30 a.m. ET] Inside, we expect Republican Ted Olson and Democrat David Boies joining forces in pushing for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Prominent Washington attorney Charles Cooper will lead the defense of Proposition 8, the California referendum against same-sex marriage.

Fun fact: Olson and Boies argued opposite sides of the landmark 2000 Bush v. Gore case, which decided that presidential election.

[Updated at 10:23 a.m. ET] The temperature is rising a bit and so is the volume. Thousands have amassed in front of the U.S. Supreme court as the morning warms up.

If everything is proceeding as scheduled, oral arguments should be getting started inside the courtroom.

[Updated at 10:11 a.m. ET] The atmosphere probably pretty somber inside the court, but outside the speakers are blaring with music and the occasional chant: "Gay, straight, black, white - marriage is a civil right!"

CNN contributors David Frum and LZ Granderson have both taken to the mic, keeping the crowd charged up.

"No agency of the government can do for anyone what loving spouses do for each other," Frum said. "Today your families gather before this house of law to claim the right to live as others do without fear."

"I did not come here to ask anybody permission to love. I did not come here to (seek ) approval," said Granderson. "… I am here because 14 times the Supreme Court (ruled that marriage is) a fundamental right, and gay and lesbian couples deserve their fundamental rights!”

"Same-sex couples are not here asking for a seat at the table because we've always been here," he added. "We're not here at the steps of Supreme Court to beg. ... I too sing, America."

[Updated at 10 a.m. ET] Nope, we don't have cameras in the courtroom, but the high court should be in session at this point. After a few minutes of routine business, oral arguments should get underway at about 10:15 a.m. In addition to Jeffrey Toobin, CNN has Correspondent Joe Johns and Supreme Court producer Bill Mears watching the arguments firsthand. Stay tuned here for developments.

[Updated at 9:50 a.m. ET] As the justices gather, the court of public opinion is already weighing in - certainly on Twitter. At 9:30 a.m. ET, five of the top U.S. trends were related to the hearing today. Though, this being Twitter, #ThoughtsInBed was also riding high.

Here’s what some people are saying:

And pics from our senior legal analyst:

[Updated at 9:43 a.m. ET] Today's arguments have sparked conversation beyond the steps of the Supreme Court. Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage are capturing the moment on social media. Here's one from NOH8 Campaign, who support marriage equality:

Opponents of same-sex marriage have also shown up in droves in Washington, but the rallies have kept peaceful. Here's a tweet from Alliance Defending Freedom:

[Updated at 9:26 a.m. ET] Less than an hour away from the start of oral arguments and protests outside the Supreme Court are gaining momentum. Supporters of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights are holding a rally, celebrating the historic significance of today's events.

"We are all participants of American history today - let's get this party started!" two of the organizers shouted at a cheering audience.

The crowd is holding signs, saying, "Married with pride" and "Marriage is love, commitment and family."

"Condemn hatred, embrace marriage!" the crowd chanted.

Among the speakers is retired Lt. Col. Linda Campbell, a 25-year military veteran, who was allowed to bury her partner, Nancy Lynchild, at Willamette National Cemetery. It is believed to be the first case of its kind, the same-sex spouse of a member of the military to be buried in a national cemetery.

"I know the spirit of my spouse Nancy is smiling on us today," Campbell said today.

[Updated at 8:34 a.m. ET] Looks like Justice Kennedy will definitely be the one to watch today.

"What am I looking to? Justice Kennedy in his questioning," said California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom who, as San Francisco mayor in 2004, stoked controversy by ordering City Hall to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

He told CNN's "Starting Point" this morning that Kennedy would be key because he wrote the majority opinion in the 1996 case of Romer V. Evans in Colorado. The case dealt with Amendment 2, a Colorado initiative that banned state government from passing laws prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community. The Supreme Court struck down the law in a 6-3 vote.

[Updated at 8:15 a.m. ET] Protesters are braving temperatures in 30s outside the high court this morning to make their stand in the same-sex marriage debate. Rainbow flags are flapping next to American ones as demonstrators bundled in thick coats and scarves hold up banners reading "The nation is ready for Marriage Equality" and "Faith Alliance to preserve the sanctity of marriage as defined by God."

[Updated at 7:55 a.m. ET] Today's oral arguments will focus on Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that was approved by California voters in a 52-48% vote in November 2008. The vote happened less than six months after the state Supreme Court ruled marriage was a fundamental right that must be extended to same-sex couples.

Its approval immediately ended same-sex marriages in the state, but opponents of the measure challenged it in court and have succeeded in convincing federal judges at the district and appellate levels to find the ban unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court will open its doors to the public and the media at 8 a.m. ET, two hours before oral arguments are scheduled to start.

[Updated at 7:23 a.m. ET] The justice to keep an eye on is Anthony Kennedy, who may be the crucial fifth vote on either side, says CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

"I will be listening to what Justice Anthony Kennedy says," Toobin said about the oral arguments. The four Democratic appointees - Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan - will likely all vote for marriage equality.

"The most likely person to give the fifth vote is Anthony Kennedy," Toobin said.

Toobin likened the same-sex marriage argument to Loving v. Virginia, a landmark civil rights decision by the Supreme Court in 1967 that deemed laws prohibiting interracial marriages unconstitutional.

[Posted at 7:11 a.m. ET] Supreme Court justices this morning will launch an epic dialogue when they hear oral arguments in the first of two appeals to state and federal laws restricting same-sex marriage.

The first round today will deal with an appeal of California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The second round, scheduled for tomorrow, will tackle the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and a constitutional appeal over same-sex marriage and "equal protection."

The arguments will start at 10 a.m. ET today, but don't expect a decision until at least June.

soundoff (585 Responses)
  1. Hank

    It's a scientific fact that marriage between a man and women is different than a union between two men or two women. It's a scientific argument, and the science is clear.

    March 26, 2013 at 10:35 am | Report abuse |
    • wcsagleblog

      It really can be seen as being that can argue this completely separate from Christianity. France is doing just that at this moment. A very secular culture is rising up against gay "marriage."

      March 26, 2013 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Daniel

      Does your science come from Michelle Bachman by chance? Im sure it does...

      March 26, 2013 at 10:43 am | Report abuse |
    • Frank

      Funny how you "small government" tea bags claim to not want the government meddling in your affairs, but try to leverage that same government so that it meddles in other peoples affairs.

      You teabilly yee-haw red neck Southern/southern-wannabe conservatives should just be honest and admit that you don't want the government meddling in YOUR affairs, but you don't care if it meddles in other peoples' affairs as long as YOU personally don't agree with whatever those "affairs" are.

      March 26, 2013 at 10:45 am | Report abuse |
    • want2believe

      Can you please direct me to which peer-reviewed journal this "scientific fact" was published in? I can't seem to find it...

      March 26, 2013 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      How exactly is marriage scientific? I get the giving birth part but in no way is marriage scientific.

      March 26, 2013 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      March 26, 2013 at 11:07 am | Report abuse |
    • James Poster

      It's a scientific fact that marriage between an elderly man and woman who can't procreate is different than with a young and fertile man and woman. So what was your point again?

      March 26, 2013 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
    • CK

      You have to be a troll. Marriage is created by man. It can be whatever the human race wants it to be. I

      March 26, 2013 at 11:50 am | Report abuse |
    • AthensGuy

      Citations please (more than one)

      March 26, 2013 at 12:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • cedar rapids

      sarcasm right? not way are you serious with trying to claim scientific fact.

      March 26, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      It will come down to the same argument that Loving v. Virginia did. it will be overturned for the same reason

      March 26, 2013 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
  2. MikeFrye

    Let 'em have their piece of paper – it's not any kind of guarantee. The combined incomes will elevate some into the 1%, and they can pay their fare share. Fools! You have the best of both worlds, right now – and you WANT the government to get more involved in your life? Once you get the rights you can't just "break-up" you'll have to pay for'll have to pay more taxes, not less. You're trading more government interference for access to health insurance? Increase Revenues – It's an Obama world!

    March 26, 2013 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
    • malacoda

      You need to learn more about estate planning.

      March 26, 2013 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
    • Gary

      I agree But it would be nice not to see that man dressed in tat devils costume so let them eat cake

      March 26, 2013 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
  3. The Harbinger

    Oh God. Where has this nation gone?

    March 26, 2013 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
    • David

      It's called bringing about equality. You know the same thing we had to do with African Americans and women that Christians tried to oppress.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
    • James Poster

      If you drown a pregnant woman, you effectively abort their unborn child. Who in history drowned the most pregnant women? I seem to recall a story about some deity who once drowned EVERY pregnant woman on the planet. Thank goodness an evil being like that doesn't really exist.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
    • bocca

      probably the same hole when blacks and women were given the right to vote, huh?

      March 26, 2013 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      Moving away from bigotry?

      March 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      or at least this form of bigotry

      March 26, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
  4. steve

    i remind you of "Sodom and Gomorrah"

    heed the warning!

    March 26, 2013 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Kimberly

      "i remind you of "Sodom and Gomorrah""

      It is helpful to post both passages of Jude, 1:6 and 1:7 together, as they are meant to be read this way.

      New International Version (NIV)
      6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

      Note that the humans are exhibiting the same behaviors as the angels. Note, also, that the sexual immorality and perversion mentioned isn't homosexuality. Scholars who have studied this passage have concluded that the perversion alluded to is actually rape, which was rampant.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:09 am | Report abuse |
    • James Poster

      I remember Sodom and Gomorrah. That was where God burned to a crisp every child in both cities. He also incinerated every pregnant woman, thereby aborting every unborn child in both cities. God LOVES abortion!

      March 26, 2013 at 11:29 am | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      i remind you that our laws are not based on your comic book

      March 26, 2013 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Bill

    But I love my puppy. It is just not fair.

    March 26, 2013 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Understand

      But your puppy is not a human being capable of signing legal papers in order to marry, Bill. Or are you so incapable of understanding that?

      March 27, 2013 at 10:30 am | Report abuse |
    • GT

      You just compared a human being to a dog. That's an insult, not an argument.

      April 1, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Slim

    Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Not a right.

    March 26, 2013 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
    • vknyvz

      Auto-correcting "Marriage is a legal contract between men and women!"

      March 26, 2013 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Mr Dalloway

      For now that is.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:03 am | Report abuse |
    • Cory

      This is outdated. It's an attempt to stop people from possibly being happy. It's not hurting you nor anyone. Pointless anger demonstrated here

      March 26, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy©

      It is a legal contract that should be made available to all, regardless of gender preference.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
    • slamajamma

      And it also shouldn't be a concern how many who choose to marry, the relation to that person(s) who you choose to marry, and the age shouldn't matter anyways. By forcing those laws, people at the same time are forcing their own moral code on others, right?

      March 26, 2013 at 11:07 am | Report abuse |
    • lee

      yes it is SCOTUS ruled it was 40+ years ago in loving v VA.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
    • James PDX

      I'm not sure I get your point. Marriage is a civil union recognized by the government. You can't have a marriage unless the government allows it. Therefore it is a civil issue and a civil right. Everyone is guaranteed the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm pretty sure marriage falls within those categories.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
    • ViewPoint

      Exactly and they already have the same right as everybody else. They can marry somebody of the oppisite gender the way nature intended it to be. We should not have to change because immoral people chose to live an abnormal lifestyle

      March 26, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bubba

      Amen to that..

      Gay is not the norm in society...
      So by definition they are "ABNORMAL"

      March 26, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Johnny

      So your point is that any and all who disagree with this nonsense is now a biggot because I don't support your "civil right". You watch that's exactly what is coming. Just nonsense!

      March 26, 2013 at 5:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      The U S Supreme court ruled in 1967 that marriage was a civil right.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      Marriage was rule a civil right back in 1967 by the supreme court

      March 26, 2013 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      Marriage is a civil right.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Ameur Zellagui

      Marriage is religious word to set civil rights...and marriage build a family, kids ...etc, gay marriage build diseases and the end of human race!

      March 26, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mr Obvious

      Again you have no right to corrupt children you sick freak. Stop being evil. Just bang your gay friends and keep it to your damn self. WHAT IS SOOOOOO DANG HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

      March 26, 2013 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Vincent

      That, it is. In fact, when a man divorces a woman....the judge makes sure the husband understands this....and then robs him of half his assets ...over the conditions of said contract 🙁

      March 26, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • ytman

      So then why does the legal contract not extend to all people? Why are you selecting who can partake in that legal contract?

      The right to pursue happiness and personal liberty is the foundation of this nation. Do you move to reject that premise?

      March 26, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • awaiting moderation

      It seems what is illegal one day is legal another,with just the change of leaders.

      March 26, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • AthensGuy

      But do we have the right to impede any two people of legal age from entering into such contracts, when others can do so based solely on their genders?

      March 26, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mr Obvious

      No, just the right to stop them from brainwashing innocents.

      March 26, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • ol cranky

      actually a plethora of rights are granted solely on the basis of a valid marriage license so this is about rights

      as for your comment that marriage is a contract between two people:
      why then, can't gay people enter into that contract?
      why then, is the government involved in issuing marriage licenses?
      and why does the government grant rights based on marital status?

      March 26, 2013 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Justthefactsma'am

      Hmmm.. Yeah, that's what the Supreme Court has determined 14 times since 1888. Whoops, no, they actually said it is a 'right.'

      March 26, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • cedar rapids

      supreme court has ruled again and again that marriage is a human right.

      March 26, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • bocca

      Well...don't two consenting adults have the RIGHT to enter into any type of "contract" they want?
      If I want to use someone to build me a backyard fence and write a contract to define the terms, isn't that my RIGHT?

      Your logic is a bit flawed...

      March 26, 2013 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Inglourious

      Why are some citizens prevented from entering into such a legal contract?

      March 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • truth

      "Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Not a right" Marriage is a legal contract between two people and for our system of government to claim the mantle of equality everyone must have the right to enter into that legal contract with the person they love regardless of gender.

      March 26, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      If we go by the bible, then blacks can not marry whites and people of different religious should not marry either, so let start banning interratial couples and couples of different religions.

      March 26, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Con game


      GOD defined marriage between a man and a woman.

      GOD trumps man, society, special interest groups, governments, and especially the Supreme Court.

      Rather be aligned with the eternal and everlasting GOD Almighty, than with anything a human might decide without all knowledge – past, present and future. Yours and my mind is limited and none of us can see the future. GOD can.

      Let's error on side of GOD being right. HE is the final judge.

      March 26, 2013 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • anchorite

      Equal treatment under the law is the right. If straights get it, gays get it. Equal freedom to and from religion is a right. If it's only wrong because God says it, too bad, it can't be a law because not everyone believes in God.

      March 26, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      the supreme court said marriage is a civil right

      March 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Me

      The Supreme Court (Loving v.Virginia, 1967) disagrees.

      March 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • BC

      Thank you!

      March 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • GT

      The supreme court affirmed marriage as a right very literally when it ruled that people of different races can marry. Go read it, if you don't believe me. That makes it a right whether or not any of us disagree.

      April 1, 2013 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Esog

    Subtext.... Pay no attention to the banks stealing from people and homeland security preparing for war with the citizens.

    March 26, 2013 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
  8. really?

    Under whose authority will they marry. The bible states it as an abomination.

    March 26, 2013 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
    • malacoda

      This just in: Not everybody is Christian, and non-Christians can legally marry.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:04 am | Report abuse |
    • want2believe

      Under the government's authority. Just like every other legal, gov recognized marriage.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:06 am | Report abuse |
    • James Poster

      The Bible also states that divorce is a terrible sin far more times. So under whose authority have more than 1/2 of all married heterose*uals gotten divorces?

      March 26, 2013 at 11:33 am | Report abuse |
    • AthensGuy

      Tha authority of the state. marriage is governed by civil law and not by the bible, or are you saying Hindu marriages are illegal?

      March 26, 2013 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • bocca

      Do even know anything about marriage? The authority comes from a State (marriage license) NOT a religious text.

      March 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Inglourious

      It also states that eating shrimp is an abomination. What's your point?

      March 26, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • sam stone

      the government is necessary for marriage, the bible is not

      March 26, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
  9. JDM

    Here's to those of you that are gay having the same rights as myself and other straights!

    March 26, 2013 at 10:43 am | Report abuse |
  10. Gregory Faith

    This nation will take one more step toward self destruction. The world will soon follow. Other animals will be allowed to evolve and become the top of the food chain.

    March 26, 2013 at 10:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Leopardess111

      Really?? Do you know anything about biology and/or evolution? "Allowed" to evolve? Really?

      March 26, 2013 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
    • James Poster

      Let's just hope they show more wisdom than us and take better care of the planet.

      March 26, 2013 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
  11. cyberhackster

    Next, the government will find a way to tax it

    March 26, 2013 at 10:46 am | Report abuse |
  12. Takes One To Know One

    Fear mongerer. That simply isn't true and you know it! But if you know different then as the saying goes "It takes one to know one!"

    March 26, 2013 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
  13. Mr Dalloway

    Sone straight people really need to get over themselves, It's unfortunate for you that someone somewhere pumped such nonsense into your heads that you are a superior group, NOT! Live and let live. Gay marriage should and finally we be approved, case closed. So let's no get back to hating those stinking Canadians, alright? 🙂

    March 26, 2013 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
  14. Amber

    Army veteran here eagerly awaiting the possible opportunity to be afforded the same rights and benefits as the straight married soldiers that I serve next to. I have been engaged to my fiancee for almost a year now, can't wait to hpoefully get married and have it recognized everywhere.

    March 26, 2013 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
    • Vincent

      Girls are supposed to marry men....and girls are not supposed to have 5 o'clock shadows and bulges in their pants. Makes them look ridiculous.

      March 26, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
  15. 11791

    Who is the fellow in the above photo the representing?

    March 26, 2013 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15