Comments on: Gay Marriage Ban Challenged In Calif.

Calif. Supreme Court Will Hear Lawsuits Seeking To Nullify Gay Marriage Ban

[robinadair1]

Great we have already lost our vote! I thought everyone''s vote counted...not activist judges are going to nullify the voice of the people....and this is a democracy? Dictactorship here we come.

[mensarino]

I hope this is the death knell for this hateful proposition advanced by truly hateful people.
This is not a theocracy!

[spinproof]

In simple terms men and women go before God to get married with a Priest acting as the intermediary. God joins man and wife together, not men, God defines marriage between a man and a women not men. Man does not have the authority to redefine marriage to include G_A_Y same_s_e_x couples. G_A_Y same_s_e_x couples need to go before God to be married and any Priest acting as intermediary for God who claims God authorized a G_A_Y same_s_e_x marriage should be removed from the clergy since God would never approve of such a union.

[flexsf]

Would a constitutional ban on evangelical marriage be legal in California? In my opinion, it is they who need to suffer from their own poison!

[dronemonk]

Are all of our rights open to the mercies of a ballot vote? If a state voted to re-allow slavery, that''d be copasetic, so long as it was voted on? Tyranny of the majority...

[omded]

Not only is it important to vote, but it''s equally important to draft propositions that don''t create ambiguity in the Constitution. The California State Constitution gaurantees equality and bars discrimination. However, proposition 8 merely said that the State will only recognize marriages between a man and a woman. The problem is, the new language inserted by Proposition 8 is in direct conflict with the equality and non-discrimination provisions of the Constitution. So, in other words, California voters voted to re-write the State Constitution to require the State to do something that that same Constitution says the State cannot do.

The only way you can be sure to prohibit the State from recognizing gay marriages is to re-write the State Constitution to allow discrimination, and this would not be nearly as popular. The people who drafted Proposition 8 knew this, and that''s why they didn''t do it. However, you can''t "solve" the issue of g a y marriage without confronting the discrimination issue. That''s just the way it is. Perhaps you could sponsor a new proposition that prohibits schools from teaching anything about marriage. That would be the simplest way of addressing the concerns voiced in the pro-Proposition 8 advertisements.

[spinproof]

Wow. If voters don%u2019t have the authority to enact constitutional changes who does? These people forget how this country is supposed to work. This country isn%u2019t based on the concept of the judicial branch enacting laws. It%u2019s the legislative branch. You know, the ones that represent the people. The judicial branch interprets the laws; they aren%u2019t supposed to make law. That is overstepping their authority.

Posted by O2bRich at 06:31 PM : Nov 19, 2008

There are probably G_A_Y Judges making these overreaching decisions.

[susanhelit]

It''s important to vote to set the laws of our country, to elect those who represent us. It''s not, however, a goal of voting, to remove rights from minorities - the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights exist to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" - something our founding fathers were quite concerned with. If you think voting should be able to ban marriage for a group - let''s say, interracial couples, which were illegal not so long ago - you are indeed abusing your vote - and that''s not a reason it''s important to vote, to take rights away.

[o2brich]

Wow. If voters don%u2019t have the authority to enact constitutional changes who does? These people forget how this country is supposed to work. This country isn%u2019t based on the concept of the judicial branch enacting laws. It%u2019s the legislative branch. You know, the ones that represent the people. The judicial branch interprets the laws; they aren%u2019t supposed to make law. That is overstepping their authority.

[colt8881]

Fantastic I am glad the court agreed to hear legal challenges to the state''s new ban on same-*** marriage.

The Ultra Conservative Right Wing is loosing ground and power every day and it''s about time that everybody has = rights under the law !

[o2brich]

It must be real hard to get rid of these activist judges that keep abusing their position on the bench to create bad law and circumvent the will of the majority. California seems particularly plagued with this problem.

[spinproof]

Gay Marriage Ban Challenged In Calif.

If people in same-s_e_x relationships want the same benefits as married couples then they should fight the benefits battle "only". Fighting a battle to redefine marriage to include same-s_e_x partners is the wrong fight, a fight that challenges the religious definition of marriage as ordained by God, a battle same-s_e_x partners should lose.

[spinproof]

Gay Marriage Ban Challenged In Calif.

If people in same-*** relationships want the same benefits as married couples then they should fight the benefits battle "only". Fighting a battle to redefine marriage to include same-*** partners is the wrong fight, a fight that challenges the religious definition of marriage as ordained by God, a battle same-*** partners should lose.

[kk217]

Tell me again why it''s important to vote