Comments for California Supreme Court approves gay marriage »
Posted By SonOfTheMask 1 year, 7 months ago in StyleSAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
Read Full Story at latimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 383 of 384 Comments
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: The state high court's ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, and the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned29 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You shouldnt take stuff liek that personal SonOf.
Maybe what they are sayin is they simply dont agree with the content of the artikal.
I myself get negged ALL the tiem by certain members.
For instance, LibsRfunny follows me around endlessly givin me negs --- followed by DropKickaLib.
I say ... Be strong ... just liek your grandfather would wish for you Loki.
Reply-
catstevensComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
mark-stevens1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People that are against same sex marriage are not "Christians" they're just self centered jerks. Why isn't there an out rage against adultry. That has ruined the meaning of marriage more than all the homosexual weddings could ever do!!
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
abntv1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
ontherock1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole thing is just GROSS!!!!
Gay marriage, Domestic Partner Rights???
What's next?? I have been living with my cousin since I was 9 and we want benefits too???
This country has gone MAD!!!
It's really frightening. Yes a woman can love another woman like a sister and men the same as brothers BUT this whole gay/homo thing is just WRONG!!!!!
People smack a male dog for trying to hump another male dog because it's just WRONG!!!!!
Reply-
HmacComment removed: Retracted by user70 Replies
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Itachirumon1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ontherock - I'M a Californian, so you and abntv can rah rah rah go f*ck yourself rah rah rah today! We win, but we truly hope you'll be gracious losers, we're being gracious winners. Well...I'm not because I think you guys need to suck on the third rail of a subway track but that's just me and my inherated New Yorker temper
Reply -
-
Neutral
rightwingliberal1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
TimALoftis1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
TimALoftis1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that this will be a huge impetus to pass the November constitutional amendment, too. I just hope that everyone who wants to can arrange to get married in the meantime. I hope people in California give more and better thought to enshrining discrimination in their constitution than people in my home state did. This will probably turn out just like the anti-miscegenation laws and the Feds will intervene, but I may not live long enough to see it settled once-and-for-all.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
quiescence1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I look forward to the day when marriage rights will be extended to gays in all states. To deny someone a basic human right based on their sexual orientation is not only immoral, but it is utterly inconsistent with the notions of equality intrinsic in the U.S. legal system.
Today is indeed a great day for civil rights.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
lvrofwolves1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tweetie08-yeah if you think God will judge... why are you doing it now? how will you feel then, when 'God' asks you why you judged? don't you have any confidence in your 'God'? concern yourself with your own soul, why focus on those who are not harming you in the least.
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since I don't believe in God (much less YOUR version of God), the matter is moot.
There are a whole lot of people who believe that God is love and that He welcomes love in the world in whatever form it might manifest.
If I am destined for Hell, at least I'll be in good company. I don't think I'd be much interested in a Heaven without a Cirque du Soleil show at the Pearly Gates MGM Grand.
Reply -
-
-
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No one is asking for special rights or special protection. I personally think the semantics of the "marriage" argument are just ridiculous! I could care less what it's called...as long as ALL the same rights are applied.
I know the Southern Baptists would never marry a gay couple....but then, I wouldn't be caught DEAD darkening their doors anyway.... And gays and lesbians still do have options if a church ceremony is wanted: The Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, and many Episcopal Churches come to mind..... I'm just saying that the government should only grant civil unions to everyone regardless of sexual orientation - instead of marriage licenses to heterosexuals only - and that churches should then be free to bless the unions of their choosing with ceremonies.
The rights of marriage are what are important. And California has at least taken a giant step toward treating all of its citizens fairly.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why did this article get move to this channel? I submitted it to the NEWS channel. I think it is appropriate to be in the NEWS channel. While it is obviously about an issue pertaining to gays & lesbians, I don't understand the need to have changed the channel.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Son
I guess the Propeller powers that run this show want it here in the gay section. As usual, it's to heck with what you or I might want. They run this thing like a dictatorship and make up the rules as they go along like most dictators.
Reply-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a lot of respect for James Marcus and Tom Drapeau and several others. I don't think there was anything malicious happening here, I just don't understand the need to change it at all. It's a news item, why the need to change it at all? Nixie might have the right of it.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is absolutly outrageous! Once again a judge decides that Voters do not have thr right to make laws! FTR, my outrage is not at the outcome, but at the fact that a judge overturned the voters decision. Why should one man have the power to make decisions for tens of million of people?
I would think that even the gays who would normally be happy aboput a victory such as this would be outraged at how the decision came about. Do we really want judges who legislate from the bench making our decisions for us?
Reply-
-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why should one man have the power to make decisions for tens of million of people?"
So if 90% of the people voted in favor of an act that stated "Union between a white man and a white woman is the only type of marriage accepted in (insert state)" it would be ok?
Reply -
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Voters certainly DO have the right to make laws, but under our Constitutional system they do NOT have the right to make laws which infringe upon the rights of other members of society. For this reason courts have (properly) struck down many laws, including those which mandated racial segregation and denied equal rights to women. What we have here is simply an extension of that very valid principle to a group of citizens who do not enjoy widespread public support--but they are still citizens.
Reply-
-
Neutral
mcarpentry1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
12oscar, As the laws of this country, when the MAJORITY of the people VOTE a law into effect, NO judge has the right to take away the peoples voice period! If the people want to change the law then bring it to a vote. There is a reason "We the people" vote for or against things such as this. As it stands right now we have a communistic state were a judge(man) has ruled upon HIS opinion not the opinion of the people.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's called the Judicial Branch of the government. The people do have the right to make laws, but if those laws violate the constitutions of either the state or the nation, the judiciary has the power, nay, DUTY, to over turn them.
Sounds like the people behind the ban are doing the procedurally correct thing, working to change the state constitution.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not saying they have a snowball's chance, but taking things to the next procedural step is far better than whining about 'activist judges'.
You are correct, a state cannot have an element of its constitution that runs contrary to the US Constitution.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The legislature, the representatives elected by the people to make the laws, has twice, TWICE passed laws to permit gay marriage, and ONE man, not a panel of learned jurists, but a foreign-born ACTOR, has vetoed it TWICE. It would seem that TWO branches of the California government agree, and only ONE MAN has been blocking the proper path.
Reply -
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive4 Replies
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe civil marriage is a states' rights issue. If California defines its civil marriages to include same-sex marriages, so be it.
However, I'm a staunch supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Federal government should not recognize same-sex marriages and neither should other states that define civil marriage as between a man and a woman.
PS - Should have been a stand-alone comment, not a reply to 1-2-Oscar.
Reply-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Our Constitution requires states to respect laws of other states and to recognize contracts entered into in other states, but there is no requirement that any state recognize such arrangements made in any other country. We do, however, have treaties with many other nations which give reciprocal recognition to business contracts, but I am aware of no instance in which we are required to recognize multiple marriages.
Reply -
-
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user11 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How so? If a two citizens, being able to consent, decide to enter into a legally binding contract sanctioned by the State, are kept from doing so because of the sex of those involved in said contract, how can that NOT be inequal? If the two citizens were kept from entering the contract due to race or religion would that not be, by definition, discriminatory? Why then should sexual orientation be any different.
Marriage is, as far as the State is concerned, a legally binding contract between two people. Keeping people from entering that contract for any reason other than incapacity to make the decision to do so is discrimination.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Federal government should recognize all marriages that a state recognizes as marriage is an issue of the state and not the Federal government. Basically, the Federal government should just accept the ruling of the state that the said marriage would have taken place in.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I respectfully disagree. Due to the Federal income tax system and to the fact that the Federal goverment is one of the largest employers in the country, it is not as simple as recognizing every variety of civil marriage that a state might concoct. Most especially at the Federal level, I support the Founder's original vision of marriage as being the bedrock of family and the inculcation of civic virtues.
Others will disagree and likely call me several names that I've seen many times previously. Try to be original.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Alright... Propeller has lost my first comment. Luckily, I copied it:
On this I support a limited Federal government. Let each state decides whether it recognizes a gay union for itself and just have the Federal government accept whatever state the union took place in, or where the couple currently lives. I could see the decision to interpret it either way at the Federal level, but I can't realistically see a constitutional basis for simply refusing to recognize a marriage. Marriage is a matter of the state. It always has been and if a state wants to ban it, then the Federal government shouldn't intervene. If a state recognizes it, the Federal government shouldn't intervene. We will probably have to respectfully disagree on this.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I concur, as stated elsewhere in this thread, that civil marriage is an issue for states to legislate. However, realistically, the Federal government wields the Federal income tax system as a social policy instrument PLUS it is an employer in every state (I believe). The issue isn't whether or not the Federal government should certify or nullify a civil marriage within a state. The issue is how does the Federal government, in its dealings as a taxing authority and employer, handle marriages that are now being defined differently.
Reply-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And that leads to inequities in providing employment and retirement benefits as well as administering income tax provisions. Is that fair?
What if a "very progressive" state decides to legitimize polygamous marriage? Should the Federal government then recognize that marriage, too? How then does the Federal government handle income taxation provisions relating to married vs. unmarried status?
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think you need to worry about polygamy being legalized considering how difficult it is to get same sex marriage. However, if a state recognizes polygamy, then I believe the Federal government would have to recognize it and find some way to solve the problems that may arise.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mdiar: I enjoy our discussions. Perversely, I especially enjoy them when we have different opinions. LOL!
Here's an article to which I often refer people when they ask about my opinions on the subject of same-sex marriage. It's about as close as it comes in describing my viewpoints:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_gay_marri...
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've read the article in the past, and, while I appreciate it not bringing up a religious viewpoint, I disagree with the thesis of it. It would be better turned to attacking divorce then gay marriage and it does a fine job of laying out the differences in marriage in the United States and in other areas of the world. I've never been convinced by it though, that the marriage of two men or two women, would somehow raise a less independent family if they adopted. Or that a union raising children like this would create children very different from those a male/female marriage would raise. In fact most studies I've ever seen show the opposite. So I say institute same-sex marriage and two men will probably adopt, two women have a few more choices for children and as a whole, I'd bet society would be better for it.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I submitted that article to Propeller in the past, you might have read it here. :)
Setting aside divorce and focusing on same-sex marriage, I think that article lays out a compelling discussion about civil marriage and the role and interests of the state. Due to the realities of current-day science, the rise of "artificial families" is certainly within current technology. Two gents or two ladies can certainly procure artificially inseminated embryos. As you suggest, the ladies fare a bit better in this regard, since the gents would have to further procure a womb. Of course, this all speaks to the author's points on the steady erosion (deliberate by same-sex marriage proponents) of the idea that marriage and family are intertwined.
Well, as you say, we'll likely disagree amicably on the subject. Always enjoyable to discuss topics with you, mdiar.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Enjoyable to discuss with you to, Son.
I think that marriage and family are definitely intertwined and I address this further down. I just think that the idea of family can include two men married and kids or two women married and kids. I object to a single parent household far more then a homosexual household.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tweetie081 year, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage in the US is a CIVIL institution. It may have originated as a religious ceremony, but the religious aspect MUST be ignored in regards to considering legality. In the American model, God(s) only enters into it when both people want Him(Them, It) to, hence the authority of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage. When a pastor performs a marriage 'in the sight of God', there are certain civil requirements he or she must perform in order for the marriage to be recognized by the state. As far as the law is concerned, God does not unite the two people, the state does.
Reply -
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"No, marriage was approved by God for a MAN AND A WOMAN only!!! "
Nowhere in the Bible does it state that marriage in God's 'eyes' was for a man and woman only. Many know that Catholic Nuns 'marry' Christ (a mystical union, of course), but most ignore the fact that Catholic Monks are also eternally wed to Christ (a mystical union, of course).
On top of this, there is quite a bit of polygamy in the OT and no real rejection of it in the NT (this doesn't have to do with same-sex marriage, but you really should know your Bible).
"God makes the final decision when he takes his people not the state, especially when everyone approaches the gates of heaven."
True enough. What do you think Christ will say when you tell him that you closed your arms to the marginalized and spread your narrow interpretation of hatred rather than the love of Christ.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So what do we do? Have the IRS hire another raft of lawyers to determine if a couple, based on gender, marital status in CA or NY (which now recognizes gay marriages, though it does not license them)or MA, and recognition status in the state of current residence of one or both of the partners, may file a joint return? LOL It gets better and better!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this is a civil rights issue. not a religious issue.
the right to marry, and all the rights that go with marraige, need to be available to everyone.
funny thing is, the biggest winners at the end of the day will probably end up being divorce lawyers anyway.
Reply-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive10 Replies
-
-
Neutral
kritikit1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah! i can get married. under a redwood tree! no one can stop it now. everyone can now marry when they are adults, to adults... that is great!
way to progress, now lets stop all the civil rights violations and second class standards across the USA
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage is a right? Besides, gays never lost that right. They have the same 'right' to get married and have a family that contributes to this nation therefore deserving of the tax breaks that the feds give to marrie couples. Insurance benefits too.
Reply-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If I wanted to marry a woman I would have done so already. I'm gay. I'm not attracted to women sexually. Surely you understand that. So why should I NOT be allowed to enjoy the rights of marriage with my partner? Since I am as capable of loving a woman as you are of loving a man, surely you can see how irrational it is to deny anyone the right to enter the LEGAL CONTRACT of marriage with the person they love. This should be our right as much as it is for you.
The government institution should only be responsible for granting the license of marriage (or the civil union, if you will). Churches would not be told who they can and cannot marry (so NOTHING would change there). The Southern Baptists will never have a gay marriage ceremony but the Unitarian Universalists or some Episcopal parishes might.
This would be as it should be, IMO...
This is what the California Supreme Court has now recognized.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ah, Global--you ARE doing a Goppy-like parody of know-nothing (especially about one's own unconscious impulses) moralistic homophobia, aren't you?
Otherwise, what POSSIBLE difference can it make to ANYONE if two people of the same sex want to get married? (Remember, folks, you don't get to impose your religious convictions on others.)
Of course the lordy-what-next? argument is spurious: animals and children can't give consent, and polygamy is a crime in all states(though compliance isn't always enforced, as we've recently seen).
Indeed, to reiterate what Tim said just above: California, we're proud of you!
Reply -
Neutral
mypityourpit1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bad california
are people missing the bigger picture here. it was a law that was given to the people to decide by a vote. it was voted on and did not pass. we are encouraged to vote so "our voices can be heard", "we can make a change". we do that and in return it gets over turned because someone didn't like how the vote turned out.
if we continue to do things like this, rather it's smoking bans or same sex laws, we are essentially telling people that their voice doesn't matter, and isn't that what this is about, why the voter approved law was overturned???
Reply -
-
catstevensComment removed: Retracted by user39 Replies
-
Neutral
indianacookie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Other countries have tried the gay marriage thing and now marriages are not happening and not lasting Divorce is on the rise and marriages are on the decline. Besides the fact that every society as far back as the Romans have fallen after they adopted this attitude about gays and lesbians. Marriage is a religous institution and not some excuse to make political statements.
Besides all that, why are unelected judges allowed to make law I thought that was the job of our elected representi... should be worried about this unelected officials making law? Better beware
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Garbage. Where are your statistics backing up any of your anecdotal claims? Gay marriage is legal only in Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Canada, and Massachusetts until today's ruling. Marriage as a CIVIL institution has existed for some time, but as a religious experience is not as old as you might think. As for the judges in Cali, how can you be so sure that they are not chosen by democratic principals? They are not elected so they are not prone to political pressure. They need to be isolated from the whims of the voting populace. After all, we do not elect our federal judiciary!
Come back when your claims are valid.
Reply-
Neutral
indianacookie1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look at the stats for the Netherlands. You say this stuff about judges now because they reflect your point of view what will you think when it goes against your opinions and affects your rights You watch out The Roman empire was distroyed after it embraced this idiology FACT You need a history lesson And as far as a religous institution where do you think marriage started Are you stupid? You should read more and try to be objective when you do the facts are there you just don't want to see them because you are a close minded elitist You see what you want to back up your own narrow point of view. Marriage has been around a lot longer then judges and courts! Besides that since when is sexual preference a civil right? You open pandora's box with that attitude. Sex as a civil right could not be restricted to adult human beings Common sense would tell you this
Reply-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Arguably Rome fell because it went from a Republic to an Empire.
If you're looking at examples from History, Ancient Greece was very open to homosexuality, yet it took the might of Rome to overthrow them.
I'm curious, to which Netherlands stats are you referring?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The strange thing is, three of them were appointed by a Republican, Arnold's mentor, Pete Wilson!
Arnold has pledged to the Log Cabin Republicans his intention to defeat the initiative to defend traditional marriage in the Fall, but the bellylaugher in all this is that HIS appointment to the Court voted AGAINST the majority!
I suppose this decision is bad timing for Arnold, because he was probably going to claim that no CA court would EVER impose gay marriage over the will of the people.
So much for that argument...
Reply-
Neutral
ONEMEMPHISDUDE1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
..Gov. Arnold has proven himself to be a more than apt politician. He knows that this supreme court decision is no big deal. He has more important things on his agenda; (i.e. Health care, water bills, fiscal health of the state). If anything, The court allowed him to get this nagging issue off his plate by proclaiming that it is now a matter of the judiciary.
Very smart move Gov!
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So they have to be reaffirmed. I highly doubt one ruling out of 12 years on the bench will get them ejected. Besides, they will have the support of all the gay and lesbian voters and our allies, which to my reckoning includes Governor Schwarzenegger.
Reply-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The only case I can recall of where CA Supreme Court justices were 'punished' for their decisions was the case of Chief Justice Rose Bird, and two other justices, Justice Reynoso and Justice Grodin, all appointees of Gov. Jerry Brown, who were turned out for their repeated overturning of death penalty convictions in 1986. In that sense, it wasn't because of one decision that they were turned out, but because of repeatedly making the same decision over and over again. Chief Justice Bird, for example, voted to overturn every single one of the 68 death penalty convictions that reached her court. Until the day she was turned out she remained defiant in her attitudes towards the death penalty. One certainly has to admire her consistency and sense of principle, even if one differs with her conclusions.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Eh? Divorce is on the rise not due to same-sex marriage, its due to the attitude of the baby-boomers and the redefining of what marriage is and is meant to be. Marriage isn't really meant to be to happily fulfill yourself, its to form a family and raise the next generation. Considering all the children out there who are difficult to adopt, wouldn't you want say a couple who are incapable of conceiving by themselves as of now (two men) adopting kids? Studies show that they are just as well adjusted as kids raised in a heterosexual couple's home. Considering this I can see same-sex marriage being a boon to our society, not the end of it.
Reply-
catstevensComment removed: Retracted by user4 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fair question, here is a story on just one:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.ht...
"Parenting by same-sex families is just as good -- if not slightly advantageous -- for children when compared to heterosexual families, a Justice Department study has concluded."
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then we have the American Psychiatric Associations statement on it:
http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_arch...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
indianacookie: "Other countries have tried the gay marriage thing and now marriages are not happening and not lasting Divorce is on the rise and marriages are on the decline."
I tried to find some statistics on Canada. With more than 20,000 same-sex marriages performed, I could come up with only a handful of divorce requests. I'm sure it will rise with time, but do you know what the divorce rate is among heterosexuals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_...
Reply-
Neutral
Candida1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See how nice I am? I looked it up for you. Nearly half the marriages in the US break up. You should rejoice that there are still people who are not only willing but anxious to make the plunge.
Percentage of New Marriages which End in Divorce, in Selected Countries (2002)
Sweden 54.9
Belarus 52.9
Finland 51.2
Luxembourg 47.4
Estonia 46.7
Australia 46
United States 45.8
Denmark 44.5
Belgium 44
Austria 43.4
Czech Republic 43.3
Russia 43.3
United Kingdom 42.6
Norway 40.4
Ukraine 40
Iceland 39.5
Germany 39.4
Lithuania 38.9
France 38.3
Netherlands 38.3
Hungary 37.5
Canada 37
(Source: Americans for Divorce Reform)
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
GentleGiant1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bull.
"On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage
Reply-
Neutral
GentleGiant1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The following statistics are based on that NCHS material. Over three years have passed now since same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts and data from all of 2004 and 2005 are now available.
The current divorce trends in Massachusetts counter claims of same-sex marriage having a negative impact on traditional marriage. In fact, for several years now the Commonwealth has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union. In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the U.S. national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000 and close to the national average of 2.0 back in 1940. In the first two years of same-sex marriage in the Bay State, the rate of divorce showed a steady decline making it likely that Massachusetts will continue to have the lowest divorce rate in the nation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage#...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
God bless the CA Supreme Court!
They are 'the gift that keeps on giving'!
They have just done MORE than anyone could have to ENSURE the passage of the PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE California constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
The sponsors just recently submitted over 1.1 MILLION signatures, which is well above what was needed to qualify.
Check out the amendment yourself:
All I can say today, is "Thank you, Chief Justice Ron George and your three fellow elitists on the Court", for spitting in the face of the 61% of Californians who voted to protect marriage between a man and a woman in 2000.
You four are worth tens of millions of dollars of campaign commercials, at the minimum!
To paraphrase Joseph, "they meant it for evil, but the Lord meant it for good."
Reply-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, Bush went to court to stop the recount and the Supreme Court agreed.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_0...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
pimgsa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And then we sit back and wonder why this world we live in so so f@#$%? up!! Its like Sodom & Gomorrah all over again. They say if you put a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat he'll never realize it and will stay there till he bursts. Thats exactly where were headed WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
Reply -
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the article is improperly titled. Agree with their decision ot not, the California Supreme Court did not "approve" gay marriage. They said that allowing one group of partners to marry but prohibiting that status to another group is discriminatory, and violates the California Constitution.
I am not a student of California Constitutional law, so I can't say whether this is legislation from the bench or the court simply doing its job and interpreting the constitution.
I do know what discrimination means, though. And saying couple A can marry because I like their style but couple B cannot, because I find them disgusting. That IS discrimination. If California voters want to write discrimination into their constitution, so be it. But let's avoid the cloaking of terms.
Reply -
-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole premise of the gay-lib movement is as asinine as the character Stan's desire to have babies in the movie, "Monty Python's Life of Brian."
Stan
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me
Loretta.
Reg
What?
Loretta
It's my right as a man.
Judith
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
Loretta
I want to have babies.
Reg
You want to have babies?!
Loretta
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg
But...you can't have babies!
Loretta
Don't you opress me!
Reg
I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the
foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a
box?
cont.
Reply-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Loretta
Sniff.
Judith
Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually
have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's
fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to
have babies.
Rogers
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right
to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.
Reg
What's the point?
Rogers
What?
Reg
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when
he can't have babies?
Rogers
It is symbolic of our struggle against opression.
Reg
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
http://www.angelfire.com/movies/closedcaptioned...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Hyperboreus1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People should be able to define marriage as whatever they feel is right whether it's between them. As long as they all love each other and can and want live together... I guess the law should not limit people's pursuit of happiness and love.
Reply -
-
Neutral
jmoreZ4171 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As per the pure legal considerations I think it is a cut and dry case - everybody should be equal, regardless of sexual orientation.
In some other countries, Sweden for example, they are already discussing that gay marriage should be conducted in church.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Within the United States that becomes less cut and dry. Actually it does become cut and dry. A church doesn't have to marry a gay couple if they do not wish to because marriage in a church is not a legal matter and thus, government is not involved.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a more important freedom: freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There is some freedom of speech in America, because it is impractical to censor every private remark. Brezhnev's Russia was no different. The Internet is a kind of free press, but finding heretical ideas on the Internet is like prospecting for gold. The newspapers and mass media, however, are absolutely totalitarian.
The mainstream media would no more call homosexuality a perversion than it would call the 9/11 terrorism an inside job. Professional organizations are also prohibited from suggesting that homosexuality is unhealthy in any way. The schools from the first grade through the university level are PC brainwashing centers, especially with respect to the pro-homosexual political correctness. Of course, no one explains why it is necessary to silence the idiots who disagree with gay-lib.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ningyo1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
aside from the actual issue..this is about whether we live in a democracy or anarchy..this ruling was created by judicial fiat where there is no actual legal basis..justice george and his pals found law in the california constitution that doesnt exist--in other words he created new law from the bench..prop 22 was voted on and passed by 61% in the most liberal state in the nation..and in the fall a similar MAJORITY will vote to change the california constitution and reverse what is already the most reversed court in the country..its what liberals continue to do when they cant get their way at the ballot box and legislature..they find some activist judge to find standing for them where none exists..and we must continue to reverse these insidious perversions of our courts
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, we DON'T live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic, so stuff like this happens.
BTW, as pointed out earlier, the state legislature TWICE passed bills saying same-sex marriage was okay. Both bills were vetoed. Is that the same sort of 'anarchy' to which you refer?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a perfect example of an activist court that should be changed. The people of California clearly voted on what they felt constituted marriage. That being between a man and a woman. Now their state supreme court has decided to usurp the will of the people by re-writing laws. Where's the checks and balances? When do the law makers come forward and say, hold on, we write the laws, you enforce them. Once again we see the dangers of liberals in power. It's not the right wing controlling or telling you what is right and wrong, it's the libs. Do as I say not as I do.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And speaking of "activist" judges, Teagan, have you taken a look at the recent decisions of the Supremes (and I don't mean Diana Ross and)?
So "activism" is what judges are guilty of when their decisions don't follow our own politics.
Let us retire this term, invented, I believe, by the right, and certainly enthroned by Bush and Co., to stigmatize those whose opinions differ from what we, the "right-thinking" (pun, if you like) believe.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Teagan can preach about activist judges.. but as a woman.. she should be aware that without "activist judges" she would not have NEARLY the rights she now has.. voting being one of them.. and piloting a military aircraft would be another no no...
by the way the Chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion...
REPUBLICAN.... CONSERVATIVE....
I can't wait until the US Supremes uphold the handgun law in DC...
Reply -
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, Will, I'm always astounded--as well as saddened--by people who can't or refuse to recognize where their actual interests lie.
Which fact guileful pols, particularly of recent memory, exploit with redmeat nonissues like flag-pin wearing, blacks moving into your very own nabe--or the highest elected office--gays threatening the institution of marriage, preachers WHO HATE AMERICA!!!, etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Meanwhile, Rome--I mean the US--burns.
Reply -
Neutral
jasmine50001 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I keep hearing this, 'the will of the people' are being ignored by a judge. What they forget to mention is some times the will of the people are wrong when its their intention to discriminate or oppress.
Then its a judges right to. How long would segregated schools have lasted if the courts waited in kansas till the people approved integration of black and white children. possibly still today there would be separate schools. so what if a biggoted populous is against it. their wrong and should be overruled.
Reply -
-
KvilleTXComment removed: Hard Banned
-
KvilleTXComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.