Reader comments
Benson had it right

The laws are being obeyed. Others are simply working to change the laws. This is the way we expect people to handle things in this country, unless, apparently, we don't appreciate how they'd like the laws changed.

Did Richard really say that rights of individuals in our society are determined by the majority?

If he did, he clearly doesn't understand the constitution. That document declares the rights of the people. A majority cannot pass a law that violates those rights. In order to rescind those rights, the constitution must be ammended to take them away.

Most conservative folks, and the Declaration of Independence, say that rights are granted from our creator, not from a majority of voters.

�Demonstrates a clear miss understanding of the issue of gay marriage as seen by straight people.� I am sorry but as a �Straight� person you do not speak for me, why cant some people just take responsibility for their thoughts and feelings without having to use wide generalizations? Just take responsibility for your bias and be done with it already, stop trying to use gross generalizations.

We don't allow criminal minorities to decide that their felonies are all right. Immorality used to be illegal; in a few places it still is.

Homosexuality is not a victimless crime. It kills and it kills non-homosexuals too (spouses and unborn children to homosexual and bisexual men who have AIDS). Yes, there ARE many homosexual men who are married - to women.

Additionally homosexual couples now compete in adoptions. Where they succeed they teach, by example, their perverse and dangerous lifestyle to their charges, and perpetuate their filthy practices. How many millions have to die before we face this issue squarely?

Silly me, I thought that rights are designed to protect people from the whims of the majority.

uncannygunman - spot on... guess if the "majority rules", blacks might still be worth 2/3rd of a person, women couldn't vote and so on. if only all these hetero holy rollers would focus on themselves (cast not...) and the 50%+ divorce rate --- now that's where Focus on the Family should start

Some rights were enumerated in the Bill of Rights to guarantee that they would be known to all and not simply implied.

The right to uphold traditional marriage has been added to that list, at least to the people of California.

Does anyone think that the Hand of God came down and wrote the Bill of Rights? Those who have ever cracked open a book on our Nation's history may never realize how fierce the debates were pertaining to what was included in the Constitution and what was left out.

The debate in California was similar to the debate held in each of the thirteen original colonies. The people of those colonies decided, by vote, whether they desired to join the Union. Not everyone got what they wanted. Compromises were made. Some of those compromises have been "adjusted" by the vote of the states, meaning the vote of the citizens of those states.

We live in a Republic where we seldom directly vote on issues. Normally we vote for a representative who then votes for us. However, when the people vote directly on an issue, the outcome of that vote becomes the mind and will of the people.

@Richard Ewing Davis

"Gays seem only to accept our system when it favors their biased agenda. Otherwise it's constant whining, as Benson wrote."

You reject the validity of courts. One could say you are the sore loser over court decisions. Gays will continue to work within the courts, and they'll continue to work to win votes for our rights for marriage. But you are implying that rights via the courts are antithetical to our system of governance, and that only simple majority referenda are valid. You are dead wrong.

So I'll regurgitate your boorish comment with a twist: Anti-gays seem only to accept our system when it favors their biased agenda. Otherwise it's constant whining.

I can't believe that there are still people who think like The 'foxes and hen houses' comment. Next you will be saying that AIDS is a punishment from God! I am a not gay and have been married for 25 years, I have a happy and stable family. I want others to have that, be they gay or straight. I know two gay couples who would make better parents than a lot of hetrosexual couples that I meet in my job as a teacher, trust me, bad parenting doesn't even cover it! If gay couples want to marry, let them. If they want to adopt, let them. Judge each couple on their kind nature, their resources and their ability to love and care for a child, not what they do in the privacy of their own bed room! Your narrow minded attitude is dangerous and you should hang you head in shame!!! Who knows what anyone gets up to in their bedroom!

Sally in England:Problem with gays is...they don't keep it in the bedroom...we are forced to see it infiltrating all media. Also, when gays are allowed to legally marry, then my heterosexual marriage is pulled down into the gutter, down to their level, that is the real right that is taken from me.

The problem with Warren Jeffs french kissing a 12 year old is inflitrating all the media, and we are forced to see it.
Nobody wants to do anything about it.

Fifty years ago it was illegal in most states, including Utah, for a balck person and a white person to marry one another. If it had been put to a popular vote, I'm sure the majority would have approved of the law. That didn't make it constitutional, and it didn't make it right.

Kevin,

I believe that it is you who misunderstands the courts.

The supreme law of a State is its Constitution. The Supreme Court of that State cannot rule against its supreme law. All laws hang on the laws explicitly defined in the Constitution. Laws may be added, but no law can contradict the Constitution. If a law is found to contradict the Constitution, then the Supreme Court is bound, by law, to remove the law that contradicts the Constitution.

In California, traditional marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That is part of the California Constitution. It is the supreme law of California. No judge in California can overturn that law unless he wishes to abolish all laws mandated by the California Constitution.

Fox in hen house your ignorance is truly frightening as well as dangerous. Really you need to get help! There is no way you could truly be that ignorant of reality at this point in the debate other then willfully. Every part of your erroneous rant has been addressed hundreds of times on other threads. If you don�t want to listen to people on these threads then tat least go to the CDC website and educate yourself about the reality of AIDS. When you spread your ignorance it does kill because when people acting in uninformed it allows diseases like AIDS to continue to spread.

how is your marriage pulled down into the gutter? If someone else being allowed to marry drags your marriage into the gutter it speaks more to the poor state of your marriage then anything else? I cant believe we are going to have another day of these same inane comments.

To "Mike Richards | 8:49 a.m." I would also like to add that rights not listed in the US constitution are left up to the states. Just like when the US constitution was ratified, if a majority decide that they want their state constitution to limit certain behaviors that is a matter for the state.

If you don't like a law or a portion of the state or US constitution, there is a process to get thoes laws changed. Prohibition is a prime example of government setting up a constitutional law and then recinding it.

the author of the letter got one thing very wrong. society does not choose what is right or wrong. they just choose the rule. it doesn't make it right.

I find the mormons whining as much or more than the other side. Mormons cry too much. See Larry H. Miller!

My marriage is not weakend or compromised if gay people are allowed to marry. I am confident in my love for my husband and his love me, to understand that nothing can weaken that. It doesn't matter if you are hetrosexual or homosexual,if you love someone and they love you and you want to marry that person, then you should be allowed to do that. If people are threatened by two men or women loving each other and wanted to commmit to each other, then they are sad, insecure individuals, who need to live their lives and let others live theirs. Gay people do flirt in public, but who cares, so do hetrosexual people. I have two sons and a daughter and if either one was gay, I wouldn't give a hoot!

Dicj,

"A majority cannot pass a law that violates those rights. In order to rescind those rights, the constitution must be ammended to take them away."

If your argument is true then the majority never had a right to create legal marriage in the first place and we needed a constitutional amendment to enact legal marriage. You are confusing rights with what the majority creates. The right to drive doesn't exist, the right to marry doesn't exist, etc. Rights aren't granted by the state. They are inherent and fundamental and MUST exist independent of the actions of others (no right for state or individual to marry you).

"Most conservative folks, and the Declaration of Independence, say that rights are granted from our creator, not from a majority of voters."

You are right but who exactly do you believe created the legal institution of marriage? Was it "God" who enacted the statute creating and defining the legal institution of marriage or was it the majority and our representatives who created legal marriage?

Our rights cannot be granted or taken away by the majority (or anyone) therefore legal marriage cannot be a right since it wouldn't exist if it weren't for the