Thank you Paul for your right on comments! It is a bitter day when man thinks he knows so much more than God... What a tragic day it was on Thursday... So sad that man thinks he can make an edict and somehow that erases Gods will and thousands of years of social ethics... truly a day for weeping and not rejoicing.... what a burden!

Here are some more objective disorders for you Paul:

Self-righteousness
Religious bigotry
Incivility
Self-importance
Weighing more than 20% more than your ideal weight!

Once again we see why our society is collapsing. When four activist judges can over rule the votes of millions on a subject of moral importance there is real trouble in river city.

No, the decision was absolutely the correct one according to the constitution of the United States. It says that all citizens will have equal access to and benefits of the law. From taxation to inheritance and a thousand other things, gay people do not have equal access to the law. It really was as no-brainer and the other states will follow suit because it is the right thing to do.

There is a lot of evidence that sexual orientation is innate. We don't need to find a gene (or multiple genes) to show this. However this isn't the only issue. We support other freedoms that are not innate. In fact, freedom of religion, clearly a malleable trait, is guaranteed by the first Amendment. The California court decided correctly. There is no harm in homosexual marriage. Therefore we have no valid reason for denying someones freedom. We support equal opportunity and the ban was in opposition to that American value. Brown v. Board of Education set the legal precedent that separate but equal (civil unions) is not equal.
You may not like the decision. You may support the imposition of tyranny on the minority in the name of morality. You may feel that homosexuality is a sin and unnatural (but you are going to need to define natural in a way other than occurs in nature because homosexuality is common in nature). However, the court decided correctly based on their state constitution and the US Constitution as well as legal precedent.

"...homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern."

That's nonsense. Sexual orientation is not a "disorder" any more than being left-handed is.

I have gay friends who are in long-standing, mutually committed relationships. What's wrong with society acknowledging their commitment?

Same sex attraction is an in-born trait. Just like blue eyes and left-handedness. Nothing about them disqualifies them for life partnerships and even parenthood. Many people nurture and care for children outside of a traditional marriage and it has always been so. This decision does reflect the true heart and soul of anyone in touch with their democratic roots and moral foundation. Making it hard for gays and lesbians based on their sexuality and nothing else, is the real sin.

You are in Canada..., stay there.

Thanks Paul - very well written. If you look at Countries where gay marriage has been legalized birth rates are extremely low and a very high number of the children that are born are out of wedlock.
What is this Country coming to? The Devil is having his way with us

The family's source and origin is not marriage, as the author suggests. It's origin is none other than human sexual attraction.

The overwhelming majority of scientists--and psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists--do not consider homosexuality to be a disorder. The author saying otherwise doesn't make this so.

"Family is the fundamental cell of society"--allowing gay people to marry will not change this. What exactly is the worry?

"Marriage is ordered for the procreation and education of children." --OK. How does allowing committed couples of the same sex to share in the rights and benefits of marriage affect the procreation and education of children?

Please.

If your religion does not recognize that mutual commitment can exist outside of its own rules, fine. That's your privilege. Your religion allows you to harbor whatever bigoted thoughts you want.

That does NOT, however, give you the right to deny basic civil rights to Americans who don't share your particular religious beliefs.

The judges were merely following the letter of the law.
Only conservatives want government stepping in and telling people how they should live their lives (especially when harming no one).
And these same conservatives are always whining about government in their lives.
Nuts.

It is a good day when the courts protect fundamental human rights, as discussed in our Constitution, from the bigoted majority that has no trouble restricting rights to some that they value greatly for themselves.
I do not know if you are LDS, but look at it as if you were. The LDS religion would not exist in America if not for the freedom of religion granted by the Constitution. The LDS are a minority and are not only looked down on by many other Christian groups but sometimes thought of as following Satan (as some LDS think of other Christians). Freedom to do something that causes no harm but is not approved of by others is a fundamental part of America. That is what the court stood for. It is simply unfortunate that the people of this nation have never grown up enough to do the same.

Families consist of individuals, the basic unit of society.
Homophobia is hard to hide, and a religious pretext really makes it stink. Marry who you want, sport. You've got the choice.

To "Don't Be Silly": You ask " What's wrong with society acknowledging their commitment?" I think this is exactly the proper question. This is not about forcing anyone's church to recognize those commitments. This is about whether government treats citizens equally or not. People in their own private lives and private churches are free to believe as they will. But the government represents everyone and so cannot discriminate.

@Bart: "All citizens will have equal access to and benefits of the law."

Then let a man marry five wives, or a woman marry five husbands.

Or do you believe that society DOES have a right to set parameters on marital contracts; i.e. to define what "marriage" means?

"Bravo!" Paul

Well said!

If you're disappointed with a ruling in California, you might try a letter to a paper in... California.

"Or do you believe that society DOES have a right to set parameters on marital contracts; i.e. to define what "marriage" means?'

OK, how about this? Marriage can fairly be defined as between two mutually consenting adults, regardless of whether or not their partnership produces children.

Joe Moe: A ban on polygamy is permissible under the equal protection clause of the constitution because unlike the ban on same-sex marriage, it treats everyone equally. Everyone is allowed to marry the one person of their choice, thus everyone is treated equally.

And you have your right to it! But the opinions of others will not interfere with other people's civil rights!

"The overwhelming majority of scientists--and psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists--do not consider homosexuality to be a disorder The author saying otherwise doesn't make this so."

That the aforementioned groups saying this, also doesn't make it so.

OK, then. I probably have more trust in science than you. But let's take your point, that everyone is welcome to their own opinion. What they are not permitted to do under our constitutional system, though, is use government to discriminate against a class of people based merely on that opinion.

Yes, but the author of the letter was suggesting that scientists DO consider this a disorder, which is not true.

Wait a minute!

You're saying that the expert opinions of the overwhelming majority of psychologists, physiologists and sociologists don't matter to you?

What you're saying is that you live in your own little fantasy world where facts don't matter, and that you nonetheless feel entitled to impose your fantasy world on the rest of society, right?

Please learn to let go of whatever irrational insecurities are haunting you and let adult citizens enjoy equal protections under the law.

The Constitution does not grant anyone the right to marriage. I love the way people just make up things that are supposedly in the Constitution.

It's about values. Remember them?

We've had scandal after scandal during the current administration. There has been torture, lies and debt. American soldiers have been back door drafted through the use of stop gap orders and members of the LDS Church get upset about two adults who love each other getting married.

Please remove my name from your church!

No, Anonymous, the constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. What it does say is that all laws have to be applied to all people equally. No one is "making that up". It's in there. You can look it up.

"The Constitution does not grant anyone the right to marriage."

Wrong. The Constitution (a document I revere) guarantees that the laws of the land treat all citizens fairly and equally. Laws recognize the rights of married people regarding their inheritance of property, tax obligations and raising of children - even adopted children or children from a previous marriage.

The California ruling, which was made by Bush appointees, simply and correctly observes that you cannot deny homosexual couples access to the same protections of law that are given to heterosexual couples.

Another homophobic diatribe by someone who lives life goverened by fear. Saying the writer is self-rightous and judgemental is an understatement.

The California Supreme Court ruled as it should giving equal treatment under the law to all citizens. Equal protection is central to the Constitution.

No one's marriage is jeoprodized by allowing same-sex marriage. It is only a threat in the eyes of the bigoted and narrow-minded.

Good for them. I am sure that when women earned the right to vote people didnt like that. Also I am sure that when african americans earned that same right people hated that also.
Dont be haters!

I agree with the author's ideas, but wish to add a few more reasons.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a valuable institution. It provides social benefits that even the government cannot provide. As the letter's author said, it is the basic unit of society, not only here, but throughout the civilized world, and it has proven its worth throughout history.

Now, the California court has changed that institution for Californians. There, marriage no longer means a legally recognized union of a man and a woman, but rather a legally recognized union of any two adults. That is, the only legally recognized marriage in California is now genderless marriage. As a result, man/woman marriage has been diminished. How do you teach a child that "marriage" means a legally recognized relationship between a man and a woman, AND at the same time, a legally recognized union of two consenting adults?

Our nation spends much time and resources to keep our monetary system free of counterfeit money, for the sole reason that counterfeit money diminishes the value of all other money. We should expend at least the same effort in keeping a valuable institution like marriage from being similarly diminished.

Bravo Paul, and let me add a few more points.

This is about activist judges thwarting the express will of the people and overturning ballot measures overwhelmingly supported by the voters. Proposition 22, which defines marriage between a man and a woman, was passed by 61% in 2000. The judges' actions is an abuse of power and is unconstitutional.

The real issue is the blatant disregard for law.

"How do you teach a child that "marriage" means a legally recognized relationship between a man and a woman, AND at the same time, a legally recognized union of two consenting adults?"

Gee, I don't know Robert, but I'm sure my ONE year old will get it before you do.

"The Constitution does not grant anyone the right to marriage. I love the way people just make up things that are supposedly in the Constitution."

The right to equal treatment under the law IS in the Constitution, bonehead.

kristi,
You obviously have no understanding of how a constitutional republic with co-equal branches of government works.

jack--You obviously have no understanding of how a constitutional republic works by the people and for the people. Governments are instituted by men and their power lies with the people. These judges are legislating from the bench. It no longer becomes 'We the people' but 'We the judges'. Why put a measure on a ballot if the judges are just going to overthrow it?

kristi,
You're right. Mormons don't deserve freedom to practice their religion in California because they are a minority and they're views are weird. I think I'll get that on the ballot. Certainly, once I smear the LDS with all the FLDS stuff going on the MAJORITY of Californians will agree with me and you guys are toast.

Uh, yeah, you're wrong again, sister.

LOL at the letter coming from a person in Canada, where gay marriage has been legal for years...

jack

You're assuming I'm LDS; whether I am or not is not the issue. (Don't know why you picked a religious affiliation you despise).

You go ahead and gather the necessary 50,000 signatures to put something that insignificant and ridiculous on the ballot, and THEN get it to pass with a majority vote.

Your example is poor and meaningless. Marriage is something that affects everyone, and the reason this was put on a ballot in California in 2000 and 11 other states in 2004 (and the fact that there exists a ban as a constitutional law in the majority of states) is the widespread concern for the definition of marriage to be redefined.

"marriage no longer means a legally recognized union of a man and a woman, but rather a legally recognized union of any two adults....As a result, man/woman marriage has been diminished."

--How? How is your marriage diminished?

"How do you teach a child that "marriage" means a legally recognized relationship between a man and a woman, AND at the same time, a legally recognized union of two consenting adults?"

--You don't. You teach them that marriage means a union between two adults. Then if you want you can teach them that your particular faith only marries people of the opposite sex. It's that simple. Some people are legally allowed to drink alcohol, too. You probably teach that your faith doesn't permit this. There you go. Problem solved. Catastrophe averted.

Can you understand the frustration some of us feel when people say that the sky is going to fall and we just don't see how?

Kristi,

Since the ballot measure, the state legislature in California twice approved same sex marriage. Is that not an expression of the will of the people?

Further, it took judges to overturn the ban on interracial marriage that was supported by a majority at the time too. Were they wrong? How about segregation of public schools? It's only "legislating from the bench" when you disagree with the outcome.

I think that it is rather pretentious of the California Supreme Court to rule on a case that even the United States Supreme Court won't rule on.

The case was a question of the California STATE constitution. Only the California Supreme Court and not the U.S. Supreme Court CAN rule on it.

The state legislature is not always the will of the people. In this case they too are guilty of overturning the will of the people.

Courts definitely have their place. They were established to enforce laws and resolve conflicts. Yes, those issues are/were important. I have no doubt they would have eventually been overturned if gone through the voice of the people (and yes, perhaps later than originally done). Many things have changed and come about because the people have voted on it. If the people become unsatisfied with the government, it is their right and duty to change that government. (Declaration of Independence). Which begs my first question: Why vote on something if it's going to be overturned?

If people want gay marriage, or any other issue, then they should go through the legislature, or directly to the people in a referendum.

To Anonymous: An equally important part of our system, though, is the protection of fundamental rights and equality of minorities. The constitution exists, in part, to protect against unchecked majority will. Are you suggesting that desegregation and civil rights for African Americans should not have been resolved by courts interpreting the Constitution? That they should have just waited for the majority to come around and eventually realize the injustices?

There were those who decried the activism of the court in overturning segregation in schools, too. In hindsight, though, most people don't call that judicial activism, but rather, justice.

Ya gotta love liberal California.
They aren't interested in the judgemental and bigoted ways of the conservatives - like in Utah.

No I'm not saying that desegregation should not have been resolved by courts. But we can't compare civil rights and marriage. Marriage is an institution; it's not a civil right. Marriage either has an enduring, unchanging definition, or it will have no definition. If it was really a universal legal right of all who sought it, then it would have to be redesigned in the form of a contract by which any group of parties could form whatever sort of alliance they chose.

Well, folks it was the Supreme Court of California and I do believe they say the judges are Republicans GOD BLESS the Republicans WOW

To Krisiti: "But we can't compare civil rights and marriage. Marriage is an institution; it's not a civil right."

--Do you not consider the right to marry a fundamental right? To me, you are completely contradicting yourself. When you argue it is an "institution", you reaffirm how fundamental it is! And as something so basic and fundamental, it is guaranteed by the constitution to all citizens.