Reader comments
California court backs gay marriages
150 comments | Read story
B | 12:26 a.m. May 16, 2008
They struck down a state law. So does this mean that there are no longer three
separate but egual divisions of government? Does the Executive and Legislative
now bow to the Judicial? NOPE! I don't think so. These judges MUST be
reigned in.
:( | 12:29 a.m. May 16, 2008
They dont listen to the voters??
Comments continue below
Sister Gibbs | 12:56 a.m. May 16, 2008
The publicly elected state legislature has twice voted in favor of equality for
gays, including marriage, and the Governator has twice veto'd their action,
stating that it was the judicial branch who should decide. Now that the
judicial branch as decided, you call them activists?
Gay Man | 1:12 a.m. May 16, 2008
Finally JUSTICE in America!! Who would ever have believed it. Maybe now as a gay
man I can recite the pledge of allegiance which I have left unspoken for years
"with liberty and justice for ALL"!!!!!
Anonymous | 1:16 a.m. May 16, 2008
This is a sad day in California. Once again a small minority is dictating rules
to the majority. It shows how far our supposedly sunny state has declined
morally
Freeman | 1:22 a.m. May 16, 2008
Too bad the people of California don't get a say in their own laws. Sounds
like the socialist utopia we've all been promised--nine people deciding
that fifty million don't really know what they want. Someday the US
Supreme Court is going to take this issue, and with Roberts and friends in
there, it's looking good for the people of California, and not their crummy
judges.
rightNwrong | 1:27 a.m. May 16, 2008
I'm so disgusted!! Yes we as voters in California clearly voted against
same sex marriages. Before now, I lived in Utah a great portion of my life. I am
also disgusted with Shurtleff ignoring the law that clearly states Polygamy is
illegal! Where oh where do I move to now??? Im going to buy an island and start
my own darn country!
SoCal resident | 1:56 a.m. May 16, 2008
With the clowns we have sitting in the judgement seats, it's no wonder the
voice of the people never prevail. We already voted against this ridiculous
proposal, and now we get it thrown back in our faces saying sorry, your opinion
really doesn't matter?!?!?!?
dan | 2:13 a.m. May 16, 2008
Jim Crow laws against blacks were also put in place by state legislatures. Just
because it's democratic doesn't make it right. Hence, the independent
(and unelected) judicial branch is crucial to rebuke injustices inflicted on the
minority by the majority.
Santa Clara Friend | 3:33 a.m. May 16, 2008
Remember Stuart Matis
Stenar | 5:12 a.m. May 16, 2008
All of the CA Supreme Court judges, except one, were appointed by Republican
governors. HURRAH for California. This is good news.
Sister Johnston | 6:01 a.m. May 16, 2008
California is one of the most liberal states in the Union. What has happened to
the morals of those people who decided this latest decision? I wonder what the
two CA. Senators think about this!
ralph | 6:07 a.m. May 16, 2008
I bet this blog is long today. oh my goodness yes.
One question: how does my marriage, family, kids, and all that get impacted by two people getting married?
It doesn't. Conservatives are supposed to be for less government interference in the lives of the people, but... this is going to be a long blog today!!
One question: how does my marriage, family, kids, and all that get impacted by two people getting married?
It doesn't. Conservatives are supposed to be for less government interference in the lives of the people, but... this is going to be a long blog today!!
Utah and the rest | 6:35 a.m. May 16, 2008
Legislatures are making unjust laws
All laws should stand the test under the supreme court before being made law
The Judicial system in Utah is a collection agency throwing innocent people in jail
I have first hand experience
Does your neighbor make the rules you live by
Where is this justice for all?
We are suposed to have a constitution that no longer exist.
The Media also covers it up.
All laws should stand the test under the supreme court before being made law
The Judicial system in Utah is a collection agency throwing innocent people in jail
I have first hand experience
Does your neighbor make the rules you live by
Where is this justice for all?
We are suposed to have a constitution that no longer exist.
The Media also covers it up.
Mine | 6:49 a.m. May 16, 2008
Social injustice of any kind must not stand. We hear about judges that legislate
from the benches, does this include those select judges that ruled for the Bush
administration to limit the powers of Congress to allow unprecedented executive
powers? The privileges that belong to the hetero, white male of Christian
descent must not be allowed to continue. Go judges, follow the constitution and
cast out all the discriminatory laws that select members of our country continue
to promote. Social Injustice must not continue! (It is my belief that the
Republican Judges voted this way to reunite the Grand Old Hater Party again,
march on all ye faithful followers!)
Anonymous | 6:56 a.m. May 16, 2008
Why do conservatives always want the government to step in and tell people what
to do?
Look what's happened for the last eight years.
Look what's happened for the last eight years.
Great | 6:55 a.m. May 16, 2008
Good for them. Its about time,For those that this threatens marriage your wrong!
divorce does!
Justice for all!
Justice for all!
Joseph | 7:00 a.m. May 16, 2008
This is going to be hard to say in 200 words.
First: I'm amazed at how many of you believe that we live in a Democracy! People, we live in a Republic. In a Republic the minority also have rights.
Second: I'm disappointed in the Church, my Church. One that places Agency, i.e., the prime directive of God, above all. Didn't God allow two thirds of his Children to choose against his plan?
What is it about Gay Marriage that so many are afraid of? Supposedly the Church doesn't dictate what goes on in a bedroom between consenting adults, why so with Gays? Many couples cannot or choose not to have children, so it must not be about reproduction.
If God put us here on Earth with choice, why do some need to be controlled? As in Satins plan?
Between consenting adults I vote that they are free to choose.
First: I'm amazed at how many of you believe that we live in a Democracy! People, we live in a Republic. In a Republic the minority also have rights.
Second: I'm disappointed in the Church, my Church. One that places Agency, i.e., the prime directive of God, above all. Didn't God allow two thirds of his Children to choose against his plan?
What is it about Gay Marriage that so many are afraid of? Supposedly the Church doesn't dictate what goes on in a bedroom between consenting adults, why so with Gays? Many couples cannot or choose not to have children, so it must not be about reproduction.
If God put us here on Earth with choice, why do some need to be controlled? As in Satins plan?
Between consenting adults I vote that they are free to choose.
uncannygunman | 7:01 a.m. May 16, 2008
An historic decision, long overdue. To the extent it relies on federal equal
protection principles, it should become the law of the land, trumping state
constitutional provisions to the contrary. Sorry haters!
To "B" | 7:05 a.m. May 16, 2008
It's a pity that you never took a basic civics class. Supreme courts
strike down state laws all the time, everywhere. We are all protected by the
American constitution and then by our state constitutions. When a legislature
(or a referendum) results in a law that violates that constitution, the law is
thrown out. The only way to guarantee bigotry is to change the constitution, as
Utahns did in 2003. With luck and work, good people will realize that's a
mistake to be reversed.
And lest you whine about 'unelected judges', six of the seven justices in California went before the voters.
It's not too late. Learn your law.
And lest you whine about 'unelected judges', six of the seven justices in California went before the voters.
It's not too late. Learn your law.
checks and balances | 7:07 a.m. May 16, 2008
Do we really need to have the talk about basic system of government again?
It�s not complicated its called check and balances. The
legislature enacts laws the governor can then veto that law. If he chooses to do
so they legislature can override it through a voting process. The Judicial
branch interprets and enforces the law but is also charged with making sure
these laws do not run contrary to the state constitution (in this case). The
legislative branch and the public can address rulings that they believe are to
out of line through the process of a constitutional amendment. Checks and
balances prevent abuse of power and the rule of tyranny by the majority. The
court rightly ruled that there was no compelling state interest in preventing
gay marriage, thereby protecting a minority group from the tyranny of the
majority.
Minority wins... | 7:10 a.m. May 16, 2008
Dan: blacks are born black. Gays chose their lifestyle. Plain and simple.
If we believe that a marriage of homosexuals does not impact our marriages, think again. The issue is where our tax $$ will go, and there will be billions of $$ in funding set aside to fund new programs to support the gay community. Where will those funds come from? IT will happen. That the real issue here.
It took a long time for the minority smokers to be put in their place, but now the minority gay community gets elevated due to these judges when the people made their voices heard loud and clear before. Shame on CA.
If we believe that a marriage of homosexuals does not impact our marriages, think again. The issue is where our tax $$ will go, and there will be billions of $$ in funding set aside to fund new programs to support the gay community. Where will those funds come from? IT will happen. That the real issue here.
It took a long time for the minority smokers to be put in their place, but now the minority gay community gets elevated due to these judges when the people made their voices heard loud and clear before. Shame on CA.
Bart | 7:10 a.m. May 16, 2008
From a constitutional viewpoint, this was the correct decision.
All this whining about "activist judges", and "a few left leaning people", is just a bunch of garbage. The whole state legislature has twice passed this in California only to have Arnold veto it. So, it is not just a few people.
Another thing, Mr. Bush and crew gave us a perfect lesson in how to ignore the rule of law. How many times have they ignored subpoenas to congress. The upcoming Karl Rove mess is another perfect example. He has thumbed his nose at a recent subpoena and I relish the day when his fanny get's thrown into the can.
If you agree with a situation, you think is just fine--but if you disagree, then it's always the "activit" judges. Remember, it was a bunch of activist judges who stopped the recount in Florida and allowed the most wicked president we've ever had to take the helm.
All this whining about "activist judges", and "a few left leaning people", is just a bunch of garbage. The whole state legislature has twice passed this in California only to have Arnold veto it. So, it is not just a few people.
Another thing, Mr. Bush and crew gave us a perfect lesson in how to ignore the rule of law. How many times have they ignored subpoenas to congress. The upcoming Karl Rove mess is another perfect example. He has thumbed his nose at a recent subpoena and I relish the day when his fanny get's thrown into the can.
If you agree with a situation, you think is just fine--but if you disagree, then it's always the "activit" judges. Remember, it was a bunch of activist judges who stopped the recount in Florida and allowed the most wicked president we've ever had to take the helm.
Bob Bogle | 7:27 a.m. May 16, 2008
The vice and virtue police are wringing their hands today.
Still, no negative impact will come of this to my life or society. Once gays do start to get married it'll be interesting to see how their divorce rates stack up against heterosexual marriages.
Still, no negative impact will come of this to my life or society. Once gays do start to get married it'll be interesting to see how their divorce rates stack up against heterosexual marriages.
Civics Lesson | 7:26 a.m. May 16, 2008
I wonder how the Mormons on here would feel if the majority of Californians
decided to pass an initiative that banned the Mormon religion. Mormons are a
tiny minority in California. Would you just accept the will of the people or
would you fight to vindicate your constitutional rights under the California
Constitution to worship according to your conscience? This is just what has
happened in this case. The vote in California violated gay and lesbian
Californian's rights to marry, equal protection, due process, privacy under
the California Constitution. That is what the court decided. How is that
different than the scenario I explained? OUr system of government is majority
rule with protected minority rights. This system operated as ist was designed
to in this case. IF Californians have a problem with it they are free to amend
their constitution. But please quit whining that somehow the system has failed
or is broken or that democracy was hurt an this.
Slippery Slope | 7:36 a.m. May 16, 2008
By redefining marriage, the CA Supreme Court has started the rest of the county
down a very slippery slope.
Unless society regains its moral compass, marriage, which for centuries has been defined as a sacred union between a man and a woman, will eventually have no meaning.
How far will society go in redefining marriage?:
Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman;
1 man + multiple women;
1 woman + multiple men;
1 man + 1 man;
1 woman + 1 woman;
2 men + 2 women;
multiple men + multiple women;
anyone + children (NAMBLA);
anyone + animals?
The basic unit of society, the family, is under assault. When that unit fails, society will crumble.
Welcome to the beginning of the end of society.
Unless society regains its moral compass, marriage, which for centuries has been defined as a sacred union between a man and a woman, will eventually have no meaning.
How far will society go in redefining marriage?:
Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman;
1 man + multiple women;
1 woman + multiple men;
1 man + 1 man;
1 woman + 1 woman;
2 men + 2 women;
multiple men + multiple women;
anyone + children (NAMBLA);
anyone + animals?
The basic unit of society, the family, is under assault. When that unit fails, society will crumble.
Welcome to the beginning of the end of society.
Student | 7:43 a.m. May 16, 2008
I am so proud to be an American right now! Seeing the checks and balances of our
government and federalism at work is so exciting! This is why our government is
structured the way it is. The point of the judicial branch is to be FREE of the
public so that they can fairly interpret the constitution. (duh! I can tell some
of you failed American Government!)
As for the moral/ethical/bs issues, give it a rest! No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same gender. Heck, we aren't even in the same state that the law was passed in.
And no one can try the "sanctity of marriage" argument because of the divorce rate in this nation. I wonder what the divorce rate is among the gay community. I am willing to bet that it is much lower than that of the heteros.
*PS*
Believe it or not, I am actually a really conservative voter and I was raised Mormon *gasp* How dare I think differently than than the old white men that run my religious institution?!
As for the moral/ethical/bs issues, give it a rest! No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same gender. Heck, we aren't even in the same state that the law was passed in.
And no one can try the "sanctity of marriage" argument because of the divorce rate in this nation. I wonder what the divorce rate is among the gay community. I am willing to bet that it is much lower than that of the heteros.
*PS*
Believe it or not, I am actually a really conservative voter and I was raised Mormon *gasp* How dare I think differently than than the old white men that run my religious institution?!
Oh Goodie | 7:46 a.m. May 16, 2008
I've been in love with my dog for a long time and am sick of the
discrimination we have suffered. Maybe now people will begin to see that we
have a warm and loving relationship that needs to be recognized by the law. We
are moving to CA. The next leader of the FLDS should consider moving his group
there too.
Keith, California | 7:46 a.m. May 16, 2008
Again, the courts make decisions instead of the people. It happens at the
national level also. But just wait till the Dems take complete control. You
haven't seen anything yet. This is just the beginning of the continued
downfall of this country.
RE: RightNwrong | 7:47 a.m. May 16, 2008
Yes, polygamy is illegal, that is, legally married to more than one woman.
Marrying one woman and cohabitating with others is not which is what many people
are doing now days whether by religious beliefs or otherwise. Shurtleff is
right. There is no way to prosecute cohabitation. These court decisions
allowing gay marriage are going to open the door to every kind of marriage.
NorCal native | 7:58 a.m. May 16, 2008
I have always wanted to know how those who believe that gays should have the
right to marry would feel about two brothers getting married. If the government
doesn't have the right to set certain moral restrictions in private life,
then where's the line? Should ANY two consenting adults be allowed to
marry?
To Ralph | 8:06 a.m. May 16, 2008
How could this CA affect my children? The CA decision could cloud my
children's view of the "good" a marriage brings to this nation. A
sound marraige between a woman and man is "good," in my opinion. I
feel same sex marriage errodes family values, and is not "good" for
this nation. In the same sense, bickering, fighting, selfish, abusive, and
unfaithful couples also screw up their kids and errode family values.
My point is, woman and man marry, balance thier lives, be faithful, live within their means, love unconditional, and if they have children, raise them responsibly.
CA's Supreme Court justices nullified the will-of-the-people. This is sad for CA's legislative, judicial and executive process, and sad for the family fabric.
My point is, woman and man marry, balance thier lives, be faithful, live within their means, love unconditional, and if they have children, raise them responsibly.
CA's Supreme Court justices nullified the will-of-the-people. This is sad for CA's legislative, judicial and executive process, and sad for the family fabric.
live and let live? | 8:06 a.m. May 16, 2008
This isn't a live and let live deal. It's societal suicide. For the
state to sanctify a marriage between two men or two women tells my children that
this is acceptable behavior and it isn't. And we wonder why the radical
Islamists have a problem with our society
Law of the land | 8:08 a.m. May 16, 2008
The REPUBLICAN-dominated court's decision, which cited a 1948 California
Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, swept
away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why
the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's
sexual orientation.
Better come with something other than it's the liberal democrats fault.
Better come with something other than it's the liberal democrats fault.
Anonymous | 8:09 a.m. May 16, 2008
Here comes conservatives like "Sister Johnson" who typically sit in
judgement of others and act as society's morality police.
Clean up your own backyard Sister.
Clean up your own backyard Sister.
Ernest T. Bass | 8:13 a.m. May 16, 2008
Just because voters made the law, it doesn't mean that law is
constitutional.
It's about indiviual rights, not morals.
It's not the business of churches, they wont be forced to marry gays in the churches so it won't have any affect on them.
It affects only gays, lesbians or other domestic partners, nothing else.
It's about indiviual rights, not morals.
It's not the business of churches, they wont be forced to marry gays in the churches so it won't have any affect on them.
It affects only gays, lesbians or other domestic partners, nothing else.
Good News?? | 8:16 a.m. May 16, 2008
All this really does is makes Vermont and California a haven for gays, since
these marriages are not recognized anywhere but these two states. That's
okay with me. I rarely visit California and I've never been to Vermont.
To: Gay Man | 8:18 a.m. May 16, 2008
How can you say "liberty and justice for all" when polygamy is still
illegal in California as well as all the other states? What is a right for one
group should be a right for all groups. What about man/boy love relationships?
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
VegasBaby | 8:22 a.m. May 16, 2008
I was born and raised in Cali and I'm thrilled that the court has ruled
against prejudice. Let the weddings begin!
BobP | 8:25 a.m. May 16, 2008
A simple initiative and referendum would solve the problem. Ammending the
States constitution would be a nice addition.
Judges? | 8:26 a.m. May 16, 2008
Are these Judges deciding right or wrong, or the politcally correct way of
trying not to offend?
Judges deciding yes while the people sit-by & watch.
The voice of the people overran, The Constitution trampled upon, A few pushing their agenda upon the many ... be very afraid for the future of the USA if this trend continues.
The USA has gone from looking at the rattlesnake in pity to picking it up to warm it since it's a living creature, soon we will be bitten, only to hear those words in our minds "You knew what I was when you picked me up!"
Judges deciding yes while the people sit-by & watch.
The voice of the people overran, The Constitution trampled upon, A few pushing their agenda upon the many ... be very afraid for the future of the USA if this trend continues.
The USA has gone from looking at the rattlesnake in pity to picking it up to warm it since it's a living creature, soon we will be bitten, only to hear those words in our minds "You knew what I was when you picked me up!"
Nick | 8:34 a.m. May 16, 2008
I'm a life-long Utahn, happily married & straight, and my family and I
think this is GREAT news.
No effect | 8:45 a.m. May 16, 2008
Ralph @6:07 is correct. I live in CA, and gay marriage has no effect on my
family or my own marriage.
You people need to ask yourselves why you want to marginalize a minority group and why you are so adamantly against extending the same rights to others that you enjoy.
You people need to ask yourselves why you want to marginalize a minority group and why you are so adamantly against extending the same rights to others that you enjoy.
Domino | 8:50 a.m. May 16, 2008
This is going to create a domino effect. And 10 years from now no one will
remember what the big deal was.
CITIZEN | 8:54 a.m. May 16, 2008
A scant few years ago the good citizens of the great state of California legally
voted in term limits for all elected officials.BUT WAIT,the politicians balked
at this injustice hurled at them and declared"how dare the citizens tell us
what we can or can not do"!!!!so these loyal officials took their case too
the calif.supreme court and the court overturned the citizens voice.
Morgan | 8:58 a.m. May 16, 2008
This sad decision brings to mind several quotations:
�And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.�
(Alma 10:27)
Vice is a monster of so frightful mein
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
(Alexander Pope)
�Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators . . . nor abusers of themselves with mankind . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.�
(1 Cor. 6:9-10)
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(John Adams)
�And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.�
(Alma 10:27)
Vice is a monster of so frightful mein
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
(Alexander Pope)
�Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators . . . nor abusers of themselves with mankind . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.�
(1 Cor. 6:9-10)
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
(John Adams)
James | 9:01 a.m. May 16, 2008
Things change. Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920. I think gays
should be allowed to marry...they should have the chance to be as miserable as
anyone else.
re: ralph | 9:04 a.m. May 16, 2008
To answer your question, I guess it doesn't. . .unless these married
couples start to receive tax benifits and other such things from the government.
I believe that the government should only give these benifits to unions that
are productive to society (ie-able to further the human race). If they did start
to receive such benifits then it would DIRECTLY start to affect me and I would
be 100% opposed to it.
Straights for Gay Rights | 9:05 a.m. May 16, 2008
I for one am thrilled to finally see that a very large minority in our country
is finally getting the legal rights they deserve.
Now if only we could get inacted an antidiscrimination in the work place based on sexual orientation.
Now if only we could get inacted an antidiscrimination in the work place based on sexual orientation.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Paul Sakuma, Associated Press
Gay rights supporters wear a California state flag and a gay pride flag outside of the California State Supreme Court building after the court struck down a state law that banned same-sex marriages.
Related content
- Chamber gives ideas for budget 9:06 p.m.
- Phone to bring callers face to face 9:05 p.m.
- Utes remain silent about BCS 9:05 p.m.
- Firm to pay Utah $24M in settlement 9:03 p.m.
- See concerts online free at new site 9:00 p.m.
- Little America Hotel addition 8:59 p.m.
- S.L. ranks 4th in places to find a job 8:59 p.m.
- Ancestry.com offers military collection 8:57 p.m.
- TCU won't raise BCS fuss 8:56 p.m.
- Utah cities slip in 'performing' list 8:55 p.m.
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
- Utah Jazz have a problem at point
- 'Love story' of crash victim ends
- BYU football recruit turning heads
- Alta's Ohai is Ms. Soccer 2009
- Prep football: Felt's Facts Week
- 12 Utes return to Texas
- Cougars' defensive hoops clinic
- Wyoming writer amazed by BYU
- Gays get Mormon support in SLC
- House passes health care bill
283 - SLC council OKs gay rights policies238
- TCU showdown has big implications193
- Senators want food tax restored157
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections109
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy108
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges100
This week, I'm compiling my annual list of restaurants serving...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Go TCU....show the utes how to play football all 4 quarters!!!!
2007-2008 ALTA HAWKS, 26-2, dominated all opponents (played a much better...
People change as the times change. dobbs made an admirable attempt to...
Nice article on the Frogs. It is certainly the biggest game in the school's...
Remember the Alamo. I appreciate that Deron played tonight but in reality...
Re: Number 5: TCU lost to Utah last year because they didn't have a team...
If Eastman can walk, he'll play, he is THE BEAST. Also, this is a must win...
He'd better not go to Fox if he wants to be heard. No one but the far right...
I didn't know since 2003 Alta was 71-18 and Bingham 71-17 thats amazing, just...
Nobody cares bout the brackets its like that every year was you born...
Advertisements
Let's see how they react to this one.