Reader comments
California court backs gay marriages
150 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
AZ | 9:06 a.m. May 16, 2008
Sick! Sick! Sick!!!!!
rationale | 9:11 a.m. May 16, 2008
The rationale is simple: people are free. Their actions hurt no one. Thus, it
is legal.
If an act hurt us, you and me, society, in a way that can be measured, then we would be opposed to that action (murder, robbery, etc.).
This approval by the courts hurts me not. As we say in basketball games, "Where's the foul?"
If an act hurt us, you and me, society, in a way that can be measured, then we would be opposed to that action (murder, robbery, etc.).
This approval by the courts hurts me not. As we say in basketball games, "Where's the foul?"
Archaea Cougarguard | 9:16 a.m. May 16, 2008
As a practicing family law attorney in Henderson, NV, I am not surprised by the
CA court ruling. Denying legal marriage status to a class of people is
unconstitutional on its face. Ultimately, people of all faiths will become more
tolerant and forgiving. It is a waste of time to allow the hatred and rancor to
continue.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 9:23 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.
What is about the law you don't understand?
What is about the law you don't understand?
Who cares | 9:27 a.m. May 16, 2008
I'm not really supportive of gay marriage, but hey, short of a
constitutional amendment there really isn't much Cali can do about it now.
Besides, in the big scope of things is this really going to have a big impact on
your life if you are a heterosexual couple? I don't think it will... and
there are certainly more pressing problems in this country now than a very small
number of gay marriages happening in San Francisco including the recession,
plummeting value of the dollar, rising food and energy costs, inflation, an
exploding federal deficit, an insane and unsustainable foreign policy, and so
much more.
anonymous | 9:28 a.m. May 16, 2008
My family will spend our money elsewhere this summer. I hear Seattle is nice in
August.
Anonymous | 9:32 a.m. May 16, 2008
Why do liberals always want the government to step in and tell people what to
do?
law | 9:39 a.m. May 16, 2008
The judges are just following the law.
What is it about following the law that you don't understand?
What is it about following the law that you don't understand?
Re: Bart | 9:39 a.m. May 16, 2008
"From a constitutional viewpoint, this was the correct decision."
The Constitution has been, and always will be, interpreted according to the moral values of society, which were used to create the Constitution in the first place.
This fundamental change in the historic definition of marriage, being a union between a man and a woman, is nothing more than a reflection of the decline of the moral values of our society.
The Constitution has been, and always will be, interpreted according to the moral values of society, which were used to create the Constitution in the first place.
This fundamental change in the historic definition of marriage, being a union between a man and a woman, is nothing more than a reflection of the decline of the moral values of our society.
System is broken | 9:42 a.m. May 16, 2008
Pro or anti Gay marriage, the system is broken. Who needs a Legislator our
Judges make set and make the laws of this land.
There is no more democracy, just Dictatorship. You will accept Gay marriage like it or not, your vote does not count!
This is what our liberal friends stand for is Dictatorship? That is just what has been handeded to us.
There is no more democracy, just Dictatorship. You will accept Gay marriage like it or not, your vote does not count!
This is what our liberal friends stand for is Dictatorship? That is just what has been handeded to us.
re: Sister Johnston | 6:01 a.m. | 9:42 a.m. May 16, 2008
�I wonder what the two CA. Senators think about
this!�
Why would you wonder? Our two (I assume by that you mean US) Senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are both liberal democrats. Feinstein is the former mayor of San Francisco, a long-time supporter of gay rights and was very popular during her tenure.
Why would you wonder? Our two (I assume by that you mean US) Senators, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are both liberal democrats. Feinstein is the former mayor of San Francisco, a long-time supporter of gay rights and was very popular during her tenure.
I don't understand | 9:41 a.m. May 16, 2008
How do you equate someone who chooses to behave a certain way (i.e, deviant,
abnormal behavior), to things a person can't choose (i.e., skin color,
handicaps, etc.)?
Beachfront | 9:44 a.m. May 16, 2008
Well, I'll miss Disneyland but this is great news. We are now one more day
closer to having beach front property here in Utah when California and Nevada
slide off into the ocean.
memikeyounot | 9:46 a.m. May 16, 2008
Slippery slope has defined the meaning of idiot.
hatfield | 9:47 a.m. May 16, 2008
Yes slippery-slope it will be just like that. :rollseyes
Abnormalities | 9:49 a.m. May 16, 2008
O.K., for all of you defending this decision, you will be on the same page for
polygamous marriages. Right?
me | 10:00 a.m. May 16, 2008
This is the proof that "laws on the books" alone, are not enough. It
must be defined in the state's constitution.
I predict that as marriages are recognized in some states and not in others, this will become a more divisive issue than we are imagining.
At some point, I expect the US Supreme Court to try to rule that state's cannot prohibit gay marriage, even in their state constitutions. This may prove to be a constitutional crisis for our nation.
In the past, when the voice of the people has been oppressed and trampled by the few, it has led to disastrous results.
I predict that as marriages are recognized in some states and not in others, this will become a more divisive issue than we are imagining.
At some point, I expect the US Supreme Court to try to rule that state's cannot prohibit gay marriage, even in their state constitutions. This may prove to be a constitutional crisis for our nation.
In the past, when the voice of the people has been oppressed and trampled by the few, it has led to disastrous results.
The sky is falling! | 10:03 a.m. May 16, 2008
I keep hearing this notion that society is decaying and coming apart at the
seams. I have lived in Utah and currently live outside the state. I have not
seen antidotal evidence of any social decay. Nor do statistics seem to support
such a claim. In fact I live in what at one time was considered to be the one of
the most dangerous cities in the country, it is know among the safest. The
strange things is that gay people in this city have many of the rights you want
to deny and they have for sometime, there are no dying orphans in the street.
Both very conservative and very liberal people here live peacefully side by side
without trying to pass oppressive laws and without the decay you claim. I know
that for some of you the only why your religious beliefs can be true and that
you will be spared the pain of death is to believe that the world is falling and
that there will be a second coming. Unfortunately reality just does not seem to
support this, I am afraid you are going to suffer the same fait as the rest of
us mortals.
Anonymous | 10:11 a.m. May 16, 2008
This is a perfect example of how government has gotten too BIG! The government
now has power over the people. This should be a warning sign to anyone who
values their freedom.
To rightNwrong | 10:14 a.m. May 16, 2008
Please do start your own country and take the Christians with you.
Anonymous | 10:14 a.m. May 16, 2008
"NorCal Native� marches out the slippery slop, what
about the children cry once again. It is simple the state must be able to show a
compelling state interest to restrict an individuals freedom (including the
freedom to marry), it is among the most basic parts of our governmental system.
A point that most republicans want to use when it suits their need to own guns
and limit governmental oversight of business. I think the slippery slope
argument is a weak attempt to cover a lack of evidence showing a compelling
state interest which after reading this courts opinion on this case is why they
ruled the way they did. I suggest reading the opinion it is rather close to many
of the so called �conservative ideals�
about limited governmental interference in citizens life�s.
John Reynolds | 10:17 a.m. May 16, 2008
This is once again legislation from the bench, which is what happened before
Hitler came to power.
This was NOT the people's will or vote at all.
Yet another sigh of the fall of American society.
Are we going to allow these activist judges speak for the people ?
This was NOT the people's will or vote at all.
Yet another sigh of the fall of American society.
Are we going to allow these activist judges speak for the people ?
Anonymous | 10:19 a.m. May 16, 2008
I doubt that the CA State Constitution allows discrimination of thier citizens,
therefore, it was the courts made the right decision. It doesn't matter if
your morality allows for gay marriage, it is a legal question. Our government
had no right to dictate morality to it's citizens, just as we as
individuals have no right to force our moral view points onto other individuals.
I personally am not for gay marriage, but that is my business which is where I
will keep it. However, I am for allowing people to make thier own decisions and
live their lives as they see fit, not as I see fit for them.
Re: Joseph | 10:19 a.m. May 16, 2008
Read your scriptures a little closer, it wasn�t two thirds,
it was a third part. So you can�t even assume 33%. Also,
Legrand Richards spoke about the role of agency and law within the divine plan,
you should read his dissertation before you imply that agency makes sin in any
way okay. Implicit in your comment is the idea that because people have
exercised their agency, we should then respect their decisions and accept it.
Whatever happened to standing firm in the face of sin? Your church does dictate
what goes in a married couple�s bedroom. There are certain
practices, even in the privacy of the bedroom that will get you in trouble such
as watching porn, introducing another consenting adult, etc. Leave the
scriptures out of the issue, it�s obvious
you�re trying to manipulate them to justify acceptance of
sin.
wrz | 10:22 a.m. May 16, 2008
I'm surprised that California has not approved plural marriages. Just
think, all those Hollywood leading men could have thousands of wives and
millions of children, legally.
I say, go for it.
I say, go for it.
Doucheku | 10:24 a.m. May 16, 2008
"We the people by the people?" If this law passes in California, that
statement will be closer to being true.
The people who oppose homosexuality are uneducated people. PERIOD. Do yourselves a favor and pick up a book or read an article or a magazine that will expand that peanut brain of yours.
Knowledge is power-
The people who oppose homosexuality are uneducated people. PERIOD. Do yourselves a favor and pick up a book or read an article or a magazine that will expand that peanut brain of yours.
Knowledge is power-
Michael | 10:27 a.m. May 16, 2008
The supreme court system is a joke these days anyway. How many laws and policies
are dictated by the subjective opinions of 7-9 individuals? A 4-3 ruling hardly
has any credence, whichever way it goes! Those individuals in power to
"legislate from the bench" would control the very way Americans think.
THIS is why conservatives (a.k.a. classic liberals) are opposed. This is why
social planning is conniving.
To Civics Lesson | 10:27 a.m. May 16, 2008
In case you don't know your history, that's already happened. The
early members of the LDS church were driven from their homes on several
occasions, and forced out of three different states because the religion
wasn't wanted there. Instead of standing up and fighting for what was
legally and rightfully theirs, they peacefully, and repeatedly, left behind
every single belonging they had, and walked by foot to another state that would
(temporarily) harbor them. Your argument is not valid.
Sheeple | 10:32 a.m. May 16, 2008
"We the People" do not have the right to overthrow basic rights that
the Constitution guarantees. You can get enough signatures to get an initiative
on the ballot to ban free speech in the press, and if it passes that's
great, but a court will strike it down before you can blink. It just don't
work that way, sweets.
Let me ask you this - would you feel this way if the Court had struck down a decision you disagreed with - say, Roe v. Wade? Then would you be whining about "activist" judges? Then would you split opinions with your hero, Antonin Scalia and his advocating of torture because the Constitution is not a living document?
Do you really feel like you need to defend "democracy" or just the issues that you like? What if this had been an issue you disagreed with? Would you still be so outspoken about it? Answer carefully, now.
Let me ask you this - would you feel this way if the Court had struck down a decision you disagreed with - say, Roe v. Wade? Then would you be whining about "activist" judges? Then would you split opinions with your hero, Antonin Scalia and his advocating of torture because the Constitution is not a living document?
Do you really feel like you need to defend "democracy" or just the issues that you like? What if this had been an issue you disagreed with? Would you still be so outspoken about it? Answer carefully, now.
Anonymous | 10:33 a.m. May 16, 2008
Satan just scored one more point....next thing you know pedophiles are all going
to ban together and start legislating for these same rights. It's a
downward spiral, folks.
Freedom for all | 10:33 a.m. May 16, 2008
Ah, yes, those elite. How dare people that are actually knowledgeable about the
constitution decide the legality of our laws!
Seriously, the point I think you're missing is that even if the voters pass an ammendment, if it's unconstitutional, the justice system needs to strike it down, as in this case. Such blatant discrimination is unconstitutional. It would be like if a vote were held in West Virginia (don't get mad, WV-ers, it's just an example!) to re-enact Jim Crowe laws. Even if it passed with 100% voter approval, it would be struck down by judges, and rightly so.
Seriously, the point I think you're missing is that even if the voters pass an ammendment, if it's unconstitutional, the justice system needs to strike it down, as in this case. Such blatant discrimination is unconstitutional. It would be like if a vote were held in West Virginia (don't get mad, WV-ers, it's just an example!) to re-enact Jim Crowe laws. Even if it passed with 100% voter approval, it would be struck down by judges, and rightly so.
George Washington | 10:36 a.m. May 16, 2008
I wrote a poem for you guys:
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
JUDICIAL REVIEW
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
READ THE CONSTITUTION
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Anonymous | 10:36 a.m. May 16, 2008
god created marriage not the government! remember god created adam and eve not
adam and steve!
Re: To Ralph | 10:36 a.m. May 16, 2008
�I feel same sex marriage errodes family values, and is not
"good" for this nation.�
Morality is subjective. Your statement parrots what your church teaches you. Your religion has no place in our laws.
Morality is subjective. Your statement parrots what your church teaches you. Your religion has no place in our laws.
Jim Crow | 10:36 a.m. May 16, 2008
Reminds me of when a black man couldn't legally marry a white woman in all
50 states in the country. He could marry her in New York, yet Virginia
didn't honor their marriage and still arrested them if they slept in the
same bed. Guess what...they used scripture to justify that inequality as
well.
rcougar | 10:44 a.m. May 16, 2008
This dissenting comment from one judge is the real matter:
"In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage," Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the first sentence of her dissent.
"But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not."
California citizens gave them everything but the term marriage, They allowed domestic partnerships with all the same rights of marriage and that is not enough. That is why as the desenting judge wrote that this is not against the Califonia State Constitution.
"In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage," Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the first sentence of her dissent.
"But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not."
California citizens gave them everything but the term marriage, They allowed domestic partnerships with all the same rights of marriage and that is not enough. That is why as the desenting judge wrote that this is not against the Califonia State Constitution.
As a man thinketh | 10:51 a.m. May 16, 2008
I am sick and tire of anti-family activist judges comparing homosexual behavior
to that of being born black prior to the civil rights movement in the 60s.
Homosexual behavior is not a class or a race.
However, some people are more susceptible to different types of addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, pornography, and homosexuality, but that does not make them right.
We cannot condone this perverted behavior.
Homosexual behavior is not a class or a race.
However, some people are more susceptible to different types of addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, pornography, and homosexuality, but that does not make them right.
We cannot condone this perverted behavior.
Marriage | 10:52 a.m. May 16, 2008
Same sex marriage -- wrong.
Polygamy -- wrong.
Polygamy -- wrong.
truthsayer | 10:54 a.m. May 16, 2008
memikeyounot had defined the meaning of naive.
AWKWARD! | 10:57 a.m. May 16, 2008
It�s just a tad bit hypocritical that the Mormon Church expends such an effort to support only traditional marriage, and yet traditional marriage was never a part of Mormon history. Tread lightly on this one, people.
Re: AWKWARD! | 11:07 a.m. May 16, 2008
"traditional marriage was never a part of Mormon history." Never?
Way to pick and choose your historical "facts".
Re: AWKWARD! | 11:08 a.m. May 16, 2008
Tread lightly yourself; whether or not you believe it, you're talking about
the Lord's definition of marriage.
RE:reRalph | 11:16 a.m. May 16, 2008
What about all those people who are already married but aren't neccisarily
"productive to society"? What about those who rely on the welfare
state or ther hetero but married drug dealer? Or the married rapist or child
molester? Should they be denied theior tax benefits as well? Or is it s=just
against the same sex, tax paying, law abiding couples you oppose?
Anonymous | 11:19 a.m. May 16, 2008
Get with it neocons!
Learn to start minding your own judgemental, moralizing business.
This is 2008.
The homophobia that results in hatred that worked yesterday doesn't work today.
Learn to start minding your own judgemental, moralizing business.
This is 2008.
The homophobia that results in hatred that worked yesterday doesn't work today.
CHOICES | 11:22 a.m. May 16, 2008
If Homosexuality and heterosexuality are choices, it only emphasises that those
who oppse gay marriage are acting in a descriminatory manner. They don't
seem to have a problem with other people who make "immoral" choices
getting married. It's either bigotry or hypocricy take your pick.
Re: AWKWARD! | 11:25 a.m. May 16, 2008
Did it ever occur to you that the world's definition of "traditional
marriage" is not the Lord's definition? Even in plurarl marriages,
it's still "one man, one woman". The women are not married to
each other, they're married to the man. Each of those marriages stand alone
between two people within a family unit. It may not be the world's
definition of a traditional marriage, but since when does the Lord's
definition of right and wrong match that of the world's?
Marriage laws | 11:27 a.m. May 16, 2008
Bigamy has always been illegal in this country. It was a state law in Illinois during the Nauvoo years, and later in all US territories. At least the gay community is working to change the laws, rather than operate under the delusion that they are above the law.
Moralyzing neocons | 11:26 a.m. May 16, 2008
It's self-evident that there's no way rationally to assess whether the
Court acted correctly if one doesn't bother to find out anything about the
California State Constitution and the precedent interpreting and applying it.
Anyone who seeks to opine about the propriety of the court's ruling without
doing that basic work is simply expressing an opinion about whether they like
the outcome as a policy matter, i.e., is being guided by the defining attribute
of so-called "judicial activism" (ignoring relevant law in favor of
outcome preferences).
G | 11:29 a.m. May 16, 2008
Good on you, California. This proves that some of these "activist
judges" have better sense than the electorate.
G | 11:30 a.m. May 16, 2008
"
Why do liberals always want the government to step in and tell people what to do? "
A lot of both "Liberals" and "Conservatives" want the government to rule our lives. The liberals will tax you to death to pay for social programs and take your children if you belong to a weird religion. Conservatives will persecute if they don't like your choice in a mate.
Take your pick.
Why do liberals always want the government to step in and tell people what to do? "
A lot of both "Liberals" and "Conservatives" want the government to rule our lives. The liberals will tax you to death to pay for social programs and take your children if you belong to a weird religion. Conservatives will persecute if they don't like your choice in a mate.
Take your pick.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
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
- Sports on the air 12:24 a.m.
- Corroon a step closer to governor 12:21 a.m.
- Herbert builds his team of rivals 12:21 a.m.
- Monday on TV 12:18 a.m.
- Editorial: East, West and religion 12:17 a.m.
- A deficit commission? 12:17 a.m.
- Religion in politics is tiresome 12:17 a.m.
- Let's provide assistance to poor 12:17 a.m.
- Better off without 'financial reform' 12:17 a.m.
- Letters: Listen up, politicians 12:16 a.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Marriage definitions vary widely
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Fantasy is reality for BYU professor
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
869 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime473
- Max Hall issues apology141
- BYU is champion of the state137
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies117
- Cave to be sealed with body inside116
- Rivalry Week is highly profane90
- Hall's legacy measured today79
- Y. focused on 10-win season74
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
cool story random and anonymous championship player and coach.....
You got it right...This offense was less than average all year. Whittingham...
cool story Amy
We had a football party at my house with fans that wore blue and fans that...
I personally found this article funny. I enjoy following Jody's articles and...
I played football in college, and coached for 15 years. There is no need...
This whole thing is a joke. I don't like BYU or Max Hall, but he said what...
The 2009 BYU and Utah football teams are good teams for the Mountain West....
BOO HOO hahahaha
Good article!
Advertisements