California high court upholds gay marriage ban

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • So Gay's can Marry into
    June 1, 2009 4:17 a.m.

    your Family.
    Seems they will have no other choice.
    The Judicial System has no WISDOM.
    Quite clear neather does anyone else in this matter.
    They, The Gay's deserve to be together and off the streets.

  • Pi
    May 31, 2009 7:28 a.m.

    RE: Dear Vince,

    Vince is smarter then you... deal with it.

  • Dear Vince...
    May 31, 2009 12:13 a.m.

    Well, I guess Vince has all the answers!! Looks like we should just make him our fearless leader 'cuz he knows everything!

    Dude, Vince, seriously...give it a rest.

  • Anonymous
    May 30, 2009 12:30 p.m.

    to 11:40 a.m.,

    I disagree completely. Vince is FAR more reasonable and intelligent and UNannoying than John Pack Lambert!

    Keep it up, Vince! I love reading your stuff.

    Lambert needs to go bury his head in a deep dark place.

  • To Vince
    May 30, 2009 11:40 a.m.

    I admire your stamina and appreciate your attempt at reasoned argument, but why do you feel the need to numerically dominate every comment thread and respond to every statement you don't agree with? After a while, people just skip over you. Same with your homologue on the other side, John Lambert.

  • to hey Vince
    May 30, 2009 5:23 a.m.

    Do you actually believe that a family together by CHOICE is really inferior to a family that is together because they are forced/"circumstances"? Really, how bizarre. Clearly children, by those standards, are more happy in arranged marriages over love marriages. It would seem that by your logic the most superior of all would be forced arranged marriages! Let's put all the foster children into FLDS homes!!

    As for me, I've seen a disproportionate number of gays, volunteering in foster care medical step-down facilities. It seems clear to me, that while Christians profess that abortion is a sin, Gays actually take care of the end product that is often ignored by those very Christians who care about babies so long as they are in the womb.

    Want to hear something really disturbing? Transgendered people have been marrying their own birth gender for years.

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 7:45 p.m.

    Hey Vince | 5:33 p.m. May 29, 2009

    I guess you read my posts but did not understand.

    Wrong interpretation on what I said on so many levels.

  • Re: Anonymous 2:23
    May 29, 2009 5:08 p.m.

    "Where do the rest of us Americans fit in if we don't agree?"

    The same place you fit in if you do agree. You go to the voting booth, and you vote on what societal mores you feel are acceptable and which ones you feel are not, based on your own conscience and beliefs, just like the rest of us do. If the majority of the voters in your society feel as you do, you get your way, and those mores become lawfully acceptable. If the majority of voters in your society feel differently, then you don't get your way. You're allowed to continue trying to pass laws in order to eventually get what you want, but you're not allowed to harm people or their property and income just because they disagree with you.

  • To Dave from Midvale
    May 29, 2009 4:58 p.m.

    To the extent that gun ownership and speech are regulated, there is a sound societal reason for those regulations.

    What sound societal reason is there for regulating marriage such that gays are prohibited this (by your own acknowledgment) right?

  • Anonymous
    May 29, 2009 4:43 p.m.

    "I believe we already have laws effectively prohibiting convicted criminals from procreating. Incarceration is, after all, segregated by gender. I would be glad to stand up for any law increasing prison terms for violent criminals."

    Ever heard of conjugal visits? Are you telling me that when these criminals are released, they are not allowed to procreate? Murderers, Rapists, Child Abusers and violent criminals are all allowed to MARRY. Gays are not, even though they are law abiding.

    There is something wrong with this picture. Can you say bias?

  • to Anonymous @3:44
    May 29, 2009 4:34 p.m.

    I believe we already have laws effectively prohibiting convicted criminals from procreating. Incarceration is, after all, segregated by gender. I would be glad to stand up for any law increasing prison terms for violent criminals.

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 4:20 p.m.

    To Hate to Interrupt

    And also, I have taken a look at the eyes of children of gay parents.

    They do just fine.

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 4:13 p.m.

    Hate to interrupt once more

    You wrote,

    "Vince, there's this little thing called "history" - have you heard of it? It's hilarious to suggest that thousands of years of natural procreation through husband and wife unions (i.e., marriage) have been, um...ineffective in furthering the human race?"

    Yes, I have read history. Usually when advocates of traditional marriage advocate it in terms of preserving traditional marriages they quote examples that it is good to preserve marriage because it has always been good.

    Marriage has not always been good neither should all of its elements be preserved.

    I take you to examples of:

    * polygamy --- rampant in ancient history, typically to favor one male having multiple wives
    * women having little rights in respect to rights
    * lesser forms of marriage - such as the practice of concubines
    * the practice of miscegeneration, much of it having been eradicated with people living in our lifetime. At that, many people still have issues with people marrying outside their race
    * the practice of institutions going from a married priesthood to a celibate one - only because they wanted to protect the property rights of the medieval church
    * people losing their right to marriage through slavery


  • Number One Cause
    May 29, 2009 4:06 p.m.

    Heterosexuality: Number one cause of Homosexuality.

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 4:03 p.m.

    To Hate to Interrupt, once more

    And I am sure you make a fine mother and your husband makes a fine father.

    I would be wrong to say that because gays are asking for same sex marriage that somehow it makes traditional marriages any less.

    Traditional nuclear families are great.

    We do not attack them.

    We just want the same of what you have.

    Moreover, the research shows that same-sex parents make as good parents as nuclear two-parent households. Again, I posted those findings when I responded two pages back. This research has been going on for years.

    The campaign and the findings that purport that nuclear families are better than gay families leave out the equation of gay two-parent families. You need to take those findings that such research to only promote traditional families were published with that bias in mind.

  • on children
    May 29, 2009 3:58 p.m.

    A man "fathers" 21 children in 11 years by 10 different women and you are concerned with whether or not gays "effectively" raise children? BTW, many studies show that children raised in gay parented homes are successful, more likely to be educationally successful and yes, more likely to experiment in same sex relationships. If you are so concerned about "the children" why not do something about Peter Rabbit and over 50% of children being raised by single mothers in poverty and undereducated?

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 3:58 p.m.

    To Hate to Interrupt, once more

    You wrote,

    "Homosexual "marriages" are an imagined ersatz solution to a problem that doesn't exist."

    I think most heterosexuals are glad that their spouse is not gay or there would be a problem.

    The problem does exist when one of the spouses finds out that their spouse is gay.

    Therein lies a problem.

    Problem #2 --- If gay people cannot marry heterosexuals, because by the very essence, they are not compatible, that what do gays do? Live together? Have domestic partnerships (which do not have the same extensions of rights as granted by marriage) --- sorry, but they don't.

    Converting gays from gay to straight does not work. I am still waiting for the answer, after six months of writing about the subject. Professional counseling, psychology, and other institutions have been writing about this for decades. I posted their finds a couple of pages back and I won't use time to repeat them right here.

    Never mind that the Church recommends celibacy for Church gays. Think about gays outside the Church. What do they do?

    What do people do about obtaining the same equal treatment under the law?

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 3:48 p.m.

    Hate to interrupt, once more | 1:46 p.m. May 29, 2009

    Using your logic, then, that children need a father and a mother.

    Do you know how many children belong to "traditional" heterosexual families?

    The nuclear family is only a subset of what it constitutes to be a family. There are other alternative types of family --- all of them, having other than both a mother and a father.


    * relatives who raise children
    * single parent families
    * parents out of wedlock
    * foster homes
    * adoptive parents
    * divorced parents

    All of these quality as non-traditional.

    Yet, for all the talk about "doing it for the benefit of the children, because children need a father and a mother" --- Prop 8 targeted, specifically, gay parents.

    There is nothing to outlaw the other types of alternative families.

    We know the doctrine about the LDS Church respecting the families.

    However, nothing is taken to legislate that all families should fit the norm of the LDS family model. Only the gay households are targeted.

    Is that a little bit narrow?

    From 1970 to 2000: The percentage of nuclear families went from 40 to 24%.

  • Anonymous
    May 29, 2009 3:44 p.m.

    "You cannot seriously look me in the face and say that giving a child both a father and a mother as loving role and gender models is not the ideal for raising families and thus strengthening and preserving society."

    First pass laws that murderers, rapists, child molesters and violent criminatls cannot procreate. We know these people have a much higher chance of hurting their offspring than gays do.

    Are you ready to put some action behind your words, or are you just against gays?

  • Anonymous
    May 29, 2009 3:27 p.m.

    to - Hate to interrupt, once more | 1:46 p.m

    ["You cannot seriously look me in the face and say that giving a child both a father and a mother as loving role and gender models is not the ideal for raising families and thus strengthening and preserving society."]

    what does ideal have to do with anything? do we actually base laws on the "ideal"? if so, why is anyone allowed to drive cars run with gasoline anymore?

    your post is ridiculous.

  • THEeyepatch
    May 29, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    Next story.

  • American History 101
    May 29, 2009 2:52 p.m.


    Ever heard of the constitutional convention?

    I may be wrong, but I do not believe the LDS church was around then! There were several other Christian congregations, however.

    You, seriously, need to either study a little more American history, possibly to include a study of the constitution, or not!

  • re - @Vince | 12:46 | 1:03 p.m
    May 29, 2009 2:37 p.m.

    ["The Prophets and Apostles have spoken exhaustingly, extensively on this topic as it has been revealed to them by God"]

    I thought they all died a long time ago...

    ["Is your mind open enough to accept their findings?"]

    please don't use "open mind" in a mormon discussion. It's a little too oxymoronish.

  • Anonymous
    May 29, 2009 2:26 p.m.

    "Then why do you continue to argue about who's God is right?"

    Because you keep mentioning that your God has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman and you think our civil laws should reflect your gods ideas.

    Where do the rest of us Americans fit in if we don't agree? What if we are in a minority? Do you get to pass legislation that set your gods morality as the law of the land, even if it discriminates against us?

  • @Quaker | 1:12
    May 29, 2009 1:57 p.m.

    "We are talking about civil laws".

    Then why do you continue to argue about who's God is right?

    And why is there so much hatred toward the LDS church?

    I am honestly trying to keep up!

  • Hate to interrupt, once more
    May 29, 2009 1:46 p.m.

    Vince wrote:

    "You show me the research that shows that hetero traditional two parent households make marriages than gay two parents households.

    For as long as I have been extending the invitation, NO ONE has come forward and said, here is the research, here is the source."

    Vince, there's this little thing called "history" - have you heard of it? It's hilarious to suggest that thousands of years of natural procreation through husband and wife unions (i.e., marriage) have been, um...ineffective in furthering the human race?

    You cannot seriously look me in the face and say that giving a child both a father and a mother as loving role and gender models is not the ideal for raising families and thus strengthening and preserving society.

    Your so-called "evidence" of same-sex unions being equally effective in independently creating, sustaining, and furthering the human race only exists in your dreams.

    My husband can provide a unique perspective that only a dad can provide to his children. I provide a unique perspective that only a mom can provide hers. Homosexual "marriages" are an imagined ersatz solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

  • Polygamist and proud
    May 29, 2009 1:26 p.m.

    Why are gays fighting me on this?

    "to - re: huh? | 12:12 p.m." asks how multi-party unions could be "voided" in the case of divorce. The answer is, in legal proceedings, partnership dissolution is not rare at all. In the business world for example, partnerships between multiple parties that share assets are dissolved all the time, with the assets being divided among them. It requires a court, a judge, and lawyers. If a civil union is a contract based on love, the government can't restrict the number of parties that enter into it any more than it can restrict the number of parties that enter into a business contract.

    Then to the question, "what would women do who want multiple partners?," it's called polyandry, and it works just like polygamy, except there is a woman with many husbands. The way you handle it is you let them get a civil union too. Otherwise you're discriminating.

    The love each one of my beautiful wives and I share deserves legal protection and benefits like the monogs get. Gays and polygamists should work together to raise awareness and get the public to accept our natural behavior!!!

  • Quaker
    May 29, 2009 1:12 p.m.

    "I am not concerned with my Temple marriage being acceptable to the state, I am, however constantly vigilant that my Temple marriage is accepted of God."

    But, isn't adultry having sex with someone that you are not "legally and lawfully" married to?

    "It was not members of the LDS faith that made the laws regarding marriage, it was God."

    We are not talking about God's laws here. We are talking about civil laws. And My God says gay marriage is all right. Why does your God get his way over mine?

  • re: hate to interrupt again
    May 29, 2009 1:08 p.m.

    "Arguments like yours are the same ones that activist gays spout ad nauseum - "JUDGMENTAL!" or "HATE! HATER!" or "HOMOPHOBE!" Such ad hominem attacks not only reduce the debate to absurd simplicities, but their shrillness indicates a hypocritical lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints."

    So, I guess we are trading insults then...hypocritical lack of tolerance....

    I don't know why you use the word "professed". That word, among its meanings, is to openly affirm. Unfortunately, it also means to make pretense or pretend. Given the tenor or your message, I assumed you were using the latter definition. Could be my mistake.

    From your original post:

    "I don't care what you think "makes" you gay, or if you've "tried" not to be gay, or even that you define yourself as gay. Big whoop, good for you."

    I guess I somehow fail to feel compassion or empathy in those sentences. Again, could be my mistake. However, your use of parentheses makes it seems like you don't believes gays are honest, which only reinforces my assumption on "professed".

    I'm feeling that all you have gained from your encounters with gays is lack of empathy, not hate.
    My bad.

  • @Vince | 12:46
    May 29, 2009 1:03 p.m.

    The Prophets and Apostles have spoken exhaustingly, extensively on this topic as it has been revealed to them by God.

    Is your mind open enough to accept their findings?
    If not, this is where we will have to part ways.

  • @quaker
    May 29, 2009 12:51 p.m.

    "You have every right to believe that. You do not have any right, because of that belief, to run my life with laws that you pass that takes away my religions right to its beliefs"

    Nor do have the right to suppress my voice and beliefs.

    I claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, AND ALLOW all men [women] the same privilege.

    It was not members of the LDS faith that made the laws regarding marriage, it was God.

    I am not concerned with my Temple marriage being acceptable to the state, I am, however constantly vigilant that my Temple marriage is accepted of God.

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    to - re: huh? | 12:12 p.m. | 12:36 p.m. May 29, 2009

    The other layer to the polygamy debate, in an era of equal rights is --- if such a thing were to be considered for legality, what would you do for women who want multiple husbands?

    Equal is equal.

    When you say "You're counting the days..." haven't polygamists been doing that since 1890? That's a lot of days.

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    @Vince | 10:10 a.m | 11:07 a.m. May 29, 2009

    I would examine the evidence. Many times I have blogged and I put both sets of my findings on the blogs for anyone to refute, and so far, nothing.

    So far, all the evidence I have been shown is anecdotal - as in "My cousin used to be gay." This is so typical of many of the stories I read from the ex-gay movement, etc.

    On the other hand, there are tons of other research with numbers, data, etc.

    On the point of two parent traditional households, they ALWAYS leave out the gay two parent household out of the equation.

    If you have something to show me, please do.

  • to - re: huh? | 12:12 p.m.
    May 29, 2009 12:36 p.m.

    ["As a polygamist, I'm counting down the days until consenting adults can be united or "married" without having to meet arbitrary criteria made up by the majority to oppress minorities with different points of view."]

    lol. unfortunately, the govt will insist the civil union be a two-party contract. Trying to "void" (ie - divorce) multiparty contracts would be too difficult to manage. How would property be split if the first wife leaves when there are 3 other wives wanting their share of the properties?

    how would that work?

  • Quaker
    May 29, 2009 12:13 p.m.

    "We believe the fundamental principles of our Faith began in the Pre-Existence."

    You have every right to believe that. You do not have any right, because of that belief, to run my life with laws that you pass that takes away my religions right to its beliefs. We were conducting gay marriages in California that were accepted by the state. With the passage of Prop 8, are gay marriages are now NOT acceptable.

    How would you like it if I passed a law that states that your temple marriages are not acceptable to the state?

    Can you see where you have trampled on our beliefs? Why doesn't this bother you? Don't you think you could be next?

  • re: huh?
    May 29, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    I hope you're right. As a polygamist, I'm counting down the days until consenting adults can be united or "married" without having to meet arbitrary criteria made up by the majority to oppress minorities with different points of view. If my wives and I love each other, why should we be denied the rights given to "monogs?"

    The debate is OVER!!! Marriage rights should be based on love and love only!!!

  • re - SFC RET DENNIS | 11:09 a.m
    May 29, 2009 12:05 p.m.

    God's law? R U SERIOUS?????

    why should everyone believe in your fairy tales of mystic beings, Dennis?

    is that a law too?

    how funny that you think everyone should abide by the ramblings of your god.

  • @To Adams
    May 29, 2009 11:27 a.m.


    How far back do the Quakers go?


    "The Religious Society of Friends, also known as The Quakers, is a movement that began in England in the 17th century.The word "Quaker" means to tremble in the way of the Lord. In its early days it faced opposition and persecution; however, it continued to expand, extending into many parts of the world, especially the Americas and Africa."

    We believe the fundamental principles of our Faith began in the Pre-Existence.

    Do you want to discuss how man has changed principles through the centuries?

    Unfortunately, such a discussion would only serve to confuse and rationalize deviation from an undiluted conversation about who God is.

    No wonder, "God will do nothing, but He reveal His will through His prophet".

    May 29, 2009 11:09 a.m.

    People fail to understand everyone has the right to be married, traditional marriage is law, God ordained marriage between men/women, Gods law should up held, the LDS church is not the only ones who took a stand in favor of prop 8 yet you attack us why? Is it because of your hatred for the LDS faith and it's people, if I were Catholic you would not condemn me or even if I were evangelistic it would be the same they believe the same as we do yet we are the ones who are codenamed why? I doubt your answer would be logical you just want to heat us and that is sad, you don't have to believe the way we do nor do we expect you to. We don't hate people with same sex attraction we prefer to follow Gods law and it says that same sex is wrong. Who should we follow? man or God? I choose God and there is nothing anyone can do to change me if that makes you angry so be it thats your problem Gods law prevails.

  • huh?
    May 29, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    why are you people still debating this? the laws will be changed so everyone has civil unions. states will no longer recognize "marriage", they will recognize civil unions for everyone. (makes sense - after all it is a civil contract.)

    "marriage" will be something between you and your church and your god(s). of course, anyone will be able to get "married" as long as a church is willing to do the ceremony, and I think there are plenty of churches that will allow gay marriage.

    so the word "marriage" will go back to what you want it to be - a religious term. it will have no legal standing.

    you got your way - only churches will be able to "marry" people, so now all you have to do is control your churches. good luck with that.

    and in the end, after you say "I do" in your church, you will be able to say you're "married". But then so will the gay couple right behind you - so it's not really clear to me that you came out ahead.

    But you got to keep the word "marriage" so that should be some sort of consolation prize...

  • @Vince | 10:10 a.m
    May 29, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    Would you accept, [the evidence], if it were presented to you?

  • who are you to judge?
    May 29, 2009 10:42 a.m.

    this should be called prop H8. people's rights are being stripped away. wait till your rights are taken away, and no one stands up for you. if you don't stand up for minorities in need of help, soon there will be no one left to stand up for you when you too are in need. good job on your quest to spread hate.

  • Anonymous
    May 29, 2009 10:28 a.m.


    Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus were married by the early Christian Church. Many Ancient cultures had gay life partners sanctioned every bit as much as marriage, including dowery, and land and property going directly to the widower. Thebes, Sparta, Athens, Mespotamia, Persia, Egypt, Japan, Native Americans, etc.

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 10:22 a.m.

    Hate to interrupt, again... | 9:38 a.m. May 29, 2009

    With the story, yes, it's sad, I admit, sorry to hear that.

    It's one of the points I have been making - A gay person married to a hetero marriage for the most part doesn't work, and yet, people want gay people to act and convert to heterosexuals, as if it was something they could turn on or off.

  • To Adams
    May 29, 2009 10:20 a.m.

    "Nowhere has our Creator granted a right for people to engage in homosexual relations, let alone homosexual "marriage." "

    That might be YOUR creator, not mine. I am Quaker and we have absolutely no problem with gays and gay marriage.

    Why should we use your creator over mine? After all, my church was here before yours!

  • Best for the nation
    May 29, 2009 10:17 a.m.

    What is going to help the nation the most: allowing gays to marry or not?

    Look at what France did: one of the most liberal countries in the world, and it doesn't allow gay marriage. Why? After research and several studies, they found that it is not beneficial to society as a whole if they allow gay marriage. Less children, less progress, fewer people to pay taxes.

    From an economical standpoint, it is not beneficial to legalize gay marriage.

  • Vince
    May 29, 2009 10:10 a.m.

    Hate to interrupt this love spat | 1:43 a.m. May 29, 2009


    You show me the research that shows that hetero traditional two parent households make marriages than gay two parents households.

    For as long as I have been extending the invitation, NO ONE has come forward and said, here is the research, here is the source.

    I have shown evidence based on research --- point for point. When your side faces the absence of data to back up your claims, all you can do is downplay my arguments, but you have nothing to prove the point.

    What is your argument, besides your opinion?

    Anyone can have an opinion, however lacking with evidence it might be.

  • Adams
    May 29, 2009 9:44 a.m.

    There is no such thing as gay "marriage," regardless of what the homosexual lobby or a state legislature may say. Marriage is between a man and a woman (or women in the case of polygamoy) and has been since the dawn of civilization. Calling a homosexual relationship a "marriage" doesn't make it a marriage any more than calling a weed a "rose" make it a rose.

    Moreover, there is no such thing as a "right" to gay "marriage." The country's founding political philosophy is contained in the Declaration of Independence (and other documents), which indicates that we have been "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and that governments are instituted to "secure these rights," not to create them. In other words, the unalienable rights we have are granted by our Creator, not the government, state, federal, or foreign.

    Nowhere has our Creator granted a right for people to engage in homosexual relations, let alone homosexual "marriage." To the contrary, the basic texts of our Judeo-Christian tradition uniformly denounce homosexual relations as an "abomination." The same for Islam.

    One can reject the country's founding political philosophy but one cannot change the facts.

  • Hate to interrupt, again...
    May 29, 2009 9:38 a.m.

    "With your obvious lack of compassion as demonstrated in your post, I believe "hate" is a proper word for you to have chosen for its title."

    This I get a kick out about before passing judgment on people, you should get to understand them...have you ever even talked to a straight person?

    Arguments like yours are the same ones that activist gays spout ad nauseum - "JUDGMENTAL!" or "HATE! HATER!" or "HOMOPHOBE!" Such ad hominem attacks not only reduce the debate to absurd simplicities, but their shrillness indicates a hypocritical lack of tolerance for opposing viewpoints.

    My uncle professed his gayness about 10 years into his marriage. It devastated his wife, and really messed with his sons' heads. Any infidelity, gay or straight, within marriage is wrong, but the gender confusion for his children on top the infidelity only made a bad situation worse.

    I've also directed university-level discussion groups that hosted members from the GLBT community to communicate the unique challenges of being gay. A few of my suburban neighbors are gay. The gay couple are exemplary neighbors. The lesbians have very public domestic violence issues. You asked, didn't you?

  • re To: That doesn't matter 7:33a
    May 29, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    ["They are different. I thought they were proud of that... so why can't we call their union something different?"]

    you really don't get it, do you. Their union won't be called something different. EVERYONE WILL HAVE CIVIL UNIONS, and after they (and you) have the civil union, then they (and you) will be able to say "yes, we're married".

    so I don't know what you mean by "call it something different". Yes, you'll be able to have a "marriage" ceremony in your church, but SO WILL THEY! (well, probably not in your church, but in theirs if they have one.

    it's clear most of you don't understand this simple concept.... everyone will have civil unions for the legal aspects, and everyone will have church "marriage" if they choose to have one.

    your heterosexual "marriage" won't mean any more than a SSM. Hope that meets your needs....

  • re: hate to interrupt....
    May 29, 2009 8:55 a.m.

    "For the professed homosexuals: I don't care what you think "makes" you gay, or if you've "tried" not to be gay, or even that you define yourself as gay. Big whoop, good for you."

    With your obvious lack of compassion as demonstrated in your post, I believe "hate" is a proper word for you to have chosen for its title.

    "professed homosexuals"?

    Before passing judgment on people, you should get to understand them. Have you ever even talked to a gay person?

  • to: that doesn't matter | 6:06 p
    May 29, 2009 7:33 a.m.

    "fortunately, what you believe doesn't matter. To say "as far as I am concerned" means absolutely nothing."

    It does if it is the truth. Marriage is NOT a right granted by the Constitution of the United States or the amendments to it. As I pointed out, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court has ruled in the past, they have made a lot of boneheaded decisions. What matters is what they currently rule. As I see it I eventually win in the short term by a 5-4 vote, when this all gets appealed.

    As for you declaring victory, I haven't lost yet. This is just wishful thinking on your part assuming it will work out the way that you want it to.

    In other words, for you to say what you think will happen means absolutely nothing.

  • Hate to interrupt this love spat
    May 29, 2009 1:43 a.m.

    But it's clear that much of the recent "debate" here has boiled down to a handful (if that) of folks who like to listen to the sound of themselves typing.

    For the professed homosexuals: I don't care what you think "makes" you gay, or if you've "tried" not to be gay, or even that you define yourself as gay. Big whoop, good for you.

    What I do care about is that you are trying to force public validation for your supposed "private" lifestyles and equate a homosexual union to that of a traditional marriage based hugely on the criterion of love being the great equalizer. Such behavior has major social implications, not the least of which is the further diminishing of gender roles in our society, especially in relation to raising children.

    And just because some gays may already have children doesn't negate the fact that, overwhelmingly, children are better off with a father AND a mother in the home. This is the model that works for society, and it has been proven both empirically and practically through milennia. Activist gays' desires to have their consciences massaged will come at the expense of future generations.

  • To: That doesn't matter 6:06 pm
    May 29, 2009 12:29 a.m.

    "marriage will revert back to a religious term as you wish. but you will have to have a civil union to be legally "married" so everyone will win. You'll have your sacred word "marriage" and everyone will have civil unions. Unfortunately, since everyone will have civil unions, everyone will still be able to say "yes, we're married"."

    I would be happy with that outcome. The news (I know... not very reliable) made it seem like the gay community was indeed fighting over the word 'married' saying 'separate is not equal' which I didn't agree with. The word 'marriage' is indeed a big deal, it has been a defining word of an important tradition for over 5000 years. To be forced to legally change the definition of that word seems completely childish to me. It would be like being forced to call homosexuals heterosexuals because calling them something different separates them... They are different. I thought they were proud of that... so why can't we call their union something different?

    (I agree that denying gays a union (even though I don't understand the gay mentality) is discrimination)


  • that doesn't matter
    May 28, 2009 6:06 p.m.

    to - RE:to Dave in Midvale | 2:47 p.m | 4:59 p.m.
    ["As far as I am concerned, rights are defined in the constitution or its amendments, and I don't see anything in there about marriage."]

    fortunately, what you believe doesn't matter. To say "as far as I am concerned" means absolutely nothing.

    marriage will revert back to a religious term as you wish. but you will have to have a civil union to be legally "married" so everyone will win. You'll have your sacred word "marriage" and everyone will have civil unions. Unfortunately, since everyone will have civil unions, everyone will still be able to say "yes, we're married". You can't regulate speech...

    how's it feel to win by losing so badly?

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 5:47 p.m.

    To SS,


    "Research does not support conversion therapy as an effective treatment modality"

    Source: American Counseling Association
    Ethical issues related to conversion or reparative therapy
    (News) 05.22.06
    By Joy S. Whitman, Harriet L. Glosoff, Michael M. Kocet and Vilia Tarvydas


    From the APA,
    "In the last four decades, 'reparative' therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm."

    Will all due respect, SS, I have made mention to these facts in the past, and how reparative therapies have a history of not working.

    Further, you wrote,

    "When I present these facts, I get emotional snipes rather than facts to the contrary."

    Please show me how the data I have shown, not my data, incidentally, is "emotional snipes?"

    And I repeat, some of the questions I have asked towards your camp usually go answered as in,

    "You have good things to say, Vince, but..."

    Never acknowledging how the very reparative cure you advance does not work.

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 5:36 p.m.

    to SS,

    You wrote,

    "4) Other in-born and/or developed tendencies, such as alcoholism, pedophilia, etc are treated, often at great cost. Why is homosexuality the exception?"

    Because the great overwhelming amount of information shows that reparative therapy does not work,

    From an article as old as 1997,

    Psychologists Reconsider Gay `Conversion' Therapy; Group's Proposal Seeks to Curb Such Treatment

    "The nation's largest society of psychologists today will consider a resolution aimed at discrediting the controversial practice of using psychological therapy to try to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals.

    The effort by the American Psychological Association to severely restrict the circumstances under which it would be ethical to practice "reparative therapy" has the support of many medical and professional organizations, and is in keeping with the association's 1973 resolution that homosexuality is not a mental illness. But the new proposal is vehemently opposed by a vocal minority of psychologists, psychiatrists and religious groups"

    Source: Washington Post
    August 14, 1997

    Another source,

    "Reparative Therapy Not Effective"

    Date, January 15, 1999
    Source: Psychiatric News Professional News

    Still another,

    From the American Academy of Pedriatrics, "Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated"

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 5:10 p.m.

    Further, to SS,

    Vince | 7:40 p.m. April 8, 2009
    Empirical data

    The topic of whether gays experienced sexual abuse as children keeps returning. Does anyone have empirical data?

    There are the anecdotal references of "I know three friends and two of them were abused" etc., However, statistically, we have to account on empirical scientific data.

    * The APA says that there is no conclusive reason as to what makes a person gay or not

    * In a research done by Ratner P.A. et al (2003) the research for one specific data on a control group showed that, "14% of gays were sexually abused as children"

    In general, "Researchers estimate that, in our country, about 10% of boys and 25% of girls are sexually abused."

    In 1994, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers submitted,

    "We begin with a discussion of the latest scientific research on the nature of sexual orientation. This research firmly and consistently rejects the widespread assumptions that sexual orientation is the same as sexual conduct, that sexual orientation is freely chosen and readily subject to alteration.

    Source: Romer v. Evans, Full Brief, 1994.

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 5:08 p.m.

    To SS,

    When you wrote,

    "1) Not all gays are born that way as I have cited you example after example of men I know who are sexually confused after being assaulted as adolescents by older gay men"

    You are corect when you say that not all gays claim to be born that way.

    I don't know the numbers for how many claim to be born way versus how many found out later in life, as in when they were adults. (I know, go figure, some of you might be surprised that I don't have stats for that)

    From APA,

    "Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

    No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For MOST (my caps) people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

    Further, when you compare the numbers of heterosexual people who were abused as children versus gay people who were abused as children there is no significant difference.

  • RE:to Dave in Midvale | 2:47 p.m
    May 28, 2009 4:59 p.m.

    The supreme court has also ruled in the past that States could forbid women from voting, that "separate but equal" is alright, that the eugenic practices of the early 1900s were OK. Shall we go back to those based on precedent? As far as I am concerned, rights are defined in the constitution or its amendments, and I don't see anything in there about marriage.

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 4:34 p.m.

    Bill to Vince| 2:58 p.m. May 28, 2009

    The big mystery behind this whole scenario is that there are contradicting lifeviews on being gay vs. "protecting traditional marriage." And the views go and on, without anyside seeming able to compromise on anything.

    The big mystery, as I was saying, is that it does not take reading a book or two about being gay. It does not take pouring through blogs of the gay side or the blogs of the LDS side.

    I do not need to remind, for those of us who are gays, there is a transition time for those who come out of the closet. Many gays struggle coming out, and for those closeted, they stay closeted forever. It's everyone's decision.

    For the LDS perspective, not the time or the place here, there is a certain change, etc. conversion process, if you will. But enough on that...

    Am I surprised that many will not want to hear gays when tensions run high? No, it does not surprise me.

    But it does surprise me when people believe ANYTHING, superficial as it may be, without digging to see if there is any truth.

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 4:24 p.m.

    Re, Bill to Vince | 2:58 p.m. May 28, 2009

    The best case scenario is this, looking at legitimate doctrine of the Church.

    * Homosexuality is not allowed
    * Not in the Plan of Salvation
    * Hopefully gays will be changed in the life hereafter.
    * the official doctrine of the Church, "We don't know what makes people gay."

    Research indicates that changing from gay to heterosexual fail in the most extreme.

    And so, on the one hand, we have the doctrine of the Church, which we cannot refute.

    On the other, we have our self-identity. I, for one, don't live in the closet anymore. Can't go through life pretending someone I am not.


    on the topic of making choices ---

    When people constantly speak endlessly on and on and on about how being gay is a choice.

    Excuse me...

    I didn't choose to be this way.

    Were it up to me, in fact, I would have changed for the advantages of being heterosexual. The point of the matter is, such attitudes drive toward self-hatred and they are, in the end, counter-productive.

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 4:07 p.m.

    Re: Bill to Vince | 2:58 p.m. May 28, 2009

    essence what it boils down to.

    Gays who are doing the question phase try to date women.

    And the research shows that gay LDS men who marry women are by an overwhelming majority doomed to fail.

    And people talk about having the change --- I guess from gay to straight.

    Again, tried, and tried.

    I, for one, have had many things to gain from "converting" from gay to heterosexual.

    1. a chance not to be harrassed anymore. Really, who needs it?
    2. a chance to be accepted
    3. a place within the plan of salvation
    4. promises/blessings - you know, the whole package

    And so, you come into the inroads of your life and you say ----

    really... you followed the instructions... you followed the gospel, and I, for one, know the power of prayer and the Priesthood, you're preaching to the choir.

    Then you search inside and you find out...

    I'm still gay.

    To date women would be to lie.

    Have you ever been rejected by a woman because you were gay?

    How many times can you hit yourself against a wall till you say it hurts?

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 3:56 p.m.

    Bill to Vince | 2:58 p.m. May 28, 2009

    Thank you for your kind words.

    Yes, I know everything you're saying.

    Believe me, these are the very principles that I have used.

    When you speak of "urges" it sounds as if heterosexuals don't have urges.

    True, urges to be controlled and used within the bonds of matrimony/marriage, etc.

    When I speak, I don't mean to come across as anti-Church, which some readers have mistaken me for, but rather, as pro-gay.

    And true, you have touched on The Plan of Salvation, a plan, which, frankly, we gays look at it, and boom, we ask, where is our place in it?

    Joseph Smith taught that about the plan of happiness. And we know that "man is that he might have joy."

    Automatically, without being able to marry a woman, we are not allowed to have happiness?

    Then, some would say --- don't date men, don't give up on women - or whatever they might say.

    Date women? Hmmm.

    And as people have recommended in this blog, ask for the mighty change of heart. I am making light of the subject, this is in...

  • Re: to Dave in Midvale
    May 28, 2009 3:50 p.m.

    "Your statement is false. Try reading Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court states that marriage is a right."

    And Virginia has a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Make sure you don't take things out of context.

    The supreme court of Virginia ruled that marriage is a right, and that right only goes to one man and one woman who consent.

    In Virginia, marriage is not a right extended to persons of the same gender.

    Get your facts straight! ;)

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 3:42 p.m.


    What is the legal difference between a "right" and a "privilege"?

    Please cite case law to show that this difference does not just exist in your warped head.

  • re Dale
    May 28, 2009 3:04 p.m.

    No one said they were. You are perfectly entitled to any and all religious beliefs you have. It's when you assert that your religious beliefs should be law do people have a problem with that.

  • to Dave in Midvale
    May 28, 2009 2:47 p.m.

    "But is somethings is "regulated" then it is NOT a right."

    Gun ownership is regulated but it is a right.

    Free speech is a right but has limitations.

    Freedom of religion is a right but you are not allowed to offer human sacrifices - it is regulated to an extent too.

    Your statement is false. Try reading Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court states that marriage is a right.

  • To Dale
    May 28, 2009 2:43 p.m.

    "Why are my religious beliefs any less valid than your urges?"

    Prop 8 did NOTHING to make homosexuality illegal. It had nothing to do with urges.

    If gay marriage is the law of the land, you will still have your religious beliefs. You will still be worshipping as you wish. It will change nothing for you. Talk to some members in Mass. They have had gay marriage for 5 years and they still believe, are still attending the Boston temple, and are getting along fine with their gay neighbors who have married. Isn't that amazing?

    It has done absolutely nothing to their beliefs.

  • re: Anonymous at 12:26
    May 28, 2009 2:11 p.m.

    Since when has contract termination complexity been an issue in contract law or legal structuring?

    Lawyers will push multiple partner union discrimination lawsuits (to make money) and then be chomping at their respective bits to get in on the contract termination action once those unions start separating (to make money)!!!

    My prediction: Hugh Heffner and several bunnies will be the first in line for a multiple partner union.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 1:04 p.m.


    I have been reading your comments for a while now, and I must say I would like to meet you someday. You seem intelligent, rational, reasonable, kind and well-educated.

    Amazing that you are gay, too!

    (just joking)

  • @ Religion Aside
    May 28, 2009 1:00 p.m.

    I was raised in a family with heterosexual parents and was not exposed to and "formal homosexual relationship(s)" as you so put it. So why am I gay? It wasn't nurtured into me.

    And before you play the choice card, I will ask... Why would I choose this?

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    "You can teach same-sex marriage in public schools if I can teach about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the Restoration. Tit for tat...if we're really going for equality, let's level the playing field."

    All that is already in American History books. Gay marriage is a fact in Mass, Maine, Vermont, Iowa, and Connecticut. It will be in the history books too.

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 12:45 p.m.

    To SS (continued)

    You wrote,

    "And finally to Vince, we just have to agree to disagree as the facts I have presented repeatedly are falling on (your) deaf ears."

    Sorry --- my last comment will show how I recorded my views in the past. You and I have spoken before. I do believe I have answered the questions.

    However, on the other hand, I have presented many facts related to how the "solution that is presented to gays - do not work" and no one answers to those questions.

    Whose deaf ears are those?

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 12:41 p.m.

    "People who practice homosexuality should not be allowed to adopt children because the cause of homosexuality (nature vs. nurture) has not been determined."

    They can and do have their own offspring. Should we take those children away from gays?

    Heterosexuals that are child abusers, murderers, violent criminals can all marry and procreate. There is NO limit for them. What is wrong with this picture.

    If you start limiting who can raise a child, start with those we know will probably harm their children, not those that we do not have any facts to back up our suppositions.


  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 12:38 p.m.

    Only 18,000? | 9:18 a.m. May 28, 2009

    This is not news to the gay community.

    Many gay couples go through the routine of getting married, getting a civil union, domestic partnership, as the laws in the state change.

    They are married now.

    Then they are not.

    Then they are.


    And so forth.

    With the current ruling, we are looking with the benefit of hindsight. Many gays would like to be married until they know that their marriage will stand the test of courts, votes, time, etc.

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 12:28 p.m.

    re: marriage will cease | 12:04 p.m. May 28, 2009

    This is the difference between same sex marriage and polygamy or marrying someone's cousin, etc.

    Gays have two "choices" according to people to want gays to abandon their "lifestyle."

    Either get married to the opposite sex or live celibate lives.

    Studies show that neither of these work.

    What are other alternatives are there?

    On the other hand, I do not believe that "research indicates that people are born to be polygamists or marry their cousin."

    There is nothing out there.

    However, on the issue of gay marriage, studies continue to indicate that gays have little choice in the matter as to whom they love.

    Polygamists and incestors, adulterers, etc. --- do not have a social movement that says "there is little choice in the matter of how we are. We were born to be polygamists."

    Are there such studies?

    Please show.

    Until then, please stop making the comparisons if you cannot back up with research and a legal basis.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 12:26 p.m.

    to - re: marriage will cease | 12:04 p.m.

    a civil union wil be between TWO consenting adults. Anything else gets too complicated for contract termination. so no - you won't have your polygamy wishes come true...

  • Re: Religion aside...
    May 28, 2009 12:18 p.m.

    First off...God does not exist, so that and religion is not a valid argument against gay marriage.

    Second, there is vitro fertilization that people can use to get pregnant, along with adoption, foster homes, and other government provided options available for loving same-sex couples--so the cannot procreate argument is bogus.

    Third, if you recognize one form of marriage but not another (namely, traditional marriage vs. gay marriage), then you are discriminating against the one you do not recognize by virtue of the fact that it is not eligible for the same benefits that other marriages get.

    Procreation doesn't make a difference--that's just genetic sexual makeup of one's body that's the difference. You can't bring science into politics like that--it's illogical.

    Fourth, as far as this crazy "nature vs. nurture" argument you're making, I don't think a psychological theory flies. Same-sex couples have already shown they can raise strong children as heterosexual couples in traditional marriages already do. To let one type of marriage adopt while disallowing another is flat discrimination, a lack of equality with regard to family structure, and ethically intolerable.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    To Bill,

    Let the Church proclaim whatever it wants to for its members. But stay out of the civil courts and the civil laws!

  • re: marriage will cease
    May 28, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    You didn't go far enough in your conjecture. Actually, if what you described occurs, then all adult relationships will benefit from the same rights. Polygamists, polyandrists, polyamorists, adulterers, etc. will all eventually have their unions honored by the government because nothing makes the "love" felt in those relationships any less legitimate than the "love" two people who practice homosexuality together feel.

    If marriage is simply a legal contract between consenting adults, and denying two adults who practice homosexuality together the right to marry is discrimination, isn't denying other combinations of adults the right to marry discrimination too?

  • to marriage will cease
    May 28, 2009 11:53 a.m.

    Yes, that will make most happy. Allow civil unions for legally consenting adults followed by religious marriage if desired. BTW, that is all that the LDS Church ever asked for and I'm not LDS and don't honestly have an issue with gay unions. The problem is that the gay side never listened or they would have heard, instead they foamed from the mouth while screaming "you are taking away my rights." Listening solves so many problems.

  • marriage will cease
    May 28, 2009 10:29 a.m.

    the end result of this will be a change in the code allowing civil unions for all people. The word marriage will revert back to what all you religious people want - a religious ceremony. Everyone that wants to be joined will have to go to city hall (or other designated location) and get a civil union. If you want to go to your church and get "married" you will be more than welcome to do so, but it will have no legal impact and will just be between you and your god(s).

    so the religious will get their way (you will "own" the word "marriage" - good for you - have fun with it) but everyone will have the same legal rights. And the people you were trying to stop from getting "married" will still be able to say to people - "yes, we're married" - just to see your deer-in-the-headlights look and to see you cringe.

    but hey - it won't be called "marriage" so you will have won. Does this result make you happy? hope so...

  • re - SS 12:32am
    May 28, 2009 10:21 a.m.

    ["Besides, a person who equates the Bible to superstition and fairy tales is woefully uninformed and obviously not capable of understanding both sides of this issue."]

    actyually, the fact is people that try to impose their religious beliefs onto the general population with actual laws are woefully misinformed and not capable of understanding both sides of the issue.

    my comment about fairy tales was meant to highlight that not everyone believes as you do. But religious people still insist that everyone conform to their standards, even when their standards come from what many believe to be a mystical being and backwoods superstition...

    thats the problem.

  • Vince
    May 28, 2009 8:31 a.m.

    To SS,

    1. I don't believe I have ever said that ALL gays were born that way.
    2. I don't believe I have ever used or advanced the animal rationale to explain human homosexuality. We can check the record.
    3. I believe I have gone on record that the Bible says what it says and I have gone on record that the Church teaches what it teaches. Church/state is what I am arguing.
    4. Pedophilia, alcoholism has been talked about in recent posts.

    However, other issues we have talked about remain unresolved.

  • @Re: Gay Marriage 6:45
    May 28, 2009 8:20 a.m.

    That comment was NOT written by a gay person. You guys fell for a troll. There isn't a gay person that would like marriage to stop between two opposite sex persons. We love our families, and want EVERYONE to be happy with the life that they choose.

    Sorry you had to read that garbage. Believe me, it isn't true.

  • To: reply to 6:36 pm
    May 28, 2009 7:10 a.m.

    Way to actually read the conversation, "buddy." The commenter at 6:36 pm was responding to Red, correcting his insistant accusations that LDS official doctrine is inline with SSM, which it most definitely is not. They were not preaching to anybody, they were not saying that anybody had to believe in the doctrine, and they weren't using that doctrine to shout anybody down about the validity of SSM. They were explaining to Red that he was purposely misreading the doctrine, purposely skipping half the comment he kept quoting, to make his point, which was inaccurate. He argued repeatedly that he was right on what the official LDS doctrine on the subject is, and he was wrong, and that poster was simply explaining that. Chill out, okay? There's no need to hurl insults at somebody for pointing out the proper church doctrine on the subject. If you don't believe it, don't read the post and leave it at that.

  • Savant
    May 28, 2009 12:44 a.m.

    I have to ask if there is an acceptable "middle ground" in all of this.

  • SS
    May 28, 2009 12:32 a.m.

    First, to the guy/gal who told me to be quiet and allow civil debate, you must not be reading the posts. They're anything but civil. I just see people getting more hardened in their views.

    Second, to the guy/gal who defended me, thanks, but I can defend myself. Besides, a person who equates the Bible to superstition and fairy tales is woefully uninformed and obviously not capable of understanding both sides of this issue.

    And finally to Vince, we just have to agree to disagree as the facts I have presented repeatedly are falling on (your) deaf ears. 1) Not all gays are born that way as I have cited you example after example of men I know who are sexually confused after being assaulted as adolescents by older gay men, 2) Studies in the animal kingdom conclude that same-sex relations are about domination not attraction, 3) Homosexuality is inarguably condemned throughout the Bible, 4) Other in-born and/or developed tendencies, such as alcoholism, pedophilia, etc are treated, often at great cost. Why is homosexuality the exception?

    When I present these facts, I get emotional snipes rather than facts to the contrary.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 10:15 p.m.

    Have any of your read the ruling?

    The CA Supreme Court said that Prop 8 stands which is to say that they upheld the majority's wish that the word "marriage" cannot apply to same sex couples. Then they went on, quite pointedly, to say that there is no way in which same sex couples can be denied anything other than the use of the *word*. They affirmed that same sex couples -- already and not yet married -- were entitled to every other protection of the law and could not be discriminated against in any way.

    They can have "weddings". They can demand full recognition of their legal status in CA. They can adopt. They can use the words "husband" and "wife". They can even use the word "married" in their everyday lives -- they just will just have to expect the law to use a different word.

    Was that worth what you guys paid out to discriminate against your fellow Americans? Meanwhile, your belligerence seems to have gotten NY, ME, IA, etc. off the dime. Well done!

  • Agreed
    May 27, 2009 9:59 p.m.

    I agree with ronald. It is baby steps... little by little each group that wants their way will get it until this nation is so backward it cant figure which way is up. Morality is beginning to wane and I feel another Sodom and Gomorrah coming on... pillars of salt anyone?

  • Vince
    May 27, 2009 7:07 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert | 11:34 a.m. May 27, 2009

    You wrote,

    "Anyway, for some reason he does not tell us the actual rate of divorce in Utah. That is very, very fishy on his part."

    Nothing fishy.

    I did post an entry with Utah divorce numbers and it did not get published.

    I will try again.

    2001 4.2
    2002 4.0
    2003 3.9
    2004 4.0
    2005 3.9

    Source: Utah Department of Health
    Center for Health Data

  • reply to 6:36 pm
    May 27, 2009 7:00 p.m.

    Hey buddy---

    Who are you to sit here with your so-called Mormon books from the sky and preach to the choir about this stuff?

    This stuff is just your personal opinion of what you believe to be true in your own mind, but you do not speak for the majority of Americans, nor do that majority share your so-called faith.

    The day you arrogant Mormons learn that not everyone in the world thinks and wants to be like you are is the day that maybe people will start to leave you be to do your stuff.

    But until then, don't be surprised when we think you're out of line by preaching your standards to us--we don't appreciate being told we're wrong, and don't do to us what you wouldn't want done to yourself if you were in our place.

  • Hey, Red?
    May 27, 2009 6:57 p.m.

    You seem to be forgetting the rest of that statement you keep quoting.

    The full thing is: "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

    If you're going to quote it, quote the entire thing, okay?

  • Re: Red
    May 27, 2009 6:36 p.m.

    "Sexual relations between spouses in these couples is "legal and lawful" -- and, therefore, chaste according to LDS doctrine."

    Sorry, Red. The Family Proclamation is an outlining of official church doctrine. Is the Proclamation official scripture? Not as such, but it is simply a restatement of everything that the LDS churches as OFFICIAL DOCTRINE according to the family. The LDS church considers sexual relations outside of a male/female marriage to be in violation of their rules on chastity, per their official doctrine. That includes all homosexual activity, whether in a legal marriage or not.

    That is why, in every single paragraph you will find outlining the law of chastity, they specifically mention consensual homosexual behavior as something that is forbidden under any and all circumstances. That is the official church doctrine, not the abbreviated version that you keep spouting off about.

    A quick search of, a look in the Church Handbook of Instructions, any General Conference talk on the subject, statements from the First Presidency and Apostles, and For the Strength of the Youth, not to mention the scriptures, will tell you as much. Stop being deliberately obtuse, you know the doctrine as well as any of us.

  • Vince
    May 27, 2009 6:30 p.m.

    SS | 1:42 p.m. May 27, 2009

    I think through discussion, people can learn what is reasonable, logical --- what it is to be gay --- what it is not to be gay.

    The exact opposite is true, as a matter of fact, the absence of a civil discussion will not let anyone open/change his mind. People can peel through the layers of what is faulty logic, what is hearsay, what is doctrine, what is law, etc. etc.

    Were not for discussions like these --- I will add, how would you explain that the vote with Prop 22 went from a high majority to a slim margin with Prop 8?

    Granted, many will never change their mind, for better or worse.

  • Vince
    May 27, 2009 6:22 p.m.

    Red | 2:10 p.m. May 27, 2009

    I think Red, the LDS Church governs under two levels of relations when it comes to same-sex marriage.

    Yes, you are right, no sex outside of marriage.

    At the same time, no sex with the same gender, regardless of how legal the wedding is.

    We might disagree in theory, and you and I might go back and forth as far as what we think the doctrine is. The bottom line is when a gay person stands in front of his bishop, a high council, stake president, and stake presidency in relation to "conduct unbecoming an LDS member" I think excommunication, disfellowship, or any other kind of ecclesiastical reprimand.

    I take you to an article published by DN, March 15, 2006.

    Gay man faces LDS excommunication over marriage
    By Jennifer Dobner
    Associated Press

    It reads in part,

    "SALT LAKE CITY A gay man who is a lifetime member of the LDS Church could be facing disciplinary action and excommunication after legally marrying his partner in Canada."

  • Solution??
    May 27, 2009 5:00 p.m.

    France has come up with a solution for this very polarizing issue - they have removed the legal term 'marriage' and now issue civil-union licenses for any two consulting adults. Couples may take their civil-union license and be married in a church or leave it a civil union....
    The whole issue here is the term 'marriage' - the legal defintion and the religious definition. By removing the legal definition, each church is free to establish their own interpretation of the word marriage and set their own standards based on their beliefs. If one church allows gays to 'marry' other churches can look upon it as invalid, but the legal system would extend the same tax breaks, rights, etc. to all civil union couples.
    This would remove the 'discrimination' arguement from the gay side, but they would have to allow each religion to set their own requirements for 'marriage' in their own institutions.
    Are there people on either side of this issue that are looking for a reasonable compromise?

  • re 2:59 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 4:50 p.m.

    In many circles here in Utah, it is. I know people who have framed the letter and hung it next to their University degrees.

  • Red
    May 27, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    Bill to Red 2:59 "It is a teaching of the LDS Church and doctrine that any sexul relationship outside of marriage as defined by the Church which is between a man and a woman is an abomination before the Lord."

    Sorry, I must disagree. I'm thinking of the phrase "legally and lawfully wedded."

    Churches don't define what's "legal and lawful." Governments do.

    When the Church agreed to obey, honor, and sustain the law -- and then used the phrase "legal and lawful" -- it committed itself to accepting whatever the civil government defines that phrase to mean.

    And there are now thousands of "legally and lawfully wedded" gay couples in California.

    Sexual relations between spouses in these couples is "legal and lawful" -- and, therefore, chaste according to LDS doctrine.

  • Checkmate
    May 27, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    This is not about "gay marriage." It is about equal protection under the law.

    The California Supreme Court's ruling only said that California voters had a right to amend their constitution and that the initiative did not violate the rights of gays under STATE laws. In doing so the majority opinion took great pains to try and limit the decision's impact.

    Now it is rightly being challenged in FEDERAL court under the equal protection clause of the US CONSTITUTION. The fact that the State Supremem Court honored the validity of the 18,000 LEGAL same sex marriages already perfomed will make it very difficult for the US Supreme Court to deny equal protection.

    You religious conservatives have been out-foxed!

  • to - Bill to Red: | 2:59 p.m
    May 27, 2009 4:04 p.m.

    ["Therefore, those living in a same-sex relationship will be subject to excommunication from the Church"]

    isn't that a good thing?

  • Re: 2:33 pm
    May 27, 2009 3:27 p.m.

    I can tell somebody to be quiet if they're trying to silence me from having a voice.

    In the meantime, I agree with what you said. People are waking up to this, especially the younger people, and this issue will be a moot point in 10 years indeed (yes, even in Utah, and all you Mormons will be eating your own words).

  • to - Bill | 2:25 p.m
    May 27, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    stop being a religious robot. can't you people think for yourselves instead of quoting people that don't know any more than you or me (and probably knows a lot less)?

  • @what don't you get? |
    May 27, 2009 3:10 p.m.

    Good Day Sir!

    You are so profound!

    Why don't you spend your time more productively and "PROVE" that there is no God? Then we will all be free to do whatever we please, under the cover of the "equal protection clause."

    I am sure you would win the NOBEL PRIZE if you could do that. You would instantly become the most powerful individual on the earth.

    HOWEVER, you would also have to "PROVE" that there is no devil, because we "so-called Christians" believe in him also. Which is precisely why we do not exercise our free agency, and give into the PROCLIVITIES of the natural man or woman and do as we please because the CONSTITUTION says we can?

    I am sorry to inform you, you and yours are living the fairy-tale of self indulgence and extreme sexual fantasy at the peril of your own exaltation. Seriously, why would you want to throw it all away? Could it be "free will".

    Are you, 'absolutely positive', your claims of "equal protection under the law" will only go as far as homosexual marriage?

    Anxiously awaiting your findings.

    Apparently you will have plenty of support in your research.

  • re Paco
    May 27, 2009 2:57 p.m.

    Alcoholism is a Physical Disease and Pedophilia is a Mental Illness that preys upon a minor, unable to give consent. Homosexuality is a Sexual Orientation, classified as neither a Disease or Mental Illness. That is the difference.

  • to - Re: SS | 1:54 p.m
    May 27, 2009 2:33 p.m.

    don't tell him to be quiet. it is in fact ridiculous to keep debating an issue that neither side is going to change their mind on.

    the fact is - superstition and fairy tales are causing people to prevent everyone from being treated equally. equal treatment for all isn't a tough notion - it's common sense. But so many people believe in fairy tales and superstition that common sense gets thrown out the window.

    more and more people are waking up to this fact, especially young (non-utah) people, so the issue will be mute in a decade or so.

  • Red
    May 27, 2009 2:10 p.m.

    Vince 6:56: "The church can accept or deny marriages, in this case, it is altogether against same sex marriages, regardless of the the state sanctioning marriages."

    You can certainly find lots of quotes from the Brethren dissing same-sex marriage, but as far as I know, the only LDS *doctrine* on the subject is:

    Sexual relations are reserved for, and only moral for, those in a legal and lawful marriage.

    If a same-sex marriage is legal and lawful, then those in that marriage remain chaste and moral if they have sexual relations with each other.

    I'm pretty sure there's a long standing LDS policy that a member with same-sex attraction "problems" remains moral so long as s/he doesn't participate in non-chaste, immoral activity.

    Since sexual relations within a legal, lawful marriage are chaste and moral, my previous post still stands.

  • Re: SS
    May 27, 2009 1:54 p.m.

    You be quiet. No one asked for your ideas--all you want to do is just demonize civil debate that is taking place.

    We have the right to free speech and media in this country to express our views, and we are doing so. There are plenty of places you can go to do your thing, but if you are on here wondering why we are having a civil debate on this issue, then you are in the wrong place.

  • SS
    May 27, 2009 1:42 p.m.

    You guys are all still on here arguing about this? What's the use? Do you think one mind or heart has been changed by reading the attacks going back and forth?

    Neither side is going to concede or compromise. At best, we can expect that some states will recognize gay marriage and other states will have the right not to have to recognize those marriages.

  • re: Vince | 12:17 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    Hey it's me, re: Vince | 4:06 p.m.

    I'm not surprised, but you totally sidesteped my comment.

    I wasn't saying that gay couples and polygamous multi-couples were indentical. I was merely pointing out that their "tactics" are identical to the gay agenda. You were attacking their tactics. Clearly, the same tactics espoused by the gay community.

    Why shouldn't polygamists use the same tactics as gays? If you can use the "equality" subterfuge, why can't other minority groups. If it's equality for ALL that gays are advocating, you had better mean ALL. Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite and a bigot.

  • re: John Pack Lambert | 11:34 a.
    May 27, 2009 1:00 p.m.

    "To the 9:41 commentator,

    Are you serious?"

    Actually, no.

    I thought it was laughable that someone (Vince) would quote two separate pieces of data and not only attempt to claim a correlation, but insinuate that there is a causal relationship, as well.

    Apparently, sarcasm just doesn't always come across on paper very well.

  • Vince
    May 27, 2009 12:50 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert | 11:20 a.m. May 27, 2009


    You and I have spoken long enough for you to know that I look up my information while you on the other hand, do not have data to rebut some of the statements I make.

    Please, go ahead and rebut.

    The one reader did make a correct assumption that yes, I did not look 2007 data, the data I looked up was more dated because I could not find 2007 data, but good enough, the 2007 data is welcome.

    Nonetheless I stand my ground, divorce is lower in states where same sex marriage is legal.

    As another reader pointed out, why does it matter?

    True, it does not matter. It should not matter.

    The only reason why I brought the data is because someone made the assumption that gays (gay men, for example) will start leaving their heterosexual wives when same sex marriage becomes effective.

    To counter wrong supposition with fact, show the data.

  • Scott
    May 27, 2009 12:40 p.m.

    Civil rights issues are NOT up for vote. Are you the same people that believe a black and a white should not be aloowed to marry. Well that was the case 40 years ago. Bigotry and false allegations will never win...thank God for America. Love thy neighbor is the foundation for EVERY religion, or anti religion. Come on wake up people and let others live. This does NOT affect your lives!

  • Vince
    May 27, 2009 12:21 p.m.

    Confused | 7:06 a.m. May 27, 2009

    Why do heteros want marriage?

    The argument against same sex marriage in California is --- well, why, gays have the same rights.

    The counter argument, using the same logic, is, if marriage and domestic partnerships are the same, why aren't heteros happy with domestic partnerships? Then we will all be equal.

    There are inherent differences in both the word and the rights.

    We're going back to the same argument - separate is not equal.

  • Vince
    May 27, 2009 12:17 p.m.

    re: Vince | 4:06 p.m. | 9:35 a.m. May 27, 2009

    Identical - no.

    Gays are not asking to marry two or three people.

    Imagine the ramifications for three-way divorce ---

    Two people want to divorce a third or worse, one person wants out and the other wants to stay in but only if the second stays out.

    Exactly identical? Not by a long shot.

  • Re: Two Very Interesting Points
    May 27, 2009 12:14 p.m.

    The idea of gay marriage violates some of the most fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As much as God loves those who self-identify as homosexuals, he can't seal a homosexual union, any more than he can seal the union of two spouses one of whom is abusive or unfaithful (even if that person was born with a predisposition toward abuse or infidelity). Neither of those unions follows the pattern God has established for His children.

    I believe that if a pro-gay marriage amendment wins in California, most people in the traditional marriage camp will accept it as the will of the majority. They won't be happy about it, but they will let it go, unless the law curtails freedoms for those with conscientious objections to the practice.

  • A couple points
    May 27, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    To JPL - Annulments are very difficult to get and are granted in very limited situations. My guess is that annulments have very little affect on a state's divorce rate.

    As an aside regarding divorce rates - A gay male friend of mine is convinced in his experience that, if allowed to marry, gay men would divorce at a VERY high rate while gay women would have a very low rate. He believes gay men tend to be very promiscuous while gay women do not.

  • to john pack lambert 11:14am
    May 27, 2009 11:58 a.m.

    are you people really arguing about divorce rates, like that has some bearing on SSMs?

    what on earth does that have to do with it? so people get divorced. so what? it happens.

    marriage isn't the big deal you all make it out to be. it's just a civil contract. it's not a religious institution.

  • what don't you get?
    May 27, 2009 11:53 a.m.

    you all keep saying "wasn't adam and steve" and "bible says it's bad" and "we think you're sinners", etc.

    you assume that:
    - there is a god
    - your books are right
    - your beliefs should be law

    Only thing I can say about any of that is - that's totally ridiculous. Grow up and stop believing in fairy tales. Or at least stop pushing your fairy tales and magical superstitions onto others...

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 27, 2009 11:45 a.m.

    In support of the 11:09 commentator,
    Beyond this I am fairly certain that entering into a claimed "marriage" agreement with a member of the same-sex would be grounds for excommunication.
    This is a case where the fact of making your relatonship a government recognized one would be seen as deliberate rebellion and make you that much more likely to be excommunicated for not only violating the law of chastity but for apostasy which is rebellion.

    May 27, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    RE: Steve | 10:37am

    For those of us who believe the Garden of Eden to be a fiction inconsistent with scientific evidence, then your so-called precedent doesn't apply.

    Since you've stated your explicit belief that Adam and Eve are the role model for all future families, here's a cautionary note before you bandy your simplistic (and unoriginal) little jingo around to justify your prejudice: If you want to use Adam and Eve to establish all future relationship rules, should we look to their offspring as part of the same example, and therefore mandate only incestuous relationships for all procreational activities? Is gay marriage really so distasteful by comparison that you'd rather marry your sister than allow your same-sex neighbors the right to solemnize their own partnerships?

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 27, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    To the 9:41 commentator,
    Are you serious?
    Vince threw out three types of sttitics from two non-comparable studies. He never fully accepts that the nature of his statistics is that they reflect the percentage of the population getting divorced, which will be inevitably lower when lots few people get married. His statistics tell us nothing about how likely a marriage in Massachusetts verses one in Utah is to end in divorce. Probably the biggest factor is that a higher percentage of people in Utah are married than in Massachusetts.
    Anyway, for some reason he does not tell us the actual rate of divorce in Utah. That is very, very fishy on his part.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 27, 2009 11:29 a.m.

    To Vince,
    So why is it acceptable to prosecute people for practicing polygamy, send them to jail for marrying multiple women who are all consenting adults, but we have to give full state recognition to same-gender marriage.
    The Oler and Blackmore cases involve only women who are adults. There is absolutely no grounds for claims of breaking statutory rape laws in this case. It is completely consenting adults.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 27, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    Among many other things Vince ignores the fact that there are a great many Muslim polygamists in New York City, and I have ancedotal evidence to suggest they also exist in Massachusetts. Since these men's second wives are almost universally here as undocumented immigrants, and since there marriages are not recognized they add to the population but create a class of people who do not get legally divorced. I will hold the view that the polygamists in New York outnumber those in Utah, and cahllenge anyone to prove otherwise.
    You are going to have to re-examine all reported data on polygamists in Utah for three reasons. One, the data does not reflect the recent migration of many FLDS to Nevada, Texas and Colorado. Two, the data in almost all cases involves those in "Utah and surrounding states", which I will state always includes Montana and the large polygamist group near Stevensville, and may even be done in such a way to include those in Canada. Thirdly, the statistics include all who accept polygamy, while a large percentage of these do not practice.

    May 27, 2009 11:25 a.m.


  • John Pack Lambert
    May 27, 2009 11:20 a.m.

    Another response to Vince,
    You are engaged in lieing with statistics. If you wanted to creat a real comparison you would actually list the divorces per 1000 people rate in both Utah and California.
    Also, let me make this clear. Vince engages in throwing in Unlike statistics. I wonder if this is because if he threw in the actual divorces per 1000 people in the United States and in Canada the rate in the United States would be higher.
    Beyond all this, Vince engages in the false arguement that if the divorce rate is lower in one place and they have same-gender marriage it proves that same-gender marriage does not increase the divorce rate. While I have yet to see strong evidence that same gender marriage does increase the divorce rate, while at the same time there is strong and well-reasoned explanations of why it does increase the rate of out-of-wedlock births, the only reliable comparison would be in one locale before and after the implementation of same-gender marriage, and you could still argue that such a case might just be false statictics since there are many factors that influence the divorce rate.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 27, 2009 11:14 a.m.

    With a Catholic majority and a bishop who vocally denounces Catholic complacency in not standing up to same-gender marriage, Rhode Island is not as close to getting same-gender marriage as Mr. Vince thinks.
    Beyond this, the suit aginst the Catholic Diocese in Maine for supporting traditional marriage and the attempts by members of the state legislature in Connecticut to essentially dissolve the Catholic Church there should hopefully cause Catholics in Rhose Island to wake up and see that the same-gender marriage people are not their friends.
    My personal experience tells me that another reason why New England divorce rates are so low is New Enganders seek the annulment route instead of the divorce route. Of course one example does not a trend make, but since annulments of marriages are not divorces it does make divorce rates as a percentage of the totla population a questionable figure.

  • to - Gay Riddle | 9:48 a.m
    May 27, 2009 11:11 a.m.

    ["Point: Civil rights are given to those things which can be identified by the look of the person, not their choices. Blacks have darker skin, women have different parts than men."]

    so how can you tell a different religion? 'cuz I was under the impression religious freedom was part of civil rights....

    your argument is riddled with holes. But since the religious zealots insist on pushing their fairytale morals onto everyone, I guess it's ok since you are so intelligent. (yes - believing in tales from old books makes you a real genius...)

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 27, 2009 11:09 a.m.

    To Vince,
    Divorce rates are calculated in truly bizarre manners. The divorce rate is calculated as the percentage of the population who gets divorced in a given amount of time. This will lead to higher divorce rates where there are more marriages. Also, in general the longer people have been married the less likely they are to get divorced. I am not 100% sure, but am pretty sure that if we tract the divorce per years married rate a higher percentage of people get divorced in the first year than later. This means that divorce rates will be almost inevitably higher when the population is older.
    Thirdly, and this is really hard to calculate, if people see nothing wrong with sex out of wedlock, than their incentive to divocer will be lower, if they feel they can move onto another partner without bothering to get divorced.
    As with Sweden, so with New England. If marriage drops below a certain rate, divorce rates are irrelevant. What is the out-of-wedlock birth rate, that is a more relevant question.

  • Re: Two very interesting points
    May 27, 2009 11:09 a.m.

    1 - Except that not only is abstaining from sex before marriage necessary for temple marriage, so is following other tenants of the Law of Chastity - which expressly forbids homosexual behavior of any kind, even within the bounds of matrimony. So even if they are lawfully wedded, they cannot ever be married in the temple, because they are still violating the Law of Chastity, and keeping that Law is a requirement for a temple recommend.

    2 - That is an entirely different scenario than the one we're faced with today. If and when that happens, we'll make up our minds as to how we feel about it. Until then, if you really want to know so badly, call a pyschic. They'll tell you anything you want to hear for only $9.99 a minute.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 27, 2009 11:03 a.m.

    This is a falsely titled headline. It is not a ban on same-gender marriage, it is a definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
    Beyound the mere semantics of the issue, a ban on alcohol provides punishment for using it, but this constitutional admendment in no way authorizes the criminal punishment of anyone. The only people who would face punishment under this type of law would be people like Newsom who arrogantly assume they know better than the voters and try to use their official capacity to sanction relationships that the voters have clearly rejected sanctioning.

  • Steve
    May 27, 2009 10:37 a.m.

    For heaven's sake, it wasn't Adam and Steve that began populating the earth with the human family, it was Adam and Eve. Do you think Adam wanted an amendment so he could go back to the garden and live with Steve forever, ALONE? I don't think so. I guesss we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

  • Legal Consent
    May 27, 2009 10:17 a.m.

    Hopefully for the last time-- Animals, Children, Inanimate Objects, or Dead People are NOT capable of giving legal consent, so even though you might really, really want to marry one, it's not possible. And, it's a very poor smokescreen in opposing marriage equality.

  • Two Very Interesting Points
    May 27, 2009 10:13 a.m.

    It will be very interesting to see how things play out if the following happen:

    1. What if one of the thousands of gay couples who's marriage was upheld through this ruling is LDS? They are now legally married in the State of California. And even further, what if they abstained from sexual relations until they were married - technically not needing to go through any kind of repentance process? They could theoretically request to go through the temple sealing process just like any other heterosexual LDS couple who were married outside of the temple. I believe this scenario is one of the reasons the Church has fought so hard against gay marriage rights.

    2. What if this issue is again put to the people of California and they vote in favor of gay marriage? There is no chance the California Supreme Court would overturn that ruling on any grounds. Would those commenters who are so supportive of the will of the majority accept that decision? The reality is that this country is becoming more moderate, independent, and accepting by the day. California WILL vote in favor of gay marriage sooner rather than later.

  • re Eric
    May 27, 2009 10:10 a.m.

    No Church is forced to perform same-sex marriages. None--period. Churches are allowed the right to determine who they marry. Thus, no divorced or non Catholic allowed to marry in the Roman Catholic Faith, just as no unworthy or Non LDS is allowed to marry in an LDS Temple.

  • Just a Reminder
    May 27, 2009 9:59 a.m.

    I respect the fact that there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue. For those who are LDS, please take to heart what the Church just put out regarding this court ruling -

    "The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other."

    I understand why the LDS Church does not support gay marriage. But I also have a great deal of empathy for LDS members who are gay. They are in a VERY difficult situation. Made even more difficult because I believe that sexual preference is a genetic trait. Nowhere has the LDS Church said it is a choice. I firmly believe that those members who "demonize" each other in this debate will have to answer to a higher authority.

  • re: sutton | 4:46 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 9:43 a.m.

    You're absolutely right! Immorality is never equal to morality!

  • re: Vince | 4:35 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 9:41 a.m.

    Wow, statistical analysis at its best.

  • re: Vince | 4:06 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    Hmmm... your portayal of the polygamist tactics for gaining acceptance sound so strangely similar to the gay "rights" tactics - I'd say identical!

    Hmmm... either marriage is a universal "right", as gays argue that it is, or it's not. You can't have it both ways!


  • re: Anonymous | 4:01 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 9:28 a.m.

    "If it were not for the religious beliefs of so many people, this would not even be an issue. Same sex marriage would have been recognized as a fundamental matter of equality and liberty.


    Actually, if more people would follow their conscience and not their urges, "this would not even be an issue". "Same sex" behavior would still be recognized as the immoral act that it is.


  • MJH79
    May 27, 2009 9:13 a.m.

    It is not about hate and it is not about the Mormon Church. The people and the highest court in California spoke and it is time to get on with life. This is an idiotic issue that has absolutely nothing to do with abusing anyone's rights. Get a power of attorney.

  • Eric
    May 27, 2009 8:46 a.m.

    Forcing others to accept what they do not believe is right is tyrannical. Forcing the LDS church (or any other church) to accept and actually perform homosexual marriages when it is strictly against their beliefs is rule of religion by the government.

    There is no room for the hand of the government in religious doctrine. This country provides for freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. You cannot force churches to perform acts they find offensive or against their doctrine (whether you believe those acts are offensive or not).

    If we are to allow homosexuals to marry, there MUST be some kind of protection for the many churches that don't want to perform those marriages. The LGBT community feels heterosexual beliefs are being pushed on them; have they stopped to think whether forcing churches to perform homosexual marriages is doing just the opposite?

    Just like private schools can set their own rules and administrative policies (that are often much stricter than the law), churches need to have the protection of setting their own standards for membership or temple attendance.

    The LGBT community must understand the religious folks are afraid that their beliefs will be trampled on.

  • A little /cougie
    May 27, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    from Y'ner U. is!! Haaa Haaa

  • Here We Go
    May 27, 2009 8:25 a.m.

    Anyone who tries to bring "marrying an animal" into this is being ridiculous. An animal is not a consenting adult.

  • Ryan
    May 27, 2009 8:22 a.m.

    I agree with everyone who is saying that the real problem is government involvement in marriage.

    EVERYONE should enter into a civil union in the eyes in the land, and then straight couples can then be "married" in a religious ceremony, if they so choose.

    Bam! Equal rights for everyone, definition of "marriage" protected, everybody is happy.

    It makes me sick to my stomach to be perceived as an intolerant person, simply because I belong to a certain religion. This is a fixable problem.

  • Sue
    May 27, 2009 7:55 a.m.

    Your very constitution and the principles upon which your country was founded are at stake here. The people of California voted for a ban on genderless marriage. It passed. According to your own constitution majority rules. Yelling "shame on you" or saying this is unfair, means that you no longer believe in the Constitution of your own country. Gay activists do not care about the Constitution of the United States. The sooner you realize that the better.

  • Confused
    May 27, 2009 7:06 a.m.

    I have been reading articles and threads on this topic for months and still find myself confused- why do the gays want marriage? I have yet to see anyone ever explain why they want marriage other than to say that they have the right to be married because others can be. What exactly is the appeal? What is it about marriage that the gay community wants so bad? After months of debate I'm coming to the conclusion that they don't want marriage, just visibility and acceptance. I really can't see why marriage is such a big deal when it's rare (excluding public scenarios which are equally prosecuted for Hetero's and Homo's) that anyone is arrested for practicing homosexuality.
    Will someone please explain why the gays want marriage?

  • Anon 808
    May 27, 2009 4:14 a.m.

    I am so glad that this turned out the way it did. Of course for a Liberal 6 to 1 is almost a win, very, very close they would say.

    I really fear the back lash, of Voting against something and having your desires ignored.

    If Gay Marriage came up on a Ballot, I would Vote against it because of personal beliefs and its gross.

    On a day to day basis I do not care, as there are much more vital life or death issues to attend to.

  • like horses
    May 27, 2009 12:43 a.m.

    gay marriage like a world of animal.

  • Re: Vince 7:32 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 12:04 a.m.

    The states where same-sex marriage is legal are Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Here are the 2007 rates of divorce and marriage in these states, (stats are from the Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics):

    Connecticut: 3.2 / 5.6
    Iowa: 2.6 / 6.7
    Maine: 4.3 / 7.5
    Massachusetts: 2.3 / 5.9
    Vermont: 3.6 / 8.6

    For comparison, Utah's stats for 2007 were 3.6 / 9.5. Divorce rates weren't available for all states, but Utah's was actually slightly below both the mean and median rates for states that were reported. When it comes to marriage, however, Utah ranks higher than any of the gay marriage states. It stands to reason that the more couples get married, the more couples are eligible (likely?) to get divorced.

    The statistics obviously don't tell the whole story; they give no indication of how many couples begin living together each year without getting married, and how many unmarried couples separate each year without having the option of a divorce.

  • Cali resident
    May 26, 2009 10:56 p.m.

    As before, the voice of the people has spoken and the "definition" of marriage is as it should be.

    Regarding: "Wording the SAME" is right on! Such a relief that there are some intelligent people left on the earth.

  • Wording the SAME
    May 26, 2009 10:32 p.m.

    Prop 22 and Prop 8 has the EXACT SAME WORDING:

    'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'

    Rights in a Civil Union are the SAME as in a MARRIAGE.

    The fight is over the DEFINITION of the word MARRIAGE.

  • kenny
    May 26, 2009 10:28 p.m.

    The benifits we call spousal should not be dictated by who we are married to.They should be open to every man and woman married or not.Lets "un bundle" these bennys from marriage and call them human civil rights in a free society.Live your same sex relationship or hetrosexual relationship as a matter of personal choice then apply for those benifits from "Uncle Sam" and call it a day.There is little accomplished when we drag a minority through the mud and call them less than moral.I'm not in favor of same sex relationships but I am in favor of human dignity.

  • kenny
    May 26, 2009 9:46 p.m.

    I find this topic hard to comment on as the concept of same sex marriage in my own mind is insane.How many ballots or court decisions will we have to go through before the losing side of this issue one way or the other will give up the fight.Personally I dont care who won this. Just let me stay married to "Da woman in my life!!!!!"

  • Clare
    May 26, 2009 8:11 p.m.


  • Just the fact's, ma'am
    May 26, 2009 8:01 p.m.

    I know some want to get after the LDS church for this ruling, as it has been wrongly accused of being one of the funders of Prop 8. There were many churches who encouraged their membership to pray, and if they feel inclined, to give to the organizations that were defending prop 8. It was the people who voted, not the church's. What? I'm not allowed to vote now or give money to causes I feel is right and honroable, because I go to a certain chruch? That's what your saying. The LDS church did not give money nor sponsor prop 8. The MEMBERS did. Big difference.

  • Vince
    May 26, 2009 7:32 p.m.

    BOBBIT | 5:44 p.m. May 26, 2009

    Wrong --- on all counts.

    Divorce rates are lower in the states where same sex marriage is allowed or where it is close to being passed.

    States where divorce is less common:
    State Rate of divorce per 1000/year
    Massachusetts 2.4
    Connecticut 2.8
    New Jersey 3.0
    Rhode Island 3.2
    New York 3.3
    Pennsylvania 3.3

    On the other hand, California fares #17 and Utah falls in #21.

    In Canada, a study shows that divorces have leveled off since the 1970s. One reason why the number of divorces has not not fallen further down is because some partners marry, divorce, remarry, and divorce again, driving the divorce rate higher than couples who only divorce once.

    Further, another study finds that while the American divorce rate is about 50% in the United States, in Canada it is 44%.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 7:29 p.m.

    For the record I support the current laws against plural marriage. However, since I also support pRoposition 8, I am not the one who has a troubled situation.

  • Vince
    May 26, 2009 7:16 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert | 6:42 p.m. May 26, 2009


    Congress took away women's suffrage in Utah in 1887 because it was trying to rid the state of polygamy. It was a political move, agree or disagree, to discontinue the practice of polygamy before Utah was admitted to the Union.

    As to the question of women's rights, more recently, Utah did not fare so well, say, for example, with the ERA. Like or dislike the ERA, agree or disagree, even though the ERA failed, it set in motion a series of social movements that gave women a more promiment place in the workplace, in politics, in the public sector, etc.

  • Howard
    May 26, 2009 7:12 p.m.

    For all those who want to blame the LDS church for Prop 8 passing should also blame the President for Prop 8 passing. His position on Prop 8 is the same as the LDS church, check the transcript of the last debate. Also, if had not run for president, the minority vote would not have been as high. Blacks voted over 70% yes; Hispanics voted 52% yes and Asians voted ~90% yes, The only group that voted solidly yes were the white voters.

    The initial seed money for the yes on 8 came from the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization. Many other churches got behind prop 8 and urged its passage. The passage of prop 8 was not because of the LDS church (there aren't enough members in California to pass it); however, we've taken all of the cheap shots.

    If you still want to blame the LDS church, please be honest and include President Obama.

  • Vince
    May 26, 2009 6:56 p.m.

    Red | 5:56 p.m. May 26, 2009

    LDS gays have faced this dilemma ever since Canada gave same-sex partners the right to marry.

    However, this is where the separation of church and state play in. The church can accept or deny marriages, in this case, it is altogether against same sex marriages, regardless of the the state sanctioning marriages.

  • ZachV
    May 26, 2009 6:52 p.m.

    Shame on the LDS Church's members who fought so hard to pass this.

    Such a wasted effort in my opinion. To a Mormon, the only marriage valid in
    the eyes of God is one performed in an LDS Temple. Do ye members doubt the doctrine? No? Then why did you support this ban on non traditional marriage? It doesn't affect you. Your actions make me question your testimonies.

    I hope the world doesn't fight to ban LDS Temple marriages....why shouldn't
    they? Cause Mormons are Christians? Start acting like it!!!

    Really, you had no right! You don't have to support an individuals personal
    beliefs or actions, but don't deprive citizens of a civil right.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 6:42 p.m.

    To Vince,
    Women first voted in Utah in 1870. They were gauranteed the vote under the Utah constitution in 1896. While some people can talk of the coming of women's sufferage and Wilson's role in bringing it about, that has no meaning to people who know Utah history. The process is way more complicated and goes back much earlier than you admit. Wilson was not old enough to vote when women first voted in the United States, and among those who voted against Wilson's urged declaration of war when it came before congress was a women. So the situation is more complexed than Wilson ram-rodding it.

  • New Yorker
    May 26, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    funny thing I just came from the rally here in Union square in New York,. The number of acts of violence? 0 the number of people calling for religions to lose their right to practice as they please? 0 the number of times the LDS church was mentioned? 0 funny how reality never squares with the rhetoric on these threads.

  • @not the same
    May 26, 2009 6:28 p.m.

    it depends on who you ask I know lots of people where I live don't think Mormons are anything but a cult, you may want to be careful this country is a lot bigger then your little Utah Utopia.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 6:19 p.m.

    To Mr. Harvey at 1:36,
    The court did not read the constitution in overturning Proposition 22, they invented meanings that in no way were intended by the people who wrote the constitution of California. They also wilfully ignored all the biological situations that were on the side of the law as it was expressed in Proposition 22.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 6:17 p.m.

    For the thousands of couples who are and get to continue to be your lives every day to point out the hypocrisy of those who prevent others from joining you.

  • Doug
    May 26, 2009 6:12 p.m.

    Time to boycott anything Californian or relating to the LDS church.
    Bigotry should not be related.

  • Red
    May 26, 2009 5:56 p.m.

    The decision (especially the part that legitimizes the existing homosexual unions) still poses potential problems for the LDS.

    LDS teaching: No sex outside marriage.

    California: Sally and Suzy are married.

    Conclusion: Sally and Suzy, if they are true to their marriage vows, are a chaste couple, worthy of LDS baptism and -- after a one-year wait -- a Temple sealing.

    Ditto for Bob and Bruce.

    The old line, "Since you can't marry your same-sex partner, abstinence is your only chaste alternative," doesn't work anymore.

    The worms are already crawling out of the can--

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 5:48 p.m.

    I wouldn't get too attached to the CA Supreme Court Justices...6 might be working in another field next election.

  • Gary S.
    May 26, 2009 5:47 p.m.

    Gay marriage is a matter of when and not if. It is unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation. If people see gay marriage as a threat it should say something about their character. There is too much hate and not enough love in society.

  • re - Willard | 4:51 p.m
    May 26, 2009 5:45 p.m.

    many people feel that way about mormons....

    May 26, 2009 5:44 p.m.

    Maybe divorce rates are up because so many GAYS are leaving their husband/wives and kids for their GAY partners. I know about 5 or 6 people that gave everything away because they decided they wanted to live out their GAY fantasy!!

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 5:43 p.m.

    To Doug at 12:12,
    You have some good points, and the language of Proposition 8 seems to not be time limited.
    However on multiple occasions the California Supreme Court has shown it has little regard for the actual language, most importantly in their ruling that a doctor whose clinic had a clear policy of not doing artificial inseminations on unmarried people was somehow discriminating against a woman based on her sexual orientation.

  • Will of the people
    May 26, 2009 5:41 p.m.

    I hope everyone saying that the will of the people should be recognized will feel the same way when this is reversed in another proposition. The only reason it passed is because Prop 8 wasn't taken seriously enough by the opposition and that won't happen again.

  • CB
    May 26, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    Well if marriage is a right, then where do I go to get
    those 'rights' for my daughters? Obviously they are being denied something that is a 'right'.
    Thank you California for Prop 8, hopefully this will inspire yet other states to take a stand. With a choice between being politically correct or religious, I find that religion has better 'fire insurance', thank you.

  • Gays
    May 26, 2009 5:34 p.m.

    Now they will have to Marry into your Family.
    I hope this will satisfie all of you.
    Now you have all of these un happy people wondering the streets without a spouse.
    Are you happy now, American Society is falling a part.
    Rights and Privileges, Really none of your business.

  • Boy in Boycott
    May 26, 2009 5:33 p.m.

    It's time to let it rest and accept the will of the electorate.

  • Re: Willard
    May 26, 2009 5:30 p.m.

    It's things like what you just wrote that we LGBT's use as fodder to get us motivated at our rallies!

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 5:20 p.m.

    Hooray for the Mormon Church, sad day for human rights. Such a shame that the church found it in their interest to create harm for select groups of people. I only hope that the day comes soon when people in relationships are given equal and fair treatment rather than being kept in oppression.

  • Ryan
    May 26, 2009 5:19 p.m.

    I still don't quite understand how the gay community wants marriage to be absolutely "equal" when they are inherently unequal.

    Let me give an example that I have yet to hear anyone claim can be acheived equally.

    There is not a gay couple in the world that by their own doing, without outside help (ironically from the opposite sex) or by turkey baster that can have a child, which to many couples is a purpose,a solemn and sacred part to marriage.

    Thank you

  • Stephen Kent Ehat
    May 26, 2009 5:15 p.m.

    One hundred thirty-six well-thought out pages to confirm what can be said in four words: "The people have spoken."

  • Way to go Anonymous!
    May 26, 2009 5:12 p.m.

    The guys and I are really proud of you. Even though the court decision didn't go our way, you led a good fight. I am sorry you got knocked out of your chair in the melee. I hope you weren't hurt. You really are a "pink panther" Anonymous. You do us all proud.

    May 26, 2009 5:08 p.m.

    Life used to be so much simpler. Your kid acts out at school and the teacher can teach him a lesson... then when you find out... YOU teach him a lesson. No worries of law suits or people thinking badly of you. That was good family discipline! And the kids were better behaved.

    People all worked hard for what they had. You didn't take things to court whenever you wanted something done. Everybody was happy to earn their keep. You didn't sue Mcdonalds because you burned yourself on the coffee. You didn't sue Torro when you decided to put your foot under the lawn mower to see what would happen!

    And if you were Gay, you kept it to yourself! I undstand this is a broad topic I'm diving into here. And I honestly don't care if a person wants to be Gay or even openly display it. Everybody deserves to be happy. I'm just pointing out that this world is really going down hill FAST. Fighting, contentious people on both sides, hatred on both sides. There's got to be better ways for people to express their opinions.

    May 26, 2009 5:07 p.m.

    Re: Jack Lambert:

    Yes...the Mormons were denied the vote based upon their religious beliefs. Funny, isn't it? How quickly they abolished an everlasting covenant which most of them swore mighty oaths they would never abandon?

    And all because the Federal Government was threatening to confiscate their financial holdings, and properties, and buildings if they refused to abandon the practice of plural marriage.

    So much for mighty oaths to obey God's will.

  • Vince
    May 26, 2009 5:07 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert | 1:10 p.m. May 26, 2009


    I have to take issue on both counts of women's suffrage and slavery.

    First women's suffrage --- yes, the 19th Amendment had to be ratified at multiple stages.

    However, keep it in perspective.

    It was President Wilson who urged Congress to pass the legislation before it went on to the states.

    Moreover, women's suffrage had a long way coming - 144 years.

    Abigail Adams requested it back in 1776.

    Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony made it the point of the Women's Convention at Seneca Falls in 1848.

    144 years later, finally, suffrage.

    The voice of the people were not exactly on the side of women in 1776 nor in 1848.

    Social issues have since taken shorter to evolve through the popular consciousness.

    As to the issue of slavery, it took a civil war to end slavery. "The legislative process" (the 13th Amendment) which you mention was a formality. It was enacted after the Civil War.

    Now then, what point did Matthew 11:48 know nothing about?

    May 26, 2009 4:53 p.m.

    Re: California Voter | 1:17 p.m. May 26, 2009

    "Amazing . . .my vote actually meant something . .as it SHOULD BE ! ! ! The people of CA have spoken and the will of the majority stands in tact. HURRAY! !"

    And had the result been an overturning of the ban you would likely be whining about your vote not meaning anything.

    At any rate...we all know it's all about

  • Willard
    May 26, 2009 4:51 p.m.

    My opinion is that gays are a weight around the neck of society. Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God and most people. We cannot have this evil rampant upon our land. Homosexuality is the cancer of the ages. It takes maladapted people and congregates them in a way that deviant behavior is reinforced. Is that what we want our society to be about? Gayness is not the foundation of a strong society. It is the sign of a weaking one.

  • Skippy
    May 26, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    It is not appropriate to put down other groups or not be respectful whatever your views are on this subject.

  • Skippy
    May 26, 2009 4:45 p.m.


  • sutton
    May 26, 2009 4:42 p.m.

    egairram, Separate is never equal...

  • It is a Great Day
    May 26, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    Nice to see CA supremes get it right for once.

  • Vince
    May 26, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    Divorce rate and same sex marriage

    People are going back and forth debating what the rate of divorce is for gays.

    Here is some information.

    "In 2004, the state with the highest reported divorce rate was Nevada, at 6.4 (per 1,000). Arkansas was a close second, with a divorce rate of 6.3, followed by Wyoming at 5.3. The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2"

    Source: divorcemag dotcom statistics

    It kind of makes you think, maybe allowing gays to marry does have a positive impact on driving down the heterosexual divorce.

    You think?

    The same source shows that the states with the lowest divorce rates are also the states that are extending marriage benefits to same sex partners, particularly, or they are close.

    New Jersey
    Rhode Island
    New York

    Noteworthy, California is #21 in divorce across the country, and Utah is below California at #27.

  • to: Egairram
    May 26, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    i couldn't agree with you more, but you see, they tried that in california and many other states and the gays still keep whining. many states have civil unions which 100% the same as marriage with a different name. i would be the first to once again be in favor of this compromise but the gays do not want it.

  • too bad
    May 26, 2009 4:24 p.m.

    Sad day indeed.

  • Ann
    May 26, 2009 4:19 p.m.

    I applaud Stephen (Ogden). Thank you for being the first to point out the truth here.

    When it comes to the belief of God, peoples arguements are "scientific."

    But when it comes to same-sex attraction, scientifically(physical, mental, emotional diffrences which complement the other, etc.) doesn't work so they don't use that, they attack religion. Read Stephen's comment at 1:14pm. It is very right on target.

    So should alcoholics be able to drink alcohol all they want because their brains have a tendency to get addicted to alcohol. Their decision to give in to their urges makes life hell for everyone around them it is not healthy in any shape or form. Alcoholics have to fight this everyday of their lives and its not easy but doesn't mean we should just let them go down that path which they are going and keep destroying themselves.

    It's because of the love of society and to help people when they are having difficulties that such people get help they need. It not because were taking away their rights. Its not making rights to continue the behavior. We all have difficulties just in different forms.

    May 26, 2009 4:18 p.m.

    Re: McGurkus | 11:26 a.m. May 26, 2009: I challenge you to provide some shred of proof that every last gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered individual in this country has participated in, or perpetrated the burning of homes and churches. For that matter, provide credible references for GLBT's physically harming, or murdering heterosexuals just because they happen to be heterosexuals. And here's one for you...
    provide a credible reference for any individual or group of individuals in this group who have lobbied to ban heterosexual marriages.

  • Apples to Oranges
    May 26, 2009 4:18 p.m.

    You can pass a law renaming oranges apples, but it still won't be an apples to apples comparison.

    So-called "gay marriage" is just different from marriage in so many material ways as to deserve separate legal status. And even if courts, such as in MA, choose to call these two different things the same thing, they will still be different.

    Finally, a prediction: CA voters will reverse Prop 8 at least in 6 years, maybe in 2.

  • Cambridge
    May 26, 2009 4:14 p.m.

    A clear victory for the rule of law. Yeah, CA Court!

  • Pagan
    May 26, 2009 4:13 p.m.

    This is a sad day, when rights can be voted away. While the 18,000 still stand, how can people be happy when laws are afforded for some but not all?
    I don't want to change marriage, I just wish I could get married too.

  • @Ernest T. Bass
    May 26, 2009 4:08 p.m.

    Ernest, are you advocating all those types of marriages that you described. You aren't seriously thinking of hooking up with animals are you? You certainly entertain liberal views. My Ernest, what would your mother say?

  • The Next Minority...
    May 26, 2009 4:07 p.m.

    Will be the self-righteous religious types who think it's okay to legalize discrimination. When you deny one group their rights, you're chipping away at your own. This will come back to haunt them.

  • Vince
    May 26, 2009 4:06 p.m.

    Re: Kevin | 1:35 p.m. | 2:05 p.m. May 26, 2009

    Re: Gay marriage extending to polygamy issue

    The story to which you are referring needs to be examined in its proper context.

    Isn't it wide known that the FLDS off-shoot will take any and every opportunity to try to gain a foothold on their representation for polygamous marriages?

    Does it not surprise you, therefore, that the lawyers representing Winston Blackmore, 52, and James Oler, 44, the two defendants to whom you refer to in the story, would use the logic that "marry the person you love" to extend to polygamous marriages?

    Of course they do.

    That is what the FLDS do. They take every recourse to defend their stance for polygamy.

    Please don't drag this into the same-sex issue debate. The FLDS have been doing this ever since polygamy was abolished.

  • @Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 4:04 p.m.

    Control thy wrath oh fellow. Do not become so disturbed! It is not becoming of you. Anonymous, were you kidding about falling out of your motorized chair? I hope you didn't get hurt badly. Things will look up soon. I am sure The Band of Thebes will always be accepting of you.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 4:01 p.m.

    If it were not for the religious beliefs of so many people, this would not even be an issue. Same sex marriage would have been recognized as a fundamental matter of equality and liberty.


  • Egairram
    May 26, 2009 4:00 p.m.

    The problem is in the name. Don't spoil traditional marriage by calling it gay. Why redefine the word. Make up a new word like Egairram This would be defined as a union between two people of the same sex. Then leave Marriage to its traditional definition of a union between two people of the opposite sex. Give each the same rights and then move on. That way, to those who hold marriage sacred, it is not defiled by calling it gay.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 3:59 p.m.

    Wow..nasty posts...seems some of you don't want to follow the law, the constitution, the majority of voters.

    RELIGION has NO place in this. I don't care what is written in your religious book or papers. This is a matter of law...

    For once California did the right thing and held up their own constitution. They have no right to make it up as they go along...and over step the people's vote.

  • big difference
    May 26, 2009 3:53 p.m.

    there is a difference bettween the gay marriage scenario and that of slavery and women's rights. although the courts may have have voted in thier favor, but the people supported these rulings by amending the constitution. please, stop saying that if it wasn't for the courts we wou;ld still have slavery and women would not be able to vote. this is not true. the courts may have started it, but i promise you that if the people did not support it, they would have done exactly what they did in california, amend the constitution.

  • From marriages to family units
    May 26, 2009 3:52 p.m.

    It should come as no surprise that Mormons aren't crazy about gay marriage, or that homosexuals resent Mormons for it. There are fundamental differences on both sides of the debate regarding what's morally acceptable, and those are probably irreconcilable. But surely we can find some common ground in this debate. There's absolutely no reason why an individual shouldn't get to choose who can and can't visit him at the hospital or inherit his property. If two men or two women are willing to come together as a family of sorts and assume the same obligations toward each other that a heterosexual couple assume, we ought to grant them the benefits they need to fulfill those obligations (same as heterosexuals), and hold them to those obligations.

    I'd be happy to see the government get out of the marriage business and instead recognize family units founded by adults willingly assuming certain obligations toward each other and toward any dependents in their care. Such units need not be restricted to sexual relationships or to units of two adults. They would come with benefits and legal consequences for failing to uphold the associated obligations.

  • Vince
    May 26, 2009 3:50 p.m.


    "Gays can already get married in all 50 states."

    You mean to someone of the opposite sex. And heterosexual people can marry someone of the same sex in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Canada, Iowa, etc.

    There now, you heterosexual people can also have same sex marriage.

    Is that supposed to mean that heterosexual people want it?

    Gays do not want heterosexual marriage, so why bring it up as if it is supposed to be a logical argument?

    Typically the person who makes this kin of argument says "I just wanted to say that they have the right to heterosexual marriage."

    Exactly. Redundancy.

  • Jon B. Holbrook
    May 26, 2009 3:47 p.m.

    The California Supeme Court made the right decision in upholding the new marriage admendment to the State Constitution. The same California Supreme Couirt made the wrong decision when the people through the initiative process upheld traditional marriage only to be struck down by the activist court. Therefore Proposition 8 became necessary. As long as government mandates what marriage is, there needs to be only one standard; that is marriage is between a man and a woman. This was decided by the Supreme Court in 1889 when it upheld the Edmunds-Tucker Act.
    If you insist that homosexual marriage be given the same legal standing as traditional marriage, then polygamists could also petition the courts to have their lifestyle be given the same legal status. This would occur under the "Equal Protection Provision" of the U.S. Constitution. That would make all those people at Short Creek very happy. Beware of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

  • re Bill
    May 26, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    Very few people outside of the Jello Belt don't care what the Church of Utah thinks.

  • Ray
    May 26, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    It has been stated that California may have another homosexual marriage Proposition on the ballot in the next year or so. If that wins, homosexual marriage will still be illegal, because they will still be behind two propositions (Prop 22 & Prop 8)to one. They will need to pass two more propositions to gain the majority.

  • Cache Valley
    May 26, 2009 3:32 p.m.

    This is a step in the right direction. Nice move by the supreme court of CA.

  • Dallas
    May 26, 2009 3:30 p.m.

    Will people please stop calling marriage a "RIGHT". It's not a right, it's a god given privilege! From the beginning of man and women to now, it has always been and should always be a PRIVILEGE for a man and a women to marry. Nobody has the "RIGHT" to be married. Trying to compare this to the TRUE civil rights movement of colored people is insulting to say the least. Gay people have FAR more "government and day to day RIGHTS" than colored people had. It's not even close to being comparable in any way. As it stands right now, a gay person has as many "rights" as a straight person.

    And for the record, mocking ones morals or religion isn't exactly the way to go about getting what you want. However I do love how the homosexual community want to take away the voice of the people, the peoples Right's, to change something that isn't even a "RIGHT" in the first place! AGAIN, it's a god given privilege to be married.

  • Mormons love Gays
    May 26, 2009 3:29 p.m.

    One of my favorite quotes from President Hinckley is "Now we have gays in the church. Good people." Google it if you don't believe me.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 3:26 p.m.

    "...solemnly proclaim that marriage between a *man and a woman* is ordained of God..."

  • Randy
    May 26, 2009 3:26 p.m.

    This issue keeps going to vote until such time that homosexuals win the majority, at that time all the previous votes will be meaningless and invalid, the matter closed, and it can never be voted on again.


    "Homosexuality, like androgyny, might be an instinctive racial response to overpopulation, crowding, and stress. Both flourish when empire reaches its apogee." - Edward Abbey

  • Query for What Minority is Next:
    May 26, 2009 3:23 p.m.

    So, how many out of state people contributed to the No on 8 campaign? How many non-Mormons contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign? You are whining--yes, whining--about the LDS church being bigots yet you are really only showing your own prejudice!

  • RR
    May 26, 2009 3:14 p.m.

    See, CA isn't 100% corrupt....yet.

  • Funny signs
    May 26, 2009 3:13 p.m.

    I loved the sign in the photograph, another of example of just picking words without understanding them. The sign, "Faith demands Justice". Actually "Faith demands Obedience". Obedience to what? The laws of the individual you're claiming faith in which is God. So, if you have faith in Him you will obey his laws. Just a correct thought.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 3:08 p.m.

    Comparing gay marriage with religion and/or race makes no sense.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 3:06 p.m.

    Stephen (Ogden) | 1:14 p.m. May 26, 2009
    "... Sex is reproduction."

    I pity your wife or any woman that you get married to. Sex is SO much more! It is a bonding that creates trust and fertilizes the love that is there. Too bad for you and yours.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 3:02 p.m.

    "Now Canada faces a nightmare of issues. There are many lawsuits hitting the courts that challenge bans on plural marriage, adult vs child marriage, man vs animal marriage."

    Please cite the case. I cannot find even ONE of these cases. I think you have just heard this and have repeated it here without knowing whether or not it is true. Am I right?

  • What a Mess
    May 26, 2009 3:01 p.m.

    Political expediency. Lack of spine. CA supremes just landed a huge boost to the economy - if you are a lawyer, that is.

    We now have 18,000 retroactives?

  • God's Law?
    May 26, 2009 2:54 p.m.

    All right, let me explain something.

    This earth was created by God. He placed laws that all who live here should obey. He placed man and woman here to see if they will obey His laws or not. If they did not, they will be judged accordingly and punished accordingly. If they did obey, they would also be judged and receive "all that He hath."

    The two questions all men must find the answers to:
    1.) Did a "GOD" create everything and we are His children?
    2.) What are God's laws we are required to obey?

    If you answered Yes to question 1, then proceed to question 2. I suggest one law he has given us to obey is to "multiply and replenish the earth", according to the Bible. Is this one of His laws? If you agree, then answer this question: Are you obedient to this law? If you answer no to this question, then proceed to learn about Jesus Christ.

  • majority rules
    May 26, 2009 2:50 p.m.

    "All political power is inherent in the people," quoting the Declaration of Rights in the state Constitution. He said the voters' power to amend their Constitution is limited - and might not include a measure that, for example, deprived same-sex couples of the right to raise a family - but that Prop. 8 did not exceed those limits.************************************************

    Thank You.

    Now it is time to put more Prop. 8s on the ballots in Gay marriage approved areas and we need to cancel those Gay marriages that were done in other states.

    The minority shall not rule the majority.

    Power to the People!

  • Bill to Anonymous 2:02
    May 26, 2009 2:48 p.m.

    I find it ironic that you say "Mormons would presecute people who want to practice an "unusual" form of marriage."

    The problem is that we are not persecuting them. We basically disagree on the definition of marriage. Our definition is that marriage is between man and woman. Pologamy for which you are referring to for calling us hypocrites is incorrect as it is not an unusual form of marriage. When the Church practiced, it was by direction we believe through a Prophet of God for the building up of the Church. This was much the same as it was in Abraham's, Moses', Isaac's, David's and Solomon's time. Those men asked to live the law of pologamy had to do quite a bit of soul searching. Many of the wives were asked to live it as well before the marriage was conducted. This is left out in many texts. When the Church stopped pologamy it was at the direction of the Lord. This is our belief. Therefore, there is no hypocritcal side to it.

    We don't ask you to believe it, we ask you to respect our stand.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    May 26, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    I believe that gays should have unfettered rights to practice marriage as they see fit.

    I think that if someone wants to marry in another manner--such as being gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, triad marriage, polygamy, or to animal, they should most certainly have that right.

    People decide things like politics and religion based on the dictates of their own consciences. Marriage is and really should be the same way in a country that gives you the right to pursue your dreams according to what you feel is right for you, not what some other thinks it should be.

  • SJ
    May 26, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    That's right, blame the Mormons. Because after all, it has to be the Mormon's fault for everything doesn't it. What happens when blaming the Mormons doesn't work anymore? Who get's blamed then?

    I have nothing against homosexuals in general. Just like every group, it's always the few bad apples that ruin the bushel.

    Playing the blame game is childish REGARDLESS OF THE ISSUE.

  • re 2:00pm
    May 26, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    1% of the Total? No way! Please show us your sources--after all, Christmas IS coming.

  • :)
    May 26, 2009 2:35 p.m.

    Good for California.

  • Miss Gretel
    May 26, 2009 2:32 p.m.

    Anonymous at 1:41;

    I have yet to hear an LDS comment suggesting that we toss all the HATERS out of the nation because they are minding someone else's business. As humans, we are social beings, always interested in someone else and their ideas, motives, their business, if you will. Is that an absolute evil?

    I am not interested in spewing hate because you do not agree with my point of view. You are entitled to your point of view. I am equally entitled to my point of view. Our ideas on this issue are very different. There is nothing wrong with that.

    In some cases, such as this one, both sides of an issue build their case as both sides cannot tolerate another view. Then comes the showdown. In America it is usually an election or a legislative session where a decision is made. Sometimes it is a war. Whatever, the decision is binding on all parties.

    Your venom betrays your real intentions and biases. Smarter to keep hate to yourself. Didn't you learn anything in kindergarten about "be nice and don't fight?"

    PS Get real and have the guts to sign your name.

  • To Anonymous - 1:41
    May 26, 2009 2:32 p.m.

    We do not loathe gays and lesbians. That is a total misunderstanding. The problem is that the many gays and lesbians feel that since we oppose them changing the definition of marriage from man and woman to whatever gender we are bigots and haters. We are far from it but many are unwilling to accept this.

    We do not hate them at all. We just disagree of what constitutes marriage. We believe that marriage is ordained of God and that marriage is eternal. We also believe that marriage is gender driven, meaning man and woman. For this we stand together with the President of the Church. Those members of the Church who don't, it is their decision as they are not forced to adhere to the Prophets voice.
    The extermination order in Missouri and the continued mob violence that forced us out of Illinois were in direct violation of the US Constitution and was extreme prejudice. Those who call the LDS Church racist has very little knowledge of the Church's beliefs and understanding. We all knew that someday the priesthood would be given to all men and was in the Lord's good time.

  • The Truth of all of this-
    May 26, 2009 2:31 p.m.

    Is that the Last Days are truly upon us.

  • Sneaky Jimmy
    May 26, 2009 2:26 p.m.

    JD apparently has a brain and he uses it. Allowing the 18,000 marriages to remain valid does indeed open the door to further action in the courts, the ballot box and national oppinion. The court is "slyer" then you think. You can't have some people married and some not. Won't work. You have to free all the slaves or none. You have to give all the women the right to vote or none.

  • civil disobedience
    May 26, 2009 2:24 p.m.

    when it comes to my right to live my life the way I see fit without someone imposing their brand of morality on me the debate and the fight will never be over until I have those rights and thats why we take to the streets tonight. If everyone followed the logic the "people" have spoken and thats the end of it then we would still have segregation and women would still be considered propriety and have no right tot vote. Go ahead and blast me I really don't care I am off to take it to the streets we will win our freedoms.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 2:22 p.m.

    If this is a win for democracy, will all you right-wingers now support President Obama? And what will you say if Prop. 8 is overturned by a vote of the people? Or is democracy a selective thing?

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 2:19 p.m.

    18,000 gay marriages are recognized. If nothing else, this will be an experiment to see if the world comes to an end because there are gay marriages. My guess is no one will even notice. And domestic unions continue. I guess that's the point. If we stop looking into other people's bedrooms, the world is a better place.

  • Everyone can still marry in Cali
    May 26, 2009 2:17 p.m.

    The question of Prop 8 has been whether it is okay for the majority to overrule the rights of the minority? My question is what minority lost its right to get married with Prop 8?

    For example, I know Melissa Etheridge has complained about being a minority not recognized by the government. Her and her same-sex partner Julie Cypher were denied marriage. However, they broke and later Julie married Matthew Hale.

    So what make Melissa more of a minority than Julie? When did Julie cease being a minority that was denied marriage? When she broke up with Melissa? When she fell in love with Matthew?

    The same thing happened with Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres. They were a same-sex couple, until they broke up and Anne married Coleman Laffoon.

    Neither Anne, Julie nor Margaret Cho for that matter are straight, but all of them seem to have been able to get married anyway. Gays can already get married in all 50 states.

  • DMH
    May 26, 2009 2:16 p.m.

    Finally, the people of California have been heard. Anyone who thinks that any kind of union other than marriage is okay, you need to think again. Marriage is a legal contract between two people of the opposite sex that gives this kind of union certain legal tax advantages and benefits. When someone divorces, they lose these benefits. They are not for everybody and shouldn't be. If you begin to open this up, then pretty soon you have to give these rights to polygamists, bigamists, rapists, and any other person that just wants to live with someone else. This is not right and marriage takes work and commitment, and not everyone should have a right to what I have had to work so hard to keep.

  • Stephanie
    May 26, 2009 2:14 p.m.

    This is a very contentious issue with many emotions involved on both sides. I rejoice in the decision upheld by the CA Supreme Court. To take away the rights of the voting public would change our country in an irrevocable way. Each side will continue to stand up for that which they believe and I'm sure we will see this issue yet again on the ballot. What both sides MUST remember is that we all have a right to freedom of speech, to peaceable protest, and we are all brothers and sisters in the eyes of the Lord, no matter what stance we take on this issue or any other.

  • Gus Talwynd
    May 26, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    The fact that existing gay marriages in California will be respected and continue says much about how this will eventually play out. Changing demographics and attitudes should result in gay marriage becoming a reality in California (and most of the rest of the country) sooner than later.

    If there are gay couples enjoying a particular right which other gay couples cannot enjoy because of existing law, it is only a matter of time before that right is finally extended to include all gay couples.

    Why the California Supreme Court ruled as it did may be found in the minutiae of the law, but there will be a next time where voters will see the inequality.

  • Tit for Tat?
    May 26, 2009 2:12 p.m.

    Recess is over. Are you in 2nd or 3rd grade?

  • KJB
    May 26, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    I love the people here trying to scare us with "gay people aren't going to give up" and "they're going to try again." And I suppose that if Prop. 8 had failed, you'd all say, "Oh well, gay marriage is legal. We give up."

    This certainly isn't over. And it shouldn't be.

  • Listen to the Voters
    May 26, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    The voters in California have now stated that they do not want gay marriage and they also do not want tax increases to pay for all the stupid things that state does. I would say that there are too many liberals that have made a mess of that state and I bet the next time they vote on gay marriage, it will be a greater win for those voting against it.

  • Re: Kevin | 1:35 p.m.
    May 26, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    The following is from MSNBC:

    Defense for polygamists cites gay marriage
    Lawyers: Canada's step to legalize same-sex unions will help in trial

    Associated Press
    updated 4:10 p.m. MT, Wed., Jan. 21, 2009
    VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada's decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance.

    The case is the first to test Canada's polygamy laws.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 2:02 p.m.

    to John Pack Lambert...

    ...which is all the more reason why it is so puzzling that Mormons would persecute people who want to practice an "unusual" form of marriage!

    The only word to describe it is "Hypocrites"!

  • Florida Brad
    May 26, 2009 2:02 p.m.

    Folks, Laws are enacted to protect the interests of the MINORITY, not the Majority.

    I am very grateful to be among the 18,000 who were able to wed. And this is NOT over. Not until there is equality for ALL.


  • Doug Cortney
    May 26, 2009 2:01 p.m.

    @John Pack Lambert (1:23p)

    Yes, it is.

    If nothing else it is more egregious because it is unnecessary. There must be a body with ultimate legal authority to interpret the constitution, otherwise the constitution means nothing because anyone is free to claim that it means anything. In California, this body is constituted as the Supreme Court.

    Requiring a super-majority of this body for a decision strikes me as unworkable. "We can't decide" isn't really a viable answer from the body responsible for interpreting the constitution.

    On the other hand, it is not necessary to empower a bare majority of voters to amend the constitution. This is not permitted in Utah. This is not permitted for the United States constitution. There are 34 states (including Utah) that do not even allow for a constitutional amendment initiative process.

    I happen to think this process is important to allow, but a bare majority for approval is not necessary, and I don't think it is reasonable.

    In CA, it takes a 2/3 majority to approve a special tax, but only a bare majority to amend the constitution.

  • To all those mad at the Mormons
    May 26, 2009 2:00 p.m.

    The Church did make a statement about Proposition 8 , but that does not mean it was the only religious group that supported it. The church gave less than 1% of the total amount of money raised to support the prop. So why not be mad at the other groups who contributed more.....

  • What next?
    May 26, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    What's next? The GBLT Community is seemingly a very angry group. If Prop 8 had been voted down then what would have been their next fight? When would it all end? It wouldn't and couldn't. They are an angry group and will continue to be so in perpetuity. Nothing will ever make them a happy people. Nothing.

  • another win for morality
    May 26, 2009 1:49 p.m.

    another win for the moral majority of America

  • Stephen Ehat
    May 26, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    According to the court, only the designation -- the wor -- "marriage" is denied to same-sex couples; same-sex couples are not allowed to use that as a governmentally-granted "designation" of their relationship. All other rights granted by the State of California to same-sex couples adhere; and the approximately 18,000 interim same-sex marriages survive as marriages, both by designation and in legal reality. Do those marriages enjoy more than the mere "designation"?

    Perhaps the next step in California's journey will be for state lawmakers to push through legislation that, at least by way of "designation," takes California out of the "marriage" business altogether. Maybe what presently are termed "marriage license applications" and "marriage licenses" and "marriage certificates" issued by the state will soon be transformed into "family relationship applications" and "family relationship creation licenses" and "family relationship certificates." Only religious institutions will be seen as creating "marriages."

    If in California, Proposition 8 had no impact on the institution of marriage but merely on the right to use of the mere "nomenclature" of "marriage"(see Justice Werdegar's concurring opinion), what has changed in California? Not much, substantively. But politically, the battles will continue.

  • Enoch
    May 26, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    Another reason to get religion out of our lives.

  • Re: Anonymous 1:16 pm
    May 26, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    Perhaps you should think about fixing California's economy before you come trying to fiddle with ours. Utah's economy is one of the strongest in the country; California's economy is one of the worst in the world. Not hard to figure out why people have been fleeing California in record numbers for the psat few years, while Utah's population has been growing steadily.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:41 p.m.

    Majority Rule

    Missouri and Illinois gave Mormons a taste of that, and I understand them loathing you enough to run you out of their states. Next time it'll be the NATION tossing out you HATERS who haven't learned to MIND YOUR OWN BU$INE$$.

  • natty
    May 26, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    haven't read all the comments but this one sticks out:

    This is the way it should be.

    The majority rules.

    Really? Then Mormonism would have been vanquished from Planet Earth.

    CAUTION!! Serious need for civics classes in America. The sheeple don't even know what type of govt. they are under. hint: A Republic, not a democracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • JSHarvey1961
    May 26, 2009 1:36 p.m.

    I think most of the comments here misread the relevant rulings. In the first round the court said the Constitution's requirement of equal protection requires that homosexual marriage be allowed. Then the opponents of that ruling got Prop 8 passed. Then the Court said, given that we have found the process by which Prop 8 was passed was legal the Constitution is now changed, equal protection now no longer applies in this particular case.

    In both cases the Court simply upheld the Constitution as written.

  • Kevin
    May 26, 2009 1:35 p.m.

    @Canada Example | 1:05 p.m. May 26, 2009

    "Now Canada faces a nightmare of issues. There are many lawsuits hitting the courts that challenge bans on plural marriage, adult vs child marriage, man vs animal marriage.."

    False. Where? What court cases are you referring?

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    To the 12:04 commentator,
    What do you mean that Mormons can count their ancestors polygamous marriages as legal? First off, most Mormons have no ancestors who were involved in plural marriage, because most Mormons have no ancestors who were members of the church before 1945 let alone 1900.
    Secondly, plural marriage was never recognized by any government in the United States. If you want to talk about people who have ancestors whose plural marriages were recognized by the state start talking about the Muslims, but then of course your bigotry would be fully exposed instead of hiden in a false patina of wanting equality.
    Thirdly, and I will not let people forget this, Idaho banned Mormons from voting based on their belief in the teachings of the Church, not on any actions. Yes it was 1890, but you do not understand. Not only was practicing polygamy leading to hundreds of men going to jail, but people were denied the vote because of it.
    If you want homosexuals to be treated like Mormons were, than I guess you can desire stuff, but at least admit how Mormons were actually treated for plural marriage.

  • The dabate is Over!
    May 26, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    How many times is the state of California going to come to the same conclusion. The people have spoken...more than once.

  • @Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    I don't think anyone really cares much about your thoughts and frustrations. You are your typical self, blaming Mormons. If you couldn't blame Republicans, Mormons or conservatives, you wouldn't have anyone else to blame. Can't you repect the law and judicial system? You are acting like a child who is lying on the ground and kicking its feet. Stand up Anonymous, be a man or woman?

  • RE: Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    Sounds like you have an "ax to grind"! Good luck with that.

  • re: anonymous 1:11 p.m.
    May 26, 2009 1:27 p.m.

    I'm a "Mormon" and don't think I'd want to know your thoughts under any circumstance. Angry or Happy! So chop that wood til your hands blister!

  • Doug Cortney
    May 26, 2009 1:27 p.m.

    @Gay ordeal sealed (1:06p)

    While I would expect the divorce rate in this group to be significantly higher than the overall divorce rate -- while I think many of these marriages were truly recognition of a serious, long-term commitment, I would guess that many were married more to make a point or as a spur-of-the-moment thing -- a 99% divorce rate in roughly a year seems unlikely in the extreme.

    Do you have any data to support this claim?

  • Cats
    May 26, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    Thank goodness!!! Democracy isn't dead yet.

    Now, let's hope THE PEOPLE can repeal gay marriage in all the other states where it has been established against the will of THE PEOPLE.

  • re: Leave the state out of it
    May 26, 2009 1:24 p.m.

    Marriage is a LEGAL union. The government issues the certificates, if we left them out of it, there wouldn't be marriage, there wouldn't be divorce, there wouldn't be families. If the government didn't run it, who would? The people? Well the people voted, and they voted against gay marriage. :)

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 1:23 p.m.

    To Doug at 12:02,
    Is it any more egregious than that fact that a five people when they number more than four can create a right out of thin air that theatens the freedom of religions and the rights of conscience of religious believers, and also overturns the will of the majority of voters in a state.
    What is worse, an actual majority of the people or the majority on a body of less than ten?

  • re: Gay ordeal sealed
    May 26, 2009 1:22 p.m.

    You're right. Those heterosexual marriages rarely fail and end in divorce?

    Thank you for showing your level of intelligence to all of us.

    You can go back to watching cartoons now.

  • WHAT? Gay ordeal sealed:
    May 26, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    "of the 18,000 marriages only 180 are still august all 180,000 will be history!"

    Well, I know of several hundred gay marriages that happy and healthy, including my own.

    Please back up your numbers with fact.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    Yeah Mormons trumpet MAJORITY RULE, until it's YOUR rights being stripped away.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 1:20 p.m.

    To the 11:55 commentator,
    Actually you ignore the fact that the constitution bans ex-post-facto laws. We could pass a law today banning the possesion of tabocco, but we could not punish someone for having had tobacco yesterday before the law was pased.
    Hwever, this is not an issue of illegality, but legal recognition. In the later case, I am fairly sure you can retroactively rescind legal recognition of something. So Proposition 8 could have ended any marriages that ever existed in California. The Supreme Court evidnetly feels that the way the law is written it does not have any effect before the day it was passed.
    I am not sure the California Supreme Court's ruling on the issue is right, and it is based on the faulty theory that their overturning of Prop 22 was a valid use of judicial power, which it was totally not, but their upholding Prop 8 but not making it rescind the marriages made before it is a workable legal action, and definantly shows that much of the anti-Mormon hate spewed in the days after Prop 8 passed was 100% lies.

  • Re: To the 11:40 Genius
    May 26, 2009 1:19 p.m.

    I'm not the clueless one. You're clueless because you simply don't realize how misguided and prejudiced you sound.

    I can understand your well-intentioned efforts to help me see the light, but it is YOU who needs to see the light, pal.

    Gays and lesbians deserve just as much legal recognition under the law as our ancestors who fought in the Revolution, as slaves did during the Civil War, as women and minorities did during the Civil Rights era.

    Get your facts straight and brush up on your American history before you accuse me of being "clueless."

    I don't see you citing American history or anything of scholarly substance to back up your statements.

    You're probably just a bitter, anti-gay individual who is upset that your narrow definitions, prejudices, and views of marriage are not the only game in town anymore.

    Maybe you should look at your own views and make sure Satan isn't the one wrapping himself around your finger in your ignorance of history and unintended bigotry against those who are different than you.

  • California Voter
    May 26, 2009 1:17 p.m.

    Amazing . . .my vote actually meant something . .as it SHOULD BE ! ! ! The people of CA have spoken and the will of the majority stands in tact. HURRAY! !

  • About time.....
    May 26, 2009 1:17 p.m.

    I applaud the decision to support the gay marriage ban. I wish they would have taken the next step and nullified the 18,000 marriages that were performed while the courts made their biggest mistake of allowing them. I see them having a fight about that.

    I, truthfully, am worried that it won't be long before they start legalizing gay marriages everywhere. Gays are indiscriminate about labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view as a "bigot". They think their cause is just and so anyone who doesn't support it must be unjust. It has been shown that marriage isn't a right, rather a privilege. Gays can have civil unions and be married in a few states. That isn't enough for them. They will continue to yell and scream and demonstrate like a child throwing a tantrum until they are given what they want. We've become a country that is afraid to tell someone no. Get a loud enough attorney, and you're almost guaranteed to be portrayed as a martyr and obtain the sympathy vote. Sickening and pathetic. Courts should be about right and wrong. Today they were.

    Pete in Texas

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:16 p.m.

    LDS teams of gay lawyers will be watching your every MOVE. We will sue you every time you BLINK.

    You made enemies which will HAUNT you for decades, and the damage we'll cause Utah's economy will LAND ON YOUR DOORSTEP!

  • Stephen (Ogden)
    May 26, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    I refuse to be politically correct. The right and the left are ignoring that we are dealing with a mental illness here. Sex is reproduction. It takes two opposites to reproduce. That is the natural order of planet Earth. However, people and animals being attracted to the wrong sex does happen. Praying for someone to change will not help. However, Praying for medical studies into what is wrong chemically or physically with a person attracted to the wrong sex is not incorrect. We need to stop all the moral judgments and begin studies into what is causing this abnormality. It is not learned. It is a real attraction, and it is abnormal.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    To 12:59 p.m.

    "The question that pro-marriage people need to resolve, at least for me, is the pro gay-marriage party's goal to destroy religion. I know religion is attacking them, but religion claims it is self defense. Is this true?"

    Christian religions have been on the offensive from their inception. They claim Jesus told them to "preach the gospel to every creature", and they share this widely-accepted quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

    Thus, they have gone on the offensive (and is it ever offensive!) to purge the earth's inhabitants of sin, regardless of whether or not those inhabitants believe in the same things or the same god or not.

    There are no similar doctrines or policies among gays and lesbians that predate the attacks of the religious upon them.

    We can safely conclude that religions "started it" and all gays and lesbians are trying to do is defend themselves against the religious fascists and bigots.

    I defy anyone to articulate a more accurate description of the situation.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    To wow -- tolerance is highly overrated.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:11 p.m.

    MORMONS really don't want to know my thoughts, or the anger I'll be working off in my yard today.

    here's a clue it'll be hours of hitting with an ax

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 1:10 p.m.

    To Matthew 11:48,
    Women's vote was approved by the people, not by judicial order. Slavery was ended by the legislative process.
    So your claims are false. Women's vote was approved by a process of the constitutional admendment, which required super-majorities at multiple stages.
    You need togo and study history before you start spouting off on things you know nothing about.

  • Nebraska girl
    May 26, 2009 1:07 p.m.

    I think that if california passed prop 8 and they want to get around it they need to have it put before the people and not let the courts make the decision. It should be a vote of the people not what a bunch of judges think.

  • Gay ordeal sealed
    May 26, 2009 1:06 p.m.

    of the 18,000 marriages only 180 are still august all 180,000 will be history!

  • Canada Example
    May 26, 2009 1:05 p.m.

    Canada has gay marriage. The majority of Canadians were against it, but the Socialist Canadian Government went against the will of the people because their "activist" judges took it upon themselves to change the laws withou a vote of the people.

    Now Canada faces a nightmare of issues. There are many lawsuits hitting the courts that challenge bans on plural marriage, adult vs child marriage, man vs animal marriage... And the analysts say they are going to have a hard time not opening the laws to any whim or sexual deviant fancy someone might have. How can you say that if you can marry a same sex partner, why not marry two of them at the same time?

    What is that you say? We have bigamy laws? Child Sex Laws?

    Well they used to have laws against homosexuality also. They used to have laws that only allowed marriage between one man and one woman.

    But now that those are history, all hell is about to break loose.

    Glad to see we are not quite ready for sodom and gomorrah quite yet. Give us a couple of more months?

    God help us.

    God help us.

  • Kevin
    May 26, 2009 1:05 p.m.

    Two steps forward, one step back (18,000 couples are married... that's 36,000 people).

    Next time the ballot campaign will be even more interesting.

    Once all the racial minorities - you know, descendants from Cain - realize it was Mormons pumping money into the PR campaign, as they probably do now, I think things will go more favorably at the ballot in 2010 and/or 2012.

    It will be easy to campaign. Just announce it has been a racist church that has wanted their vote. They may not vote pro-gay, but they'll vote anti-Mormon... once they learn of the church's racist history... if not its racist present... because scripture hasn't changed. lol.

    The antagonists of homosexual marriage won't be able to rely on reactionary tactics this time. The next campaign is going to be more thorough, and the evils of religion will be on trial.

    Unfortunately for our opponents - and everybody - this will come back year after year, day after day, until we are successful. There's just no giving up. Enjoy your temporary victory while it lasts.

  • Just wait
    May 26, 2009 1:05 p.m.

    . . . . At some point the California supremes will declare the California constitution unconstitutional!

    And since the US Supreme Court has already declared that the US Constitution does not require LGBT marriage, their opinion will be based on the California constitution!

    That will be a feat of legal legerdemain unprecendented in the field human endeavor!

    And, it will be proof positive of the depths to which jurisprudence in this country has sunk.

  • @Wrong, off target and Bigoted
    May 26, 2009 1:04 p.m.

    I think who is being Wrong, off target and Bigoted is in the eye of the beholder because I see plenty of nasty comments coming from the other side and lets not even talk about the mere fact that gay people have once again been told they are less the everyone else, so excuse me if I do not care if your feelings are hurt, why dont you go cry on your spouses shoulder since you have the option.

  • Splitting the Baby
    May 26, 2009 1:03 p.m.

    Splitting the baby isn't always the answer. In this case, it will be shown to have created a monster.

  • lol
    May 26, 2009 1:03 p.m.

    This is the biggest joke of my life. I cried and I'm sure many did. But if prop8 didn't pass NO ONE, and I can bet my life that NO ONE will cry.

    JSYK, "internalized homophobia" means one who is homosexual and, due to social pressure, had adopted a fear or hatred of homosexuals.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 1:03 p.m.

    To the 11:39 commentator and others,
    The most detrimental ruling in American judicial history, at least for religious freedom, was when the Supreme Court upheld the Idaho Test Oath. This law excluded people from voting merely because they believed in plural marriage as a commandment from God, irregardless of whether they had in any way ever participated in it.
    Those who try to compare banning Mormons and from marrying and defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman ignore basic facts. Marriage as a union of a man and a woman is the logical, historical and longstanding way.
    As I have said at least 25 times before, homosexuals can marry, and can continue to practicie homosexual actions while married, they only have to find someone of the opposite gender to marry them.
    So to a few previous comentators, your bigotry has caused you to be blind to facts.

  • ronald
    May 26, 2009 1:01 p.m.

    Curious. All those in favor of same sex marriage raise your hands? Question? Would you have been in favor of same sex marriage say 10, 15, 20 years ago? Be honest. If you weren't, what changed your mind? Also, are you in favor of polygamy? They will be first in line if same sex marriage becomes law. Right behind them will be the Lamba men. Do you favor sex between an adult male and a boy? You are thinking this is crazy and will never happen. Well, I suggest to you folks that same sex marriage was not on your radar screen 10 to 15 years ago. I know for a fact that the power at the top of the Gay & Lesbian efforts have one single objective. They have identified the enemy. All religion is fair game. But, the largest Christian church (Roman Catholic) and the fastest growing Christian chuch (L.D.S.)are in no mood to compromise a covenant ordained of God. So, were you consistent? Or, as I suspect a bonafide hypocrite?

  • Good luck "gays"...
    May 26, 2009 1:01 p.m.

    on trying to get any kind of ban on religion in America. Your threats in this regard just show how delusional you really are.

  • 136 pages
    May 26, 2009 1:00 p.m.

    If you need 136 pages to justify your decisions, that is a clue that you are using faulty logic.

  • To Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 12:59 p.m.

    "We need an amendment that will remove the tax-exempt status of religions."

    I think I am for gay marriage. But it statements like this that scare me. Is it your hope to help or to hurt? I would like to see people with rights to religion and also the right to gay marriage. Is that possible? Or must I hate one and Love the other. The question that pro-marriage people need to resolve, at least for me, is the pro gay-marriage party's goal to destroy religion. I know religion is attacking them, but religion claims it is self defense. Is this true?

  • Marriage Cases
    May 26, 2009 12:57 p.m.

    This ruling does not correct the flawed reasoning in the Marriage Cases

  • re John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 12:52 p.m.

    California doesn't have Civil Unions, they have "Domestic Partnerships". And if this is "the best day of your life since Prop 8 passed", that speaks volumes regarding the degree of your internalized homophobia.

  • Not even close to being over
    May 26, 2009 12:51 p.m.

    I am grateful that prop 8 has been upheld. Sad that the court failed to articulate the law correctly.

  • ex-U.S . ARMY
    May 26, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    you all make me sick to be sad use the legislative process and not circumvent the system .it is WE THE PEOPLE we all have the same legal rights to life,liberte and the prusset of happyns .will the legislative process is full of not in my backyard.

  • jefejivaro
    May 26, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    It appears that the majority of the posters misunderstand what this ruling was about. The issue at hand was whether the initiative to amend the constitution of the State of California was done according to the provisions of that document. If you examine the proceedings, you'll find the California Supreme Court justices had little choice but to agree the constitution was properly amended by Proposition 8. The constitutional requirements were laid out very clearly and compellingly by Kenneth Starr, the counsel for the defense.

    Bottom line: this was not a case of the court upholding the will of the people, but rather upholding the state's constitution, which is their sworn duty.

  • About the 18,000 marriages
    May 26, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    Weren't they grandfathered in by Prop 8 itself? I seem to recall something to that effect.

  • Don't get excited
    May 26, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    This a weak decision. The California Supreme Court has created a mess.

  • Oh, but remember?
    May 26, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    It was all the Mormons' fault to begin with. We got prop 8 passed single handedly. So somehow, we are obviously in complete control of the universe. Right. Still want to blame us for everything? We are a minority too... someone else already pointed that out. A minority, yet it's all our fault. Stop pointing the finger, spewing hatred and bigotry, and get on with your lives. Take advantage of the blessings you do have, and make the best of the hard to swallow stuff. Life's full of the hard to swallow stuff, no matter who you are.

  • CougarKeith
    May 26, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    Sadly I think they did what was best, I don't agree with allowing the married gays to stay married, but you can't "UNDO" something you allowed. I don't agree with it, but it's like giving someone a new car and then taking it back, that isn't right either! I think the judges did what is wrong, but did the right thing at the same time. I think Solomon would have done the same thing, only bannished those who still wanted to stay married to another land, or a corner of the kingdom where they could be immoral without affecting the rest of the population. What's a state to do, I think I might have come up with the same solution (SADLY).

  • CA
    May 26, 2009 12:42 p.m.

    CA Supremes lack guts. No marriage is recognized except between a man and a woman. The CA constitutions says it, but the supremes got it wrong.

  • Bill
    May 26, 2009 12:40 p.m.

    Several years ago a Federal Court in Nebraska stated the admendment to the Nebraska State Constitution was unconstitutional. The admendment stated that the state of Nebraska would not recognize any marriage or civil union between members of the same sex. It also defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

    The issue went before the Nebraska Supreme Court and the lower courts ruling was overturned. This is still in the court system but as yet no state that has issued the same definition of marriage between one man and one woman voted on by the people of the state as a admendment to the state's constitution has been overturned.

    You have to remember the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a law voted on by the people. This was very simular to the Prop 22 passed in California. There are petitions out now to get it into the current legislature as now it must go through to sessions of the state legislature before it can be voted on by the people of Iowa. The earliest is 2012. The vote should favor the one man one woman definition of marriage.

  • Whats next?
    May 26, 2009 12:40 p.m.

    Next thing you know they will outlaw polygamy or put an age limit on marriage. Stupid goverment!

  • Mel
    May 26, 2009 12:35 p.m.

    Finally! The voters of the state of California's vote has been respected! :)

  • Joshua Johanson
    May 26, 2009 12:34 p.m.

    I am so glad that the Supreme Court respects the vote of the people.

    I believe fathers are irreplaceable. Not with a second mother, and not with an uncle. We need to make families stronger and recognize the unique role a father plays.

    I realize there are lots of other family types, including single parents and same-sex parents. The more power to them. I'm glad California law extends benefits to them to help them so they can raise kids, but I believe marriage is the center of a family that provides a male and female role model to kids.

    I believe the main reason for a marriage is to provide a father and mother for kids. Love is also a reason, otherwise we wouldn't let sterile couples get married, but the main reason is the kids. Others try to make it about rights, equality and tax benefits. While the Supreme Court disagrees with me, I'm glad they recognize my voice in the matter.

  • Aaron
    May 26, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    I'm beginning to think the reason gays and lesbians are not interested in the civil union compromise and want nothing but marriage, is they have no respect for religious views on marriage.

    What better way to thwart organized religion than to paint them all as haters, bigots, homophobes.
    This subtle but false campaign will succeed

    And, as a result, 10-20 years from now, prop8 will be overturned, marriage will be defined as a union between any gender.

  • next stop
    May 26, 2009 12:32 p.m.

    We get to change the Constitution again.

    Next time in California, the voice of the majority --- to extend marriage to same-sex partners.

    And then you get to change it back again, and then we change it again, and you change it again, and on and on...

    Have you ever heard of anything so absurd?

    But if it comes down to technicalities and you like to play with technicalities and have your Church's name receive all kinds of bad PR because of it, more the power to you.

    Eventually gays will get their right to marry, but will your Church ever lose the stigma that it has earned this time around?

    I seriously doubt it. It's adding more bad PR to a Church which claims to be "coming out of obscurity, and out of darkness."

  • John
    May 26, 2009 12:31 p.m.

    Whether you agree with the ruling or not, the CA Supreme Court did not uphold the will of the people. That would be scary. Unlike Prop 22, the CA Supreme Court found that Prop 8 was in harmony with the CA Constitution and therefore could stand as law. That's all that happened. So let's leave the hate-speech aside.

  • John Pack Lambert
    May 26, 2009 12:29 p.m.

    This is the best day of the year. I have since the day Proposition 8 was passed known that if the California Supreme Court had even one ounce of respect for the stability of law they would uphold this move. In the passed they upheld the voters reinstitutting the death penalty after they had ruled the death penalty violated the California State Constitution, a case that involved much more important things for the participants than if they are recognized as married.
    Marriage as an instutution is very important, and for the good of society we have to keep child rearing as closely connected to marriage as possible. However, especially with California's very broad and comprehensive civil unions, marriage for individual couples in California is not as important as the anti-poropistion-eight crowd would have us believe.

  • Me
    May 26, 2009 12:25 p.m.

    The big lie of the gay/lesbian community, is that their rights are taken away. One cannot vote rights away that are Constitutional. Marriage is not in the Constitution, so it can be voted on. Granted, I suppose that means that heterosexual marriage recognized by the govt. can be voted away also. Therefore, everybody, gay/lesbians included, have the same rights. Just because they don't want to marry heterosexually, does not mean the right does not exist. The black voters in California understand this, and thus 70% voted for Prop. 8. (Incidentally, it is always very telling and interesting that the gays never seem to target the blacks in California - it is always the religions - which shows where their feelings are.)

    But you cannot vote to take away the rights of Mormons to practice their religion. Freedom of Religion is Constitutionally guaranteed. Just like you cannot vote to take away the right of freedom of speech, etc.

  • Re: Matthew
    May 26, 2009 12:21 p.m.

    Get your facts straight. If it had been left up to the people, we would NOT have slavery. It WAS left up to the people, and we don't have legal slavery. The people could have voted Abraham Lincoln out of office at his second term, an antiwar president would have taken office, he would likely have agreed to a split nation, and the South would likely still have slavery. The people voted to reelect Lincoln long after he'd made his stand to abolish slavery.

  • Comin after you
    May 26, 2009 12:20 p.m.

    boycott boycott boycott

  • Voice of the People
    May 26, 2009 12:17 p.m.

    Finally, a court that let's the people choose what it wants! Imagine that, a Democratic Republic where the people actually rule! God bless the USA!

  • Great News!
    May 26, 2009 12:16 p.m.

    Now lets here the crying

  • Activist Judges
    May 26, 2009 12:15 p.m.

    Side with Gay People=Bad Activist Judge. Side with Anti-Gay People=Good Activist Judge. That is all for today.

  • re: protect marriage
    May 26, 2009 12:14 p.m.

    "In the continuing fight to preserve marriage, the next step needs to be a law/Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman of the same faith and religious background."

    mmhmm... and now we see the REAL slippery slope.

    were you saying this tongue in cheek, or are you serious?

  • Aaron
    May 26, 2009 12:13 p.m.

    Really all we're fighting over is the definition of the word marriage.

    Religious people take the word "marriage" seriously and will demonstrate that in their protection of the man-woman definition even in the politically correct secular world.

    Gays an Lesbians for the most part are not interested in the definition of marriage, but seek equal rights afforded married couples.

    It seems to me the only compromise is to afford equal protection to gays and lesbians under a term other than marriage.

    hmmmm..."Civil Unions" maybe?

  • LisA
    May 26, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    Sad day for California.

  • To the 11:40 genius
    May 26, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    You're clueless.

    So clueless you don't even know it.

    Comparing homosexual "rights" and "advances" to the hallowed battles of those who have fought and died to make and keep us a free nation?


    Satan has you wrapped so tightly around his finger I seriously doubt you'll ever escape. Sad, and I mean that sincerely. Sad, indeed.

  • It is far from over!
    May 26, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    All the Cal Supremes did was determine if the prop 8 process was constitutional or not.

    It left in place the existing legal 18,000 gay marriages.

    Now we have a legal dysfunction:

    1. This shows how flawed the Cal proposition process is:

    2. 18,000 California citizens who are now legally married and that now nobody else can gain that legal right.

    Sounds like a case of government-imposed discrimination to me.

  • Doug Cortney
    May 26, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    @Close But No Bullseye (11:55a)

    I'm looking forward to reading the portion of the decision related to the 18,000 existing marriages. I, too, am having difficulty reconciling "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California" and leaving the existing marriages intact -- with one caveat.

    If the Court ruled that these 18,000 marriages were validly contracted and thus could not be rescinded, I tend to agree. But it seems that this should only mean that there would be no impediment to any outside jurisdiction choosing to honor them; it seems patently unconstitutional for any jurisdiction within CA to recognize these marriages. I only recently managed to download a copy of the decision. It seems I wasn't the only one interested in doing so. ;-) It will be quite interesting to see what the Court actually says in this regard.

  • To: Californian
    May 26, 2009 12:11 p.m.

    There's a Church of Utah? Cool! I thought only countries got their own official churches! Where do they meet? What do they teach? How are they different from every other church in the state?

  • AG
    May 26, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    "They, gay activists, will go back to voters...?" Using intimidation/violence & coercion to get them to take your side?...
    It's easy to talk about tolerance and equality when it's what they want for themselves, but they don't want give the same to others.
    Don't try to redifine marriage; create something else for yourselves, but don't try to change something that has been since the beginning of times & emulate a heterosexual institution. How about respect for that?

  • Sarah Nichole
    May 26, 2009 12:07 p.m.

    While I applaud the decision of the California Supreme Court to finally do the right thing, I'm concerned over what is going to happen next. The gay community in California, and in several other states, have been planning to demonstrate tonight. It was either to be a celebration, or they were going to turn to the streets in anger, depending on the outcome of this ruling. The organizers of the demonstrations admitted as much in the national news.

    We all saw the violence and intolerance they exhibited the last time they lost, so... what's going to happen this time? Can we expect more attacks on people, property, churches, etc., or can we expect civil behavior? Are they going to throw more hissy fits, or are they going to behave like the adults they are, and accept the court's ruling without violence?

  • Confused
    May 26, 2009 12:05 p.m.

    So 18,000 gay couples have the right to be married, but anyone going forward doesn't?

    How long before the first lawsuit challenging that ruling is filed, probably already has been.

    This court just keeps getting egg on their face don't they.

    This decision might insite even more outrage than if they had overturned Prop 8. At least you wouldn't have had people sitting on both sides of the law, one married the others not allowed to be.

  • Re: What... 11:31am
    May 26, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    What are you talking about? Everyone has the right in California to marry someone of the opposite sex. They don't have to renounce anything. Everyone in California can establish a civil union. They don't have to renounce anything. But don't try to call a milk cow a slow elk. Marriage is between one man and one woman, except for the few months when activist judges tried to change it unlawfully, in order to cause that the law become more clear to them.

  • JanSan
    May 26, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    Well, I also am glad that the voice of the people have finally been heard.

    But, I do not believe that this is over by a long shot!

    I do not believe that the people for gay marraige will accept this. They do not care about the will of the people. They have been pushing this stuff down our throats for so long and I believe that they will continue to push it down our throats until they get what they want.

    I think that it is like the war in heaven that we are still fighting here on earth - I think that this war will continue until Christ himself comes and says NO MORE - It is done!

  • right on JD
    May 26, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    That's exactly what this means. And I must say if Mormons can count all their ancestors' polygamous marriages as legal, then homosexuals today get to do the same.

    Be very careful what you do when you're a prophet. It could come back to bite you. Hard.

  • Not the same
    May 26, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    "Re: What minority next | 11:31 a.m. May 26, 2009
    I agree with you. I say we get everyone to give millions of dollars like the Mormon church did to an initiative that bans Mormons from getting married in California. We're not banning them from getting married if they denounce their religion, so they still have the same rights as everyone else. That sounds fair to me."

    In short, you're argument is ridiculous.

    You are certainly entitled to waste your time, your money and your energy "outlawing" Mormons from getting married in CA if you choose (personally, I wish you'd try...) but there's one teeny, tiny difference: homosexuals getting "married" is a sin while LDS marriages are not.

    Some day you'll see.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    I am in favor of same-sex marriage, and I believe this was the right decision for the Supreme Court of the State of California to make.

    The SC was NOT ruling on whether or not same-sex marriage is right or wrong. They were NOT ruling on whether or not Prop 8 violated basic human rights that ought to be protected for all US citizens. They were simply ruling on an appeal that argued that Prop 8 did not appropriately follow the amendment process. The SC decided that Prop 8 DID follow the appropriate amendment process.

    In other words, this appeal was an attempt to disqualify Prop 8 on a procedural technicality. That failed, but that is only one of many weapons we (who support equality before the law) have in our arsenal.

    We shall prevail.

  • bgubler
    May 26, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    Wow, talk about missing the issue. I won't go to the state to get baptized, blessed or married. Yes, everyone should have equal protection under the law as outline in the California State's consitution. But we need to move beyond the government performing any religous ceramony.. Civil Unions by the state and marriages by the church... A nice seperation...

  • Doug Cortney
    May 26, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    Yes, this was a good decision by the Court.

    While it is unfortunate that a few thousand signatures and a simple majority can eliminate constitutional rights from a segment of the population -- and same-sex marriage *was* a constitutional right in California when Prop 8 passed -- it is also exactly the way the CA constitution is written.

    At the same time that they're working to put a new constitutional amendment initiative on the ballot undoing the results of Prop 8, as the opponents of Prop 8 are (unsurprisingly) doing, I hope they will also work to make it harder to amend the state constitution. A constitution that can be amended at the whim of a bare majority of those who vote in any given election is all but meaningless. California should update its constitution to make it more difficult to amend. It requires a 2/3 vote in order to impose a special tax in California, although it only takes a simple majority to amend the constitution. This is nonsensical.

    Bottom line: a good decision, firmly grounded in a flawed constitution.

  • Big deal
    May 26, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    So they upheld the wishes of the people of California for the second time. I thought that's why we voted in the first place.

  • leave the state out of it
    May 26, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    The government has no business being in the marriage business. Get the state out of it so that we can move on.

  • Tit for tat
    May 26, 2009 11:59 a.m.

    You can teach same-sex marriage in public schools if I can teach about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the Restoration. Tit for tat...if we're really going for equality, let's level the playing field.

  • The Deuce
    May 26, 2009 11:58 a.m.

    We are a country of laws and by majority agreement we support laws in our communities that protect our people. Now, I am tired of the threats to outlaw religion or tax-exempt status or threat of a fight. As I said previously, let's focus on the the legal rights that the gay/lesbian group is asking for and write them into civil unions. Let's leave the definition of marriage alone as this seems to be the key issue to this fight. Let's stop trying to define what "God" believes on this topic and simply address rights within civil unions. This is quite simple and does not require all of the idiotic statements from people on this site. We have too many more important issues to focus on rather than this battle in California. Yes, I live in CA and have so for many years so I am familiar with this issue and have seen it on TV and in the newspapers and on the net everyday. I am tired of this old argument. Fix what needs to be fixed and leave the rest alone.

  • Agree
    May 26, 2009 11:57 a.m.

    I absolutly disagree with the sentiment against gay marriage, but the process has played it's course in California, and the voice of the voters in that state has been preserved. This being America, that is all you can hope for. Whether you agree with the issue at hand or not. It was decided by a group of voters.

  • Close But No Bullseye
    May 26, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    Good: upholding the will of the MAJORITY of California voters who voted against legalizing gay marriage.

    Bad: leaving the current CA gay "marriages" intact.

    Should have nullified them too because if something is illegal, it's illegal.

  • Protect Marriage
    May 26, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    Studies have shown that when couples from different religious backgrounds marry, it often leads to divorce - especially when there are children involved.

    In the continuing fight to preserve marriage, the next step needs to be a law/Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman of the same faith and religious background.

  • Californian
    May 26, 2009 11:53 a.m.

    Let's see what the Church of Utah has up it's slippery sleeve next time around--any bets their lawyers are already working overtime on it?

  • Bill
    May 26, 2009 11:51 a.m.

    The California Supreme Court based this on the constitutionality of the amendment, nothing more, nothing less. As they stated, the oppositions stand as to the constitutionality of the amendment had no merits.

    This means in many ways that the person representing the proponents of the ban, admendments, person was able to put it out there as a constitutional right to do so. The Supreme Court regardless of bias concurred with the constitutional means this was put to the vote. The people of California have voted for it and with all of the negative bias against those who gave of their time, money and talents for the passage of it hopefully will feel vendicated by the upholding.

    It is true that this isn't over, not by a long shot, but I wonder just how much the backlash is towards the gay community to get it to a vote again in 2010 or 2012. The backlash could really be devastating or it could make it where good people are afraid to vote their conscieous. If the latter is true then the people as a whole will loose.

  • JD
    May 26, 2009 11:49 a.m.

    All you that are you realize that the decision opens up the door for gay marriage?
    How can 18,000 couples have "rights" and others don't? This will just lead to further changes,in a humane direction. So go ahead and jump for joy, but the decision actually is a positive in the future for all homosexuals!!!!!!

  • re: HA HA
    May 26, 2009 11:48 a.m.

    And it wasn't even Rosie this time!

  • Matthew
    May 26, 2009 11:48 a.m.

    If we left everything up to the people, we'd still have slavery and no rights for women. One day gays will be allowed to marry in this country of ours, and I for one cant wait. I only wish I could vote on your lifestyle.

  • Dan M
    May 26, 2009 11:46 a.m.

    Why exactly do all the Prop 8 opponents think that marriage is a right? It is not at all

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 11:44 a.m.

    John, the CA supreme court became activist when they invalidated Prop 22, but then immediately ruled that gay marriage was legal. There was no law on the books to allow gay marriage. What the court should have said was that Prop 22 was invalid, but in order for gay marriage to happen, either the legislative branch needs to pass a law or a voter initiative. Activist judges create laws that were never there.

  • Tekakaromatagi
    May 26, 2009 11:42 a.m.

    This isn't about conservatives vs liberals. Supporting marriage isn't a conservative or a religious value. It is only a religious value if your religion dictates you to be tolerant, to support freedom of conscience and to fight poverty.

    There are serious freedom of conscience issues here if we can accuse people who follow their conscience of being bigots. Supporting marriage sends a strong message against out of wedlock births, and the povery that they cause. It is the height of cultural intolerance to conclude that someone is a bigot or a homophobe simply because of their cultural or religous values.


  • The court has ruled
    May 26, 2009 11:42 a.m.

    Let it go people! Stop wasting time and go do something good in the word for once!

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 11:41 a.m.

    The citizens in California spoke--twice--loud and clear. Thankfully they had the financial support of people all over the country from a variety of backgrounds and religions.

  • @Minority next
    May 26, 2009 11:41 a.m.

    Religion is specifically protected by the Constitution, gay marriage is not. Not a hard distinction at all.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 11:41 a.m.

    OK all of you gay marriage fans should read the court ruling. Marriage isn't a right. It never was a right. So the people can pass laws to restrict marriage. Utah knows that marriage has been restricted for certain reasons. Polygamy was given up because the US Supreme Court ruled that the laws passed to ban polygamy were valid. So Gay rights activist should use their power to convince voters to elect politicians to pass laws allowing gay marriage. Once you do that, you will get your chance to marry. Instead you hide behind judges that aren't supposed to pass laws. The 18,000 marriages should never of happened because even though they struck down a voter initiatives (which was a wrong decision), that didn't mean that gay marriage was legal. Stop using this equality argument, unless you allow people like Warren Jeffs to marry as many as girls as possible.

  • wow
    May 26, 2009 11:40 a.m.

    re: Anonymous | 11:20 a.m.
    Do you have any idea how intolerant your own rant comes across?

  • Gays win!
    May 26, 2009 11:40 a.m.

    I applaud this decision and am thrilled for the 18,000 couples whose marriages have been saved by the California Supreme Court.

    I am disappointed that the Court has again failed to see the discrimination in the Prop 8 bill, but we are confident that over time the bridges of prejudice will be broken and gays will receive full rights under the law in due time.

    The anti-gay movement may have won this battle, but they will not win the war.

    Americans fought for their rights from the British--and won.

    Americans fought against taxation without representation--and won.

    Slaves fought for their rights of freedom--and won.

    Women fought for their equal rights--and won.

    African-Americans and other minorities have fought for equal recognition under the law--and won.

    As each of them have done so and been victorious, so will gays and lesbians.

    When truth is brought out initially, first it is violently opposed, then ridiculed, then ignored, then accepted.

    The day is coming, and coming quickly, when gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals will be able to enjoy equal rights under the law as other Americans do.

  • Re: what minority is next
    May 26, 2009 11:39 a.m.

    The courts already ruled against our 'minority religion' repeatedly. As I recall, the most famous was the ruling against polygamy in the late 19th century. Welcome to the club! Fact is, we live with what the majority want.

  • Slippery slope
    May 26, 2009 11:39 a.m.

    Now that gay couples can only enter into domestic partnerships and not gay marriages they have lost all sorts of rights...

    ...oh wait. No they haven't. They haven't lost any rights at all.

    This debate never should have been about rights, or the majority oppressing the minority. It is about a word and who gets to use it. So please stop your slippery slope arguments of, "Who's rights are on the chopping block next?" and, "Now they will come after your religion."

  • Tekakaromatagi
    May 26, 2009 11:36 a.m.

    I applaud the decision. This is a great day for those who support freedom of conscience against bigots such as Perez Hilton. By supporting marriage Californians have sent an important message of the importance of marriage in fighting poverty.


  • lesson learned
    May 26, 2009 11:35 a.m.

    The Supreme Court of California is now facing a very difficult dilemma of their own creation. Because of their prior departure from good moral judgement and righteous truth, they created what will become a war as great as any this country has ever faced. Unfortunately, it will be a war most ugly between right vs wrong. On the good side, prophets have taught us that Jesus would need to know who stands on His side and who would not. It will now become more clear and make His judgement less disputable. There is no gay marriage in heaven, and so it is again in California.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    We need an amendment that will remove the tax-exempt status of religions.

  • The Voice of the People!
    May 26, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    Finally! The voice of the people have been heard! It's not about being a minority or civil rights. This is about people trying to legalize and protect perverse behavior that destroys families and ultimately the individual. More than half of California said no and meant it!

  • Surprise
    May 26, 2009 11:33 a.m.

    Well I must say I'm surprised. I thought for sure they would over turn it. I think they did the right thing though. Democracy wins.

  • Hurray for the Judicial System
    May 26, 2009 11:32 a.m.

    The Supreme Court of California has honored the will of the people by popular vote. I am grateful to see that the system still works.

    If the gay/lesbian community desires to change the laws regarding same sex marriage, let them work through the legislative process and not circumvent the system prepared by our founding fathers by using lawsuits and activist judges to try to force their agenda on the rest of the world.

    There will still be opposition from the pro-heterosexual marriage who will continue to stand for what we believe is right and will use our freedom of speech and our financial support for our cause.

    Let the battle play out according to the laws of our land in the electoral process, not in the courts!

  • to: What minority is next
    May 26, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    I think the point that needs to be taken is - What law can the minorities pass that will force the laws to bend to their will. Once this minority group gets their way, which group will try to get their way next?

  • Winner Chicken Dinner
    May 26, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    Oh yeah, oh yeah. I am so happy I think I shall celebrate tonight, tomorrow, and the weekend. Wendover, here we come. Oh yeah, oh yeah...

  • Dangerous Precedent
    May 26, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    To be able to vote on any rights one feels are unsavory.

  • Re: What minority next
    May 26, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    I agree with you. I say we get everyone to give millions of dollars like the Mormon church did to an initiative that bans Mormons from getting married in California. We're not banning them from getting married if they denounce their religion, so they still have the same rights as everyone else. That sounds fair to me.

  • Good!
    May 26, 2009 11:29 a.m.

    One state down, five more to go. When the voters in the state decide to let it happen, that's another story, but forcing it on people who voted against it is wrong.

  • Ha ha
    May 26, 2009 11:27 a.m.

    The fat lady has sung

  • Good Decision
    May 26, 2009 11:27 a.m.

    Whether the decision was ultimately right or wrong at least the court did what they are charged with doing - upholding the highest law of the state, the Constitution. The judiciary is not charged with bringing ultimate justice but rather to uphold the Constitution even if upholding it may ultimately be what some term unjust. These men are not gods who rule according to the highest principles of justice rather they rule based upon a man made law which though imperfect is the law we have chosen to live by.

  • McGurkus
    May 26, 2009 11:26 a.m.

    There will be no closure. The proponents of gay marriage will not accept the voice of the people. They will continue to terrorize others by setting fire to their church and home until they force this on the people.

  • John
    May 26, 2009 11:26 a.m.

    What? I thought that, when Prop 22 was overturned, that CA Supreme Court was found to be nothing but activist judges? And they upheld this? (btw-my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek).

    Just goes to show that the Supreme Court does follow the law of the land. The first Prop was worded in such a way that it did not conform with the CA Constitution and therefore was overturned. This one was worded more carefully to conform.

    Maybe now we can let the term 'activist judge' go away.

  • The voice of the people
    May 26, 2009 11:24 a.m.

    Wow, the results of a legal election by the majority upheld. Those Californians are so mean spirited.

    May 26, 2009 11:24 a.m.

    Now comes the REAL FIGHT!

  • The Rock
    May 26, 2009 11:24 a.m.

    This is the first time I have ever heard of the California high court doing something right.

    I am certain that they will take strong steps to insure it is not repeated.

  • We Shall Overcome
    May 26, 2009 11:23 a.m.

    Where's all your prattle about the "activist judges" now?

  • not surpirsed, not over
    May 26, 2009 11:22 a.m.

    Now the battle begins in earnest. I can only pray that religious people everywhere will continue to vote for righteousness and moral rectitude.

  • dave4197
    May 26, 2009 11:21 a.m.

    Yes on 8! wins. And the court stated the arguments against it are without merit. For once, this courts has heard the people, and has valued their votes, and has allowed the will of the people to prevail. The court however, failed to recognize an important fact - that the people have corrected the court's attempt to force same sex marriage into the law by claiming it's the only way for equal protection under the law to work. Well, we the people have corrected those court papers. Next?

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 11:20 a.m.

    Good. Now, we get to vote it down and drive bigotry home to Utah.

  • What minority is next
    May 26, 2009 11:19 a.m.

    My name says it all....

    Now that California voters have proven that the majority can vote into law things that ban minoritys...who is next?

    Maybe you....and your religion...after all you are a minority!!!!

  • Fair ruling
    May 26, 2009 11:18 a.m.

    I believe that's a fair ruling. A few months ago the California Supreme Court stated that if they upheld Prop 8, they would also invalidate the 18,000 marriages previously performed. I'm glad those marriages were left intact (kinda hard to say "just kidding!" to a marriage that was previously performed). Fair ruling.

  • justified
    May 26, 2009 11:18 a.m.

    This is the way it should be.

    The majority rules.

    If you want changes...go about it democratically ......and legally..

  • Too Bad..
    May 26, 2009 11:18 a.m.

    Sad day when rights are voted away.

  • She who arts
    May 26, 2009 11:18 a.m.

    Hoorah! for California Supreme Court!

  • rusby
    May 26, 2009 11:17 a.m.

    The political process has now played out, and we have some closure.

    Lets all take a breath now until the next battle.