California Supreme Court to Hear Proposition 8 Challenges

Tommy,
Hey take it easy on us Californians. Some of us fought hard, and contributed some pretty substantial funds to the cause. And we are not at this time very proud of what went down in our state. It is unfortunate that outsiders came through our state spreading their message of hate. And it is unfortunate that SF Mayor made an over zealous speech about gay marriage that was used for the Pro Prop 8 machine (got nothing but love for Gavin). The opponents of Prop 8 moved to slow to counterpunch the slime machine that is the religious extremists that permeates this country. Everyone pretty much knew this would end up in the courts--let's just keep our fingers crossed that the State Supreme Court doesn't appreciate outsiders coming in and overturning their rulings.

PCL6:55PMNov 19th 2008

Tommy,
Hey take it easy on us Californians. Some of us fought hard, and contributed some pretty substantial funds to the cause. And we are not at this time very proud of what went down in our state. It is unfortunate that outsiders came through our state spreading their message of hate. And it is unfortunate that SF Mayor made an over zealous speech about gay marriage that was used for the Pro Prop 8 machine (got nothing but love for Gavin). The opponents of Prop 8 moved to slow to counterpunch the slime machine that is the religious extremists that permeates this country. Everyone pretty much knew this would end up in the courts--let's just keep our fingers crossed that the State Supreme Court doesn't appreciate outsiders coming in and overturning their rulings.




i thought you lived in all 50 states!

Tommy

We live in a democratic country where the people vote for what they desire to see in their state and country. The people of California have voted twice to ban same-sex marriage. It doesn't matter if the vote was close or not...the majority of the people have spoken and I think very clearly. It is not the responsibilty of the courts to determine what we want as Californians, especially when we went through the process of placing an amendment to the constitution on the ballot. That's how it is done. And I have to say it is not about hate or homophobia. Just because the majority of Californians disagree with same-sex marriage does not mean we hate, it means that morally the majority of Californians believe it is not right to have same-sex marriage. It's like your mom or dad use to say...just because your friends are doing it does not mean it is right! Also, I feel that if you cannot talk about God in schools then why should you be able to talk about homosexuality. People say that to talk about God is infringing on people's right that do not believe the same way. Well, talking about homosexuality in schools is infringing on the rights of those that do not ascribe to that lifestyle so it should not be allowed either. And if same-sex marriage is allowed that is exactly what would happen. People would be forced to see it just like heterosexual marriage. That's not right. The responsibility should be left up to the parents to discuss it with their children if they choose too. The bottom line is that the people of California have spoken and it should be left at that.

So now what we have are 4 justices, (4 people), who will overturn the will of the Calif. voters. Didn't these justices swear on a bible when they took this office? Just asking. Besides, will this set presidence for future voting on anything? Why spend millions on balloting and the process, just get the 4 justices to make it law. If it is overturned, is our vote meaningless? Seems like it. It seems when liberals lose on substance, they're upset with the process. I still say, the people voted...get over it.

Wait to see the amount of problems these liberal Judges will see if they over-turn the people's choice.
I will feel bad for those who fight in support of same -sex marriage becuase the people of CA are not as nice and fogiving as Christians. The people have voted and spoken so keep your agenda's and perversity out of the US and get off the band wagon that being gay is the new-black because clearly your decieved. Every knee will bow and every tounge will confess that Jesus is Lord your GOD..

I thought this was a democracy where the majority rules!! Apparently not!!

"The will of the people," and basic civil rights can't compete. Perhaps the black community would like a referendum on their rights? Had there been one in Little Rock Arkansas, the country would be a very different place. Yes, I'm making a direct correllation. That what it amounts to. It's political cowardice to put such to the whim of the majority - That doesn't show leadership, but back door politics.
Easy call - overturned in a heartbeat.

The Justices of the California Supreme Court place their hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not the other way around. It is the Justices JOB to uphold the Constitution, not necessarily the whims of the tyranny of the majority. If interracial marriage had been put to popular vote, their rights might have been delayed up until today, in some states. The Supreme Courts are there to protect minority interests; that's the way our democracy works. Our democracy also works by keeping a SEPARATION of Church and State. Get your "religion" (bastardized version of "Christianity" that it is, which has nothing to do with the teachings of the loving Christ) OUT of our Constitution! Fairness and Equality for All under the LAW of the Land! Restore legal access to State civil marriage and civil rights for all!

Instead of "religious Extremists" it is the "sexual extremists" who are "out of order" in this controversy. There does not seem to be anything in the constitution which protects marriage between two people of the same sex. Marriage is based on Biblical beliefs and since the Bible clearly prohibuts marriage between same sexes, that should settle the matter. Also, those who support killing babies will probably in the future try to legalize killing toddlers, teenagers, adults who "get out of line" and oldsters whom they consider unneccesary. Then, who will be left?

P.J.Ballard11:38PMNov 19th 2008
Instead of "religious Extremists" it is the "sexual extremists" who are "out of order" in this controversy. There does not seem to be anything in the constitution which protects marriage between two people of the same sex. Marriage is based on Biblical beliefs and since the Bible clearly prohibuts marriage between same sexes, that should settle the matter. Also, those who support killing babies will probably in the future try to legalize killing toddlers, teenagers, adults who "get out of line" and oldsters whom they consider unneccesary. Then, who will be left?
--------------------------------------------------------
What the Bible preaches should settle the matter only for you weak people who believe in that fairy tale book. And the fact that you bring up the Bible to state your case just proves that you are an extremists--you think everyone should believe in the same crap you do. As far as killing adults who 'get out of line', what do you think the death penalty is used for? And do yourself a favor, get your head out of the fairy tale books and pick up a biology book and see what the truth is about homosexuality.

Civil rights are not a matter of popular vote. If that were the case we should have a popular vote to see if abortion should be legal, if marijuana should be legal, if separate but equal schools should be legal, if blacks marrying whites should be legal, if women voting should be legal, ect. Get it?

I find it rather interesting that the majority of voters that led in the passing of prop 8 were minorities, exit polls show blacks, latinos and asians overwhemingly out voted whites on this issue, do latinos, blacks and asian have a greater belief in GOD than whites? whom seem to espouse the building of this nation on christian beliefs? Yet will not stand by those same christian principles and beliefs. Maybe, is it that those minority groups don't consider this issue to be a true "civil rights" matter, but of one being forced to accept a lifestyle that goes against the core of their " moral" beliefs, which may or may not be based on religious beliefs, there are many non-religious persons who are against gay marriages and the gay lifestyle in general. In 48 of the 50 states the majority also vote against it and in the other 2 the courts over ruled the majority. I personaly hope the California Supreme Court will respect the VOICE of the people.

No, this is bull. The people have voted and have voted twice. California is the most librel stae in the country. Evidently it is not as librel as we like to think. Let's talk for a minute about these "christian extremist", the word marriage in itself is a religious word. A definition given to us by this "fairytale god". You know what I think. This is just my opinion, but I think that gays want to be "married" because they subconciously think if man cals it "marriage" that it makes it right in this "fairytale god's" eyes that no one seems to care about. I think that if you would ask for civil unions instead of trying to call it marriage, you would have another chance. I have no problem with you guys wanting to have the same finacial and medical benefits. But to call it marriage would be blasphemy. I'm sorry. And before you call me a bigot, i don't hate gays. I wish them no ill will. Just call it something else.

The problem with current moves to legislate and restrict marriage is that it moves our nation into a corner that it cannot get out.

The first ammendment is crystal clear on the role of religion in government . . . a total ban on any single religious ideology gaining power to legislate, therefore restricting those of any other religion from free expression. Remember, many of our founder were forced to flee here because of their religious convictions going against the state sanctioned churches of their day. They did not want this to happen again, given that many who came here disagreed among each other as well. Hence the right to free practice of religion and the strict restriction on government to NOT pick ANY sides. . . and all or nothing proposition. It is far more difficult to enforce all, so it selected nothing . . . NO religion will be officially supported and sanctioned.

The exception to the rule was marriage. A religious institution which was universally shared among the original groups, government saw no conflict, therefore it allowed all. So long as there was concensus, marriage would not be restricted. Today, however, a percentage of the population HAS restricted marriage to a demographic based on religious conviction.

So long as this happens in the private sector, the individual churches who are well within their rights to ristrict marriages they perform, there is no problem, but government has been asked to pick sides. Government has only two sides it can pick: all or none. Those advocating the ban on gay marriage are forcing government to choose none. If any religion is willing to marry gays, the government HAS to allow it and declare it legal, or it has to ban ALL marriages . . . period.

Keep going . . .

Blow it for everyone including yourselves . . .

Watch marriage go the way of "Under God" in the pledge, which was not a problem until people argued which "God" was it speaking of.

Watch it go the way of "In God We Trust" which is facing similar battles.

Watch EVERYONE get a Civil Union under a judge, a priest, pastor, rabbi, shaman, etc. no longer allowed to officiate other than ceremonially. The Civil Union will be the only pact recognized, marriage being legally nothing.

Keep up the work nut jobs.

Many of your posts in here are extremist. Your vitriol is truly gay hating, plain and simple.You hide under the blankets with your Bibles to justify your prejudices.To ban same-sex marriage is naked discrimination against a segment of the population and morally wrong,and frankly un-American. Maybe the Constitution of the U.S. never should have been amended to include a female vote,or slavery? After all, it was the way it was designed,so why change it?

The people have spoken Tommy. Mean spirited as they may be, I see no difference in the "meanness" as the gay people going into businesses and churches and spreading THEIR hate agaisnt people who don't believe like they do. They (you) are certainly NOT helping your cause.

Our children are already being assaulted and indoctrinated with gay love and pride. They start as early as kindergarten in California. Thankfully, in our school system, that kind of thing is not allowed. I feel sorry for all of you people who think it is all right for the schools to tell YOUR children what is all right to believe and what is not.

How is it that the people of CA can vote that they DO NOT want gay marriage and the rainbow can squeal like a stuck pig and now it is being reviewed by the CA Supreme Court? Seems to me like those same people that voted NO need to find some other Justices!!!

My problem with this is not about the gay marriage issue, but rather an overturning of the majority's vote. If the outcome of the vote was not going to be accepted, then why was it on the ballot for the people of cailifornia to vote on? Rather, how is something that is questionably unconstitutional permited to be voted on? This whole process is just one more thing that has shaken my faith in our voting system. And Tommy, although it may be wrong, I think its unfair to call it a mean spirited move by Californians. Surely those who voted for Proposition 8 didn't go into the booth with the thought "Alright! I can really stick it to those gay people now!" while rubbing there hands together with anticipation. People with a religious background have a hard time overcoming what they have been taught whether they wholey believe in it or not. I'm sure that alot of those people that voted for or against proposition 8 had a mental struggle within themselves to come to their decision. So please don't call them mean spirited, I'm sure the majority didn't intend to be cruel.

Ms. Noel

What if the vote was a move to overturn the right for a woman to vote? What if the vote was a move to prohibit women from working? What if the vote was a move to prevent women from any right men take for granted?

The problem with freedom is that we cannot pick and choose who gets to be free.

Ever since our country was formed, we have fought the good fight against those who would rather see some of us denied what we grant others. Sometimes a "will of the people" goes against what we declared some 232 years ago in Philadelphia. Do we let the "majority" throw away the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?

Imho ANYONE who has EVER been denied equality has no business advocating denying equality to someone else.

I think I would prefer separation in this case: This group should have some area all by themselves for glorifiing their way of lifestyle however they want, but behave nicely in the rest of the country and respect the will of people. I wonder how many would be left let's say in 30-50 years. They cry out about religious bigotry, I would suggest rather a natural law.

This is a tough one. I too think California voters got this wrong. But if the justices overrule the will of the voters, it will only cause a backlash to gays and lesbians. I say wait a few years, and have the gay community work to put this back on the ballot. California is about the only state - and a handful of others - where gay marriage stands a chance of being legal in the near future. It would serve them better to have the majority of Californians behind them. This will only reinforce conservatives "activitst judges" nonsense - interestingly, they are never "activist judges" when they rule in THEIR favor, of course.