Your Reaction to the Prop. 8 Ruling

Comments (20)

What do you think about Judge Walker's ruling today?

Tell us in the comments.

RSS Subscribe
  • jeff

    best thing thats happened to humanity.

  • Krish

    Hello,

    I respect the fellow human’s right to be with another human, man with a man or woman with a woman. I just want that to be called a “union”, that is all. Legally you can provide the same rights, I’ve no issues, but still “Union” is the word for such unions.

    Marriage is a word for procreation and ensuring there will be humans left in this earth (ok, till we destroy it with plastic!). Such distinct names will help parents like me to explain my kids the difference between hanging out with his friends and marrying his future girlfriend!

  • KiltBear

    Missing my HUSBAND who is in Santa Barbara for business.

  • Joe

    In response to Krish, marriage is not connected to procreation because it is available — no questions asked — to any heterosexual couple, even if they are unable to have children or do not wish to have children. When you discuss these matters with your kids, please keep in mind that your son may one day wish to marry his future boyfriend.

  • Bob

    Why does the gay community seeks to force people to accept gay marriage.

    This isn’t about rights. Gay people have the same rights as everyone else. This is about being accepted by people that don’t want to accept what you are doing as a normal life style. Keep your private matters private.

  • Julie Cason

    I have been reading it, and am about 50% of the way through. It is extremely carefully thought through and consistent with what happened during the trial. (I “watched” the whole thing–every minute–via live blogging on several different sites.) So, as a legal opinion, it is quite spectacular. As one of the 18,000 in CA, though, my reaction is just HOORAY for rationality and equality.

  • Marvin

    Bob, nobody actually cares if you “accept” their marriage. They just don’t want you to deny them the right to marry. You can continue to think of gay people as second class citizens, belong to a church that refuses to marry gay people, and consider yourself “normal” and others as abnormal.

    As for keeping it private, it’s doubtful you’ll be invited to many weddings of same sex couples, so I wouldn’t worry too much about that. In the mean time, maybe you should keep your marriage private… whatever that even means.

  • Ryan Lindsay

    To Bob:

    Marriage entails more than just a union between to people that love each other, there are certain RIGHTS involved in the definition of marriage

    - Sharing work, military, and social security benefits with your spouse.
    - Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during non-visiting hours
    - Making medical decisions for your spouse when they are incapacitated
    - Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures
    - Living in neighborhoods zoned for families
    - Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse

    These are just the very few of the many rights that married couples get. If gay couples can’t get married, then they clearly do not have the same, equal rights as “everyone else.”

  • Bob

    Every one of these RIGHTS can be obtained by a legal document other than a marriage certificate. As far as where you can live it is already illegal to deny residency to someone based on sexual orientation. I am not against any of these rights.

    Marvin, I am in no way religeous and I do not have these beliefs because of what religeon teaches. I don’t strive to be considered normal, but there are things in my life that I choose to keep private about myself. I don’t feel the need for others to accept my actions.

  • Paul Miller

    Good decision. I guess we are further ahead of the Taliban than I thought.

  • KiltBear

    @Bob
    I wish you were right and that a simple document or two would provide the same rights as marriage. They don’t. The recent case of the lesbian couple in Florida where one was checked into the hospital with critical health issues. Her partner had all of the critical paperwork. The hospital said it didn’t care.

    Just on the financial side, to assure that property is protected from other interest other than my “gay-husband” the lawyers we talked to say that to insure what we wanted and use established and tried law we’d have to take our individual property and each put that int a trust, and then create a third trust to hold the other two. Cost: $7000. Compare that to a $50 marriage license which gives you all sorts of tax breaks as well.

    Those folks who say that we can get these rights through other means have not bothered to look up and understand the facts.

    Besides, why the “heck” should I have to jump through hoops to get the same rights and benefits that some schmoe can walk in with a few bucks and get with little or no thought.

  • Rick Nelson

    What a shame. CA citizens have argued this issue for years and were finally offered the opportunity to resolve it at the ballot box. It appears that’s not good enough. If you don’t like the answer go to the courts. What a waste of time. Dump the legislature and elections. Let the courts tell us everything we can or must do and save all the energy and resources that don’t mean a thing. Better still dump the state judiciary too and go straight to the feds. That’s essentially where we’ve arrived and it would be quick and cheaper.

  • Joe

    Rick,

    Issues of equal rights for minorities should not be solved at the ballot box. If that had been the case in the 60s, the civil rights movement never would have gotten anywhere and there would likely still be “colored” drinking fountains in the south.

  • INATL

    @Bob:

    Your statement “As far as where you can live it is already illegal to deny residency to someone based on sexual orientation” is completely incorrect. Where did you get this misinformation?

    You CAN legally deny housing to a gay person in many states. There is no federal protection in housing for gay people. State laws against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation only exists in certain states. Most states only observe the minimum federal law which says nothing about sexual orientation.

    This craigslist link summarizes it well: http://atlanta.craigslist.org/about/FHA

    California has a strict law about housing discrimination and I understand that it works both ways: a gay landlord cannot refuse to rent to someone because they are straight.

    In Georgia, all bets are off. A landlord can legally discriminate based on sexual orientation because there is no law saying they can’t. There are many people who may not agree with the landlord, but the landlord would certainly win in court.

    And as for your other comment about gay people having the same rights as everyone else, this is also not true. This is well documented. As one very simplistic example (and there are so very many), there are no social security survivor benefits for members of gay families. Straight people get these benefits even though gay people support the SS system through their payroll tax contributions. No number of legal documents can rectify this blatant disparity.

    It is so interesting to me that whenever someone argues that gay people have the same rights as straights, the person making the argument ignores all evidence to the contrary. They also seem to always be straight, so they have little vested interest in investigating the facts of the matter.

  • http://www.jwebster.com John Webster

    Marriage is a cultural/religious construct that Government should never have gotten involved in. At most it should only be the official Recorder of the contract between the people involved and the chosen church. That Church should be the one that decides the details of that contract and what restrictions should be in place. Some churches will only allow a man and woman to marry, others will allow gay couples. Some will allow divorce others not.

    I believe that originally Governments got involved in marriage so that they could prevent people of mixed races from getting “officially married” but of course that was just another example of the dark side of Democracy (the tyranny of the majority) as was Prop. 8.

    John Webster, Libertarian

  • Darin

    Maybe this well educated judge doesn’t own a dictionary or care about what the voters have decided. Marriage….”Husband and Wife”. To me it’s not an issue about rights; it’s about changing (ruining) the meaning of the word.

  • Chris

    No matter how you look at this, whether you are for or against gay marriage, the American People were slapped in the face. The vote banned gay marriage. The majority said we do not want to approve gay marriage. But then here comes big brother to overturn the vote. Just another way our government proves again and again they do not care about our constitution and that your vote really does not count.

  • sal

    logic prevails but the fight continues ,who care what the haters say tax paying decent folks deserve equality and to those that say pie in the sky stuff that doesn’t STAND UP TO INTELLIGENT THOUGHT i say get a life ,preferably your own

  • sal

    well to those that say that government has no say in churches i say tell that to churches that get tax breaks etc.crap and no logic oy haters

  • sal

    Exodus 21:20-21
    20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
    Leviticus 25:44
    Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves…
    Titus 2:9
    Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
    1 Peter 2:18
    Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
    1 Corinthians 14:34: