Economy in the tank? Jobs moving overseas? Just bring out a distraction such as gay marriage.

Hey Republican 101....this is a California Supreme Court ruling!! Don't blame the Republican 's for making it a campaign issue. However, I must say that this is an excellent reminder of what Liberalism and the Democrat Party stand for!!! This will remind voters why they should never vote for a Democrat.

Joe,

Your ignorance is showing. Six of the seven justices on the CSC are Republicans who were appointed by Republican governor. The Chief Justice and author of the Decision got his first judicial appointment from Ronald Reagan.

The only Democrat received his first judicial appointment from a Republican governor.

This is about as Republican of a State Supreme Court as you are going to find.

Yes it is an excellent reminder of what liberals stand for--we stand for civil rights for everyone.

"I must say that this is an excellent reminder of what Liberalism and the Democrat Party stand for!!!"

You mean liberty, justice and equality under the law? I agree completely.

The article fails to mention (this is the DNC Swamp) that the gay marriage ban was passed by the voters of California, overwhelmingly.

Time was, long ago, where the political left at least paid lip service to following the will of the people. Nowadays judicial activists and their leftist applauders show their contempt for democracy.

Nowadays judicial activists and their leftist applauders show their contempt for democracy.

So tell me Bruce are you also referring to the Supreme Court justices who showed their contempt for democracy when they overturned the will of the people in the election of 2000?

No doubt this is going to mobilize the religious right. Oprahma is already facing trouble with Jeremiah Wright hanging around his neck, now this.

Add to that his Cook County history and his funding from lobbyists and giant corporations that shows he's just another politician on-the-take -- no different than the others -- and Oprahma's going to be a tough sell come November.

to Bruce: You mean much like during the civil right movement when the majority thought that black people were less then them and therefore deserved to be treated as less of a human being, enjoying less freedoms than their comrades? when the majority voted for racism? ah yes, we should go back to those times. because lord knows the majority is ALWAYS right, thats why we still have "separate but equal" school systems.

Joe's the kinda guy that thought black/white marriage was a sin before his white God.

Bruce,
And the entire 'Gulf Squadron' repeatedly voted for Jim Crow laws for a century. Sometimes the Judicial system is the only remedy.

Nothing in the Ten Commmandments or the bible mentions anything about it being a sin to be gay.
I also don't believe even the most right-winged lunatic judge would listen to a "it's in the Ten Commandments/bible" argument, unless they're looking to be disbarred.
But go ahead all you commuservatives. Believe that you'll be able to one day legally declare gays insane, lock them-up, force deprogramming them to become straight, etc.
& voters can be a majority for whatever they want, but if it goes agianst individuals' rights, then the courts have a duty to act on behalf of individuals. If voters in a southern state decided to bring back segregation, would you go along with that argument about the "will of the people"? What about voters voting for abortion, or enacting strict gun control? I believe there are some white supremists looking for your support.

Hey Timothy!...are you actually trying to say that the California Supreme Court is a conservative court? It does not matter how they got there, what matters is how they interpret the law once they get there. Before you throw the word "ignorance" around, you might want to glance in the mirror.

gays and lesbians also pay taxes in support of government. marriage is a social and economic institution that exists among all the goods and services that taxation entitles americans to. it is then discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional to then deny certain classes equal access to the goods and services that their taxation also pays for. indeed it creates an economic class which is expressly forbidden.

Bruce your ignorance is amazing beyond belief or did you forget Right-Wing Conservatives attempted to stop Prop 71 in court after the voters approved that soundly also

Oh, this is great news for the dems, now Barack can push this through the other 57 states.

Paulo

To all you wacky Cali libs: THANK YOU... for helping the GOP retain the White House in 2008!

Stupid liberals, don't they ever learn?

The people of California voted 2 to 1 to ban gay marriage in their state. The California Supreme Court over-ruled them. The decision carried 4-3.

Four judges in California have more power than the people of California. The powerful few over-ruled the popular will of the people.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people." If we no longer hold this idea of democratic government dear, why don't we quit being hypocrites and just hurl ourselves into pure Communism?

The court in California didn't just invalidate a voted-for popular ban on gay marriage, it once again highlighted "liberals" invalidating our democracy's legislative principles in the name of "activism."

As a somewhat liberal lesbian,not all gays are radical leftists, I was furious that there were all these "pro-gay" ammendents across many states in Nov 2004. I knew those ammendents were going to kill our chances for a democratic president. However, this time around I'm thrilled! I hope all the state ballots have some gay issue because this time, assuming Hillary is not the nominee, I want McCain to win and beat Obama. I can't stand Obama. As usual I can count on selfish gays to put their issues above the country's issues. Gays don't "need" marraige. A good will, POA's and properly deeded property gives you all the rights as non-gays. Plus divorce is not neccessary :-)

The article fails to mention (this is the DNC Swamp) that the gay marriage ban was passed by the voters of California, overwhelmingly.

Yeah, too bad we Californians have a little piece of paper called, ummmmmmm, "the constitution".

Five of six Republican and/or republican-appointed judges determined that the what those voters want is "unconstitutional."

One interesting fact about this: 6 of the California Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican governors. Just how is it that this shows anything about "Liberalism and the Democrat(ic) Party?"

There will be an initiative on the California November ballot to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. This will put California into play for McCain, especially with Latino opposition to gay marriage.

After reading the arguments of those in opposition to the CA Supreme Court decision today, I have a few questions.
How many "sacred" & "holy" marriages can a person have & still keep it holy & sacred?
Is 3 OK?
Is 4 too many?
When Newt Gingrich introduced the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which one of his three marriages was he defending?
Since Newt did not have a child with his second wife, was that a "real" marriage or just a legally convenient relationship?
Did the prenuptial agreement Gingrich signed before he married his third wife make their marriage more holy or just more sacred?
Since Gingrich & his current third wife are childless (so far), at what point in time should the government end their marriage due to their failure (so far) to procreate?
Is John McCain really married despite his wife not cutting him in for 1/2 her fortune when they married? Is that really a marriage or just a tax dodge?

Oh sure...we have the great new liberal Obama...who happens to be against gay marriage, doncha know. So it is going to be pretty difficult for him to show off his full court press as a liberal icon, while showing his bigotry about homosexuals. Yes, he is the phoney that we have in place now...another BS-ridden democrat that does have the cajones to do the right thing. In the end, he will capitulate. He says it is because of his "religious views" I think. Well, I guess we all know about that now, don't we?

I have to wonder now what our great liberal redeemer, Obama is going to do with this political hot potato. I recall that he is, in his embracing way, against gays...or let's say he is against gay marriage, because of his "religion" he says. So, here we have an African American, who knows that he was the beneficiary of courts who helped ban discrimination in 1948 against inter-racial marriage, but this guy won't endorse gay marriage. Why? Because he is a big fat hipocrit. That is why. He can capitulate with the best of them. I respect the republicans more now, because at least they look you in the eye and tell the truth, unlike Obama.

Being that the majority of the judges who made this decision were appointed by republicans and are republicans themselves.. did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps they did this on purpose to give the republicans a better chance at the white house? Just sayin.....

An AMENDMENT is a change to the Constitution. A judge cannot say that an AMENDMENT is unconstitutional because by definition it is changing the constitution in some fashion. Without this, we cease to be a democracy and we are some type of autocratic, plutocratic society with some democratic features. This decision is bigger than gay unions. It's a usurpation of democracy. The people have ceased to rule this country though representation or otherwise.

Posted by: RomanB | May 15, 2008 10:08 PM

First of all Roman B, I am with you on this issue. I believe adult Gays/Lesbians should be allowed to marry their partners, just like their straight coutnerparts.

However, while not in the Ten Commandments, there are parts of the Bible that does make gay sex a sin.

Such as:

Genesis 19: 5-7

They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them."
Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him,
he said, "I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing.

So tell me Steve do you believe EVERYTHING the Bible says?? It also says I can sell my oldest daughter to the highest bidder. Do you still believe in that? Or how about this one, I can stone my neighbor to death for growing two different crops on the same land. You cafeteria Christians crack me up. You chose and pick what you believe from the Bible to suit your own bigotries!

An AMENDMENT is a change to the Constitution. A judge cannot say that an AMENDMENT is unconstitutional because by definition it is changing the constitution in some fashion...

This decision is bigger than gay unions. It's a usurpation of democracy. The people have ceased to rule this country though representation or otherwise.

Posted by: Texan

Hey, Fool - this decision isn't about an AMENDMENT.

Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | May 16, 2008 10:41 AM

No, No, No. You misunderstood my post. As I first said, I am in favor of allowing gay marriage and applaud the CA supreme court ruling. I was just pointing out the Bible does make referrence to homsexualty as a sin. Which Roman B incorrectly stated it does not.

Conservatives don't have a monopoly on quoting the Bible, I hope you would agree.

That being said, I am Roman Catholic. I believe the physical act of gay sex is "sinful". But I cannot deny someone their right to "pursue their happiness" (to paraphrase the declaration of independence) because of my personal view.

Hey, Fool - this decision isn't about an AMENDMENT.

Posted by: Harry R. Sohl | May 16, 2008 1:56 PM

It is now. There will be a ballot initiative in November to Amend the California Constitution to add Prop 22 like language to it. If you really live in California, and have lived there for a few years, you should know that the voters resort to the ballot initiative mechanism to fix a problem our "progressive" Supreme Court and/or our gutless legislature can't or won't fix. If you don't recall this happening, just look up Proposition 8, Proposition 13, and Proposition 115 - for starters.

The issue of gay marriage could easily cost Democrats the 2008 presidential election. Democrats must weigh whether this issue is indeed more important than other progressive causes, such as re-empowering labor or keeping choice legal.

It is just a fact of political life that working-class folks hold a traditional view of marriage. And remember, before 1993, gay marriage wasn't even an issue.

If the norma-phobic, Holywood-centered elite of gay marriage advocates were less selfish, self-centered and more honest, they would start up their own political party.

Again, the issue of gay marriage could cause Democrats to lose in 2008. This is why both Obama and Clinton continue to oppose gay marriage, though both support civil unions.

I would ask all gay marriage advocates, why do you want to give George W. Bush a third term?