Reactions to California Supreme Court gay marriage ruling

Some reactions to Thursday's California Supreme Court ruling that overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

[Joe from Palo Alto]

It seems to me that what other people do that has no effect on my life is none of my business. Opponents to gay marriage talk about "Defense of Marriage". I've been successfully married for over 35 years. My marriage does not need defending.

[Zeke]

Joe from Palo Alto wrote:

It seems to me that what other people do that has no effect on my life is none of my business. Opponents to gay marriage talk about "Defense of Marriage". I've been successfully married for over 35 years. My marriage does not need defending.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died so we could govern ourselves. You anti-America nuts would give those rights to rogue judges.

SHAME ON YOU!

Why should anyone who cares about America sit back and let you force your contrived radical homosexual philosophies on an unwilling electorate.

Traitor!

[Nexra Blevins]

I don't believe in God. I'm happily hetero and married. How will this possibly affect me. Are my insurance rates going to go up? I'm happy for all the gay people. Maybe hiv/aids and a declining birth rate will be **** sapiens demise instead of climate change. It doesn't matter to me.

[gworld]

Zeke: if you don't like gay marriage - don't have one. What would happen someday if most Christians had disappeared and we voted to bar them from something. That would be okay with you? To me that's the key difference. I don't care for religion, in fact I think it's the spawn of most things evil, but I would never deprive others of their freedom to practice what they want. What's so hard about live and let live? And do you even know any gay people?

[Bob of Santa Cruz County]

Joe from Palo Alto wrote:

It seems to me that what other people do that has no effect on my life is none of my business. Opponents to gay marriage talk about "Defense of Marriage". I've been successfully married for over 35 years. My marriage does not need defending.

This issue has nothing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise. It has to do with four people taking away the rights of the majority of California voters who voted fairly to have something become law in this state and they were overturned by four people. What has happened to our elective form of government and the will of the majority of the people? God help us.

[Rick in Kansas]

Bob of Santa Cruz County wrote:

<quoted text>
This issue has nothing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise. It has to do with four people taking away the rights of the majority of California voters who voted fairly to have something become law in this state and they were overturned by four people. What has happened to our elective form of government and the will of the majority of the people? God help us.

Sorry Bob, I guess you can count this as one of the drawbacks of living under a constitutional form of government. Under our system of government we have granted our independent judiciary the authority to act as a check against acts by the legislative and executive branches of government that are in violation of constitutionally protected gaurantees of rights and liberties. In this instance, while the majority voters of California, acting as the legislative branch of government, approved a ban on same-sex marriage recognition, the claim was that they did so in violation of the rights of equal protection and due process found in your state constitution that apply to all citizens of the state including those who happen to be lesbian and gay. The court acted within its stated authority to review this action by the voters and found that although a majority approved of the measure, they had no right under the constitution of the state to do so. On of the unique features of the American constitutional form of the government is that the rights guaranteed by that document are not to be at the whim of the majority. Simply because a majority may approve of an action that may contradict the protections guranteed to to us does, not necessarily mean that the authority exsists for them to do so. This is a concept known as the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that the rights guaranteed to us are not at the whim of a fickle majority we have granted our courts the authority to prevent it. Instead of condemning the decision by the court you should be applauding it, afterall it simply proves that our system works as it was designed to...

[BORNGAY]

Zeke wrote:

<quoted text>
Hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died so we could govern ourselves. You anti-America nuts would give those rights to rogue judges.
SHAME ON YOU!
Why should anyone who cares about America sit back and let you force your contrived radical homosexual philosophies on an unwilling electorate.
Traitor!

p.s. California aint the 1st & it aint gonna be the last!! YOU LOSE AGAIN.... NUT!!!

[Tyler]

There is a difference between an individual's or societies moral view of gay marriage, and this supreme court's action.

This decision is judicial activism at present, and will not be justified until sexual orientation is proved to be an innate characteristic and not just a behavior.

Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a heterosexual individual does, whether they chose to exercise this right or not because of their orientation is a separate matter. This is a creation of a new "right," and for all the language used in the decision it can be summed up by "because we say so."

[TyrannyoftheMajo rity]

Bob of Santa Cruz County wrote:

<quoted text>
This issue has nothing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise. It has to do with four people taking away the rights of the majority of California voters who voted fairly to have something become law in this state and they were overturned by four people. What has happened to our elective form of government and the will of the majority of the people? God help us.

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education. I know the court system can be a downer, but someone has to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. God help us if the courts ever stop doing their jobs just to appease bigots.

[lower ocean local]

you might think you have won something, but every man and woman has to meet their maker at some point, and that means that you will have to answer for your sins of sodomy, homosexuality. GOD calls homosexuality an abomination. repent and ask Jesus christ into your life, that you may live eternally, rather than just a few seconds of pleasure.

[Mark]

This is not by far the first form of human progress in the Western world that is going to have to be rammed down the throats of a bunch of obstructive, stupid, crazy, Neanderthal Christians. We're ready, I think.

[fed up with the mess]

Next you will be allowed to marry your sister, brother, cousin, dog, cat, horse or anything that has breath. CA is leading us right to hell in a handbasket. It is a sesspool of wickedness!

[MarkL]

lower ocean local wrote:

you might think you have won something, but every man and woman has to meet their maker at some point, and that means that you will have to answer for your sins of sodomy, homosexuality. GOD calls homosexuality an abomination. repent and ask Jesus christ into your life, that you may live eternally, rather than just a few seconds of pleasure.

Just wait till you get there and find out he wasn't kidding about mixing wool with cotton. I'm sure your buffet style Christianity will get you a hot place in hell.

[MarkL]

fed up with the mess wrote:

Next you will be allowed to marry your sister, brother, cousin, dog, cat, horse or anything that has breath. CA is leading us right to hell in a handbasket. It is a sesspool of wickedness!

Why is it that Christians can't distinguish between consentual relationships and non-consential ones? I hate to tell you, but you have been raping your dog, cat and horse all of this time.

[chief22]

So much for the "Will Of The People"

[fed up with the mess]

MarkL wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it that Christians can't distinguish between consentual relationships and non-consential ones? I hate to tell you, but you have been raping your dog, cat and horse all of this time.

How about sinful relationships and non-sinful relationships? Sinful relationships=gay relationships/ non-sinful relationships=heterosexual relationships within a marriage. It is that simple.

[Judas]

fed up with the mess wrote:

<quoted text>How about sinful relationships and non-sinful relationships? Sinful relationships=gay relationships/ non-sinful relationships=heterosexual relationships within a marriage. It is that simple.

Not everyone subscribes to your delusional religion.

[The Real Reality Check]

chief22 wrote:

So much for the "Will Of The People"

YEAP! Christains can't own slaves like the Bible said anymore either.....

[sctrollbusterbus ter]

Sopas wrote:

I really do not want to get into personalities on this post
but when the fireburners in hell are turned up all the way
I wonder if a few activist judges flesh will singe like a reptiles or just bubble and melt off the bone! And the media people that promote it will be like putrid scaby dogs lickin
up the scraps. No offense to anyone though!

Why is it that when Republicans lose a court case it's allways because of activist judges? Do uoi actually believe that your allways right?

[sctrollbusterbus ter]

Judas wrote:

<quoted text>
Not everyone subscribes to your delusional religion.

Sin or non- sin is just wheather something is perverted in your mind or not.Remember the 3 views, your view, mu view, and the truth!