The Same People

The issue in California can be easily summed up: 1)Marriage by legal definition is between a man and a woman and 2) the job of the US judiciary is to uphold the law, not to legislate. I wonder that the author does not attempt to envision a future in a country where a few judges decide that they hold the sceptre of power.
Ironically, the comparison to ancient Rome is quite appropriate. John Paul Jones
JOhn Paul Jones

The issue in Californa can be easily summed up: 1)Marriage by legal definition is between a man and a woman and 2) the job of the US judiciary is to uphold the law, not to legislate. I wonder that the author does not attempt to envision the future in a country where a few judges decide that they hold the sceptre of power.
By the way, the comparison to ancient Rome is ironically quite appropriate.

This is one of the best mainstream articles I've seen yet on this subject. I like the way Anna personalizes it. And I REALLY like how she brings up the fact the the courts are not supposed to simply reflect the majority's will but, rather, to protect the minority from its tyranny. In Canada, where I married my partner 2 years ago, this protection for the minority is enshrined in their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is how gay marriage eventually became law.

We still need to catch up with the Canadians in terms of gay rights. In regards to immigration, by having married my Canadian partner, I've now received Canadian permanent residence by simply applying for it with him as my sponsor. We don't have that option here in the U.S. We are currently both living and working in upstate NY and will eventually have to move to Canada because he doesn't have permanent residence. His employer won't sponsor him and the US Government won't recognize our relationship, so I can't sponsor him as family. Thus, with 2 college degrees and years of teaching experience under his belt, he'll have to return to Canada next year--with me shortly behind him. The US will be losing and Canada will be gaining.

Comment: MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.......IF YOU CAN NOT PROCREATE YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COUPLE.....THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT......KEEP RANTING AND SCREAMING AND MAKING NOISE TO GET WHAT YOU WANT.....JUST LIKE A SPOILED LITTLE KID.....BUT KNOW THAT HERE IN CALIFORNIA WE WILL OVERTURN THE COURT BY PASSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION.......WE WILL STAND UP FOR WHAT MARRIAGE REALLY IS!! COUNT ON THAT!!!

Um...this is why this Country is in the state it's in...people with this type of view. Now, I'm all for everyone being able to speak their view, but when it's put out there like this it just reinforces how completely ignorant and unaware the majority of people are. So, if you don't procreate you are not supposed to be a couple? What a completely moronic thing to say...so, are you saying if a Man and a Woman don't procreate due to choice or medical issues their marriage should be void? And let's see...the divorce rate between wholesome heterosexuals is what...4 out of 5 now? And huh...any moron in Las Vegas can get drunk and get married to a stranger and law recognizes that? Should we go back to not allowing interracial marriages while we???re at it? Why don't you open your mind a bit...why is it okay for some and not for others? Our Country was built on freedoms and treating everyone equally, (at least that's the premise) but with closed-minded idiots like you out there it's no wonder Bush was in office for two terms.

How gay marriage cost Kerry the Election in 2004.

Voters in Ohio showed up to vote against gay marriage and voted for Bush while they were at it.

Gay marriage has cost the Democrats one election. Let see if it costs them another. Now that Obama is the nominee, Catholic and Hispanic voters might put McCain over the top California.

Never underestimate the ability of the media to manipulate the American Electorate.

Restricting gay marriage is actually very fundamentally unconstitutional due to discrimination based on sex. Jill can marry Johnny but Bob cannot. You are giving a right to Jill and denying the same right to Bob based solely on their sex. This is a clear violation of equal protection.

I'm not sure if the lawyers that have been arguing for gay marriage have used this fact or not. If they did, it could head off the "slippery slope" crowd by defining marriage as a legal contract "between two people". This legally excludes polygamy as long are you are restricting polygamy equally for both sexes. The same applies for bestiality and all of the other ridiculous slipper slopers have thrown out there.

Well said, Anna.

The world we live in is hard enough, I really don't see the harm is allowing a few people to be happy and have a little life security. Also, I really hate the Christians of this country setting the rules for us to live by. Thank goodness a few leaders still believe in a major foundation of this country, separation of church and state.

"Polls showing opposition to gay marriage were proffered to prove that the court had overstepped its bounds, ignoring the fact that the most sacred business of judges is not to ratify the will of the majority but to protect the minority from its tyranny."

This is the most important statement in the story. The courts decision is not based on popularity amongst the masses. If the courts always went along with public opinion, there would be a long, sad history of lame brained decisions passed that would only have served to keep society rooted firmly in the dark ages.
Society needs to progress. It's refreshing to read how young people have just come to take 'gay' for granted. It's about time.

Marriage is not a right. The legal benefits perhaps are, but marriage is not. Marriage came along WAY before our government and it's laws and how it chose to honor marriage. I'm sorry that people find this offensive, or in some way divisive, but it's just simply the truth. There are ways to get every legal benefit of a married couple, but it's not marriage.

Marriage is a LEGAL right. It does not have to have a thing to do with religion, churches, faith, la-te-da holier than thou convenants between two hetero people, money or even LOVE. Every citizen in this country is entitled to the same legal rights. Nobody is asking anyone to give up any rights they are already entitled to here. But EVEYRONE should have the same rights. The sanctity of hetero marriage? Yeah, right. Whatever.

I could do this all day but it's time to go home. Thanks for the discussion and things to think about everyone.