What is Digg?987 Comments
- scbalazs, on 05/15/2008, -58/+517Just to be clear once again for those who won't read the article: Nothing to do with what you do in your churches. Same-sex couples just want the same benefits their counterparts get, that's all. Don't like it? Then be willing to give up those same benefits so nobody has them.
- MarkHunneyman, on 05/15/2008, -77/+384This is evidence that the tide is turning, that equality for all is achievable.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -42/+291" "The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," the court observed in a 121-page decision."
That is remarkably simple, yet has taken so long. None of these gay couples are asking for special rights, just EQUAL rights. It is amazing that people are so scared of other's private decisions, they will do anything to deny basic human rights. - ryanmeadows, on 05/15/2008, -21/+235I hardly think gay marriage should be seen as "retribution". It is a fundamental right, not a punishment for conservatives.
- joestump, on 05/15/2008, -73/+268More proof that living on the Left Coast is where it's at.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -15/+171Awsome, now gay people can be miserable and ruin their lives too!
Congrats, I think. - inactive, on 05/15/2008, -26/+158The craziest thing: it was a 4-3 decision in a court of 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat.
I'm proud of them. They read the law and did as it demanded, instead of being swayed by politics. - inactive, on 05/15/2008, -43/+175Damn comment system.
It took until the 50's to strike down the ban on interracial marriage. It is time to do the same on this last bastion of bigotry. - inactive, on 05/15/2008, -40/+148Another victory for equal rights and common sense. Hooray, Constitution.
- bicyclethief, on 05/15/2008, -26/+131this is so FABULOUS
- trghpy, on 05/15/2008, -115/+206Congrats guys and gals.
I say we make this national in retribution for getting us stuck in iraq. - btsr7414, on 05/15/2008, -10/+99"Gay people should not get married because Its against the constitution."
Which constitutional provision are you speaking of? Citation?
"Marriage should be between a man and a women, not same sex couples."
Why?
"but i live in south ..."
You don't say? I couldn't tell. - AriaStar, on 05/15/2008, -49/+126Love between adults is beautiful, regardless of if it's between a man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, tranny/man, whatever. This world needs more love and I'm proud to be part of a state fighting to recognize that. It's hard not to throw confetti out of happiness for the gays who are one step closer to being given the same rights as straight people!
- unicronband, on 05/15/2008, -3/+69"Don't like it? Then be willing to give up those same benefits so nobody has them."
Honestly, that's the approach I'd like to see. Marriage is all well and good, but since when has it been the governments job to "approve" of your marriage? I completely agree that gay marriage should be recognized as long as straight marriage is, but I'd prefer that both be the business of the parties directly involved, not the government. - murraj2, on 05/15/2008, -3/+58Except Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marraige.
- Icyfenix, on 05/15/2008, -8/+55Lets have a toast for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
- jubilee123, on 05/15/2008, -7/+53If he still thinks girls are repulsive by the time he reaches the age when he's able to legally marry, then chances are your kid is gay. Sorry to break it to you.
- MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -11/+57You have clearly shown your undereducated, ignorant, southern hick colors. Congratulations :)
- lohphat, on 05/15/2008, -24/+68Why do Conservatives hate freedom and liberty?
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8841/gay000306m ... - toastgodsupreme, on 05/15/2008, -9/+53I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls.
- cha5e, on 05/15/2008, -1/+44While I'd love to think that this is "the last bastion of bigotry" I'm sure in the future we'll think up lots of other reasons to hate each other.
- dOOBiEx213, on 05/15/2008, -14/+56Gay marriage is gay.
- unicronband, on 05/15/2008, -5/+45Tell that to conservatives.
- Jexie, on 05/15/2008, -8/+48Why do you hate liberty and freedom?
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -5/+43It's to prevent the "tyrrany of the majority," just like the US Supreme Court did for interracial marriages in Loving v. Virginia and for legalized segregation in Brown v. Board of Education.
- hayzeus, on 05/15/2008, -2/+38Don't be so quick to judge your son. Girls, in fact, are THE major carrier of cooties.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -6/+42Dont feed the troll people, check his comment history.
- SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -49/+86I fully support gay marriage and equal rights, but I sure wish this court decision would have happened AFTER the elections.
This decision will enrage the religious extremists and the social conservatives all over America. It will be used as a tool to get them to the polls in November (so far this year, they've been kind of lame in showing up to vote).
On the flip side, this decision will also make the hate-filled Republicans foam at the mouth, so everyone will see how utterly insane they are (again). Reminding everyone how ignorant and backwards the Republican party has become is always a good thing. - pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -9/+43but social conservatives hate equal rights for people they don't like.
- wasabimonster, on 05/15/2008, -0/+33It's your browser's way of celebrating gay marriage.
- MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -18/+52Well said! Now watch yourself get dug down by the homophobic religious nuts.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -5/+37Not really. RP isn't exactly "gay friendly"
Here's a bit of criticism from a libertarian blogger pointing out his ***** excuse as why he opposed a supreme court case in which the court overturned anti-sodomy laws:
"Ron Paul does not like the 14th Amendment. In his response to Lawrence v. Texas, he decries the Court’s reliance on an “imaginary” constitution in its decision to overturn anti-sodomy laws. He claims, “The State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.” But if Barnett is right, the Constitution does not give Texas this right. The presumption in favor of liberty requires Texas to justify its anti-sodomy laws against the privileges and immunities of its citizens.
I hope most libertarians are against anti-sodomy laws simply on principle. Why some of them support Ron Paul, who favors such laws as long as a militant Christian minority in a state can get enough votes in the legislature, is mysterious to me. Perhaps they think that in their comfortably blue state, the local government would not try to prohibit sodomy, birth control, or abortion. But this is a remarkably self-serving attitude, one that confirms some of the left’s worst prejudices against libertarians.
Rather than supporting oppressive proposals for expanded states’ rights, libertarians ought to support genuine rights for all individuals, regardless of what state they happen to reside in. They should support the 14th Amendment and not Ron Paul."
http://fusionistlibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/11/c ...
That's what happen when you let dogmatic libertarian philosophy justify the infringement of individual rights in the name of state rights. - MagMarCat, on 05/15/2008, -4/+34I'm fairly conservative and I see no issue with gay's having the same marital rights that straight people do. Straight people only have a 50% success rate at marriage, so why not let gay people in on that misery too. Marriage is no longer sacred... if it was, there wouldn't be such a high divorce rate.
- korvan504521, on 05/15/2008, -1/+29I think what he wanted was either a constitutional decision based on the supreme court, or a popular vote. This issue is too big for legislation.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -5/+32Oh goodie, the new comments system scrolls around by itself, making it nearly impossible for me to actually leave a comment. This is fantastic news.
- ChzPlz, on 05/15/2008, -2/+28Head north - Canada had it first.
- mrsteveman1, on 05/15/2008, -6/+32Thats the thing, this isn't conservatives vs. liberals at all. It's ***** crazy, religious ***** morons vs everyone else.
- lydecker, on 05/15/2008, -0/+26Oh, they're there. Believe me. And they've submitted their own World Net Daily article to comment on.
http://digg.com/arts_culture/Black_robes_trash_tra ... - MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -9/+34Congratulations on being an ignorant douche.
- mortey, on 05/15/2008, -1/+25Your typical Californian Republican is different from one in the South or Midwest. Our Governor for example is a prime example of this.
- pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -24/+48b, b, but this threatens the sanctity of my marriage. fox news told me so.
- pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -4/+27you mean sacred as in tv shows like "who wants to marry a midget?" and "who wants to marry a millionaire?". or do you mean sacred as in drive through wedding chapels in vegas?
- iDuele, on 05/15/2008, -29/+52About time. Congratulations to all the future couples.
- gurudrew, on 05/15/2008, -2/+25I think that is the problem for most people. They hear the word marriage and think religion. Why don't we just make all of them civil unions (including existing heterosexual marriages) and leave the term marriage for the church? If you are looking for legal rights and tax breaks go get a civil union. If you are looking for God's blessing in addition to that, go find a church.
- jdelsman, on 05/15/2008, -38/+61Yeah, thank goodness this passed. Just another step in the right direction toward equal rights and freedom, which is very often taken for granted in this country.
- forcedfx, on 05/15/2008, -6/+28Wow, someone should have prevented you from spawning. Not the brightest bulb on the street are ya?
- lovepotionno69, on 05/15/2008, -4/+25because if we always went with the will of the people, wives would still be owned by their husbands and interracial marriage would still be illegal. It's why the constitution guarantees the same basic rights to everyone not just the majority.
- btsr7414, on 05/15/2008, -4/+24And the Speghetti Monster said - wo to he who cites to old books written by hermits in caves, for he truly is not in touch with reality and needs to talk to a professional.
- Digger1218, on 05/15/2008, -0/+19They could sue, but wouldn't get anywhere. (one can bring suit for anything after all) The church isn't the one who says what is legal and what is not. The states are free to legitimize gay marriage and they're right to do so, but the churches are under no obligation to bless the union.
Hell, churches are free to discriminate against anyone they damn well please. -
Show 51 - 100 of 995 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 