digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

latimes.com — The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • trghpy, on 05/15/2008, -116/+206Congrats guys and gals.
    I say we make this national in retribution for getting us stuck in iraq.
    • seks03, on 05/15/2008, -46/+21don't you mean "Congrats guys and guys"
      • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -9/+34Congratulations on being an ignorant douche.
        • Synyk, on 05/15/2008, -3/+9guys are straight or gay.
          girls are hot or hotter.
          no?
          • Jambi, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3No. Let's say that Janet Reno and Barbara Bush were lesbians. Would you really want to watch the two of them having sex?
          • Jeffler, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8@ Jambi

            OGC
    • ryanmeadows, on 05/15/2008, -21/+234I hardly think gay marriage should be seen as "retribution". It is a fundamental right, not a punishment for conservatives.
      • unicronband, on 05/15/2008, -5/+45Tell that to conservatives.
        • 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.
        • B1663r, on 05/15/2008, -24/+3Tell that to Obama, he is against gay marriage.

          On the flip side, I now know how he could alter the dynamics of the Kentucky primary and possibly even win avoiding the unelectable label this fall...

          Come out in full support of a no gay marriage constitutional amendment. He would win those uneducated ignorant crackers in Kentucky in a landslide!
          • ryanmeadows, on 05/15/2008, -6/+9He supports civil unions and equal rights, and I am sure he supports more on a personal level but realizes that civil unions are what are realistically achievable in today's political climate.
          • B1663r, on 05/15/2008, -10/+1Well please explain his gay hating position of being against gays in the military then?
          • Totalchaos02, on 05/15/2008, -2/+12What position is that exactly? He is opposed to Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell because it has worked against gays in the military, not because he is opposed to allowing homosexuals to serve our country. You are distorting his position.
        • 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.
        • YourRealFather, on 05/15/2008, -16/+8Alot of people like to jump on the conservative side when they're really communists or nutjob lefties. It's against my conservative values to legislate on things like marriege. Any real conservative knows that. Personally I think gays are sickos, but I would never pass laws to tell people what to do.
        • blazes816, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5@mrsteveman1 As a conservative, I wholly agree. Denying gay people the right to marriage is ridiculous.
      • pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -9/+43but social conservatives hate equal rights for people they don't like.
      • dOOBiEx213, on 05/15/2008, -14/+56Gay marriage is gay.
      • kittynipples, on 05/15/2008, -15/+7You certainly have the right to call yourselves whatever you want; but civil marriage is a privilege granted by the state, and like any privilege is discriminatory by its very nature.
      • guntario, on 05/15/2008, -7/+15When are you people going to realize that the problem here is not conservative vs liberal? It's that marriage isn't a function of government.
        • Angostura, on 05/15/2008, -6/+9Ummm, marriage is a social contract; a publicly made statement of commitment. It may or may not have a religious component.

          Such social contracts are best regulated by government because... there is no alternative, better-placed body.
        • guntario, on 05/15/2008, -7/+6No. It is not a social contract. It's a religious institution. I thought you wanted religion out of government.
        • InnerRayg, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3Thank you guntario, I have to agree with your sentiment. I do not understand why this is an issue. Marriage has nothing to do with the Government (or it shouldn't.) I've always wondered how Conservatives of all people would welcome any government regulation on their church's practices. It seems odd.
        • kelt65, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Marriage is primarily a government function, the religious aspects came later. you have it backwards - although I agree, marriage should be legally abolished and turned into a cultural totem.
        • musicbear, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Let the hand wringing, gnashing of teeth and restaurant quality quibbling begin... urf...
        • Mononuclear, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Marriage (as far as law is concerned) has nothing to do with religion
        • guntario, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1@kelt65
          Please explain your position and how you came to that conclusion.
      • arkaycee, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2I dunno, if we forced conservatives into gay marriage, then it would be a punishment for them.
      • joshuajargon, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2can't it be both
      • MxM111, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1One does not prevent the other.
    • Icyfenix, on 05/15/2008, -8/+54Lets have a toast for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    • SuperWinner, 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.
      • wasabimonster, on 05/15/2008, -0/+33It's your browser's way of celebrating gay marriage.
      • steppinrazor, on 05/16/2008, -9/+1C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0C0OMBO
    • jbenson2, on 05/15/2008, -13/+5DIGG's editing feature SUCKS major blue balls
    • dogatemypron, on 05/15/2008, -85/+7"California Supreme Court overturns Fag/Dike marriage ban..."

      Fixed!
    • floorman56, on 05/15/2008, -29/+7YES!!!... next up .....Polyamory ....And yes I do know a lot of people who would do that
      • floorman56, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3So why is Gay marriage OK but not Polyamory? equal projection under the law remember ??
        Can you name one good reason why it should not?
        • Nevarius, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If its between adults and no one is hurt, why should anyone else have a say? Is it freedom etc etc until its something you don't like, but yet has no effect on you?
    • kolobcreek, on 05/15/2008, -27/+6Duh... its a social law of course its discriminatory. I'm not against gay folks having the same protections and benefits under law. But its kind of obtuse to pretend its the same thing as marriage. If it was you wouldn't be reading this article or this post.
      • JabberBody, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5It's because of people like you who view gay marriage as obtuse that this article ever had to have been written in the first place. You made it the big deal it is today by denying it for so long.
      • weeeezzll, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The same things were said about interracial marriage back when it was illegal for blacks to marry whites in many places? Your arguments are no different than those that supported those unjust laws.
      • weeeezzll, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Ummm...that wasn't a question? :/ Not I put a question mark there?
    • blapierre, on 05/15/2008, -5/+18The government shouldn't be in the business of marrying people in the first place.
      • weeeezzll, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1It doesn't really. Officially, it only recognizes your marriage for legal purposes.
    • PurpleDingo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Retribution? Let's make Bush marry Michael Savage and call that retribution.
    • hope4god, on 05/16/2008, -9/+0Hey boys and girls since they are Gay who knows if they are a Man or a Woman? maybe you should have said Congrats misquided and Lost
    • Spudster, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3This news just made the presidential election MUCH MORE interesting. You do realize this could lead to the Democrats losing again if they are pressed on the issue? In 2004, the Democrats lost mostly because of social conservatives who reacted after the court of Massachusetts's allowed gay marriage, now that the California court did this, this issue is now again in play (remember Bush's "constitutional amendment?").

      Seriously people, be concerned, because this news is a miracle to any Republican strategist who may have been crying himself to sleep. Even the media is picking up on the implications:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121089440635197017 ...
    • weeeezzll, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Retribution? How about we make this national, because it's the right thing to do?
  • MarkHunneyman, on 05/15/2008, -78/+385This is evidence that the tide is turning, that equality for all is achievable.
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -6/+22No thanks to the Gubernator. FTA:
      "The governor has twice vetoed legislation that sought to legalize gay marriage, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts."

      Er, isn't that what happened (voters decided) when legislation was placed on his desk? Or does he disagree with the principle of representative democracy?
      • 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.
      • kanabiis, on 05/15/2008, -3/+7Thought you knew the first rule of American democracy, it is only a democratic republic when its not a public democracy and vice versa.

        In other words the will of the people is never the will of the people......
        • ChuyMatt, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2If it was always that way, then the darkies would never have gotten our women and our drinking fountains.

          Be careful there.
        • kanabiis, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3No, we call that social progress.

          The fact that it took till the 1950's for our legislatures to figure out that people decided 90 years prior that the 'darkies' weren't so bad, just goes to show how inept and slow to change our government really is. Just think of the racial progress there would have been had stupid ass laws such as Jim Crowe laws were abolished along with slavery after the Civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation instead. Kinda blows your mind if you think about it like that.

          What is happening now legally is a product of the sexual revolution of the 60's.

      • davidrools, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2the last time California voted on whether to allow gay marriage, it got turned down.
      • Spudster, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5You can't have voters vote on a minority rights issue. It makes so sense. The majority will always overpower the minority, that's why it's a minority rights issue in the first place!
        • Nevarius, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I agree. Minorities must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Thats why were not a true democracy. Would be pretty much 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on whats for dinner.
    • dOOBiEx213, on 05/15/2008, -44/+10This is evidence that some things just aren't sacred anymore.
      • 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?
        • topgunmotors, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4don't knock it till you try it.
      • myansaphone, on 05/15/2008, -4/+15Like your mom!
        But seriously, marriage lost any sacredness with shotgun weddings and fifty percent divorce rates. Furthermore, as far as the state's concerned, it doesn't (well, shouldn't) matter if it's sacred. It's a legal agreement allowing for particular rights and benefits. It's only a deal with the divine if you choose to see it that way, like how non believers can be married by justices of the peace without worrying about how sacred you consider the institution.
      • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Sacred: devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.

        So marriage has to be religious? I guess atheists are out of luck. Does it have to be a particular religion? Maybe Scientologists shouldn't be allowed to marry, and what's up with those Hindus anyway?

        If you want to get married in the church that's great (I did), but you open a huge can of worms when you start making it a requirement for marriage.
    • mythicflux, on 05/15/2008, -8/+25The voters of California passed prop 22 in 2000 (a 62% vote for) stating that the word marriage was reserved for male/female couples. Beyond that there was no laws prohibiting gay rights. In fact before Massachusetts California had more legislation to protect gay rights than other states. We had a a state registry for same sex partners that granted similar rights to and was being updated to include almost verbatim the same rights as a what would be called a marriage.

      Unfortunately rather that focusing on gay rights as the primary concern, this became a wedge issue that gay rights activists used to force the will of the voters to be ignored. California special interest groups just screwed a lot of people who were willing to find a compromise by forcing them to accept something that they specifically rejected but tried to accomodate.
      • robbh66, on 05/15/2008, -19/+10I agree. I'm all for people being allowed to have civil unions or whatever else they want to call them- but the word marriage should be reserved for a man/woman.
        • Jambi, on 05/15/2008, -4/+8Why? Who are you to decide what the general public may use to describe a union? Your religious or social group may call it whatever it likes, but as for what the general term should be, I say we let society decide. (whether or not they'd agree with my own view is irrelevant)
        • techweenie1, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3Although the issue itself doesn't bother me terribly the way of going about it does. If you can't get the hearts and minds of the people to agree with you, then ***** them and find a court that sticks it to them...and I know the majority of people on here won't care until something you and the majority of the constituents vote in favor of or against is overturned by a judge.
          • Dewhead, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3No kidding. So much for letting the citizens have any say in this. Why have a vote if the courts are just going to overturn something that they don't like?
          • dysfunction, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8You're exactly right! In fact, we need to go even further to stop this madness of runaway courts. We need to go back to Brown vs. Board of Education. The people's right to vote on the issue of desegregating schools was disenfranchised, and it's time we put that right.

            /sarcasm
        • techweenie1, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3dysfunction I live for the day that people like yourself will too feel screwed over by the courts when the majority of your community agrees with you...as for Brown Vs Board Of Education, although I agree with their outcome I would have not have been opposed to having the people decide...might I also add that although we do have school integration for the most part it has failed...schools either are predominantely white or predominantely black the public educational system is a joke the only thing many teachers are good for is telling you their political opinion...unless you are fortunate enough to get into a magnet school
        • gurudrew, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3No, the word marriage should be reserved for religious unions and the term civil union should be used for the legal side. If you are married then you have a legal civil union. If you are gay, have a civil union and want to be married then find a church that supports you or start your own. I you are straight and have a church that doesn't want to marry gay couples tell them to go else where. I have no problem with this as long as everyone gets the legal rights that they are due. I have a feeling that with this system there would just be a lot fewer 'marriages'. Most of the 'married' people that I know couldn't care less about that piece of paper outside the legal rights that it gives you.
        • Spudster, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Sadly for some of you religious bigots, there are different interpretations of religious practice than that of your own. Stop claiming your churches have a monopoly on the word 'marriage' because you don't. Sadly for you, there ARE churches that support gay marriages and are willing to marry them. So stop the wordplay already.
      • Slugo, on 05/16/2008, -5/+8I voted against it in 2000 and am pissed that activist judges can overturn a vote .....want it changed put it back on the ballot.
        • BrainInAJar, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4"activist judges" ? that's just a made up term by people that want to practice persecution. The judges upheld the rights of gays to be treated as equal citizens.
    • dogatemypron, on 05/15/2008, -15/+7Or that the world is coming to an end. You know, either or.
    • trackerbishop, on 05/15/2008, -14/+4*WARNING* This is a politically timed decision! The courts judges are republicans 6-1 and all voted for the overturn! This is designed to polarize people further and energize the republican base. This is a SHAM of a political victory and it will be turned over by SCOTUS very soon.

      It's designed to change the political discussion from war/economy to "values"
      • resipsa, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Perhaps a ploy, perhaps not. Either way, the SCOTUS won't overturn it as the California Supreme Court is the supreme authority on interpreting California law and the California Constitution. So long as there's a state-law basis for a decision, the SCOTUS cannot overturn that decision. I'd cite a case, but I don't want to spend the time on Westlaw, nor do I want to drag out my old Federal Courts textbook.
    • MacBigot, on 05/15/2008, -16/+8We already have equality for all. Today, any unrelated, single man & woman may marry regardless of their sexual preferences. This is new. This is a redefining of marriage.
    • isaactwito, on 05/15/2008, -9/+12Yeah, I'd really like to think it's the whole country, but most of the progressive legal stuff like this is in California. I wish my home state were more like Cali.
    • sr71atomica, on 05/15/2008, -13/+1Uh, wrong! It's just more evidence that neofascists who have perverted the agenda of another group, in order to promote neo-Marxist and totalitarian and authoritarian policies, cannot handle democracy in action, not to mention they are giving special privileges to a fringe minority group. IN this case homosexuals, who comprise only four percent of the population, are the pawns of these jackboots on the bench and in the fringe minority pressure gangs and getting SPECIAL rights, NOT equal rights. This is NOT like the 1950s; in fact most Blacks recoil in anger at the radicals' apples-and-oranges comparison of fake marriage advocates' vitriol to a real civil rights movement against REAL bigotry.
      The only reason that the fake marriage supporters prevailed today, is they have overrun the courts with neoliberal garbage who have no concept of the will of the people, nor of traditional values.
      The fact of the matter is most Americans vigourously oppose fake marriage --- and this is only going to fuel even MORE of a backlash against the totalitarians who abuse the homosexual agenda as an excuse to push Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and authoritarian methodologies. Karl Marx himself condemned marriage as a "bourgeois" institution and the DOMA-violating judges who just ruled THE WRONG WAY, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, are every bit as Communistic.
      And remember: The people who condemn real marriage as "bourgeois" ALSO condemn your culinary and dietary freedoms, your freedom of vehicular choice, your inteelectual freedom, your freedom of speech, and a number of other TRADITIONAL freedoms.
      And ANYONE who disagrees with me is ignorant, anti-American, and mentally deficient.
      • kayala, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Reading that last sentence of yours, I kind of want to digg you up for amazing sarcasm. But since I fear that you're actually serious... well... you're kind of an ill-informed, bigoted douche, and people like you need to be sterilized.
      • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2"they are giving special privileges to a fringe minority group"

        How is the right to marry the one you love a special privilege?

        "they have overrun the courts with neoliberal garbage"

        The California Supreme Court is dominated by Republicans.

        "The fact of the matter is most Americans vigourously oppose fake marriage"

        It's actually pretty evenly split. The last poll for California I saw had 50% opposed and 43% for. The rest of the nation trails slightly behind. If you're going to let popular will decide issues, then I'm sure you have no problem with abortion, which most people also support.

        "ALSO condemn your culinary and dietary freedoms, your freedom of vehicular choice, your inteelectual freedom, your freedom of speech, and a number of other TRADITIONAL freedoms."

        Right, and conservatives never want to prevent people from doing anything. ::rolls eyes::

        "And ANYONE who disagrees with me is ignorant, anti-American, and mentally deficient."

        Wow, just wow. You condemn others for "forcing" their will on others. Unfortunately you seem perfectly willing to force you vision of America on others. What a hypocrite!
    • noprtyaff, on 05/15/2008, -14/+3It is evidence of four unnatural, sick and perverted degenerate judges on the California Supreme Court. Not only that, they are corrupt and should be thrown in jail for overthrowing the will of the people of the state of California who already voiced their will on the matter through ballot initiatives.

      • aarin, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4..overthrowing the well of the people, in the same way that the Brown Vs Board of Education did.

        Sometimes the people are wrong. The majority does not have the right to restrict the rights of the minorities. Those that see this as a moral thing, that's fine. But Laws and Courts do not deal with Morals.

        This is Civil Law people. Marriage is a governmental institution, acknowledgment or right-whatever you want to call it. It goes against the founding principals of our nation and constitution to deny equal protection to everyone. Simply because we have a history of doing just that (think slavery, women's suffrage, Jim Crow, voting rights) doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

        The only alternative to not allowing same-sex marriages is to simply remove any and all governmental benefits and recognitions to marriage. Disenfranchise none or disenfranchise none.

        This evolution was coming. Anyone who thought otherwise was sticking his head in the sand. And it will spread. Just wait until a conservative Supreme Court strikes down a State Constitutional Amendment preventing same-sex marriage. I can't wait to hear the cries of betrayal then. Some of Conservatives will vote because of the disenfranchisement aspect, while the Liberals will vote on rights, and then it will the law of the land.

        Far too long in coming, too. Gays and lesbians are the last openly discriminated group in society (well, we could argue that atheists are), and the bastard parent here is the reason why I am (mostly) happy in our legal framework. His loony, bigoted, outdated, and-frankly-disgusting views are kept far away from the society where I live. I like that the government does a pretty good job keeping the idiot wackos from trying to messing with my life, and living by HIS rules.




        • noprtyaff, on 05/16/2008, -3/+0That's a lot of writing. But you are comparing apples to oranges. Put concisely, there was nothing unnatural, sick, perverted and degenerate about Brown vs. Board of Education. Have a nice a day.
        • aarin, on 05/24/2008, -0/+0..long delayed response, and I doubt it'll get seen, but-

          I would rather have gay marriages than people like you who actually get to influence the minds of any children who are unfortunate enough to have you as a sire.

          And just so you know, there were plenty of good white folk calling Brown V perverted and unnatural. Don't worry, your current opinion will also be visible to everyone in 40 years as the close-minded, hateful and outright wrong view, just as those pro-segregationists seem now.

          Bigot, you are. Wear it with pride. You could even join the Pride parade!

      • Pyehole, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Judges are responsible making decisions based on principles of law, not for upholding the will of the people.
    • KingGorilla, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5Except Nambla
    • solid12345, on 05/15/2008, -14/+8No there is not equality for all, next incest siblings will demand to be wedded and by all accounts they have the right just as much as two men or women. Likewise with Polygamists, if it is all consensual than what right do you have to say no?
      • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6"if it is all consensual than what right do you have to say no?"

        Indeed. Why do you care what consenting adults do?
    • avengingturnip, on 05/15/2008, -14/+6Really, equality is achievable? So now when ***** do whatever nasty stuff they do one of them might get pregnant? Remarkable that biology yields to the opinions of lawyers.
      • KibibyteBrain, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3So if a different-sex couple decide they never want to have children and take surgical methods to ensure this, are you saying they should then not be allowed to marry? What if one of them is just sterile?
      • Mononuclear, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Yeah like all those hetero couples where one is infertile!! They shouldn't be allowed to be married because biology says they can't have kids and the only reason to get married is to have kids!!!
        • avengingturnip, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Oh good point! Some heterosexual couples are infertile. So show me the ***** who are worried about getting pregnant. Where is your counter-example? Prove it is the same thing.
    • Meatetarian, on 05/16/2008, -6/+11No it's not. To be clear, I don't care about your sexual orientation and I don't think the state should either.

      But this isn't progress. It's yet another sign that a bunch of judges can circumvent the will of the people.

    • Nudar, on 05/16/2008, -6/+2I'm tired of people equating gay marriage with gay rights. Gays have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as do heterosexuals.
  • joestump, on 05/15/2008, -74/+269More proof that living on the Left Coast is where it's at.
    • murraj2, on 05/15/2008, -3/+58Except Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marraige.
    • heavymeta, on 05/15/2008, -2/+12Massachusetts!
    • mike17032, on 05/15/2008, -17/+9If you like awful commutes, horrible traffic, insane taxes, retarded property prices, over restrictive laws, illegal immigrants, and earthquakes, then ya its awsome.
      • anstice85, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12Illegal immigrants are in every state.
        • Synyk, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2I don't mind illegal immigrants. They're cheaper.
        • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Because every other state is trying to copy california. americans are stupid like that.
      • kanabiis, on 05/15/2008, -5/+1You forgot over blown yearly deficits due to over abundance of entitlement 'benefits'.

        California is the King state of hand outs.....
      • crazycarlmar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Don't forget medical marijuana.
    • frenchi, on 05/15/2008, -12/+1the Midwest is where it's at! Left coast is for posers.
      • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3No you can stay in the fly over states. Really we don't need you out here.
        • aarin, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Here here!

          Every time i have someone talking about the Left Coast, and California-the land of fruits and nuts, I think to myself, 'Yes you idiot, keep saying that. The more people that hear and believe lines like that, the fewer narrow-minded people will considering moving west.'



        • XBSHX, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Alright, have fun with no water or food.
    • cam0man, on 05/15/2008, -1/+14West Coast is the Best coast...having lived in the bay area and MA, I can say that MA still has a little ways to go. Too much old money in New England who may be liberal on some issues, but they're still way too traditional on others.
      • Lucas123, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5Whoa. Are you kidding? I lived in San Diego for five years and the rest of my life in Massachusetts. As far as I'm concerened, there's too much NEW money in California. That state is a Republican stronghold with a few vocal liberal enclaves. California gave us Regan, Deukmejian. Please. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the country. Since 1887, only five of California's 23 governors have been Democrats.
    • anstice85, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Very true. I
    • anstice85, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4I love the comment system is what I meant to say.
    • robthom, on 05/15/2008, -27/+1Where sodomy and the aids virus is so cool!
      • hmunkey, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2It has already been proven than the gay community didn't start the AIDS epidemic.
      • Schweppes7T4, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1what what, in the butt...

        seriously though, a man and woman can also have anal sex, as well as contract HIV
    • darkx91, on 05/15/2008, -2/+0word
    • saintamour, on 05/15/2008, -13/+8The smug storms in the left coast are unbearable
      • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2Said on a website developed and hosted by people on the left coast.

        Loser
      • mortey, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Oh smug. Some truth to that.
      • sherbertbones, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If you've ever been to SF, it's not AT ALL how it is depicted on South Park. So yaknow, first hand experience is a good thing.
      • pooty2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2There are assholes everywhere.
        • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Particularly in a gay marriage. (couldn't resist)
    • maxwashere, on 05/15/2008, -9/+2Haha, left coast? You mean west coast right?
    • heliox, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Yeah, land of tax and spend and tax again. I hate our state's government.
      • phrenzy, on 05/15/2008, -2/+0Then leave.
      • heliox, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1My job's here. But if a position opens up elsewhere, yeah, I'll leave.
    • Muncher, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2...if you're gay.
      Hey, it's true!
    • bawheid, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Took your time.
      love
      Canada.
    • hhhmethu, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5I've never heard it been called "left coast".
    • zcreem, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Progressive maybe, the death penalty is still in force there though.
  • scbalazs, on 05/15/2008, -59/+518Just 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.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -18/+52Well said! Now watch yourself get dug down by the homophobic religious nuts.
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -27/+3Out of curiosity, doesn't anyone think it's possible that a gay couple could sue their church for discrimination, now that this is entrenched? Not that I'm opposed to the idea.
      • 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.
      • Pulch, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10In case you're wondering, you're being buried because the church can marry whoever they choose, it's separate from the state and you have to meet their criteria to be married there, and churches have nothing to do with marriage licenses.
      • robbh66, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Yes, and Jews can sue neo-nazi groups for not letting them into their club for religious discrimination.
      • Phyraxus, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3Yeah, churches are free to discriminate. They happen to be indirectly subsidized by the American public by churches not paying taxes. They are free to discriminate against any American they choose. Sounds like fairness to me.....
        • Digger1218, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Would you rather they pay taxes and thus have a say in Government? Be careful what you wish for.
        • Phyraxus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Although, they indirectly already do have a say, good thing there is separation of church and state.
    • murraj2, on 05/15/2008, -22/+17Actually it's the exact opposite. They already had all the same rights and benefits. It's about legally being entitled to get married at a church or anywhere else they would like the marraige to occur. "California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/ga ...
      • dianebl, on 05/15/2008, -0/+18Domestic parnership is not the same as marriage.
        • murraj2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1No, it's not and I agree that Gay Marraige should be legal. But there original poster who has +431 Diggs, made a post saying that this was only about getting equal benefits, which couldn't be farther from the truth. As I stated in my post and linked to, California Law currently gives domestic partnership ALL the same rights and benefits of marraige.

          This law is about allowing couples to have the same title as a heterosexual couple, rather than have to have it classified as a domestic partnership.
      • mattdennis, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9No, they don't have all the same rights and benefits.
        • davecjr, on 05/15/2008, -3/+0What do they not have?
        • CraigKostelecky, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6It's been a while since I did some research on this, but I recall there being several federal rights granted by marriage that would not carry over into other states with a California "domestic partnership."
        • eir574, on 05/15/2008, -1/+17"What do they not have?"

          Is no one else bothered by the idea of separate but equal? Even if a domestic partnership (or civil union, or whatever you want to call it) carries exactly the same legal rights as marriage, the idea of calling the same thing by two different names depending on people's sexual orientations seems like a bad idea. If civil unions and marriage are truly equal in the legal sense, then they should be called the same thing. We were supposed to have learned the lessons of "separate but equal" long ago. Let's not make the same mistake twice.
        • StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4@eir574: It'd only be a matter of time before the US Supreme Court ruled discrimination under "separate but equal" unconstitutional just like it did racial segregation. The Court does not recognize "separate but equal" (unless we're going to go ahead and reinstate Jim Crow laws... anyone? anyone?).
        • eir574, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1@StarlessKnight:

          I hope it would only be a matter of time before separate but equal was overturned, but I'd still strongly prefer that we as citizens would learn this lesson.
      • jaytek13, on 05/15/2008, -1/+14Separate but equal, anyone?
      • erictheturtle, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Then let's all be clear that this is NOT that "Same-sex couples just want the same benefits their counterparts get," but that they want definition of marriage to apply to them.

        I hate that so many people never make this distinction clear, or have the wrong idea about it.
    • 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.
    • jbenson2, on 05/15/2008, -31/+8Thank you California - your timing is perfect. Just a few months before the general election.

      Wow! An election-year bombshell. This will become one of the hot buttons in the general election. The Democrats are in a tough spot - do they put all their chips in to support gay marriages or do they waffle?

      "The state has no right to restrict marriage to just a man and woman."

      Just excellent. Bring it on! Polygamy and the right to marry my mother… or my father… or my dog.
      .
      • dysfunction, on 05/15/2008, -1/+16Is your dog an adult human being capable of understanding and agreeing to such a marriage? If no, your logic fails. Incest has entirely different reasons against it, namely a little thing called 'genetic defects'.
      • joshuabowers, on 05/15/2008, -1/+11I can see the gay, polygamy, or incestual marriage, as each of those would technically involve consenting agents (I am assuming, in each case, that the people being married are adults with full cognitive faculties); marrying your dog? Animals cannot consent to something like that. Don't be absurd.
        • bonhoeffer, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Throughout much of history, consent of both parties was not a necessary element of marriage. The idea of marriage without consent is not at all absurd.
        • joshuabowers, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Throughout much of history, consent of both parties was not a necessary element to any type of social contract. That does not make those contracts legitimate. Slavery, for example, is an example of a social contract in which one party necessarily is non-consensually engaged with the other. Tradition is not a viable argument for anything: progressive values seek to redefine the world to provide as just and equal a social landscape as possible, and traditions often contradict that goal. Note that the severing of a particular traditions relevancy to the whole of society does not preclude individuals from still observing and practicing it, if they should so choose. (Of course, by that point, the onus would be upon the practitioners to show that all parties that are engaging in something (such as slavery, perhaps) are doing so consensually.)
      • ChuyMatt, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9"Just excellent. Bring it on! Polygamy and the right to marry my mother… or my father… or my dog."

        You read the World right? BTW, a dog is not a consenting adult. Does not count.

        You are the only one who thinks that this is actually a slippery slope at all. Everyone else understands that the others are in the realm of stupidity. The point of a legal marriage is NOT relational. It is LEGAL.
      • 8bit_Hero, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12Holy Hyperbole, Batman!
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2New comment system, same trolls.
      • rlbond86, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2That's a nice straw man argument you made there.
      • jbenson2, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Californians are already rebuking the California Supreme Court's highly questionable decision. The California Marriage Protection Act will protect the historic, natural definition of marriage and will be on November's ballot in the Golden State.

        Check out the resources at www.ProtectMarriage.com
    • nogahide, on 05/15/2008, -23/+5Yep, and when I want to marry my sister (or brother for that mattter) I shure dont expect any argument from anyone.
      • Phyraxus, on 05/15/2008, -1/+10As long as both persons are consenting adults, what is the problem?
        • StaticThunder, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Public health. Increasing the number of recessive alleles in the gene pool. Creating people vulnerable to diseases who are only going to suffer and be a burden on the health system, possibly require care for the rest of their life.

          If they want to be sterilized, or they are going to abort every child with a genetic defect, then I don't see the problem, since its not marriage, its reproduction thats the issue.

          Easier to say that sibling marriage is illegal.
        • Phyraxus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but there are alot of things that are against the public health that are still legal (e.g. cigarettes, alcohol.) So I'm not sure if only for public health should really make it illegal. Sure, genetic defects is a big issue, but it is mostly the taboo that makes it illegal IMO.
    • gurudrew, on 05/15/2008, -2/+24I 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.
      • murraj2, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4This is 100% the best solution, I wish someone would challenge the use of the word marraige in any laws with the seperation of church and state and just allow churches to decide for themselves.
    • javip, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2hmm sorry replied to wrong thread..
    • noprtyaff, on 05/15/2008, -22/+6Just to be clear, it is not about civil rights at all. Blacks should be outraged at such a comparison. No. This is about four skewed corrupt activists judges that overturned the will of the people of the state of California who have already spoken out legally and peacefully and voted on the matter through ballot initiatives in 2000.

      Apparently, California has a government...by the judges, for the judges and of the judges.
      • dianebl, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Why should blacks be outraged? This *is* a civil rights issue. And 40 years ago, people were making the same arguments against equal rights for blacks that you are making now. After all, the people had spoken and made segregation laws.
        • Nevarius, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Why must the religious nutz and crazies lag behind the advancement of morality. Throughout history they are the last ones to except new moral standards. Be is slavery, women's rights, black rights, not killing every friggin one that doesn't agrees with them.
          This all comes down to one group trying to force their beliefs upon a minority group and the government should have nothing to do with it in regards to the religious aspect. Since they are not allowed to hold a preference to a religion.

          Amendment 1:
          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

          Ever wonder why they made this the very first amendment?

      • CycloneTH, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1The will of the people does not automatically override the power of the constitution. "Separate but equal" fully applies to the situation with Domestic Partnerships, and it's very, VERY unconstitutional. I'd call this 4 perfectly sane judges against 3 skewed, corrupt, morons who can't apply the US Constitution in a strict, level-headed fashion.

        Not only that, but since when was California against gay marriage? Sure they may have voted for the DP program over just plain allowing gay marriage, but that's hardly "against."
    • pidgas, on 05/16/2008, -6/+0Marriage between a man and woman of childbearing age is the ultimate Digg! story. It's been Dugg! by people in every culture around the world for millennia. You'd think that folks at Digg who make so much of the "wisdom of crowds" would find something of merit in such an institution.
    • Nudar, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Just to be clear... In California, gay partners receive the same benefits as married heterosexuals. The only thing this changes is that gays can use the term marriage. That is until this fall when California will pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
      • cusoman, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2So what you're saying is, this had nothing to do with the rights thing all of the people supporting this keep spouting... it's more of a "moral" victory?

        Wow, gay rights people are more fickle than I thought.
        • eir574, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2"So what you're saying is, this had nothing to do with the rights thing all of the people supporting this keep spouting... it's more of a "moral" victory?"

          Calling two things that are legally identical is an application of the extraordinarily flawed principle of "separate but equal."
    • cusoman, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Counterparts? That's actually a really good name for a gay couple "counter-parts"...
    • steppinrazor, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1I like it, now gays and lesbians can adopt kids, teach them to be gay and show them it's the proper way. This way we can cease reproduction and move on into the future!
      • CycloneTH, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If we stop reproducing ***** like you, I'd certainly call it "moving on into the future."
  • ssn697, on 05/15/2008, -43/+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.
    • kanabiis, on 05/15/2008, -5/+13but but but, its not natural...

      You arn't human if your engaged in unnatural acts, don't you know.

      /sarcasm
    • ZenMojo, on 05/15/2008, -5/+23You know, marriage was never intended to be a legal system ANYWAY, it's just that some douchebag decided to try and theocratize my country and turn civil unions into "legal marriage."
      • fried, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2There was no such thing as a civil union, the states made it up so they could control marriage.
        In the name of public health.
      • rlbond86, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Except that when marriage is in the legal system, your spouse can legally get your possessions if you die. Moreover, by making it legal, your marriage cannot be denied or withdrawn if you move to a different state.
    • pat25fire, on 05/15/2008, -4/+5Hear hear for knocking down another bastion of inequality.
    • Cerebron, on 05/15/2008, -16/+5The basic civil right is guaranteed to everyone already, even a gay man has the right to marry a woman. Rights are not guaranteed to couples regardless of their makeup, otherwise bigamy and incest are also ok.
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Har har. "...even a gay man has the right to marry a woman." And what, pray tell, is your reasoning that a gay man not have the right to marry a man? And don't try substituting Homosexuality = bigamy = incest argument for your explanation.
      • tdogg241, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1You left out pedophilia. Come up with a new argument instead of spouting of right-wing hate rhetoric.
        • cusoman, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1How's that any different than the constantly touted arguments coming from the leftist "campaign for ME"?
    • pidgas, on 05/15/2008, -17/+6Marriage is about making and raising kids. If it's not, why prohibit any form of marriage? Why prevent brothers from marrying each-other, or fathers and daughters?

      Marriage isn't about romance or love or validation of one's sexual orientation. To the extent it is, it is something other than marriage. Marriage is a social and legal framework by which a couple and community commits to supporting each other for the purposes of raising and socializing children.
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Advocating we give out reproductive licenses, then? If marriage is about procreation and/or raising children, then a marriage license is nothing more than a glorified reproductive license; in which case you can stop the "protect the sanctity of marriage" arguments and proceed on to the "think of the children" ones.
      • EtherGnat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Marriage is only about reproduction? Well, let's ban marriage for couples that are too old to have children, or where one partner is sterile, or couples that just don't plan to have any children.
        • pidgas, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Marriage isn't _only_ about reproduction. It clearly touches on a lot of things besides reproduction, but reproductive possibility is its sine qua non. If couples don't even have the potential for reproduction, you're not really talking about marriage - you're talking about something else. That doesn't make other non-marriage relationships of lower value unless society values the conception and raising of children by married couples above other activities.
    • recruz, on 05/15/2008, -11/+5You know, it's funny that gay couples are asking for "equality". When it comes down to it, they may regret asking for this "equality". I talk to some people I know that are divorced with kids- and when it comes down to it, the parent that makes more money (generally the male in a heterosexual marriage), gets ROYALLY SCREWED by the judicial system- they split your assets (community property in california, whoop dee doo), they make you pay exorbitant amounts in child support, and a handful of other crap I hear about. When a divorce goes sour, lives get ruined. And if you look at the divorce rate in America today (i think it's near 50%), things just aren't looking too good.

      Being homosexual in America is already accepted. The only guff you get is from crazy ass hick rednecks. But they're still racist too, so don't you ***** think you're still special.

      *****'s looking for equal rights? You got it. Equal taxation is what you're asking for. And money is green- not white, black, gay or straight. Good luck with that.
      • ChuyMatt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Think about the kids who are adopted? think about the tax issues? Think about the life and death stuff? Now also think about portability of those.
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Let the Homosexuals that seek marriage decide whether they regret exercising the right to marriage or not; there's no need for us to "protect" them by deciding in advance.
    • elkellenhabla, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2lol... okay I'm not going to say this is a fair argument. But...

      Slavery existed in this country for over 200 years, and equal rights were denied to African Americans for decades.

      The Civil Rights movement was waged for equality, simple, but it took years.

      The timeline it took to grant gay couples equal marriage rights seems fitting to our nation...
    • bonhoeffer, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0With that flippant statement, the justices changed the definition of marriage as it existed in all nations of the world for millennia. Are they really THAT wise?
      • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I am going with, YES. Just as it took justices to stop the ***** that was laws against interracial marriage, it will take justices (unfortunately, because American citizens are still so bigoted) to fix this civil rights issue.
    • samoan27, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Sigh, it's one step down the wrong path. Does no one not realize that thousands of years of evolution (not modern thought) defines what it the healthiest and most succesful way to raise children. It doesn't matter what species of animal, if you differ from what's natural it comes at a price to the offspring and society (this is statistically, not individually speaking of course). I'm not going to bad mouth being gay, it's your business, but putting it on the same level as a man and a woman when it comes to what rears a family is your way of saying "I'm smarter than nature."
  • ssn697, on 05/15/2008, -44/+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.
    • cha5e, on 05/15/2008, -1/+45While 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.
      • kaelyiesta, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Exactly. Humans have found arbitrary division lines in just about anything they could to feel part of a group. Race, sexual preference, musical tastes, operating system... you name it. People seek to ostracize others. Whatever vehicle they use is irrelevant(in that it wont stop this behavior).

        When the day comes that we can see each other as individual sentient creatures and not as part of some other group that can be abstracted to the point where we don't even see one another as human, then the "last bastion of bigotry" will fall. Until then there will always be a new popular group to hate(think emos if you are young enough to experience that social trend) and eventually overcome that bigotry when it no longer becomes fashionable. The degree has become less severe in this country at least, but I don't think that is as much a function of human development as it is social constraints. If we were to start from scratch(think lord of the flies), I'd bet a lot of bigotry would be worse than name calling, or infractions on civil liberties.
      • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3It's funny. I edited out "last" but the comment system was weirding out just before the update. I was thinking the same thing as you, as I took out "last".

        There are still plenty of other things people use to hate...
    • lohphat, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8Try 1973.
      • DustyinBFE, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Try 1967
      • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5I was referring to California only. Trust me. I was half of an interracial marriage that began in the 80's. We couldn't get served at a restaurant outside Atlanta, got threatened at a Braves game, etc.

        People want to play the "it was a long time ago" game, but just looking at how freaked out the religious right is over THIS shows how far we still have to go...
    • gregfadein, on 05/15/2008, -4/+21Um, let's legalize drugs, prostitution, and other victimless crimes before we declare bigotry dead.
      • Botanicus, on 05/15/2008, -15/+5Lets stop fooling ourselves into thinking there ARE victimless crimes before we declare more stupidity as legal. Just because it doesnt hurt you, or the other person directly doesn't mean it is *entirely* victimless.
        • kayala, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Hmm. So in what way are our victimless crimes actually hurting people?
        • ChuyMatt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5All those drugs and prostitution is funding TERRORISM! (i am right, as i have invoked the sacred word.)
        • BoneheadFarker, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Wait...if I'm not being hurt, and the other person isn't being hurt, and we're the only 2 involved, and we're both consenting adults...yeah, not seeing any victims here.
      • bernandoo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1drugs, prostitution? these are CHOICES.. thus bigotry has nothing to do with them.
    • spookyturtle, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6I wish that were the case. "The most tenacious form of legal segregation, the banning of interracial marriage, was not fully lifted until the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967 by the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia.

      That's almost 1970. : /"
      • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2As I said, I was only referring to California. It is scary to think I was 5 years old before that horrible bigotry was forced to be stopped. I am the product of a mixed race marriage (half black/half Irish). The stories my parents tell are mind numbing.

        Yet, here we are today, with people trying to use the SAME arguments as back then, but for gay couples. We, the human race, just can't seem to find enough reasons to regulate other people's private lives, and hate them for wanting to be treated as equals.

        Too bad our social advances couldn't keep up with our technological advances.
    • Nudar, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2Just as long as you're willing to recognize polygamy. You can't legalize gay marriage and yet ban polygamous marriages.
      • ssn697, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4So, marriage between TWO PEOPLE is too complex for you to figure out? Really? You are so homophobic, you have to go to that extreme?
      • fef560, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I don't really see the big deal about polygamy if it's any help. It's not for me but I don't really care how people spend their personal lives, as long as it's what they want
      • Spudster, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Wrong, there are grounds to ban polygamy when it is clear that there is child abuse. In a situation up here in Canada, there is a bunch of Mormon polygamists who are married to multiple children. 80% of the 16 year olds there are pregnant or have been pregnant. In this case, essentially the children of the women growing up there are expected to become the wives of the men there. You can argue sexual freedom all you want, but in this case, the family is essentially expecting the children to join into polygamy at an early age.

        The problem? None of the brain washed girls will go forward with a complaint against the men having sex with them. Unless the law against polygamy is invoked in Canada, there is no legal way to go after this cult.
        • Nudar, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Most of the world would not consider a 16 year old to be a child. My grandpa was a 29 year old who married a 17 year old and they obviously were dating before that. They've been married for over 60 years now. In many states, even today, 16 years is the age of consent.
    • Spudster, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8In Canada we have gay marriage legal everywhere and let me tell you: most people weren't even aware that it was legalized. Pastors are allowed legally to not choose whether or not they will perform gay marriages and there is no controversy. THAT'S how bloody insignificant the issue is, and now it's completely forgotten about because the issue is only important to those who need it: gay couples. Amazingly, the world has not ended due to moral decay up here yet.
  • teradome, on 05/15/2008, -41/+149Another victory for equal rights and common sense. Hooray, Constitution.
    • ProjectGSX, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12If only common sense was a little more common.
      • dsmx, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Common sense has nothing to do with the law.
    • Breticus07, on 05/15/2008, -7/+7At the risk of being dugg down I have to say common sense tells me a penis goes into a vagina :S. So I will have to disagree with you there. I'm not making a debate on gay marriage though.
  • AriaStar, on 05/15/2008, -50/+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!
    • trdrstv, on 05/15/2008, -3/+17Actually, I think the gays had the advantage. They didn't have their partner try to pressure them into marriage. Now they can marry they get to suffer like the rest of us.

      Equality at its' best.
    • jp12380, on 05/15/2008, -34/+5No it's not beautiful.

      Go ahead and digg me down.
      • AriaStar, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10Don't be jealous that you're not getting any.
    • galvan3000, on 05/15/2008, -31/+4Love between two adults of the same sex is not beautiful, it is immoral and a sin against God! It is a sick life style
      • saintamour, on 05/15/2008, -1/+17Yeah, screw people who find true love. Let's force religion down their throats to remind them that the all mighty god doesn't approve of their happiness.
      • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9galvan3000, there's something beautifully symmetrical about your stupidity causing you to agonize over something that has nothing to do with you. I applaud your concern, and I think you should lose sleep over it, develop nervous twitches, and eventually deliquesce into a quivering mass of jelly all because you're worried about what other people are doing, and what they call it. Perfect.

        Add that hallucination about "God" in there and you've got the perfect recipe for a mental breakdown.

        You have a nice day, now. Jackass.
      • TheInfamousOne, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8"let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - some old guy from a long time ago
        • stonebear, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Old? Maybe for porn stars; Jesus died at 33.
      • AriaStar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12I don't acknowledge any god who would be so hateful against two men loving each other, but would forgive a man who rapes an infant. Spend your time despising the latter.
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If God finds love between two men or two women a sin, he must have a fragile ego.
    • TheInfamousOne, on 05/15/2008, -7/+12its more beautiful if its between a woman/woman/man, but thats just my opinion.
    • beldenge, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3They already had the same rights. There is nothing straight people had that gay people did not have.
    • dajernts, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1What about man/women/women/women/man. Is that okay too? When are we going to be able to marry in groups?
    • hope4god, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Aria you just discriminated!!!!! you forgot Dads and Sisters, Dogs and Cats, and Moms can marry there son, and uncle Willy can marry his niece......your sooooo Hateful!!!! Shame on you Gay people your Haters!!!!!!!
    • mixmastabeef, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1nice progression
  • vango, on 05/15/2008, -72/+16Ron Paul would approve
    • kinghajj, on 05/15/2008, -8/+15Maybe not personally, but he definitely respects a state's right to recognize whatever marriage it wants.
      • diggrnumber1, on 05/15/2008, -6/+7which places popular sovereignty above the constitution, essentially making the constitution impotent regarding the issue of gay marriage. Way to get around the Constitution!
        • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Last I checked the constitution doesn't say anything about dudes making out. If there were an amendment, that would trump state laws. But there isn't. So how does this get around it?
        • onetimer, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2@dinostab

          Last time I checked the constitution isn't just a list of rights that we have (because those are granted by our "creator" - however you want to interpret that), but simply restrictions on what the government can do.
      • onetimer, on 05/15/2008, -4/+10...and you think that is a GOOD thing? I am personally glad that it is NOT up to the states to recognize whatever abortion laws it wants, whatever slavery laws it wants, whatever racial segregation laws it wants, etc. There is a reason we have the 14th amendment.
        • CycloneTH, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Yes, because clearly there's a federal law in existence that's being overruled by the California Supreme Court. Get off your high horse. This is completely within the scope of State's Rights.
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1So the state has the right to be a reactionary backwash?
    • moolaismyfriend, on 05/15/2008, -14/+20Ron Paul is anti-gay pal.
    • onetimer, 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.


      • BestJaxx, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1One of the few things about him that I considered unacceptable.
    • ScoobyG, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8Well said onetimer. Of course criticizing RP is not allowed on digg so you will get buried. Regardless, well said.
      • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Not really; even those of us who are most with RP for his defense of personal liberties and calling out the fed for its disastrous monetary management recognize that he isn't perfect, and in particular, when it comes to religion, his stated policies are as loony as any other elected official. I dug onetimer's comment up, and I'd *definitely* rather have RP as president than any other candidate out here.

        He isn't perfect -- he's just the best there is at the moment.
    • Jogga, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6RuPaul would approve.
    • mateoberry, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If so, then he is affiliated with the wrong political party.
  • jdelsman, on 05/15/2008, -39/+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.
    • Obsydian, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9Very much so indeed. After all the madness with the economy, and the war, and all the ***** of the last 8 years, I am really proud to be living in this state, and hope that this country can recognize the true impact of this decision on the lives of so many people. Let's see America start walking the walk, instead of just talking the talk.
    • loudawgucr, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Agreed. Although I'm not gay, I am fully in favor of gay rights. I'm tired of seeing personal beliefs imposed on others who don't believe the same thing, in the form of legislation. It's just wrong. If you don't believe in something, fine. But don't force others to believe the way you do. I am so glad I live in a state like California where some progress is actually being made to eliminate the bigotry that exists in so many areas of our laws.
      • SLAM22, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0you people have serious issues. What happened to the bible? does it not clearly state homosexuality is a sin? So dont sit there and act like your going to "heaven" or go to church that preaches out of the bible and act like its all good when you are totally going against what it says. it makes no sense.


        Like, Thank goodness? good comes from God, and he certainly believes its wrong. The bible says so, and almost all other religions agree its wrong.
  • palewire, on 05/15/2008, -21/+36Here's a copy of the ruling, if you're interested.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-ca-supreme-co ...

    And here's the official reaction from Gov. Arnold and other stakeholders.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-voice16-20 ...
    • stonebear, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I see the cut-off urls didn't get fixed in the pretty new comment system. Not your fault Mr. But you still have to double edit them.
  • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -50/+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.
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -4/+10Except that they comprise half the country.
      • InorganicMatter, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Over half, actually. I believe it's in the 60%'s.
    • korvan504521, on 05/15/2008, -8/+12I agree that this is bad timing for the Democrats (traditional backers). As a conservative I personally understand why many of my fellows feel the way they do about it, but disagree with their reasoning. Christianity isn't about forcing someone else to agree with you, whatever extremists might say, and our government should not be forcing people to accept Christian values. So I agree that Homosexuals should have the rights to a civil union in the same fashion as a heterosexual couple with all the government rights and penalties thereof. Now, this doesn't mean that religions have to agree that this marriages are "marriages" or let them have it in a church, but the government based privileges should be equally available.
      They are right though, that this will lead to polygamy being legalized. As once you open the door, you really have to open it to everyone.
      • resipsa, on 05/15/2008, -4/+6Why's that? I don't see how letting one person marry another person of their choice means that you have to allow that person to marry as many people as he/she chooses.
        • fyngyrz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7Where do you, or the government, obtain the right to tell me how many people I can enter into a social contract with?

          I don't recall the constitution being a mechanism for giving up liberties; it is one to defend them.
      • gurudrew, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Why would there be a problem if polygamy was legalized? As long as everyone involved is willing and of legal age there should be no problem. Yes that might result in the dating pool getting smaller but ***** it. It's not like anyone on Digg is getting any anyway.
      • nan0bug00, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5That is why the benefits of marriage should simply be erased.

        All of the benefits of marriage aside from the insurance should be able to be given to any two or more consenting adults. The insurance factor should simply be taken care of on its own by making it more affordable/free for everyone. But as far as credit, why shouldn't 2 or 3 or 6 people be able to pool their assets with the understanding that if one person screws up it affects all negatively? If you're worried about your wife being able to make decisions for you in case of your incapacitation that can be handled by a living will. Legally binding contracts can handle all other aspects of 'marriage', albeit in a more clumsy manner.

        Really, the whole purpose of marriage is to make a commitment in front of God/flying spaghetti monster/community to another person. But we don't need the government involved in that. We need government involved in the contractual side of things, but those can be handled separately.
    • ryanmeadows, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3McCain opposes the FMA, if anything this will highlight his weakness with conservatives.
    • jasoninoakland, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2Not necessarily. Most will realize that the Republicans won't (and can't) do anything to stop gay marriage, based on Bush's unfulfilled campaign promises for 2004. It'll just be the job for Democrats to communicate that at the federal level they're no different to the Republicans on this issue.
    • rahamm, on 05/15/2008, -2/+9Except this decision was made by a court with 6 of the 7 members being appointed by.....wait for it......Republicans. So I guess they will stay home after all.
    • B1663r, on 05/15/2008, -9/+6Oh please, when exactly is the time for civil rights? Look here you "pretty thing", why the are you an Obama supporter? He is against gay marriage and he is against gays in the military. As far as I am concerned with his track record on homosexual issues he is only an inch away from beating a gay to death and leaving him to die tied to a cold country fence.nnHe won Wyoming in a landslide remember?
      • allisonaxe, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4i've not heard that anywhere. care to give citation on that?
        • B1663r, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Here is is being a sexist pig as he throws michigan voters under the bus.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4STLISLdxi4

          Enjoy;)
        • allisonaxe, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1@b1663r
          what the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? that reporter was interrupting him and asking a question while he was in the middle of something else so he asked her to "hold on."

          you're an idiot.
    • Binks170, on 05/15/2008, -8/+5Wow...you call us "hate filled republicans" and then go on to bash and name call....how typically liberal.

      I do not hate anyone, be they straight or homosexual. Just because I don't agree with gay marraige does not make me hate filled.
      • ChuyMatt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1erm... i think that was the title: Hate-filled-republicans, or that was how I read it.
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3You may not hate them, but you obviously don't love liberals. "how typically liberal" indeed. There are people of all types and political parties that can be rude and demeaning.
    • AWBoy666, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1As a conservative, I love the timing of this decision :) It'll really get us voting in bigger numbers in November. Thanks California!
    • bonhoeffer, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Great debate for an election year. It will reveal how perverted liberal democrats have become.
      • Nevarius, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1It's a civil rights issue, not a democrats support equal rights which magically makes them sexual deviants. Some logic: equal rights for gays(which hurts no one) -----> ???????? ----> OMG perverts everywhere.

        You and your ilk really need to stop fearing everything..we know change is scary and you really wish to return to the days of owning slaves and killing people for blasphemy. But those days are gone..no more so please join us in the present.
  • iDuele, on 05/15/2008, -30/+53About time. Congratulations to all the future couples.
  • shyboy2008, on 05/15/2008, -197/+34Gay people should not get married because Its against the constitution. Marriage should be between a man and a women, not same sex couples. I cant wait till california breaks off from America in 50 years and drowns in the ocean. will get rid of the majority of gay people!!!

    but i live in south, so i shouldnt really care. gays will never be allowed to get married down here and i am proud of my people for that.
    • btsr7414, on 05/15/2008, -10/+98"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.
      • AWBoy666, on 05/16/2008, -10/+3You bigoted *****. There are an awful lot of people incredibly smart down South, such as myself, who happen to have very classical and conservative values.

        His statement may have been a little incorrect, but your lumping him together and insulting a part of our country puts you on exact the same plane as that guy who put the money on the T-Shirt. You and him are the same person at this moment.

        I hope you are happy.
      • Beaver1279, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1People from the south are retarded.
    • Jexie, on 05/15/2008, -8/+47Why do you hate liberty and freedom?
      • Monkeman, on 05/15/2008, -19/+4How is this any better than the Fox news anchors calling liberals God-hating terrorist-humpers and asking why anyone against the War in Iraq wants toe troops to die?
        If you're responding to something stupid (and it was pretty stupid), tell them WHY they're stupid, don't just try to out-stupid them. You're the reason the comment threads on this site are so *****.
        • Jexie, on 05/15/2008, -1/+10Its better than Fox news anchors doing it because its true in this case. I was being a little tongue in cheek by stating it like that but after reading shy's comment I figured it was approximately at his intellectual level anyway.nAnyway, back to the point - Fox news, neocons and co. use it as a smear on anyone they disagree with, with no regard to how freedom actually factors in to the matter. Don't let their total abuse of this idea, that someone truly can hate freedom and liberty lead you to think anyone who suggests it of someone is just a troll. nI don't like guns, but I don't try to stop others from having them, I am not gay but I recognize it has nothing to do with me if someone else is. Two gay people getting married has no effect on straight people whatsoever and trying to stop them from being able to do this is absolutely one of the most obvious cases of hating freedom that there could ever be.
          • Jexie, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1And I see this new comment system has a lot of bugs to work out for grammatical characters...sorry for the low readability of my post. listing n's instead of actual newline's sucks.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -11/+56You have clearly shown your undereducated, ignorant, southern hick colors. Congratulations :)
      • AWBoy666, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4And you have clearly shown your arrogant, naive, and bigoted colors as well. Way to set a great example.
    • mike17032, on 05/15/2008, -6/+41Dont feed the troll people, check his comment history.
    • projr3volution, on 05/15/2008, -4/+10"Gay people should not get married because Its against the constitution"
      - Where in the constitution does it say this? Please provide proof or go back and take a History class
      "Marriage should be between a man and a women, not same sex couples"
      - Typical religious reasoning
      "I cant wait till California breaks off from America in 50 years and drowns in the ocean. will get rid of the majority of gay people!!!"
      -Do you have a magic crystal ball that tells you this will happen in 50 years? Hate to break it to you...gay people are everywhere. You're remarks are as ignorant as a certain pastor suggesting Hurricane Katrina was punishment to New Orleans residents for supporting gay events.
    • dinostabOMG, on 05/15/2008, -7/+5hyuk hyuk
    • djSyndrome, on 05/15/2008, -7/+6shyboy's just afraid to come out of the closet.
    • bicyclethief, on 05/15/2008, -7/+12Unlike your people, at least gays go outside the family.
    • toastgodsupreme, on 05/15/2008, -9/+52I 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.
    • Hetman, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4Shyboy dewd you are definatly in the closet with a name like that. It is allright just come out there are people that will except you for who you are. It is fine.
    • MCBAIKO, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8I am also from the south, but recently moved to SF, CA. I want to assure you that all southern people are NOT ignorant bigots (though this one clearly is) Heck, my own brother is gay and so are many of my friends. I applaud the CA courts for finally recognizing that the same rights should be guaranteed to EVERYONE! I have always felt that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes should be no concern of the Government anyway. I'll bet the divorce rate among gays will be alot less than that of hetero couples, mostly because they had to work harder to make it happen.
    • jojoanderson, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8I am also from the south and a Christian and I am completely appauled by Shyboy's comments...seriously...you are ridiculous!
    • AmonAmarth, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9It's people like you sir, that make people like me ashamed of this country.
    • PnkRckMiguel, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Well shyboy2008, judging from your horrible use of grammar and the English language, your uneducated and ridiculous opinion will more than likely be overlooked here. A person with the name "shyboy" shouldn't be talking ***** about gay people anyway....
    • SpartanErik, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2People are entitled to their opinions, let them be.
      • bawheid, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2But what if someone's opinion is uninformed, bigotted and generally full of ill-considered bitterness?
        All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing - so, no, don't leave them be.
      • aukiman, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1yes people ARE entitled to their opinions, and by the same token people ARE entitled to reply to those opinions too :)
    • mcla0181, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4***** him... that's what he wants...
    • flowersboy, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Well shyboy2008 thank you for further screwing the reputation of the south for those of us that aren't stupid. Though I'm not Pro-Gay I don't go around making ignorant and unfounded statements. The only problem I have with Gay rights is because it quite frankly makes me sick to think about two men or two women together. For future notice don't quote literature that clearly does not say anything about your topic, pick something that does... like say the bible, in which our Constitution was in part based on. Leviticus 18:6 reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination." A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: "A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed." Though I know many people are not Christian's those that have friends that are may have noticed that many things about Gods word follows a path in which many a man has been happy, successful, and a true gentleman to his fellow man. I just wish I could have gotten this in before a fellow "Hick" could say something stupid. I'm 16 and proud to be a straight, southern, Christian.
      • bawheid, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Pride. Hmm that's a sin isn't it, along with sloth, envy, lust etc? And it comes before a fall.

      • PixelMagic, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Flowersboy. That says it all.
      • RikkiTikki, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Do you eat shellfish? Go back and read the verses before the one you quoted. Also, "abomination" meant "uncustomary." Brush up on your etymology. I'm a straight, west coast, athiest.
      • dinostabOMG, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Reputation saved!!!1
    • Terasiel, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I'm from South Carolina myself and I have to say thank you. Thank you for making me more ashamed of the stereotypes that come with being Southern. One day when you learn to read the damn constitution yourself, maybe you'll notice it doesn't have a marriage clause in it.
  • Felixthecat71, on 05/15/2008, -59/+50ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL ----------:)
    GOD BLESS AMERICA! 2 DOWN, 48 TO GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • startthefire, on 05/15/2008, -16/+15Under God that wouldnt be allowed.
      • djSyndrome, on 05/15/2008, -3/+12Maybe under *your* god.
        • kelly, on 05/15/2008, -13/+6There is no other gods. Only THE God of the Bible
        • Jeffler, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4@Kelly

          There are whatever gods people wish to believe in or, if they so w