Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

breitbart.com — California's supreme court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.

Bury

ZandorMonkeyBoy 72 days ago

66 diggs
digg it

rukbat, on 05/15/2008, -9/+6And the down fall of the Roman Empire begins again
- johnchaney3, on 05/15/2008, -3/+6what an idiot thing to say.
  Did you study the roman empire, or did you just hear that down at the seven eleven.
  think human think...its the one thing you're capable of doing that keeps you from fighting with animals for your meals....
- Cognoscenti247, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2Absolutely correct. I have studied the annals of Roman History and although there is no definitive consensus many of the contributing factors were, inter alia, degraded civics, controlling parties suppressing the will of the masses, migration and physical decay.
  
  In our case, we have the will of the people whom define marriage as between a man and a woman, being cast asunder by leftist courts, slick lawyers and repugnant "PC" hounding.
  
  Well now that Gay Activists have torn down this social norm and "legalized" or normalized their perversion, what is next? Polygamy, Bestiality, perhaps incest? Where does the in extremis argument take us Mr/Mrs. California Supreme Court Justice?
  - 10lbhammer, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3"...what is next? Polygamy, Bestiality, perhaps incest?"
    
    are you seriously that daft? in what way does a normal sexual variant come anything close to "Polygamy, Bestiality, perhaps incest"? and for that matter, how long has polygamy or incest been bad words? not that I condone either, but your frame of mind is a relatively new development.
    
    ***** right off, good sir.
    - Cognoscenti247, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, you miss the point. The holding turns on the term sexual orientation which may or may not preclude, bestiality, polygamy and incest?
      
      The point is Race and Gender are not vague...sexual orientation is exceedingly so and subject to individual definition. Thus, obstacles to marriage imposed by the state based on "sexual proclivities" may be constitutionally invalid on their face, e.g. marrying a horse could be a violation of your protected sexual orientation.
      
      Why do you think CA overwhelmingly codified marriage as between a man and a woman, any broadening or concessions invites this nonsense.
    - lydecker, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Race and gender are not vague. Which is why you cannot discriminate against someone's ability to marry based on sexual orientation, nor someone else's right to marry them based on their gender.
      
      While you can't discriminate against someones sexual orientation if it be pedophilia, beastiality, or polygamy, you can say that animals, children, and married people don't have the right to get a marriage (or, in married people's case, another marriage).
      
      A horse does not have the right, nor the ability to consent, to marriage.
- shnagin, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Your so right! Makes me sick,they been brainwashing or children for 30yrs.
- rukbat, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1But beneath all the diversity, marriage has always had a fundamental, universal core that makes gay marriage a non sequitur: it has always governed property and inheritance rights; it has always been the means of establishing paternity, legitimacy, and the rights and responsibilities of parenthood; and because these goals involve bearing and raising children, it has always involved (at least one) man and woman. What's more, among the "startling diversity" of variations that different cultures have elaborated on this fundamental core, our own culture has produced a specifically American ideal of marriage that is inseparable from our vision of free citizenship and is deeply embedded in our history, politics, economics, and culture. Advocates for gay marriage cite the historical evolution of that ideal—which we might call republican marriage—to bolster their case, arguing that gay unions are a natural extension of America's dedication to civil rights and to individual freedom. But a look at that history is enough to cast serious doubt on the advocates' case
mdwhite, on 05/15/2008, -8/+10So much for the will of a majority of the people of the state who resoundingly said "NO."
- kinghajj, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8The State of California is not a democracy, but a republic (or, if you prefer, a "democratic republic.") It is true that power ultimately rests in the hands of the people, but the will of the people is not the highest law. The Constitution of the State of California has equal protection clauses, which the Supreme Court of California used to justify the nullification of the statutes that prohibit same-sex marriage.
  
  There is a recourse for the people, however: a constitutional amendment could add an exception to equal protection, thereby nullifying the Court's ruling.
- Armistead, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Also, remember that our state legislative has passed same-sex marriage twice (which was later vetoed by the governor). Our elected legislature is the appointed "voice of the people". Additionally, things have changed in California since the ballot initiative. Currently 51% of Californians support marriage equality and this number is growing.
  - doughpro, on 05/15/2008, -4/+0Like I said before, the will of the people means nothing to those of you who manipulate the courts, circumvent the laws, and entrench your agenda-driven attorneys and politicians (that you have bought and paid for) deep inside the whole system so you can twist everything to your advantage. Just like a virus. Sounds a little sexual, doesn't it, except for the virus part---maybe.
    It all takes a little time and a lot of money, both of which you have plenty of. Such warped thinking......
beartrack, on 05/15/2008, -4/+9"... with liberty and justice for all."
carl6352, on 05/15/2008, -9/+0great now i want all gay and lesbian couples to migrate to California. you can now be the next immigrants to flood California. by the way stay there!!!!! eventually 70% of California is slated to sink into the pacific.
intilli4, on 05/15/2008, -5/+7Now we are one step closer to being a FREE Nation.
- doughpro, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2You're free to do what you want in Europe, why not go there?
  - 10lbhammer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5you're free to move out of california, why not do it?
    - doughpro, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0I did, 20 years ago. I was born and raised there, and decided to move after I started to see what was happening to the state that I loved. It is grossly over-crowded, taken over by liberal fruitcakes. If you think I am wrong, what do you see happening in LA? How long have you been around?
- shnagin, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Excepting gay marriage makes us closer to being a free nation please.That's one of the stupidest things I ever heard,well maybe not the stupidest but close.It makes us freaking stupid and sick! I must admit your elk did a great job brainwashing our kids into thinking gay marriage is somehow good and pure like my grandparents marriage.Well done, now what's next bestiality, incest.Oh wait it wouldn't be free without pedophilia.
  - wtfheadexplody, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2So in your opinion two adult humans is the same thing as an adult human an and animal? And also the same as an adult human and a child?
    
    You're one closed-minded warped *****.
elleigh2, on 05/15/2008, -10/+8We are sooooooooo screwed in this country because of the activists judges writing laws rather then just ruling on what is constitutional. Doesn't matter what you people vote on out there in "LA LA Land" the judges take it upon themselves to do what "they" think is best for you. Where does it say in the constitution that gay marriage is legal?
- kinghajj, on 05/15/2008, -1/+9Did you even read the ruling? I'll summarize it for you. The California Constitution has equal protection clauses, among others, protect individuals from discrimination based on one's sexual orientation. Because the voter-passed statutes were not constitutional amendments, the constitution overrides and nullifies them. Got it?
  - doughpro, on 05/15/2008, -5/+0How convenient that you were able to get that ridiculous "discrimination based on one's sexual orientation" passed, thus paving the way to scream that the ban is "unconstitutional". It is too bad that the whole system is so saturated with agenda-driven nitwits who have no idea that their beliefs are not new, they have been alive and well in the European socialist culture for years. Why push so hard when you can just move to Europe?
- johnchaney3, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3You are so screwed because you're fantasy world has no sound basis, and like all sand castles when the tide comes calling...
  - FerdBirffle, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0OK John...and what basis is your comment based on? Please cite it so we may all be enlightened.
tehjarvis, on 05/15/2008, -6/+8I think it's quite funny, the people I know and talk to who hate "political correctness" because "it's their right to say and whatever they want no matter who it offends!" (which they're right) are the same people who don't want gays to get married because homosexuality offends them.
Land of the free, homophobes!
davidmesaaz, on 05/15/2008, -10/+11Didn't the people vote in a same sex marriage ban? This is Judicial activism at its worst...
- kinghajj, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4Read my reply to elleigh2 above.
- lydecker, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8And that vote of a same sex marriage ban was deemed unconstitutional today. This is protecting our constitutional rights at its best.
- johnchaney3, on 05/15/2008, -5/+4Didn't people vote to keep your mother out of the bars at night just before you were born?
  - Khanvalescent, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Your definition of "just before" is nine months? Certainly plausible in grand time lines (hello Jurassic era), but silly with reference to your gutless allusion to strumpeting.
- beartrack, on 05/21/2008, -1/+1Just goes to show you that "Mob Rules" does not trump the Constitution.
johnchaney3, on 05/15/2008, -4/+13The ban on homosexual marriage is based on moronic religous values... This is not a Christian country. Its a country where all men can live and enjoy freedom FROM religion... What negative parameters you hetero's define for your selves... Learn to think....its great once you get the knack...think about things your preacher and your parents tell you not to think about... Why would some one tell you not to think about something....They will tell you that its not in your interest... Its in their interest to keep you uneducated...
- lydecker, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10It's not purely based on religious values, though. The ban is based on misconceptions about the reality of homosexual vs. heterosexual couplings. The reality is that difference is minimal. There are many public perceptions, that need to be and are being combatted, about gays vs straights that are wrong.
  
  Public misconceptions about lust vs. love, attraction being a choice, prevalence of sexual activity, inability to be monogamous, inability to raise children, etc.
- doughpro, on 05/15/2008, -8/+1You are wrong. This country was built on Christian values. Just because those who think like you don't want to admit it, or were not taught that in your public school system, does not make it so. You will not win, and no amount of psychological warfare will help you. Live your life the way you want, you have to believe there is some punishment for bad behavior or we would all be killing, raping, stealing without a second thought. Where do you think laws against THOSE came from? You want anarchy? Be careful what you wish for, you can't have it all your way.
  - Hesjr, on 05/15/2008, -5/+0Good! Glad to hear someone speak up. We are one nation under God. Lets keep it that way.
  - alkajazz, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2I wish i could muster the will to call you out on this. But I just don't see the point anymore. BTW "One Nation Under God" was added during the 1950s, it hardly has anything to do with the founding fathers.
    - doughpro, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0Maybe you should read the Constitution then. Our founding fathers were Christian. Like I said before, they don't teach you THAT in your public school system, do they? Don't bother calling me out, an uninformed opinion is senseless to me.
- megawhy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Wow...the truth comes out so clearly. Thank you for admiting you are atheistic and do not hold dear any American values.
  - lydecker, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5"Admiting you are athiestic..." So? What does that matter?
    
    "And do not hold dear any American values." I think freedom of individuals is a highly American value.
zortnac, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5This is fantastic news. Our state made history by being the first to legislate full marriage equality, and though it was vetoed twice by governor Schwarzenegger, our courts have now found CA's same-sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional as it is. I'm very proud of my state today. With our governor on our side, having taken opposition to the likely upcoming referendum on the november ballot, I'm optimistic that it will be defeated. It's been 10 years since prop 22 passed by 61% majority, and since then polls have shown that more and more Californians are supportive of marriage equality, having had time to see through the rhetoric about it being a "threat" to our existing marriages, our families, and our society. All families are valuable and good, and it's time that our state lifted them ALL up equally. :-)
- megawhy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1I am getting sick
IndigoWater, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8You people are joking, right? "A majority of Californian's already voted against this!" Isn't one purpose of the gvmt to protect the minorty from the majority? At one time, slavery was popularly agreed to. Does that mean it shouldn't have been outlawed? Also, you act as though the sky is falling on a country where gay marriage is slowly being legalized. Have you check the state of affairs in places like Canada & the Netherlands? A more open minded society creates a thriving economy. The days of this conservative administration are about over as is the failing US economy..... Find that ironic?
maintsmart, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3It's time to remove this government and the court system by whatever means necessary as our Founding Fathers did with the British.
- MrWhite7, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6THIS? THIS is why you wanna rise up? Gay marriage? This above EVERYTHING else?
FerdBirffle, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5Question # 1: Where does it say that Jesus made any statement about homosexuality? Question # 2: Did Jesus not say "until now, you have lived under the rule of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth...but I bring you a new law...do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ? Question # 3 Does the Bible not say "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? Question # 4 When a crowd was stoning Mary Magdalene, did Jesus not step in and say to them "ye who is without sin, may cast the first stone"? Question # 5 For those of you that wish to think that being gay/lesbian is a choice, when did YOU make the "choice"? I know that my sexuality was already determined when I was under 7 years old. I knew nothing about sex, but I sure knew who I was attracted to.
Lastly, a thought for the day...borrowed from Refdesk...very apropo..."The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself." - Sir R. F. Burton
- Hesjr, on 05/15/2008, -4/+0Perhaps you should read a little farther in the New Testament
  
  Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
  Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
  Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
  Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
  Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
  Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
  Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
  - FerdBirffle, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3And this then, would supercede the teachings of Christ for a "Christian"? "Christian"-definition: "One who follows the teachings of Christ. A person emulating Jesus Christ. Someone that strives to be "Christ like" ... The Bible was written by men. I have no doubt, that like all other enterprises man has undertaken that there are a few "agendas" in there that were written to advance certain writers views. I have 9 1/2 years of professional religious studies and over 40 years of non-professional religious and philosophical study...more atrocities have been committed against humanity in the name of religion and "God" than any other cause. Be a true Christian...practice being tolerant, broad-minded,kind and forgiving... do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
- megawhy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1What an idiot! I suppose you think whatever you want to do is ok. May you enjoy the fruits of your beliefs.
chicoer2001, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2A great ruling but sadly I dont think it'll last. There are too many religious zealots in the state.
SanDiegoTelecom, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2 Anything goes I guess. What about the transgenders? Where do they fit in all this? And may I remind my gay friends that homosexuality defies not only creationism, but darwinism as well. How do you suppose families are getting made? But screw the natural order. We got test tubes and petrie dishes. What a bunch or morons. Who's next, NAMBLA. Soon there wil be no line...
YourMothersMilk, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Congratulations and all to the Gays in CA. I just hope for God sake this doesn't become another wedge issue in the forefront of Americans minds again this election. There are MANY more important things that we need to be discussing. Considering their are about 5 instances of this story on their way to the front page of Digg, I am not so hopeful.

Whoa.. As I wrote this, I guess Kevin and crew just committed some up updates from their dev environment to the Digg app. I like the new look guys. 5 min now to edit.
kithogan, on 05/15/2008, -6/+3Why vote? The WILL OF THE PEOPLE is once again over-turned by a liberal court. How disgusting. No wonder people don't value voting. Why bother when no one in government cares how we think?
- lydecker, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5If you perceive that all laws in this country are based on the will of the people, then maybe that is a reason for you not to vote. But we vote people into office to interpret the constitution, because they know a little more about legality of the constitution than the general public. We the people don't rule this country, the Constitution does.
  
  Now, many people in the government of course do care how people think.
cheeseysynapse, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5I wonder if churches will now be subject to lawsuits if they choose not to marry a homosexual couple?
- michael532111, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6No. This applies only to civil marriages acknowledged/granted by the State of California. It has nothing to do with religious marriage. Churches can still deny religious marriages to anyone they they wish. But a resident of the State of California is not subjected to any restrictions imposed by any religious body.
  
  Which is exactly what it should always have been. We live in a secular country. The laws of this country are secular. The separation of church (any church) and state are written into our constitution.
  
  We do NOT live in a theocracy. Christianity is only ONE religion, and all religions are equal in this country. Even agnostics and atheists are full fledged citizens. Why is this so hard to understand???
  - michael532111, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Is there any way to delete this comment? I was trying to edit it (see below) when it seemed to disappear. Double comment. Sorry for that...
- michael532111, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1No. This ruling applies only to civil marriage, acknowledged/granted by the State of California. The State of California, as are all States, is a civil, non-religious entity. We live in a secular country. Separation of church and state are written into our constitution. So the State of California is finally acknowledging what the State of Massachussetts realized several years ago: any religious constriction of marriage has no place in determining the rules for civil marriage of any state in our country.
  
  Churches on the other hand, are free to establish any rules they want to restrict marriage among their members.
  
  All religions in this country are equal, as well as no religion at all. The concept that Christianity should determine our government rules is archaic at best, and totally misrepresents the founders of our country and the writers of our constitution, who were for the most part not Christian believers at all.
  
  We do not live in a theocracy. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?
WriteOnIt, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1Regardless of which side of the argument you stand on... this entire nation should be outraged with this type of action that has been taken against the voice of the people - by the California Supreme Court! Today, this is the even bigger issue...

Unfortunately, instead of see what has really happened in the big picture - people will get lost because of their side taking on this very heated battle.

Very very sad circumstance for this Country.

WriteOnIt!
megawhy, on 05/16/2008, -3/+3This is a sad day. California leads the way toward the fall of a once great state. This is a wedge issue because it is wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman and is designed to continue the human race. California should be ashamed! The courts in California have decided they are greater than the people. They should all be impeached. Shame on all of you. I am glad to be from somewhere else other than California.
jjauregui, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Muslims and Mormons are now free to practice polygamous marriage. What court or legislature could reasonably argue otherwise given this precedent? The electorate connected these dots a long time ago. Clearly the judicial and legislative branches haven't a clue.
Rohotep, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Ya know what happens when all the power shifts away from the people, and towards a big, central, Federal Government? I’ll tell ya what happens - only those in the higher “ruling government class” prosper. The regular folks have to stand in bread lines. Do I really need to cite the examples through history? It’s amazing to me that seemingly rational people can be so inattentive as to not notice (or not care?) that the nut-job left wing democrats - Pelosi, et al – ARE THE VERY ONES WHO DESPERATELY WANT TO DICTATE TO THE PEASANTS THEIR OWN “ENLIGHTENED” AND “PROGRESSIVE” AGENDA. THEY DO NOT TOLERATE ANY VIEW OTHER THAN THEIR OWN MORALLY SUPERIOR, "TOLERANT", NON-RACIAL, “DIVERSE” THEOLOGY. They ARE the fascists that they have always admired and appeased.
- shnagin, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Well said.The sad truth the power has already shifted from the people.The indoctrination of our children from the media and schools and TV has worked .The dumbing down of America.
Quasilobo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Isn't it Noah Webster's job to say what a marriage is and isn't? Not the government's job at any level. Meebee tomorrow they'll rule 2 + 2 = 5.
- wtfheadexplody, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Meebee heterosexual gay-bashers wanted to discriminate against a minority population in California by denying them a right that everyone else is given. So the government steps in and decides that DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A MINORITY is unconstitutional.
scarysnow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Sheesh. Lots of complaining about courts overruling the will of the majority. But what if, as in this case, the majority's opinion is unconstitutional? The courts had a responsibility to revoke this incredibly unconstitutional ban. It's a great day for civil rights.
Starkness, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Whether or not people believe in God it is not going to stop his judgment! He will be judging all people who obey not. Even though you believe you will not be judged, you will be judged even so. REPENT!

Rom 1:27

(ALT) and likewise also the males having left the natural use of the female were inflamed in their craving for one another; males with males committing shameful behavior and receiving back in themselves the penalty which was fitting [for] their deception [or, perversion].

(Geneva) And likewise also the men left the naturall vse of the woman, and burned in their lust one toward another, and man with man wrought filthinesse, and receiued in themselues such recompence of their errour, as was meete.

(GLB) desgleichen auch die Männer haben verlassen den natürlichen Brauch des Weibes und sind aneinander erhitzt in ihren Lüsten und haben Mann mit Mann Schande getrieben und den Lohn ihres Irrtums (wie es denn sein sollte) an sich selbst empfangen.

(KJV) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

(KJVR) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

(MKJV) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

(NBLH) De la misma manera también los hombres, abandonando el uso natural de la mujer, se encendieron en su lujuria unos con otros, cometiendo hechos vergonzosos hombres con hombres, y recibiendo en sí mismos el castigo correspondiente a su extravío.

(TAB) At gayon din naman ang mga lalake, na nang iwan na ang katutubong kagamitan sa mga babae, ay nangagningas sa kanilang karumihan ng pita ang isa't isa, na gumagawa ng kahalayan ang mga lalake sa mga kapuwa lalake, at tumatanggap sa kanilang sarili ng kagantihan ng kanilang pagkakamali.

(The Scriptures '98+) and likewise, the men also, having left natural relations with woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing indecency, and receiving back the reward which was due for their straying.

(YLT) and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving. t t not noot
Starkness, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Starkness, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Gen 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.
swanshawn, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2To those posting Bible passages: Are you posting them in order to change people's minds on this issue? If so, then you need to find a better basis for your arguement. The people to whom you are speaking are largely non-religious or not Christian. What if I were a Hindu and tried to stop you from eating a cheeseburger by citing the Bhagavad Gita and saying my Hindu God will punish you for eating a cow? You would probably laugh in my face, right? It's the same thing.

I guess as a Christian myself, I find it disheartening when I see others using these small-minded arguements which do nothing but make us all look like short-sighted fools.
schif, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1" Thursday's ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized."

and as paper beats rock so does the opinion of the court trump the will of the people, and they try and tell us this is a democracy.
jjauregui, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1The Democratic Party continues to pull the trigger in a crowded room. Looks like it's going to get the culture war it desperately wants and clearly needs.
rukbat, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1But beneath all the diversity, marriage has always had a fundamental, universal core that makes gay marriage a non sequitur: it has always governed property and inheritance rights; it has always been the means of establishing paternity, legitimacy, and the rights and responsibilities of parenthood; and because these goals involve bearing and raising children, it has always involved (at least one) man and woman. What's more, among the "startling diversity" of variations that different cultures have elaborated on this fundamental core, our own culture has produced a specifically American ideal of marriage that is inseparable from our vision of free citizenship and is deeply embedded in our history, politics, economics, and culture. Advocates for gay marriage cite the historical evolution of that ideal—which we might call republican marriage—to bolster their case, arguing that gay unions are a natural extension of America's dedication to civil rights and to individual freedom. But a look at that history is enough to cast serious doubt on the advocates' case
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

Login or register to add a comment