FIRST to say that 12:59 is an idiot

Unconstitutional.

The opinion is posted: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

When considered in light of the picture used for this post, same-sex relationships don't seem all that bad.

First to say that the California Supreme Court gave the election to McCain.

CNN can't read past the first paragraph of the opinion.

"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the
traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional." - slip op at p. 12.

Word to 1:08... but just the kind pictured...

Pretty damn lame to put up a placeholder and still get scooped by all the major outlets, Lat. How long does it take to change underscores to "upholds?"

Pathetic.

No one gets scooped on a public announcement you ass unless someone finds out the announcement ahead of time and publishes it.

Yeah... what is with the news organizations' slow output. How hard is it to have pre-written stories for 2 possible outcomes and post immediately?

Is anyone actually surprised?

Yeah, imagine that... the California Supreme Court ruling that __insert hot topic "right" of the moment here___ is consitutionally protected. I'm baffled.

1:15: Congratulations on thoroughly missing the point, dumbass.

1:13 - dude what is wrong with you? why are you criticizing someone for posting a story two minutes late, who publishes a blog you probably spend 95% of your time reading? get a life man, don't be a dick

1:18 - so what was the point?

Wohoo, lets hear it for sanity and personal liberty prevailing over bigotry and discrimination!!

oh noes!!1!!! the sky is falling! teh gays can get married!!!

1:09 - my thoughts exactly.

Deja vu election from 4 years ago. Assholes.

1:09 - Brilliant and insightful comment! Unfortunately, I think you are SPOT ON!

Where is that picture from?

Post more.

1:08 - truer words have never been spoken.

There were two chicks at my high school that used to make out when they got drunk. That should be allowed. There was also a guy that used to stair at my penis in the shower room.

FRAT STUD

1:23 - it's from the show OC.

Agree with 1:15 and 1:19(1).

Yahooo!!! Congratulations to all the gays in CA! I hope the divorce laws can keep up because there is a clusterf*ck going on here in MA.

Might not be as bad as you think 1:09 - it turns out McCain voted AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment.

1:20 -

Go buy yourself a latte. It's on me.

Man, did you guys see Mulholland Drive... wowsers... I'm all for more of that.

1:24 -

Please refrain from ever posting on this site again; thank you.

damn activist judges. Maybe all the polygamists will move to California now and see if they can be legal too.

1:27, why would I want a latte? I admit they are delicious, but I prefer regular coffee.

Everything is legal... duh...

sweet! now i can marry my dog/sister/recliner!!

why does it say 'upholds' gay marriage when in reality the op seems to strike down a ban on it? is that funny or has lat forgotten how to be a lawyer?

why does cnn.com say that an appeal to the Supreme Court is likely? Didn't the Cali Supreme Court hold that the ban violated the Cali constitution? Is cnn just being stupid?

1:08 - Now picture two fat hairy men....this is why the opinion sucks.

Also, women like those in the picture are not going to be affected by this. Women with flat-tops, mustaches, and deep voices are thrilled.

To 1:27;

1:09 here... who says I think a McCain election would be a bad thing?

To 1:33 - I conceed the point - my bad.

1:27

1:31(3) yes, CNN is being stupid - but what's new there?

stupid activist judges! who do they think they are, interpreting the law and resolving legal disputes? ridiculous.

The pic is from Mulholland Drive. the blonde is Naomi Watts

Is the picture part of the opinion? I'm sure its the most convincing part of the brief

Too lazy to read opinion. Is it on state or federal constitutional grounds? Perhaps both?

Does this mean that they can finally combine the "Where the Boys Aren't" series with the "Please Bang My Wife" series?

"why does it say 'upholds' gay marriage when in reality the op seems to strike down a ban on it? is that funny or has lat forgotten how to be a lawyer?"

Striking down ban on X = Upholding X

1:40 - That pick is NOT from Mulholland Drive, as the scenes from that move are permanently etched into my memory... someone earlier said it was from the OC...

Go to CNN dot com if you want a more relevant picture on gay marriage.

Why does the majority opinion refer to "persons" and not "people"? I hate when people use persons instead of people.

Whoa, that's a new pic.

many opponents of gay marriage believe that the movement for gay marriage is nothing more than a movement to gain public sanction (re: marriage license) of homosexuality, and is not based upon any desire for marriage per se.

Which is probably true; marriage has almost always been a religious ceremony, and since homosexuals haven't been able to find a major religion to sanctify homosexuality or homosexual relationships, the next best thing is to have the state sanctify it through a ceremony based upon religious tradition but separated from religions.

Of course, opponents point out that this tends to legitimize homosexuality, which is the point; thus, opposition to homosexuality will lessen, not allowing opponents to gain momentum for anti-homosexual (whether through"reversal therapies" or religious sanction) movements.

That being said, the ban definitely seems to be a challenge to Lawrence v. Texas, so the Supreme Court may have something to say about it. If it goes up, expect the Justices to limit but not overturn Lawrence's holding while at the same time saying "California can marry whomever it wants, bfd."

"why does it say 'upholds' gay marriage when in reality the op seems to strike down a ban on it? is that funny or has lat forgotten how to be a lawyer?"

Perhaps because the opinion states: "...the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

Then again, I haven't read the entire opinion.

He changed the picture! Lame... well, no more jerkin' off at my desk today... I'll have to go check out the fat paralegal with big jugs.

Pic is from "The OC" Leave your mouse pointer on the pic and you will see the description say "Marissa Cooper from OC" The girl who played Marissa Cooper is actress Mischa Barton who is NOT in Mulholland Drive.

Besides, the point is not moot. Lat just put up a new pic with some crusty old broads in it ...

Dammit. Now I have to update my "reasons why California is the awesomest" list.

Lat -

Screw you, sir, for changing the picture. Were you pressured into by Kash?

Now that Lat has changed the picture, the comments about it are unintentionally hilarious. Brilliant move, Lat.

Lat, bring back da hotties!
----FRAT STUD

Somewhere, Baby Jesus is crying.

so assuming consent, age and mental capacity, can I marry my sister then?

well, at least there is a little picture about a porn article on the right hand side today... and it's got two chicks in it... sweet.

1:47 = dumbass

"uphold" means to maintain or affirm and, of course, you cannot maintain or affirm something that does not exist. in the law world, we use the term for when a statute is upheld in the face of constitutional attack, and the antonym "struck down" when a statute falls to a constitutional challenge.

This pic is hot! Keep em coming Lat.

1:31(2). Lat went to Yale. He never learned how to be a lawyer.

So does this mean Alito is going to marry Scalia now?

1:56 - if she's hot.

Good news for Mr. Jeffs. Multiple wives here we come!

I can hear the roar now. It is the stampeed of gays running to the courhouse to marry after meeting the person two weeks ago.

The California divorce attorneys are all sipping champagne and having a blast with this one!

I am for gay marraige, but if the legislature passed the ban, and it was approved by the VOTERS, shouldn't their opinion on how to run the state be superior to 4 judges who are making an interpretation?

2:01 - Yes, it should be and is. Especially when the constitution (state and federal) say nothing on the subject, and no such right was recognized at the time of passage of the supposedly-relevant portions from which support for such ridiculous ideas is touted.

*champagne corks pop at SF City Hall and McCain caimpagn headquarters*

*champagne corks pop at SF City Hall and McCain campaign headquarters*

1:51: what are you talking about? How could this go up to SCOTUS?

On the topic of California, marriage, sex, etc. does any one kind of think Nancy Pelosi is hot for an old gal - I'd totally hit that!

The court struck down a ban on same-sex marriage. It also ordered the local authorities to start acting on it (it's a long opinion, but look at the last couple of paragraphs of the majority opinion). I don't think that qualifies as "upholding" gay marriage, but the court did require affirmative acts.

McCain might win California now. Thanks Supreme Court.

BTW - Guys in my California High School used to get married all the time to each other. It was a very big deal.

p.s. by 2:10. There probably are no grounds on which the US Supreme Court could review this.

To everyone bitching about "uphold" in the headline: chill. It's a headline. The text of the post is more precise:

"Reversing the appeals court, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's statutory ban on same-sex marriage."

only hot lipstick lesbians should have the right to marry- Bull Dykes should be stoned.

Maybe Adam Liptak wrote the headline.

"I can hear the roar now. It is the stampeed of gays running to the courhouse to marry after meeting the person two weeks ago."

It's painfully obvious that 1:59 has never actually met any gay men.

1:57 - You say: "'"uphold' means to maintain or affirm and, of course, you cannot maintain or affirm something that does not exist. "

According to the California Supreme Court, the right for same-sex couples to marry already DOES exist, under the constitution. That is why the statutory ban was struck down.

It is therefore proper to say that the court "upheld" gay marriage (as in the already-existing right to gay marriage).

"I am for gay marraige, but if the legislature passed the ban, and it was approved by the VOTERS, shouldn't their opinion on how to run the state be superior to 4 judges who are making an interpretation?"

No.

I'm with you 2:18 - voters absolutely need to be saved from themselves - ask all of those who voted for Bush (TWICE!) and those lovely folks from West Virginia!

... are comments brokened?

Uh, the California legislature passed a bill allowing gay marriage twice. Awnold vetoed it.

Question for the con law guys:

Can a federal question be raised AFTER an issue/case has passed the highest court in the state?

If so, then the Supreme Court could conceivably get its hands on the ruling. But it wouldn't because the state has already answered the state law question, thus mootness.

Otherwise, we're going to get Lochnerizing again.

3:59, yes, and he gave as his reason for doing so that he thought it should be up to the courts. Talk about passing the buck.

WGW . . . WG(!).

The federal Supreme Court has no standing to address the interpretation of the California constitution. This is done, until the California voters pass an amendment to the California constitution banning gay marriage. Californians, thoughts on whether it will pass or not?

4:04 -- I don't believe any federal issues were addressed in this decision, so it cannot be taken to SCOTUS. I imagine that one could try to make a case that this ruling itself violates federal law; but off the top of my head I can't think of any federal law that it might violate (not even DOMA), and Goodridge has been without similar challenge for years now.

4:04 - there can't be a federal question. The statute (according to the ruling) is invalid per the state constitution. Even if the federal constitution would allow such a statute, it couldn't require one. So, the state constitution's invalidation of the statute is the end of the story.

2:20 - I read your post and just thought "ewww". What a gross, condescending, pompus tool you are...

Save the voters from themselves...unless of course, it's your vote. After all, YOU and those who are like minded know what is best for everyone.
Loser.

I wish 4:04 was in my 1L section

Politics pervade the judicial system.
Timing is everything. Conservative Cali Supreme Ct. have just wrapped up the '08 Presidential Election. McCain is set.

Politics pervade the judicial system.
Timing is everything. Conservative Cali Supreme Ct. have just wrapped up the '08 Presidential Election. McCain is set.

OK, I give up. I am an idiot. Why does this ruling give McCain CA, and therefore the election?

4:27--It's the parties, not the court, who have standing. Better brush up that Chemerinsky so you can finally pass con law and the bar.

4:48:

It's commonly believed (especially amongst left-leaners) that the gay marriage issue was put on the ballot in the last election in so many states to drive conservatives to the polls and thus give Republicans a win where the Democrats "should" have won.

Following the logic, a huge ruling like this will anger social conservatives again and turn out the base for Republicans this fall in another elections the Democrats have significant advantages.

The ignorance of some people who post on this blog is astounding. This is not a chance to practice your uninformed, tasteless wannabe stand-up act while in real life you quiver behind a desk pushing paper as you attempt to avoid getting disbarred. Hateful, biggotted comments about entire groups of people is exactly what created the need for the California case decided today. Would you make the same ignorant comments about racial minorities in the wake of Loving v. Virginia? (in case you live under a rock, that's the case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional). Maybe some of you would - but most wouldn't. So why is it that we openly tolerate hate speech about the LGBT community, but not about women, racial minorities, religious affiliations, etc.? It's because society, largely through the courts, permits it in many cases. Thus, today's decision isn't just about marriage - it's one more step in convincing biggots of the legitimacy of a group of our fellow human beings who have been treated unfairly in this country since its founding. (Again, this is only directed at those who make hateful comments. The rest of you are cool.)

The ignorance of some people who post on this blog is astounding. This is not a chance to practice your uninformed, tasteless wannabe stand-up act while in real life you quiver behind a desk pushing paper as you attempt to avoid getting disbarred. Hateful, biggotted comments about entire groups of people is exactly what created the need for the California case decided today. Would you make the same ignorant comments about racial minorities in the wake of Loving v. Virginia? (in case you live under a rock, that's the case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional). Maybe some of you would - but most wouldn't. So why is it that we openly tolerate hate speech about the LGBT community, but not about women, racial minorities, religious affiliations, etc.? It's because society, largely through the courts, permits it in many cases. Thus, today's decision isn't just about marriage - it's one more step in convincing biggots of the legitimacy of a group of our fellow human beings who have been treated unfairly in this country since its founding. (Again, this is only directed at those who make hateful comments. The rest of you are cool.)

4:48(2): do you understand the colloquial meaning of the term standing? Was the analysis wrong?

And when you've practiced for 7 years at two Vault top 10 firms, then you can fucking complain. Until then: suck your own dick.

A quick trip to the Calif Sup Ct website shows that 6/7 of the justices were appointed by Republicans. Ironically, that was the same ratio of the justices in Mass with Goodridge. I'll leave to the group whether there's a coincidence in these Republicans judges again throwing a grenade into the political system.

The ignorance of some people who post on this blog is astounding. This is not a chance to practice your tasteless wannabe stand-up act while in real life you quiver behind a desk pushing paper as you attempt to avoid getting disbarred. Hateful, biggotted comments about entire groups of people is exactly what created the need for the California case decided today. Would you make the same ignorant comments about racial minorities in the wake of Loving v. Virginia? (in case you live under a rock, that's the case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional). So why do we openly tolerate hate speech about the LGBT community? Today's decision isn't just about marriage - it's one more step in convincing biggots of the legitimacy of a group of our fellow human beings who have been treated unfairly in this country since its founding.

Bigot has but a single "g," sweet cheeks.

I'd like to note as we're paying all this attention to what the Court acknowledges dispute ONLY over nomenclature, Dubya and his R lackeys in Congress are holding up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Hate Crimes Bill. Gunner Myrdal is spinning in his grave somewhere...

Wow. Who knew that there were so many homophobic lawyers / law students. I think we see why we need the courts to make these kinds of ruling is supposedly educated people can make these kinds of hateful comments.

And the US Supreme Court can't review questions of state law, (other than Bush v. Gore, of course).

There is no way that California will go with McCain. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in extreme denial.

The institution of marriage is under attack!! That is why I am proposing a constitutional amendment to criminalize adultery and prohibit all divorce. All the Republicans who want to save the institution of marriage, you are with me, right?

If no, then STFU about gay marriage. And remind me, how does gay marriage threaten heterosexual marriage more than divorce or adultery?

OK.

If a state prohibits a specific group from doing something that another group is permitted to do, and the supreme court of that state (theoretically the highest legal minds in the state, whose job it is to interpret the state constitution AND most of whom were appointed by governors of the party that is generally more likely to favor of the prohibition) decide that this prohibition violates fundamental rights and the right to equal protection afforded under the state constitution, HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE to then AMEND the constitution to bypass this decision and say, effectively, that notwithstanding everyting else in the constitution about fundamental rights and equal protection, this group is prohibited from doing this thing????

CA's voter initiative system to amend the state constitution is totally f*cked. The constitution should set forth general timeless principles and should be resistant to the whims of politics....

6:03 -

A lot of lawyers/law students are republicans. Do the math.

5:24 x 2 and 5:36: Only 1 post needed. We get it. This is why lawyers hate gays . . . their inability to post once. I propose a ban on gay blog posters . . . but not gay bloggers. Lat goes, then what shall I read at work.

I am so bored of Americans. You have no money that is worth anything. Goodbye.

@ 6:03 - "And the U.S. Supreme Court can't review questions of state law, (other than Bush v. Gore, of course)."

Are you a fool? The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the actions of the Florida Supreme Court violated the federal constitution's Equal Protection clause. The Court reviews state law all the time (see any 14th Amendment Due Process or Equal Protection case). Whether or not the case was rightly decided, it's defect was not the Court should not have reviewed the Florida Supreme Court's ruling (remember, seven justices said that the FL court had violated the Federal Constitution). I know you just couldn't wait to get that jab in there, though.

6:29(2) -

Please tell me that you're an admitted student at some TTT, so that we have the double guarantee that (1) you'll probably never be hired to actually practice law, and (2) even if you are, it will not be anywhere that we'll have to interact with you.

FIRST to tell 1:51 to take Fed. Courts next semester, the decision of the CA Supreme Court will not be going up to the Supreme Court and the Justices will have Nothing to say about it because the decision legalizing gay marriage was a ruling that invalidated 2 CA statutes on the sole grounds that they were impermissible under the CA state constitution. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to review a state supreme court's ruling that a state law is prohibited by that state's constitution.

6:52 - actually i went to a top ten school and practice at a v10 firm, thanks. do you have anything substantive to say or are you just going to make nasty comments from the sidelines?

6:29 - Because it's obvious here that the court is the one playing politics by twisting the words of the Constitution to mean something that no one before has ever thought that it meant in order to promote their own political agenda, so it is perfectly logical for the voters to tell the court that they are a bunch of idiots and since they need to have it spelled out, those words in the Constitution do not in fact mean what the court has deliberately twisted them to mean. The Constitution is of the people by the people and for the people, so if the court screws up what the people meant or deliberately disregards what it knows or should know what was meant, it is perfectly logical for the people to clarify the point.

Oh, and the state is not prohibiting anyone from doing something that another person is allowed to do. Everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

7:00 -

I am dead serious. You think it is inappropriate for the people of a state to amend their constitution to override a state court decision?

- 6:52

I only had the patience to scroll through about 40 pages of this rediculous decision which only received a bare majority, but I didn't even see any place where the court even cites the specific clause of the state constitution that the court pretends prohibits the state from having a law that only opposite sex couples can marry. Does the court ever even cite a specific clause, or is it another "penumbra" of the "living constitution"?

FYI that top photo was taken from the annual Elderly Woman Headbutting Tournament held each summer in Boca Raton, FL. Not sure what it has to do with this post.

(needless to say the woman in blue won)

7:19 is by far the best comment in the bunch.

Weren't the people in the picture at the top born before gay was invented?

i don't understand why heteros have their panties in a bunch. how does letting gay people call their relationships a "marriage" as opposed to a "domestic partnership" affect hetero marriages? why would a straight married person be opposed to this unless they are simply bigoted and do not want to be associated with gays?

To all of you people complaining about this decision: Find another career. There was a time when I actually thought lawyers were some of the few people in society who were actually fair and wanted to ensure that justice was done.

I am appalled to find out how many bigots there are in this profession (and if you are against gay marriage you are an out and out bigot). Get out of this profession, move to some godforesaken place like Oklahoma, West Virginia or Kentucky and become a developer There's no place for you in law.

If you can't see the difference between 1) people critiquing the way this decision illustrates judicial process stepping into the realm of political process and 2) people complaining about the decision, find another career. In the same way that it's possible to be pro-choice and deplore Roe v. Wade for its myriad logical woes, it's possible to support gay marriage and think the court missed the mark here. It's immature and simplistic to throw a hissy every time someone has a thought that verges on disliking an outcome you believe in. Name-calling just because people disagree with you is, like, 6th grade.

I noticed something interesting in the portion of the decision listing the parties involved. It appears that numerous big law firms, including some traditionally thought of as conservative such as Gibson Dunn, filed amicus briefs on the side in favor of gay marriage. The one firm that I've heard of that, if I'm readining it correctly, filed an amicus on the other side (the wrong side/the side opposing gay marriage) is Keker and Van Nest. I'm wondering if I'm reading this correctly, as John Keker is certainly a liberal Democrat, and the firm is filled with very intelligent progressives, who likely would not put up with their firm taking a bigoted position.

Can someone clear this up?

7:18-

It is inappropriate for the people of a state to amend their constitution in order to effectively eliminate the application of certain rights to a minority population.

I'm with 7:28. I have never heard a rational argument against gay marriage. As we learn more about human beings we are finding out that many of us are gay. While I am not gay, it is clear my rights are not negatively affected by allowing adults to enter into consensual relationships.

If anybody has an argument that gay marriage hurts heterosexuals in some way I would be willing to listen. Something tells me nobody will have one.

Wow, some of these comments are as ridiculous as the comments over at the wsj law blog. Makes you wonder if half of these people are even law students/attorneys or just religious wackos who come out of the woodwork when there are decisions like this.

I'm not seeing which comments are ridiculous/outrageous/ignorant enough to condemn the folks here as whackos/bigots/etc. Seriously, what are you talking about? I count three lame jokes about other kinds of consensual relationships that are currently illegal, but beyond that...what?

To those who attack these judges by calling them "activist," doesn't the CA constitution have an equal protection clause? The court stuck the law based on both fundamental rights and equal protection grounds, so no strained reading of the CA constitution was needed. Even if it offends you to think that homosexuality is a protected categorization under equal protection, the law also implicates sex discrimination (I can't marry this person only because I am a man).

Further, for those of you who think the courts took power away from the people, the whole point of civil rights is that some rights are so basic that they should be protected even if a majority (i.e., bigots) tries to take them away.

The Court struck down the anti-marriage ban on two grounds. First, it held that the ban violates the fundamental right to marry in the CA constitution's (expressly guaranteed) right to privacy. It also held that the ban impermissibly discrminates on the basis of sexual orientation--not sex, 8:30--and applied strict scrutiny in its EP analysis. The decision's implications will be far-reaching even if the ballot initiative passes in November because of this latter holding.

As for the ballot initiative process, it's completely fucked up but true that, yes, a simple (!) majority of California voters can amend the state constitution to take away from gays and lesbians the fundamental marriage rights recognized by today's rulings. I'm just hoping with an overwhelming pro-Obama turnout--and with the Governor's opposition to the measure--it just won't pass.

I didn't say the court held that the ban discriminated on the basis of sex, only that the law implicates sex discrimination.

8:30

And I thank you, Lat, for including the photo of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin. It's an amazing thing that these octogenarian lesbian rights pioneers who've been together for 55 years lived to see this day.

In that case, 8:30, I'm not sure what you consider the difference to be.

An oldie but goodie.

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

It is all about tax and inheritence. Seriously the Gov's position is anti gay marriage not as it is anti gay but it is anti expanding tax breaks and inheritence laws to cover more people. I assure you, if it could legally call a partnership a marriage and NOT give the tax breaks, it would. And I just as much assure you that if gay people were offered having the right to call their relationship a marriage WITHOUT getting the tax breaks they would REJECT that as well.

In life, always follow the money.

4:31, I just read your post and too, was like "ewwww" I can only guess that you are a Bush voter (x2) and a paralegal at some stellar firm in WV representing "blue collar" workers in worker's compensation cases!

very truly yours,
2:20

Wow. Talk about generalizations. Being against gay marriage does not make one a bigot per se. I know gays who are against gay marriage! Bigotry makes you a bigot; exercising the right to have an opinion does not.

7:15 says: "Oh, and the state is not prohibiting anyone from doing something that another person is allowed to do. Everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex."

that's certainly one perspective. another is the state allows women to marry men, but doesn't allow men to do so, and vice versa. my fiancee would be allowed to marry another man, but i wouldn't. so it seems like

I am a Republican who politically supports some civil rights for homosexual couples (particularly for inheritance, medical decisions, etc.), but would not myself favor a law in my state providing for gay marriage. I don't see myself as a bigot. Perhaps that just my bigotry blinding me. I also think that it would be inappropriate for a federal court or a court in my state to rule that the state or federal constitution mandates that gay marriage be allowed.

That said, California and their courts can have whatever constitution they want and can interpret it however they want. As Ronald Reagan often said among his staff, "Federalism means that it is the prerogative of each state to make itself uninhabitable." I do not mean to suggest that this ruling makes California uninhabitable, but merely to suggest that as far as I am concerned, what California and their courts do with their constitution is their business.

5:12/5:24/5:36 is a fag.

-Bigot

12.11AM what are you talking about, think about the children raised by same sex parents, I found a great prespective on http://www.lawdialogs.com/viewtopic.php?p=17#17

10:08:

Um, the gays "against" gay marriage are not against it for the same reason that homophobes are against it....OBVI!

Can I finally marry my Labrador Retriever ?

:56am, you missed the boat.

My point was that there are people who are against gay marriage who are not homophobic/ bigots. Blanket generalizations and assumptions about individuals who hold certain opinions are in and of themselves problematic. Everyone has a right to an opinion, regardless of whether you or anyone else deems the reasons for holding that opinion to be "right" or "wrong".

Yours,
10:08pm

12:01, "I also think that it would be inappropriate for a federal court or a court in my state to rule that the state or federal constitution mandates that gay marriage be allowed."

The California Court did not mandate that gay marriages be allowed. They simply said that if the state chooses to allow couples to register with the state in some form (currently designated marriage), it cannot specify the gender of the participants, and -- this is truly the heart of the decision -- cannot use a different term to refer to a same-sex union from the one that is used for an opposite-sex one.

The state can choose not to register couples, or it can choose to do so but call _all_ of them "registered partnerships", or it can just let gays get married. Up to the state.

Also, to everyone else: Prop 22, definitng marriage in California as between one man and one woman, was passed in 2000 amid a massive misinformation campaign and lopsided voter turnout. Since that time, public opinion in California has overwhelmingly supported gay marriage. The state legislature has twice passed a gay marriage bill, which was vetoed by the Schwarz each time. He stated that the Court should resolve the issue. The current (now former) domestic partnership laws in CA were the first in the nation to be passed without prompting by a court order.

This ruling does not override the expressed will of the people. It supports the current state of that will as expressed in the 8 years since the referendum.

*defining.

Could there be any lamer an issue to get riled up about? Who gives a rat's ass if gays get married?!

Could there be any lamer an issue to get riled up about? Who gives a rat's ass if gays get married?!

As a California citizen I both deeply saddened and outraged about the state supreme court's decision to overturn a handslide vote to uphold a 5,000 year definition of marriage. It's beyond belief that we change definitions to support 2% of the population, a group that less than 30 years ago would have been classified as perverts and mentally ill. What's next? Broadening the definition of marriage to include man and animal or adult and child? I wouldn't be surprised that these would be the next group that voices to be accepted and pushes for yet another re-defining of marriage. The family will be the one hurt by this as we continue to waterdown marriage, which is a covenant between a man and woman.

I'm thrilled with the decision! It's about time! Yeah for equality!

I'm thrilled with the decision! It's about time! Yeah for equality!

"why does it say 'upholds' gay marriage when in reality the op seems to strike down a ban on it? is that funny or has lat forgotten how to be a lawyer?"

The trial court ruled that the gay marriage ban was unconstitutional. In this sense, the Cali Supremes were upholding the gay marriage.

12:46PM:

I'm taking advantage of the "redefined" marriage in August. I love being gay (ok, technically a lesbian). It's funny that my very existence and choice to marry threatens you and your "covenant" with the opposite sex. I'd be careful if I were you...rumor has it you can catch my gayness just by reading my post.

STOP! STOP READING! NOW!!!!!!

P.S. If anyone actually understands what it means to be in a consensual relationship, s/he would know that marrying your animal is not the logical next step. Whenever someone makes that argument it automatically exposes his or her ignorance.
P.P.S. Everyone knows the biggest homophobes are the ones who are secretly gay...you know, craigslist trolls. Need I point to modern day anti-gay figures to support this conclusion?

"As a California citizen I both deeply saddened and outraged about the state supreme court's decision to overturn a handslide vote to uphold a 5,000 year definition of marriage. It's beyond belief that we change definitions to support 2% of the population, a group that less than 30 years ago would have been classified as perverts and mentally ill. What's next? Broadening the definition of marriage to include man and animal or adult and child? I wouldn't be surprised that these would be the next group that voices to be accepted and pushes for yet another re-defining of marriage. The family will be the one hurt by this as we continue to waterdown marriage, which is a covenant between a man and woman."

I do hope this is a troll. As I pointed out, this court ruling supports current California public opinion. It does not fly in the fact of it. Also, I think the figure of gays you're looking for is closer to 4-8% -- and probably higher in sunny CA. And finally, I suggest you look up an excellent article by a Mr. Eskridge, which shows that marriage has NOT been historically defined as only between men and women, just as it has not (and in many cultures continues not to be) defined as between 2 people. From Native American berdache traditions to lesbians obtaining legal marriage licenses in Harlem in the 1920s, and as far back as the Pharaohs, same-sex relationships have been recognized, despite what your authoritarian Church may tell you.

Religion is founded on lies and fear.

woof

I just love the "activist judge" comments that abound when decision contradict with Republican/ conservative values. Our legal history is peppered with "activist" judges whose opinions differ from those of the legislature. One could say that the Warren Court was "activist," but he can also say that the Rehnquist Court was also activist. I mean, Jesus, their commerce clause cases? Come on! We've seen nothing more "activist" in the last 30 years.

The California Constitution says what the California Supreme Court says is says. It's done. Accept it. Absent an amendment (which just won't happen in California), it's over. I just don't see why people care? You don't want to marry another man, don't do it.

And to those of you who object to marriage between same sex members on religious grounds, you should do a little research. The Egyptians formed marriage contracts more than 2000 years before Christ. It's not fundamentally a religious sacrament. The concept originated as and continues as a civil institution. Just because it's now sanctioned by religious institutions doesn't mean it has become a religious event only.

I just don't get why people care what others do. No one is hurt by two men formally recognizing their relationship.

I just love the "activist judge" comments that abound when decision contradict with Republican/ conservative values. Our legal history is peppered with "activist" judges whose opinions differ from those of the legislature. One could say that the Warren Court was "activist," but he can also say that the Rehnquist Court was also activist. I mean, Jesus, their commerce clause cases? Come on! We've seen nothing more "activist" in the last 30 years.

The California Constitution says what the California Supreme Court says is says. It's done. Accept it. Absent an amendment (which just won't happen in California), it's over. I just don't see why people care? You don't want to marry another man, don't do it.

And to those of you who object to marriage between same sex members on religious grounds, you should do a little research. The Egyptians formed marriage contracts more than 2000 years before Christ. It's not fundamentally a religious sacrament. The concept originated as and continues as a civil institution. Just because it's now sanctioned by religious institutions doesn't mean it has become a religious event only.

I just don't get why people care what others do. No one is hurt by two men formally recognizing their relationship.

Marrying your dog is a bit of a stretch but I certainly don't see any compelling state interest in prohibiting polygamy and marrying relatives.

(9:36pm):

Sure the tax bennies are great, but, as a gay man, I really just want to get married for the gifts. I mean, come on, I go to het weddings all the time and it's $150 a pop for a decent gift. When is it my turn, dammit???? Maybe I should just marry myself and register (Carrie Bradhsaw style).

2:32 - talk to a real Federalist. We hate the commerce clause crap just as much as any other episode of the courts' tinkering with the Constitution.

A few things I need to get off my chest:

1. Thank goodness this is a generational issue. As a millennial, we are far more accepting than the boomers. The minute you fogies are on the decline, we'll repeal your amendments.

2. About the incest marriage, there is scientific evidence of the genetic and psychiatric problems of being raised with parents who are relatives. From this, the state has a compelling interest not to allow it.

3. About the marriage to animals, dogs don't have the same rights as humans, otherwise I would have paid to have you people neutered years ago.

Lastly, this is a conservative court, and the republican governor has come out AGAINST the constitutional initiative. As a former californian, it will not pass. Especially since a lot of california's republicans have moved to arizona.

A few things I need to get off my chest:

1. Thank goodness this is a generational issue. As a millennial, we are far more accepting than the boomers. The minute you fogies are on the decline, we'll repeal your amendments.

2. About the incest marriage, there is scientific evidence of the genetic and psychiatric problems of being raised with parents who are relatives. From this, the state has a compelling interest not to allow it.

3. About the marriage to animals, dogs don't have the same rights as humans, otherwise I would have paid to have you people neutered years ago.

Lastly, this is a conservative court, and the republican governor has come out AGAINST the constitutional initiative. As a former californian, it will not pass. Especially since a lot of california's republicans have moved to arizona.

A few things I need to get off my chest:

1. Thank goodness this is a generational issue. As a millennial, we are far more accepting than the boomers. The minute you fogies are on the decline, we'll repeal your amendments.

2. About the incest marriage, there is scientific evidence of the genetic and psychiatric problems of being raised with parents who are relatives. From this, the state has a compelling interest not to allow it.

3. About the marriage to animals, dogs don't have the same rights as humans, otherwise I would have paid to have you people neutered years ago.

Lastly, this is a conservative court, and the republican governor has come out AGAINST the constitutional initiative. As a former californian, it will not pass. Especially since a lot of california's republicans have moved to arizona.

A few things I need to get off my chest:

1. Thank goodness this is a generational issue. As a millennial, we are far more accepting than the boomers. The minute you fogies are on the decline, we'll repeal your amendments.

2. About the incest marriage, there is scientific evidence of the genetic and psychiatric problems of being raised with parents who are relatives. From this, the state has a compelling interest not to allow it.

3. About the marriage to animals, dogs don't have the same rights as humans, otherwise I would have paid to have you people neutered years ago.

Lastly, this is a conservative court, and the republican governor has come out AGAINST the constitutional initiative. As a former californian, it will not pass. Especially since a lot of california's republicans have moved to arizona.

I'm just sorry the court also did not invoke the wisdom of one Margaret Cho:

Any place that would deny a gay man the right to bridal registry is a fascist state.

Folks....click once. Just once. One read of your comments is plenty for the rest of us.

Review: how many clicks does it take to leave a comment? ONE.

Yes, but the wisdom of a "millennial" requires that it be repeated 4 times.

Plus, every millennial wants it NOWNOWNOWNOW and if they don't get it, their faces will turn blue.

Click "post" once, folks. Screw the delay. Just close the tab/browser, and reconnect, you'll see your comment.

This helps McCain in and out of California. Makes the need to vote against Obama more pronounced.

Barbara Mulkulski will be the first in line.

Dear 4:31/4:33/4:34/4:36:

1. I am part of your "generation" and completely disagree with you.

2. There is scientific evidence on both sides of anything. Only douchbags resort to the "scientific evidence" argument.

3. Dog's don't have to have the same rights, it is MY decision whom/what to marry, right? So long as Fido is smiling when he barks "I do," who are you to say it wasn't consensual?

Lastly, you are an ass. Please hit the "post comment" button once, then go have a daiquiri. When you return, your flawless logic will have been posted for the world to see.

Anyone catch the fact that this case was the handywork of Heller? No wonder they are losing people left and right. Who wants to work for a firm that is going to Hell(er)? Ha ha.

2:32:
Why do some of us care if men can marry men? Because it does hurt all of us - it hurt's society in general.
And, perhaps YOU should do some research. Of course marriage existed thousands of years before Christ - so did religion. Ever heard of the Old Testament? Marriage actually started with Adam and Eve, and the ceremony was performed by God. Sounds like a pretty religious deal to me.

1:48AM
Are you seriously using Adam and Eve as your argument? Eve created from Adam's rib? So you're saying God approved of two people genetically linked to marry? I never knew that your God promoted incest... gross...

It is all about tax and inheritence. Seriously the Gov's position is anti gay marriage not as it is anti gay but it is anti expanding tax breaks and inheritence laws to cover more people. I assure you, if it could legally call a partnership a marriage and NOT give the tax breaks, it would. And I just as much assure you that if gay people were offered having the right to call their relationship a marriage WITHOUT getting the tax breaks they would REJECT that as well.

In life, always follow the money

Marriage didn't start with Adam and Eve, because they didn't exist: if anything, they're allegorical. Don't throw fiction in as an argument, or I'll start referring to our ancestors who came over the sea from Numenor.

"2. There is scientific evidence on both sides of anything. Only douchbags resort to the "scientific evidence" argument.

3. Dog's don't have to have the same rights, it is MY decision whom/what to marry, right? So long as Fido is smiling when he barks "I do," who are you to say it wasn't consensual?"

2. Only douchebags don't listen to testable argument. I'm pretty sure there's not much scientific evidence supporting the idea that grass is red or that hair actually grows INTO the head rather than out of the scalp.

3. Sorry, your TTT reasoning doesn't apply here. Dogs can't demonstrate mental competence, not to mention that your hypothetical would also permit various forms of rape.

Gays and Lesbians are an abomination before GOD. In the beginning GOD made male and female Gen 1:28 King James Version. Some people may say this is predated talk. Well, this is what is going to stand on judgement day. No one is born gay or a lesbian. You become this way because you did not retain GOD in your knowledge Rom. 1:27-28, therefore, GOD gave you up to a reprobate mind. When one is reprobate they thing right is wrong and wrong is right. I would hate to appear before GOD as a woman and he made me a man. Gays and Lesbians will be judged!!! Believe that!!! GOD did not tolerate it in Gen. 19 and he will not tolerate it today. Also, to the so called ministers that endorse it you will be judge too!!!