November 20th, 2008
04:40 PM ET

Gay Marriage Ban: Should Calif. Courts stay out?



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

On Election Day, California voters approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that overruled the state Supreme Court's decision this past May to legalize gay marriage.

Protests and petitions by gay rights groups and supporters followed in the days after.

Now the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear three legal challenges to the state's new ban.

All three cases claim Proposition 8 steps on the civil rights of a "vulnerable minority group."

While the court agreed to review the cases, it stopped short of suspending the ban.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages were certified in California between the spring and Election Day and many of these couples have been left in legal limbo.

According to one gay rights group, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging ballot initiatives or legislative acts in the last century. The court eventually overturned three of the measures.

Here’s my question to you: Should the California Supreme Court stay out of the recently passed ban on gay marriage?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Raphael from New York writes:
Yes, Jack, they should stay out. Whatever the merits of gay marriage, the people have spoken as to whether they feel they want it in their state. For those who go against the final decision, I suggest they move to a state where the people have voted in a way they agree.

Daniel from Indiana writes:
No. This is a civil rights issue. The rights of a minority are being stomped on, and this needs to be corrected. Should the U.S. Supreme Court have remained silent about Brown v. The Board of Education or Roe V. Wade? Not in the least. They intervened and set right cases of discrimination.

Kevin from Oregon writes:
The courts should interfere. The bottom line: it’s discrimination. It sets a specific set of laws for a portion of the population. The courts interfered years ago when the majority voted to ban interracial marriage. The majority isn't always right.

Bill from West Virginia writes:
I have always been understanding and tolerant towards gays. I have always been supportive of civil rights for others, but gay marriage goes over the line. It is not a civil rights issue and communities should have the right as to accept it or not.

Michael from Canada writes:
The fundamental question that needs to be addressed is: Is marriage strictly a religious right, or is marriage strictly a legal entity that provides certain benefits and rights? If it is a religious right, then the courts should stay out. If marriage is to be held strictly as a legal entity, then the courts should get involved.

Mary from California writes:
Unfortunately, those that want same-sex marriage are pushing the courts to overturn what was finalized in the election. The protests are not exactly quiet. They do have the right to protest. They do not have the right to push their opinions down other people's throats who believe that marriage is between a man and woman.

Filed under: Gay Marriage
soundoff (267 Responses)
  1. JIM

    The courts should not interfere. The proposition passed. Majority rules. The Gays think they are above the law

    November 20, 2008 at 12:46 pm |
  2. Andy J, NY

    I'm quite disgusted that this is even up for debate.

    The people have expressed their will, for the SECOND TIME.

    Its the will of the people, not the will of activist judges, that is to be expressed. There are other states where gay marriage is legal, maybe those gays should move there. This is a state by state issue, and the people of the state have said they want marriage defined as being between a man and a woman.


    November 20, 2008 at 12:47 pm |
  3. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    I don’t live in California so it’s not my issue. I wouldn’t want a California resident passing judgment on our affairs here in NY.

    November 20, 2008 at 12:55 pm |
  4. Nick

    we have checks and balances for a reason.

    November 20, 2008 at 12:56 pm |
  5. Mike S.,New Orleans

    I think when any one group in society is singled out to be denied certain rights afforded to other citizens, the courts are an appropriate arena to settle disputes. Look how much money and litigation is involved in protecting prisoner's rights, even though they may be rapists or murders. And it was only a few decades ago, interracial marriage was illegal, which the courts reversed.

    November 20, 2008 at 12:59 pm |
  6. chuck

    Jack,this is the twenty first century--Rules are made to be broken,regulations to be changed, straight could be bent and illegal could turn legal so just live and move on brotherman.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:01 pm |
  7. Jim


    Yes, they should intervene. Putting bigotry and injustice into the California Constitution is just too grotesque.

    Reno, Nevada

    November 20, 2008 at 1:07 pm |
  8. Roger from Espanola, New Mexico

    I think both sides need to calm down and try tp let logic take over. It is always dangerous when courts turn over the voting results of the majority. Why not re-define the terms used for these specific marriages while rights remain the same. Having a specific term for hetero-sexual marriage and one for homo-sexual marriage etc. might relive some of the fear and anxiety of those oppsed to gay marriage. We might like both apple juice and orange juice, but having their own names does simplify things at the grocery store!

    November 20, 2008 at 1:09 pm |
  9. Joe Wright

    YES!! The Courts are there to protect the people form the tyranny of the majority and to make sure that peoples freedoms are protected 100% of the time. The California Supreme Court already gave its opinion on this issue and it is a blatant disregard for the authority of the cout that this measure was even up for a vote. I hope that this injustice will be changed as soon as the courts have their say...again.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:09 pm |
  10. Lawrence from Ontario, CA

    I am not an advocate for the gay lifestyle. But I said it on November 4th and I say it now, putting an amendment to our state's constitution taking the rights away from another citizen is a throwback to an ugly period in this country's history when blacks were considered 1/8 of a citizen. After electing our first black President, why would we want to take a step backward?

    November 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm |
  11. Anj in CA

    You bet! Prop 8 is an end-run around California's constitution and the process for changing it. Prop 8 represents a revision to our constitution that fundamentally changes it, and therefore it can only be placed on the ballot by a 2/3 vote of the legislature. The proponents of Prop 8 knew they didn't have the votes for a revision, so they characterized it as an amendment which has a lower threshold. That plus boatloads of money from Utah (of all places!) got them what they wanted–discrimination hardwired into the constitution. Hey–gotta protect "traditional" marriage so Britney Spears can marry a guy for 48 hours while making sure that same-sex couples working hard, raising their kids and saving for their college educations are second class citizens.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm |
  12. Jane (Minnesota)

    My question is why do people feel they have the right to interfere in the personal lives of others and force their personal beliefs on them? As long as this occurs it will be necessary for courts to step in.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm |
  13. Amanda

    Majority rules? The people have spoken? If a vote had been held in 1967 as to whether or not to continue with Jim Crow in the South, I'll wager the vast majority of people would have voted "yes." Instead, in that case, the federal government had to step in and tell the white South that here in America, we don't deny people their civil rights, even when we hate them.

    Majority doesn't rule - at least not when it's in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States. (And, yes, before you ask - the Constitution is still in force.)


    November 20, 2008 at 1:12 pm |
  14. Katiec Pekin, IL

    I do not believe in prejudice against the gays. And, I do not
    believe in churches getting involved in the voting process.
    If this was a fair decision than it should stand. But there
    seemed to be alot of out of state influence, financial support
    that should not have been allowed.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
  15. Tom in Desoto, TX

    Why should married heterosexuals be the only ones with a, sometimes, complaining spouse? Everyone deserves a slice of misery at times.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:13 pm |
  16. Kel in Auburn, AL

    You know, as an African-American, It really irritates me that the gay/lesbian community thinks this is a "civil rights" issue.

    Gays were not brought to this country as slaves. Gays were never lynched, beaten, or denied the right to vote because of their sexual orientation. A gay person can walk into a job interview and avoid being discriminated against, simply by not talking about their beliefs.

    None of that matches up with what people have endured in true civil rights struggles throughout history.

    This is the way our country has been set up I feel sorry for them, but maybe they can start fundraising so they can run an ad campaign of their own to reverse the vote next time.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:14 pm |
  17. lee in tn

    This should be left the the individual and their inner soul. We should not pass Judgment Leave that to the most Supreme Judge of mankind

    November 20, 2008 at 1:15 pm |
  18. April in Hoboken, NJ

    I had hoped that the residents in California would vote against Prop 8; however, more people voted yes on it. The ruling should stand.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
  19. Karen - Nashville

    Like many things in life, a decision either way will make lots of people angry or unhappy. However, a decision must be made, and the California Supreme Court will be able to explain the reasoning behind it.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:16 pm |
  20. Bill from Medford, NJ

    Interfere???? Funny, I always thought interpreting the law was why the courts were created. "The law," of course, means the federal and state constitutions, not whatever popular prejudice is being shouted from the street corners.

    Any state's supreme court gets involved when there is a question as to whether the law that resulted in the case under appeal is constitutional.

    Such a question can arise whether a law is passed through the normal process or by popular initiative. The people of California can vote whichever way they want on gay marriage, but their choice still has to be in accordance with the state constitution.

    "Interfere" all you want, your honors: you're all that's keeping the fanatics from running roughshod over our rights.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:17 pm |
  21. Frank from Peterborough

    If people who believe a vote on restricting Gays and Lesbians from being able to marry should remain legal then they should be willing to accept the same kind of vote on the following:

    Mormonism should become a criminal organization as has been established their founder was a con artist and theif as well as their beliefs falling well outside other main stream type religions.

    My point is most constitutions are in place to protect a minority from the majority as voting only expresses the flavour of the day and are subject to change as societies progress.

    Since Mormonism is definitely a minority and frowned on even by many of the so called Evangelicals it just might be quite possible a future vote like mentioned above could be passed by the electorate. Then I guess you could safely say the shoe is now on the other foot.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:19 pm |
  22. Michael in Western PA

    This IS America correct? If we have no law, it's "free will". I'm sure I read on some paper about "legal rights for all??? Maybe it was on a bathroom door? Anyway, let the legal process flow!

    November 20, 2008 at 1:22 pm |
  23. Janet American in Canada

    Definitely, YES! The measure and side step along with truly misleading interpretation of #8. Along with the interference of ALL religious groups should have their tax exemption revoke, as separation of church and government should stand firm. If this is the case, then interracial marriage should be revoke, Mormons should not be allow to have more than one wife, KKK and other White Supremacists group should be disband and place in prison for hate crimes and put to death, along with any/all other groups that preach/media on hatred and lies against others.

    This just proves that America is still filled with those, Religious Groups, who sow and breed hatred against others.

    Those of us who believe in God, knows that God shuns those who preach and act out of hatred! Jesus lives only in the hearts of those who love, not hate!

    November 20, 2008 at 1:24 pm |
  24. C from Georgia

    Prop. 8 limits the constitutional and civil rights of a class of people. I hope the CA Supreme Court will bounce it and if not them, the US Supreme Court.

    Don't we have better things to worry about than how people love each other?

    November 20, 2008 at 1:25 pm |
  25. Conor in Chicago

    They may need to get involved in the end because what is one to do about all of the gay marriages that were approved? It's one thing to ban it all together but what of the people who already got married? Is their marriage already absolved? They may need to weigh in on at least that.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:28 pm |
  26. philip from Toronto

    Yes the Courts should step up and say one thing. There is a separation of Church and State, keep out of it. When it comes to abstract beliefs and other "invisible friends" the State has no business interfering. Thank God I'm an atheist!

    November 20, 2008 at 1:28 pm |
  27. Ed Portland, OR

    Being a resident north of that state, I wonder how many people will come to Oregon to get married?

    I don't mind anybody getting married to anybody else. After all, we're talking about two PEOPLE (emphasis mine) who are entering a mutual agreement, not two people and their community all getting married.

    Besides, in a marriage between two men, it'd be nice to see the guy getting the house in a divorce.. for a change, of course.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm |
  28. Chris

    The people of California have spoken. They DO NOT want gays to have the right to marry. Is this not a democracy? Why is the will of the majority of the people trying to be pushed aside?

    November 20, 2008 at 1:31 pm |
  29. George

    Only those who do not believe in the Constitution of the United States would be offended if this law is overturned. The very same Constitution protects your right to live another lifestyle. How would you feel if you were in the minority, and a law was passed against marriage between men, and women? While we are on the subject to those of you who believe in right to life should come to my home, and talk to me, and my mate. She was just sent home from the hospital with cancer, because we were unable to pay for services that she needs. Doesn't she have a right to life also?

    November 20, 2008 at 1:32 pm |
  30. Shirley -AK OHIO

    I think that the Supreme Court should step in a ban it across the board (every state). While I know people who are gay, it not right and marriage should only be between a man and woman. While we all came from a man and a woman. I do not see how anyone feel it’s okay to change the meaning. If they choose to live together as a couple, they should have the common law stipulations of a relationship, but nothing should be put in writing that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:33 pm |
  31. Rob , NYC

    yes. since the Mormon's and the Catholic church's illegally sent money to get this through.. this wasn't fair. it was underhanded .–typical for the church trying to get through their agenda. and they keep saying gays have an agenda–LOL.all they want are equal rights

    November 20, 2008 at 1:34 pm |
  32. Karen McCullough

    Hi Jack,
    Because there was a lot of outside funding and interference(particularly from the Morman Church) in the passage of the Proposition, the California Supreme Court has not only the right, but an obligation to evaluate the ban on gay marriage. Their job is to interpret the law so that there is no discrimination again any American.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:34 pm |
  33. Jason, Koloa, HI

    Whatever it takes, until there is actually equal rights and justice for all.
    For All. I thought this was America

    November 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm |
  34. David, Tampa, Fl

    A vote was taken and the people spoke a resounding NO. The court should stay out of it. I think homosexuals should have certain basic rights that the rest of us enjoy including the right to divorce court. Call it marriage or civil union makes no difference to me. Help a starving lawyer make his next house payment, legalize something that would let these people share love and maybe misery.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm |
  35. Cori from Colorado

    Gay or not, they are human. Leave them be and let them love who they love, and marry who they choose. Who are we to interfere in the lives of people we've never met, never will meet, and will never interact with them, ever? Let them live their lives as they choose.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:38 pm |
  36. Terry from North Carolina

    There are more serious issues in California for the prople to be concerned about.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
  37. Greg in Cabot AR

    Suppose the voters in California passed a law banning inter-racial marriage, should the courts be involved? Absolutely, it's the court’s job is to interpret the constitution and eliminate discrimination. Just because some people…even a majority….disagree with the courts interpretation, passing a law won’t make the issue go away. Their only option is to amend the California constitution to exclude everyone that has a life style that they don’t agree with.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:40 pm |
  38. Audrey Fryer

    Why was it ever put on a ballot in the first place – it seems to me that you are discriminating against a minority group of people; most of the people didn't want the bailout to the financial industry but the Government didn't care what the majority said (they knew the majority would vote against it) – they still proceeded to go ahead; so having said that, I am quite sure that California can ignore the Ban as well.

    Vancouver Island

    November 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm |
  39. Veronica in Virginia

    Gays in California pay taxes just like everyone else, they should be allowed to marry if they want, it's nobodies business what goes on in their bedrooms! Maybe the Gay's in California should STOP paying taxes, then see what the hater's say.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:44 pm |
  40. Mary from Houston, tx

    Intolerance is intolerance.
    For those who oppose gay lifestyle/abortion, abstain, however allow other adults their choice.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:45 pm |
  41. Lynn, Boise, Idaho

    Yes, the courts should clarify. It's not a matter of the courts overturning the people, but because Prop. 8 takes away rights, so it's a very gray area. Some major clarification is needed and the fate of the marriages that have already taken place need to be decided and this is a great example of why we shouldn't legislate morality. Hopefully, people aren't stripped of their marriage vows by the courts or the government.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:48 pm |
  42. marti thompson

    I think the Californians should be able to marry a goat if they desire..I moved away from there for this very reason. They are always stirring the pot...

    November 20, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  43. Pugas-AZ

    The people in California had their say. Courts stay out of it. This is just more lawyer "fodder' like most of the "issues" being pursed these days. We have way too many lawyers in this country trying to make a living off of the people. Enough already about this marriage issue. Let's get on to things that will keep this country going or all the "issues" will be moot -as we sink into oblivion.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:51 pm |
  44. Stacy from Loudoun County VA

    Jack, I am quite torn about this issue. In my heart of hearts, I think gays should be able to marry anyone they darn well please just as I do. But, I also believe in the rule of law implicitly. The California voters spoke and said “No”. I really guess it boils down to the question: Is marriage a civil right? That should be a fun one for the Supreme Court to hear!

    November 20, 2008 at 1:51 pm |
  45. Jack from Lombard, IL

    Of course they should. Unless being gay is a crime or somehow negatively impacts others. If the government was smart, they would eliminate the word "Marriage" from the law and replace it with "civil union". Then if you wanted to file income taxes together and be protected as a couple legally you would enter into a civil union. "Marriage" is a religious term and should be confined to churches.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
  46. Marie Ontario

    My idea is that constitutions are in place to protect the people from the people which I take to mean not letting a majority of people vote to limit or take away rights from any minority.

    It is a very slippery slope if states or nations adopt policies contrary to protections enshrined into the constitution. Freedom from persecution and discrimination should be a Federal matter and not subject to the whim of state politics.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:53 pm |
  47. Annie Florida

    who cares...California is one unto itself

    November 20, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  48. Rosie

    This is why our country is in the state it is in. Too many liberals making the decisions. Our country was based on the majority rule theory. Our fore fathers must be turning in their graves because of people like you.

    November 20, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
  49. John in Rohnert Park

    The Bill of Rights was given to us to protect the rights of the minority "FROM" the majority! You NEVER want to put someone's civil rights to a popularity contest vote as was done by the Mormons in California. There are regions of this country right now who would vote to re-institute SLAVERY if it were put to them in a vote. This is why this Calif. proposition should never have been put before the public. The courts MUST repeal this measure!

    November 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  50. C in Belen, New Mexico

    The courts have an impied duty to protect the rights of a minority from descrimination by the majority. Civil rights are based on this as proven in the 1950s and 1960s. "Jim Crow" laws existed and were supported by both a "majority" and many churches in certain states. That did not make them right or proper. I personaly don't know if marrage is considered a "civil right" in the same way as "equal pay" or "equal education" , but I certainly wouldn't say that it isn't either...

    November 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  51. Lexus

    Oh please, most gay people choose to gay, stop whining and get over it

    November 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  52. Precious Coker

    The courts should stay out!!

    Democracy is abiding by the will of majority.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  53. Bonnie, Ca

    If marriage is so sacred to those who want to deny it to others then divorce should be abolished.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  54. John in Arizona

    Same-sex unions are a civil right, the same as interracial marriage, and cannot be stripped away by a vote that represents the tyranny of the majority, any more than a majority vote of the people in 1964 could have stripped away racial civil rights. The courts are the proper place to affirm this basic premise.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  55. Michael and Diane Phoenix AZ

    The ban should never have been put on the ballot to begin with. We thought this country was one in which ALL citizens have, or are supposed to have equal rights anyway. Same goes for this stupid state of Arizona.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  56. Julie in Lansing, Michigan

    To Kel in Auburn, AL ... "Gays were never lynched, beaten, or denied the right to vote because of their sexual orientation."

    Really...? I beg to differ... Ever heard of Matthew Shephard?

    November 20, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  57. Jim, from Las Vegas

    The argument that the voters can not change the state constitution in a significant way is insane. The issue really belongs in the US Supreme Court as a Constitutional challenge. Ultimately it will come down as a state's rights issue unless the 9 wise ones say that sexual orientation is the same as color and gender so far as the Constitution is concerned. Then we'll see a movement for an ammendment spelling it out.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  58. Howard M. Bolingbrook IL

    In my opinion, our courts should not have the right to overturn any valid election or rightful and legal issued decided by the electorate.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  59. Billy G in Las Vegas

    yes the courts should step in just like with civil rights for blacks in the 1960's. discrimination is discrimination and is WRONG in America.

    and for those that say "majority rule", remember that southern whites were overwhelmingly for segregation. the main reason for the courts in America is to PREVENT the "Tyranny of the Majority".

    November 20, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  60. Brian from Fort Mill, SC

    We're dealing with a constitutionality issue here. The problem is that we have always assumed that marriage was between a man and a woman, and there was no reason to assume otherwise.

    Only the courts can decide if this assumtion is correct.

    Of course society is not ready for gay marriages, so they are most likely to vote against it.

    But this is not a pure democracy. It's a republic, or a nation of laws. That's why the courts are the only ones that should decide this issue.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  61. Ana in California

    Like stated above, the courts are the appropriate arena to eventually resolve this issue. It's beyond the expertise of us "common folks". That's what the courts and the system is there for. I just wonder where were the supporters of gay marriage BEFORE voting day. There were Yes advocates on the streets here in my city for days before Nov 4th. The measure passed by a small margin. The outcome might have been different if more discussion and/or coverage had been received providing voters with facts, in my opinion.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  62. Tom Ft Lauderdale

    Marriage should not be sactioned by the government. Marriage is a covenant with God. Why does our government license marriage?

    November 20, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  63. Brad in Wichita, KS

    It depends on whether legal marriage is a civil right. Maybe we should take a majority vote on that, too...Of course it is up to the courts to interpret the constitution regarding rights.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  64. James in NYC

    It is sad to say that selective segregation is still high on America's list of known infractions against it's citizens. Same-sex tax-paying couples deserve the same rights and legalities as everyone else in a marriage union. I don't buy into the opinion that somehow my marriage to my wife would not be worth as much if Joey and Tom were to get hitched or if Sara and Lisa were to elope. I say let the gays be just as happy or miserable as everyone else and let them marry!

    November 20, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  65. vern-t anaheim,ca

    i live in california and agree with the recent law that was passed by the majority and believe majority should be the rule. if the gay people don't like it they should move to somewhere where gay marriage is legal.i also believe the courts should stay out of this matter

    November 20, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  66. Mickie

    Absolutely! Any time rights are taken away from one group, we should all be upset, no matter what our beliefs. Most of this country didn't even get upset or care that Bush/Cheney took away the right of habeus corpus. When you start nibbling away a little at a time at civil or human rights, pretty soon all of them are gone. Stop trying to enforce personal beliefs on everyone else. (By the way, I am a 64-yr. old, straight, female.)

    November 20, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  67. Steve in Milford,MA


    November 20, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  68. Vinny Connecticut

    The will of the large majority of the California voters should not be overturned by activist judges who are not even elected! The people of California have spoken TWICE; there's no way tyrannical judges should be allowed to over rule the will of the people. By the way, NO WHERE in the US Constitution does it guarantee the right of homosexuals to marry!!

    November 20, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  69. Nick Obrenovich, Cutler, WI


    It would be nice if courts could ignore some laws but they wouldn't be
    doing the job they get paid to do.
    The California Supreme Court has no choice but to make a
    determination on whether or not the new law is constitutional.
    There really is no such thing as an activist judge. It's just a tag by someone that didn't get the ruling that they wanted.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  70. Jeffrey Cohen from LA, CA

    After prop 8 passed there have been multiple demonstrations and that shows that many Californians are upset with this decision so I feel that the California Supreme Court needs to address this issue once again.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  71. ajks

    With some of the thinking here, it is a wonder that women and people of color ever were allowed to vote. If we leave everything to what the majority wants, we are going to be in sad shape. Courts are there to decide on the rights of the people, even if those people happen to be a part of a minority.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  72. Joe in DE

    The courts have a right to determine if the ban is Constitutional under the CA Constitution. The Courts have no right over-turn legislation for other cause expect if the law is unclear.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  73. Joe in DE

    The courts have a right to determine if the ban is Constitutional under the CA Constitution. The Courts have no right over-turn legislation for other cause expect if the law is unclear.

    Wrong again – Not a duplicate

    November 20, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  74. Paul S. Columbia, SC

    The voters decided. It's over. Move on.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  75. Christine, Upstate NY

    Of course the California Supreme Court should intervene. Our brief American history is replete with Court rulings that have righted the wrong of exclusion. If not for our highest courts in the land, we would still have slavery, non-voting women, children in factories, and on and on and on. Every generation, bless their American hearts, finds a way to overturn one more stupid tradition against people's rights. For this generation, it just happens to be gay rights. If you want to be on the right side of history, stop fighting the principles of gay marriage and be proud that Americans never get tired of flexing their youthful muscles of democracy.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  76. Cliff, Front Royal,VA

    NO No NO and further NO!!

    November 20, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  77. ST

    As an African-American, I can sympathize. I think everyone should have the same rights. It's not fair to force your beliefs onto others. The only reason this was voted down is because of people's religious beliefs. The 3 major religions preach against homosexuality. Religion has been used throughout history to oppress a group of people, Jews, African-Americans, women. It's time to separate Church from state and come into the 21th century.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  78. JD in NH

    As a heterosexual woman who has been married 35 years, I fail to understand how allowing my gay neighbors to marry will in any way diminish the institution of marriage. How anyone can vote to take away rights in this manner is beyond me. Yes, the California Supreme Court should get involved and review the measure. I hope they overturn it.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:30 pm |
  79. lynnej

    Yes, the courts should intervene. In fact they should throw out the vote because mainly the money to get this passed came from out of state. That should be prohibited. Also, according to some reports the vote to insert that language into the constitution was illegal. Only two-thirds of their legislature can make adjustments to their state constitution.

    So yes, this needs to be looked into, thrown out and these folk left alone. People are out of work, losing homes and in need of healthcare. That is where their attention is needed.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  80. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    Yes they should but they won't. They should if they believe in the Constitution but they don't because they overturned it last time which was against the will of the people.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  81. Allan Hanson Cameron Park Ca.

    I think they have to.
    The propositiion was passed because of the most negative campaign I have ever seen. It was filled with lies and deception
    Because of the involvment of the Morman and Catholic churches into politics they should have their tax exempt status removed.
    I am straight but I think gays should have the same rights and suffer like us straights.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  82. mac from traverse city Michigan

    California should be it's own country so it's left wing radical judiciary couldn't set precedence on matters like this for the rest of us. I honestly don't have a dog in this fight and could care less who marries whom. I just resent the fact that any fringe group that wants to circumvent the legislative processes can find some judge in California willing to make or change law by decree.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  83. Joe, Yankee Lake, N.Y.

    Yes, let it go to the US Supreme Court to be resolved foor good.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  84. Sigrid, Albuquerque, NM

    Striping peoples rights should not be up for a vote. I hope the court overturns....

    November 20, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  85. John in Atlanta, GA

    Lived in California, not Gay. However, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do. They are grown adults. The last thing I'd want is anyone telling me how to govern my life. They aren't hurting anyone, and they certainly aren't bothering anyone. Let them have their lives.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  86. Paulette,Dallas,PA

    Keep the courts out of it. The people have already spoken!

    November 20, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  87. Suzanne Jupiter, FL

    Yes. These amendments and propositions that are put on state ballots to change comstitutions are becoming ridiculous. Most voters have not idea about the nuances that are invloved, so they are voting on subjects way over their heads.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  88. Michael from Greenfield, Wi.

    No. it is the court that approved the marraiges to begin with, and the court was correct. This is a separation of church and state issue, and it is the churches that supported this removal of civil rights. The churches shall dictate nothing in this country. It is religous interference that has helped create our national mess. Now back to the real issues...........

    November 20, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  89. John, Fort Collins, CO

    Hopefully, the California courts will overturn the ban on gay marriage. The resounding Republican defeat on November 4th is an indication that most Americans would like to leave gay marriage and abortion choice up to those people who are directly involved. Neither of these issues are anyone else's business, and should certainly not be a matter of law. A frequently seen bumper sticker in Colorado says it all: "Focus on Your Own Damn Family".

    November 20, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  90. Mary - California

    Unfortunately, those that want same sex marriage are pushing the courts to overturn what was finalized in the election. The protests are not exactly quiet and they do have the right to protest. They do not have the right to push their opinions down other people's throats who believe that marriage is between a man and woman. They also do not have the right to go after churches. There needs to be some control in this matter and it doesn't seem to be happening.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  91. Sherrol in Canada

    My goodness, why not live and let live people? Being Canadian and living in Toronto is so different to the American experience. Gay marriage is legal here and it really is a good thing for gays/lesbians to freely express themselves – they are PEOPLE too!!

    November 20, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  92. Lene' , IL

    I don't care if gays get married, just don't preach it to my children.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  93. Anthony Maffia Brooklyn NY

    Everyone should stay out of other peoples business. If two consenting adults want to get married more power to them. No one and I mean no one should have the right to stop them. How do 2 people of the same sex getting married affect me? It doesn't and it shouldn't affect anyone else. The fact that Prop 8 even got put on the ballet should be considered an insult to every free person! How dare someone try to legislate private individuals’ lives! I'm shocked at some of the other posts. Why do so many people have a hang up with gay people?

    November 20, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  94. Tony from Torrington

    The PEOPLE voted. They voted that the term "marriage" represents the legal bond between a man and a woman. Judges who are appointed should not be allowed to overthrow the will of THE PEOPLE. This is America, not communist China or Russia. In this country the majority rules. Or at least that's what I was taught many years ago is school. Have I missed something?

    November 20, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  95. Bill, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    I think the court should jump in and pass a law that gives gays back their right to marry. I really do not know what the big deal is? What is the difference whether gays lived together with a ring on their finger or not? Some people consider it a sin for two people of the same sex to marry. If they are right then god will punish them not me, I live in a glass house. Gay marriage isn't what California should be concentrating or spending their money on right now. They are on the verge of going bankrupt.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  96. Kai

    The courts should interfere. Bigotry is so 20th century.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  97. Ginger H -- West Melbourne, FL

    These amendments in California, Florida, and whatever other states had similar ones are violations of the federal law of Separation of Church and state because marriage based on just a man and a woman comes from the Christian Bible and has no place in our state laws and for good reason. I do not support gay marriage myself. What matters is that they have the same tax and insurance rights as anybody else. We screwed up a long time ago regarding marriage laws and the whole thing needs to be reworked.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  98. Daniel Ambrose

    Well that's why we have a U.S. Supreme Court for cases such where the state courts cannot resolve issues such as this. But I believe that this decision should be decided by people of California in which they have spoken. I really see no reason why the state has to get involved now especially since the citizens of California have voted on this. With all do respect to the gays and lesbians as to each their own, but this makes no sense to drag the U.S. Supreme Court in. There is just too much other things that is on their agenda than this.

    Atlanta, GA

    November 20, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  99. Engels From Philadelphia, PA USA


    First of all I'm 100% against Gay Marriage, but I believe on a fair trial. If Gays were able to marry before, and were somehow banned from being married, then the Supreme Court should interfere and decide what the majority of Californians want. As for us here in Philadelphia, we are fine without Gay Marriage and hope this subject never comes our way.

    November 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  100. Nancy Portland, OR

    YES! I'll never understand why anyone who is secure with their own sexuality would be threatened by a same sex couple who wants to get married. It's just mind boggling why opponents spew so much anger and hate. It's shameful and certainly NOT Christian.

    ALL citizens of this country should have the same basic rights. Period.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  101. Keith - Ohio

    California has wild fires, mud slides, earthquakes, a govenor asking the feds for a bail-out... and they are still debating the definition of 'marriage'.

    There are too many lawyers looking for work, so send 'em to California to draft legislation for every conceivable place the word 'marriage or married' is used, change it to 'union' and send to the state house for passage, then for a vote. Keep 'em busy for a couple of years.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  102. Alex in Seattle

    Had integrated schools been put to an initiative it probably would not have passed. It took the Supreme Court and Brown v Board of Education (and federal troops) to make it happen. I respect the viewpoint that this issue is not based on skin color which is easy to see. And yet, being gay is shown to be more biological than a personal choice. It will take a court order to allow gay marriage to be accepted throughout the country. Personally, I wish church and state were separate. The state would issue civil union licenses to all, and couples who want to, can be married in a church.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  103. Chad N., Fresno California


    Absolutely the California Supreme Court should hear arguments regarding Prop. 8! This is a Civil rights issue, plain and simple. Prop. 8 allows one group of people to discriminate against another for no other reason than they are different. I dont imagine we would be having this debate if Prop 8 had read that Black people shouldnt be allowed to marry, people wouldnt have allowed it in that context because it would be racist....also a civil rights issue. The constitution precludes discrimination, for any reason, and so the supporters of Prop 8 need to understand that even though the majority of people in California agree with them, Prop 8 is not something they can do because it is unconstitutional.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  104. wayne from ontario

    I have been married for almost 43 years and do not class gays as married people. Call it a UNION ,they are not a man and a woman which is marriage.
    Like common-law living ,they are also not classed as married , they are living togather.
    Leave the rite of marriage to a man and a woman who get a licence and go before God and pledge their vows ,as it has been for years and years.

    Call it anything but a Marriage.
    " JOINED AT THE HIP" sounds good.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  105. Jan from Delaware

    I hope that they take it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. What part of Equal Protection Uder the Law don't they understand? Anyone who is really into their religious doctrine knows that God is the ONLY one who will judge if it is wrong or right. In fact, as a Christian myself, the Bible says it is a sin to judge others. Running people's lives on other people's emotions is sick.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  106. Michael from Greenfield, Wi.

    Yes. If we continue to allow the religous right to dictate to the ignorant masses what our civil rights should be, we will eventually go back to burning witches at the stake while believing that the earth is flat. What's next, the inquisitions.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  107. Annie, Atlanta

    Of course the courts should interfere. When you have the Mormon and Catholic churches working behind the scenes on a full scale assault on the civil rights of our citizens, it does not bode well for any of us. Our founding fathers were right to separate church & state.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  108. Diane Memphis

    It is simply a separation of church and state issue.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  109. John Illinois

    It's the state voters decision! Court decisions are to uphold those who vote in that law right ?

    November 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  110. Willow, Iowa

    If majority ruled, we would still have segregation in the South, AA and white people could not marry, we would still have two water fountains and four bathrooms. This is an equal rights issue, and it should never have gone for a vote, because equal rights are for everyone, not just the majority. I believe it should go to the US Supreme Court, and let's get this settled once and for all. A gay person wanting to get married is not going to change the value of a heterosexual marriage. They just want the same benefits that straight people want. There are tax benefits, inheritance rights, etc. that gay "civil unions" do not get. Gay relationships are a fact of life. Just because they can't get married doesn't mean people don't know about them. And I am a 56 year old straight divorced woman in Iowa, and I was shocked to see that California couldn't get a "no" on Prop 8.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  111. Alex from New Jersey

    I truly believe that the right to get married is a civil right and as such no one in this 'land of the free' should be denied his civil rights. So it is my belief that the voters in California voted wrongly on this topic. Imagine if slavery and female suffrage and segregation were put to a popular vote. Are we really ready to risk putting gay marriage to a popular vote in each state? It would be pandemonium, and as far as I am concerned every effort to overturn this proposition should be made.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  112. Louise

    No! Gays lost the vote, morality won. So suck it up and move on.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  113. Irv Lilley

    Jack , It should ; but probably won't

    November 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  114. Nancy, Tennessee

    The California Supreme Court needs to interpret the Constitution of the state of California..not make or repeal laws. The people have voted on a proposal and the majority has spoken. Gays must have been shocked. They probably thought they were the majority, guess not.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  115. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    I was against proposition 8 because I thought denying certain people their civil rights was wrong. That being said,the majority has spoken and the Supreme court should stay out of it. If the anti-8 supporters don't like the results they need to have the matter put to the voters again.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  116. Steve of Hohenwald TN.

    It appears we took a leap forward with the election of Barack Obama, and at the same time we take a step backwards. It will not take anything from strights, to let gay people have equal rights.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  117. Ken in NC

    NO. The courts and government sticks their noses in everything else. Why not this.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  118. Susan from Georgia

    If the state laws interfere with the basic civil rights that the rest of the country enjoys, they should. Discrimination is not just a black issue, or a womans issue.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  119. Curt W

    No they should not stay out of it. They should let everyone know that this is a Democracy and as such majority rules. The people of California and also other states ie. Florida have voted and the will of the people is the basis for our Democracy. What kind of message is sent when a Court over turns the will of the people? What does that say about the importance of my vote? I believe we should put this to a national vote and follow the will of the people no matter the outcome. This is not a civil rights issue, it is a morality issue.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  120. BG, Seattle WA

    No, the court should intervene. The "majority rule" argument doesn't wash and the arguments are one of fear, not reason. The "majority" did not want equal civil rights for Blacks, nor have the "majority" ever wanted real change when it is necessary and right. Don't forget how violent things got for Blacks before the rest of the country began to even see an issue. Extreme violence should not be the standard for the need for change.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  121. Aimee, STL, Missouri

    I am confused. Is gay marriage a religious issue or a government issue. Since there is legislature about it then they definitely have the right to intervene. If it is a religious issue then they should stay out of it and there never should have been legislature about it to begin with. I'm in awe of how people use religion in this argument, when this country was founded with the theory that religion and state should be seperated.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  122. The Trippster of PA

    The California Supreme Court has a responsibility to step in if someone brings a case to trial questioning the ban's constitutionality. Just because a ban is passed doesn't make it lawful. If the majority of Californians strongly feel a ban should be imposed, then they need to amend their Constitution.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  123. Jay in Texas

    Absolutely not ! It is the job of the California Supreme Court to protect the constitutional rights of ALL Californians. Bigots can no longer be allowed to deprive other Americans of our rights by bypassing the Judiciarys' rulings by putting civil rights issues up for a vote as they did with Proposition 8. How would black people or women feel if those same bigots decided tomorrow that they want to take away their right to vote by holding an election? It's the same thing. Californians were granted the right to marry, many did marry, and then their rights were revoked.
    Brownwood, Texas

    November 20, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  124. mitchell ,arkansaw

    yes yes yes! courts are there to protect minority rights against majority discrimination. this is why we have courts.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  125. don in naples, florida

    Absolutely the courts should interfere. I can't think of one legal argument I could make in a court room against gay marriage, aside from– "ooh that's gross," or "yuck". Besides this was already something that was legalized and many took advantage of it. It is unfair, and unjust to strip this away from gays now.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  126. Ann, Newton, New Jersey

    From what I have been hearing, there was a lot of confusion on this bill that was voted on. Maybe something could be worked out where it isn't really a marraige, but that they will get all the rights married people enjoy – being able to adopt, if one passes away, the other can enjoy the fruits of both their labors without some family member coming in and taking it away without recourse. Having a say, when one of them is terminally ill, what the wishes of the other was, without interference. I know someone who has been in a relationship for over twenty-five years and are happier than a lot of straights.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  127. Carrie

    Yes! This passed based on a religious belief, supported with money from the Mormon church! There is no reason why two people should not be allowed the same rights as others. The fact they are the same sex should not make a difference. What's next, overweight people won't have the right to eat in public?

    November 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  128. Tim in FL

    The courts need to get involved. Here in FL we put everything into the state constitution, including how big a cage to hold your pigs in. The only way to stop this idiocy is in the courts. People can be too easily mislead by media.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  129. Al, Lawrence KS

    Look, marriage is between 1 man and 1 women....unless you are a member of the FLDS which would be 1 man and any number of women. Or you were married in the south before 1968...1 white man and 1 white woman. Or you were married in MA or CT...anything goes. Or you're a Catholic priest...no marriage allowed. There is no true definition of marriage. Every religion, every state, every country has a different definition. For one group to force it's beliefs on everyone else is not majority rule....it's mob rule. Of course the courts should get involved....they have to get involved.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  130. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    Whenever there is an interpretation of the constitution, either Federal or State, the courts should be the ones who decipher peoples rights, human prejudice by a majority of persons should not be a deciding factor.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  131. L.M.,Arizona

    If someone feels their rights are being violated I don't think the courts have a choice.


    November 20, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  132. Micah Miller of Canton OH

    It is the responsibility of the courts to keep the minority from being oppressed by the will of the majority. californians have created themselves a fine mess on so many levels. Ignoring the fact that a ban on marriage is a throwback to Plessy v. Ferguson– who put the California Supreme Court in office after all... And what of the couples already married? Retrograde justification is a cardinal sin of justice in my book.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  133. Bill from Maine


    We live in what we would like to believe is the freest country in the world and yet we persist in marginalizing our own people and depriving them of basic human rights. Somehow we've got to find a way to stop targeting one another and start recognizing that our country was founded on the principles of justice and fairness. If it takes the Supreme Court to ensure those rights, the sooner the better.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  134. john kennison

    perhaps we should all pause and look inside of ourselves and ask who are those who belive they have rights to judge and adjudicate our free will and souls? the founding fathers knew this and wrote it in the Declaration of Independence perhaps we all need to read it, most have no idea what it says.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  135. Geoffrey in Lowell, MA

    Of course the courts should interfere. If this was not a function of courts, would we have had civil rights for anyone? We have equal rights for everyone in this country, even if a majority wouldn't agree. Right wing nut cases may not understand that or may not want to but it is how it works, how it should and ultimately how it will be. I would feel the same if everyone in california wanted to ruin families with bedroom activites they don't like ... it would still be wrong.

    Only one constitutional ammendment ever passed to restrict personal freedoms, prohibition. It was also the only one to be reversed.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  136. John

    Jack: The majority of Californians have spoken with their votes. The courts should not get involved with this issue. The federal courts should stay out of it also.


    November 20, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  137. Meg Ulmes

    The Mormon Church saw fit to interfere in California's business and helped to overturn rights that were already on the books. If a church can "interfere" then the courts certainly should. What happened in California is a good example of religion crossing the line into state affairs. Why do some churches think that they have the right to call the moral shots for the rest of us? I am tired of the arrogance or the Mormons, the Catholics, and the Evangelicals. They aren't the only Americans who know what's right and what's wrong.

    Troy, Ohio

    November 20, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  138. Sarah

    It's important that California Supreme Court looks at this Proposition and how it affects the rights of gay people and, more to the point, whether it conflicts with the Constitution or Federal Laws. I am not gay but I personal feel that this infringes on their rights and I don't agree with it, but it's now upto the court to look at it and decide.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  139. Allen L. Wenger

    No, this is too important. We cannot discriminate against a group of people, because the majority is in favor of it. We cannot allow the majority to take equal rights away from any minority.

    Mountain Home ID

    November 20, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  140. Adena from Texas

    Yes, the State should get involved. This is about civil rights not religion. Jack, if we are going to hold the Bible up as a written law that is to govern the people, then we are all doomed. According to the sins and penalties as defined in the good book we wouldn't have many people left in this nation.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  141. Praetorian, Fort Myers

    No...the courts are the final testing ground...this is a tradition and traditions die slowly.

    In the end...what is legitimate under the constitiution will prevail–just as our founding fathers intended.

    Due process–is everyones right.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  142. Marjorie Lominy

    Just like Gays in the Military, a few years from now it'll be the norm.
    It just needs some getting used to.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  143. Chris, Missouri

    Yes they should. The people have voted and that is final. If a judge can always overturn a vote, why have a vote. They are all already treated equal. Everyone woman has the right to marry any guy they want and every man has the right to marry any woman he wants.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  144. Jake, Oregon

    Its not a court issue. The majority of Californians decided not to let the minority force their rules on them. Case dismissed.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  145. arlene rannfeldt


    November 20, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  146. Shannon Wadding, St. Paul, MN

    The California Supreme Court is the highest court of the land until the case is filed into the uS Supreme Court as a federal question of civil rights.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  147. Tripp, Mechanicsburg, PA

    The Californian Supreme Court must judge the constitutionality of the ban. If the moral majority feel so strongly about their anti-gay stance, then they need to amend California's Constitution.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  148. David Pickett Janesville WI

    California voters have spoken why should that be overturned or ignored?

    November 20, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  149. Kim, Dodge City, Kansas

    Legalized bigotry is never a good thing. How would the residents of California like it if they banned inter-racial marriages, inter-racial schools and ethnic mixing? Let's say that we pass a law that says Catholic and Baptists are forbidden to marry, or Republicans and Democrats. Of all the problems facing our country it is ridiculuos to be wasting time on this. Let them marry and let's move on.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  150. Jeff from Minnesota

    What can the California courts do now? The constitution has been changed. Last I knew, the courts were obligated to uphold the law.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  151. Jerry - Johns Creek GA

    Jack – It is not a ban on gay marriages. It is an affirmation of what constitutes a marriage. The homosexual communities want to change the definition of the word marriage just as they did with a perfectly good word "gay." If they want their partnerships recognized by government for tax or insurance issues they should change their tactics and focus and attack the real issue, recognition of a legal bond between two people but do not desecrate the word marriage.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
  152. Karl from SF, CA

    Yes they should overturn it as they did the last unconstitutional measure. The proper procedure to amend the Constitution is to bring it up in the Legislature as a Constitutional Amendment and if it passes there by a 2/3 majority, THEN it goes to ballot and passes with a simple majority. This was not done in this or the past attempt to take these rights from minorities and the Supreme Court said so last time and will do it again, I hope.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  153. Kevin, Oregon

    Yes, the courts should interfere. The bottom line: IT'S DISCRIMINATION. It creates a separate set of laws for a portion of the population. I know President Bush has made swiss cheese out of the constitution, but does the following sound familiar?: "All men are created equal", and "Liberty and justice for all". ALL citizens of the USA are entitled to the same rights. It's not about religion. It's not about what one views as moral. It's about basic, civil rights. It's absolutely ridiculous that the majority is allowed to set the rules for a portion of the population. Years ago, the majority voted against interracial marriage and the courts stepped in because it was unconstitutional. The majority is not always right, as people often vote with their hearts, not their heads. The marriage of a same sex couple impacts nobody else, just like the marriage of a man and a woman impacts no others. The "sanctity of marriage" argument is a bunch of crap. 50% of marriages end in divorce, and there are broken homes all over the country. Perhaps a better word would be "sanctimonious".

    November 20, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  154. CJ in Atlanta, GA

    Prop 8 was a sad moment where Americans voted to take away rights from their friends, neighbors and relatives. Yes Prop 8 propoganda was funded by churches not based in California. I feel that the Supreme Court should re-legalize same sex marriage in California and put this to rest.

    I also feel that every religious organization who funded Yes Prop 8 advertising should take their vast resources and devote it to people in need rather than promoting their social agendas. We have homeless, uninsured, and hungry Americans who could have benefited from those millions of dollars spent to advertise their position. Which is more important? Saving lives or stopping 2 people who aren't interested in marrying you from marrying each other?

    November 20, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  155. Engels From Philadelphia, PA USA


    I hate to disagree with many, but people have to stop comparing Black-to-white marriage and same sex marriage. Under the U.S. constitution all people are created equal regarless of the color of your skin, or sex. It is immoral not to allow a black person to marry the woman he loves, and it is also immoral to allow two people of the same sex to marry. If it becomes legal in the U.S. for Gays to marry, why not also make it legal for a brother to marry a sister, or a man to marry multiple women, or a fifteen year old to marry an adult,...It is just immoral.

    November 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  156. Liz in Towson, MD

    If the courts stayed out of social issues, blacks and women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and interracial marriages still wouldn't be allowed. Seems to me the court system has gotten it in the past; why stop now?

    November 20, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  157. Sharon, Rockford, IL

    I believe the courts need to get involved. We are a country supposedly of equal opportunity for all. When did it become OK for other people to decide what is right for others? People deserve to be able to keep their personal decisions personal. Our country has become so divisive because some people just can't mind their own business.

    November 20, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  158. Dorothy from Lonoke, AR

    Jack, lets face it, the vote means nothing in this nation as long as the courts can go around it. I am not in favor of any form of discrimination, but I also believe in government of, by and for the people, not the courts.

    November 20, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  159. Donna Colorado Springs,Co

    No! The California supreme court needs to get involved even more. This is more than same sex marriages. It is about rights of two people in a relationship. I'm surprised that the people in California are so intolerant of something different. This all goes back to the Christian right and their power over this country for the last 8 years.

    November 20, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  160. mark from Calgary

    The courts exist to protect minorites fromt the tyranny of the majority. The Brown vs Board of Education ruling was widely unpopular at the time.

    The religous shouldn't act so "righteous". Its not like gay marriage meant you could ONLY marry your own sex.

    November 20, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  161. B-Koi Vancouver Island, BC

    When people are so steeped in their own beliefs and fears,that they seek to deprive their neighbors of the same rights they have, then Big Brother is forced to break up the fight before someone gets a bloody nose. I find it a very sad comment on the times when the US has just elected a historic President, that we cannot step over this threshold, once and for all .

    November 20, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  162. Jack 64 year old

    The court should affirm that all people have the same basic rights and no church funded initiative should be able to take it away.

    I think we should eliminate all tax deductions for religious contributions and let them spend their own money trying to tell other people how to live.

    I think the bigger question is what are we going to do about the economic depression we are facing?

    November 20, 2008 at 4:19 pm |
  163. Barbara - 65 yr old white female in NC

    I'm not homophobic like so many people in this nation. And I'm not gay.

    I don't live in California so I don't care what they decide. The majority seem to be imposing their rules on the minority. Will it never end?

    November 20, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  164. Gip, FL

    Obama will be appointing some new justices and turn the US Supreme Court to 6 or more liberal. Domestic Partner Laws and Rights will be passed. This is headed to a new US Supreme Court down the road. Gay lifestyles and the # of gay people in America and around the world is on the rise. Id guess by the time, 2012 comes around 30% of voters will be gay or sympathetic to the rights of gay people.

    Hard to ignore!

    November 20, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  165. Daniel, Indiana

    No. This IS a civil rights issue. The rights of a minority are being stomped on and this needs to be corrected. Should the US Supreme Court have remained silent about Brown vs The Board of Education or Roe V Wade. Not in the least. They intervened and set right a case of discrimination. We are the country of civil rights and we should be proud to be the leader of the world in civil rights. All people have rights and they should be equal rights.

    November 20, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  166. Jenny from Nanuet, New York

    No. They should restore the rights that the gay couples had before they were taken away by the passage of Prop 8. If some people don't want to "redefine" marriage, it should go back to the days where women were stoned to death for having affairs, women should be treated as property, and whatever ELSE the bible says.

    November 20, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  167. dan in Tucson

    Most certainly the supreme court needs to get involved. Someone has to protect the laws of our constitution which clearly staes that we are entitled to a separation of church and state. This law clearly violates the constitution and needs to be upturned. Being a straight family man, I am not influenced by gay rights. But I am concerned about human rights. Obviously not all christians are.

    November 20, 2008 at 4:32 pm |

    This is a hard one Jack. Since the voters ruled, then I guess it should stand. I do think they should be able to enter into a union though.
    I don't believe in their ways, but they need to have the right to speak, have insurance etc. with their partner. I also think the Religious Right have to much to say for the GOP, in elections. I am a Christian, but people have to make their own mistakes and God will deal with it.

    November 20, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  169. Richard Green

    We have a system of checks and balances.
    If the electorate wants to vote homophobia and hate into the constitution, we thankfully have a way to prevent the tyranny of an ignorant majority.

    Rich Green
    San Clemente, Cal.

    November 20, 2008 at 5:28 pm |
  170. JaneE from CA

    If California voted to abolish intermarriage between whites and African-Americans or Asians, should that law stand? If California passed an amendment re-instituting slavery, should slaves be allowed in California? The whole purpose of constitutional rights is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. If the majority of Americans are Christian, it does not mean that some Americans cannot believe in other religions. If the majority of Americans are heterosexual, it doesn't mean that some Americans must be deprived of the right to marry.

    November 20, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  171. James in Trubble Again

    Yes stay out the people have spoken. The right to marriage is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. What kind of message does Gay marriage send to our children. Don't you think they have a hard enough time as it is? Isn't anything sacred any more?

    November 20, 2008 at 5:33 pm |
  172. Wally

    A judge should be removed from office if he goes against the wishes of the majority.

    November 20, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
  173. Mike

    The people have spoken. It's that simple.

    November 20, 2008 at 5:42 pm |

    Marriage as recognized by the Federal and state government is a contract. Under Federal and State Contract Laws it is illegal to discriminate based on race, sex, etc. If anything the Federal government should direct state government to update marriage contract laws to insure Contract Dissolution Agreements are included in all marriage contracts to insure the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is equally applied in divorce proceedings. We have more problems in insuring divorce partners are treated equally under the law just the same as they should be treated when getting married and signing the marriage contract at the local county court house. If the church wants to deny anyone the right to a religious marriage based on sex, then it can. The church cannot prevent anyone in regards to sex from obtaining a legal marriage contract recognized by the state and federal government. The separation of church and state is one of the foundations of our constitution. No church or individual can prevent anyone from getting married based on sex
    under all 50 state and federal constitutions.

    November 20, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
  175. Dee in Florida

    If there is any decency left in this country they WILL block the ban on gay marriage, in whatever way necessary!

    To deny so many of our citizens the same rights as those enjoyed by heterosexuals, and using as the justification some RELIGIOUS prohibition on homosexuality, is NOT separation of Church and State.

    And, if it were not for the religious opposition the gay marriage would be allowed to stand.

    If anyone is in doubt as to what happenes when a RELIGION is allowed to rule the country, just take a little glimpse at Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc. People need to remeber that, if God tells the opponents of gay marriage that it is wrong, God also told the Islamic extremists to fly planes into our buildings!

    November 20, 2008 at 5:43 pm |
  176. V

    I agree with the checks and balances thing. The court needs to review if prop 8 is constitutional or not. From a personal stand point I do not agree on a majority of people revoking one's rights.
    Like a famous comedienne said, "If you don't agree with gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex."

    November 20, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
  177. Jasmine in Germany

    Yes. It is discrimination to not allow a marriage due to one's sexuality.

    November 20, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
  178. Bill, Hartford, CT

    One of the arguments against gay marriage is the idea of "redefining" marriage in this country. The fact that Constitutional amendments are being created shows that marriage has never truly been "defined." So let the court define it. Is marriage a sacred institution or a civil one? If it is sacred, then let churches sanction it, but remove all government benefits associated with it under First Amendment separation of church and state. If marriage is a civil institution, then we as a nation have no right to deny law-abiding citizens access to it.

    November 20, 2008 at 5:55 pm |
  179. Emily

    They should have stayed out of it to begin with. I'm not exactly for gay marriage, but I am against the government telling two people that they can't get married. If people make the choice to marry someone of the same sex, that's their business and no one else is affected by it. So in my opinion, government was wrong to get involved in the first place.

    November 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm |
  180. Ray Pippin

    Yes, the people have spoken. Its about time the Supreme Court realizes its job is not to make laws. Ray Pippin, Gallatin, TN

    November 20, 2008 at 5:59 pm |
  181. PJ

    Democracy states that the people rule – they voted and the courts need to stay out of it!! We've lost enough of our rights through judges – let the democratic voices of the voters alone – please! Marriage is a spiritual matter – let them have civil unions if they want legal rights but leave marriage alone as it's a spiritual matter.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  182. Steve

    Absolutely. If the court wanted to step in they should have done it when same-sex marriage was first allowed. Gays aren't the victims here. The majority who holds marriage as a sacred institution are.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  183. Steve

    This is a fundamental civil rights issue and the same as that raised by the old misogeny laws. What if Prop 8 had amended the California constitution to read "marriage shall consist of one white man and one white woman"? Would it be appropriate to follow majority rule in that case?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  184. John, Davis CA

    This is the second time that the majority of Californians has voted against gay marriage. How much clearer can we be? Most Californians are obviously against the idea, and the courts have no right to rule against the will of the majority.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  185. Matthew

    Bigotry and discrimination have no place in the 21st century. Prop 8 is discriminatory, so yes, the courts should step in.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  186. Jeff Pudlo

    Of course the courts should be involved. I don't care if "the people have spoken", That is irrelevant in terms of civil rights. If you put Jim Crow laws on the ballot in 1955, they would have passed no question. That does not make it right. In this case, it's the voters who should never have been involved.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  187. Greg

    Jack The rights of a minority should not be determined by the majority. If we had had votes on interracial marriage it probably still would not be legal in many states.We are supposed to have equal rights in this country not rights for the most popular.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  188. Michael Peters

    The constitution guarantees basic civil liberties for everyone. Including the right to marry. Prop 8 takes away that right for gay people. I believe the California Supreme Court should intervene and overturn Prop 8 and give that basic right to marry back to gay people. If gays marry, truthfully, Who does it really hurt? Answer: Nobody!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  189. Charity

    Bottom line, it's about civil rights. Everyone is allowed their beliefs, but not at the expense of denying a whole group of people the same rights that they have. Honestly, what are these pro Prop 8 advocates so afraid of? It's ridiculous. My wanting to marry another woman has nothing to do w/ their life. Live & let live, but don't deny me what's rightfully mine.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  190. Jose Soto

    As a gay man I ask conservatives this: where were you when the u.s. supreme court over ruled the will of the people in 2000 in favor of Bush? Why didn't you cry foul? Why didn't you protest these "activist judges?"

    Jose Soto, Santa Ana

    November 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  191. Mathew

    This is not an amendment reinstating the death penalty and/or limiting property taxes. Those applied universally to ALL Californians. Proposition 8 is a fundamental change and is removing rights from a particular group of citizens, a class of individuals the court has said is entitled to constitutional protection. That is a structural change. I have a sense the California Supreme Court will hook their teeth on this type of argument and do away with Prop 8. At least I hope so...

    November 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  192. Larry

    No, the California Supreme Court granted the right of gay marriage in the first place, and so it is appropriate for it to overturn the results of Proposition 8. The Proposition violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Maybe if the Mormons hadn't spent $15 million to pass it, the results would have been more fair.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  193. Kaitlyn. Mount Vernon, WA


    The California Supreme Court should DEFINITELY intervene.
    How can anyone justify the taking away of my human rights?
    To put it in the State Constitution, no less!

    What is it that makes me less of a human being than my colleagues?


    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  194. Al from Hawaii

    Jack, the courts must get involved because that's the only way this right, like so many others, will indeed be granted. I am a straight, white, 65-and-up American who believes that the "pursuit of happiness" does not exclude homosexuals. People who want to
    define 'marriage' as 'between a man and a woman' have never heard
    of 'marriages of companies' or 'marriages of ideas'.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  195. Mike

    The California Supreme Court should ABSOLUTELY stay in this fight. Just as laws against inter-racial marriage – that were made in the 1800s – were eventually overturned by the Supreme Court a hundred years later, so must the courts take the lead in this civil rights issue. If not, some states and people will be allowed to continue to uphold discrimination.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  196. David from Atlanta

    No, the court should not stay out of civil rights issues. At times in our history, the government needs to have the courage and foresight to do what is right, and at times, what is not popular. If that weren't the case, people might still own slaves to this day.
    How can the US honestly consider themselves the leaders of the free world when we lag behind many countries on civil rights issues? It is laughable. Is anyone aware that Nepal has legalized gay marriage? The US, still has not... Need I say more? Civil rights issues do not end at the color of your skin or your religion or your sex!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  197. Marshall Pabst

    U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection under law, and that includes the right to marry no matter who you are. It wasn't too many years ago that blacks and whites couldn't marry. Remember that? I guess all of the religious bigots in this country can't imagine a world where people disagree with their vision of God's word. Yes, the Courts seem to be the only reserve of sanity regarding our rights and protections. It seems absurd that Mormons or Baptists could determine our beliefs for us. Will it be illegal to dance next?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  198. mohsin sharif

    Where is the democracy. Voter spoke.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  199. Michael Jones Mooresville, NC

    How does gays being married hurt anyone? Happiness is hard to find. There have been gays married over the last year and how has it destroyed families? This is still America. I don't believe it is a civil rights issue, its a human rights issue.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  200. Erika

    Absolutely not. It is the court's job to review the legality of Prop 8, especially as pertains to the constitutional validity of the measure. Based on the equal protection basis of the Court's May decision, it is very likely that Prop 8 was unconstitutional when passed. Additionally, for those who say that the Court should have weighed in before the measure took effect, just such a plea was filed, and the Court declined to review it, as it has never been the practice of the Court to review initiatives before they are passed. Those who say the government should stay out of marriage do not seem to understand that the equal marriage sought by same-sex couples is solely a government matter in its entirety. I hope that the Court is as offended as I am that some religious groups and out-of-state entities would attempt to enforce their will on the public at large and on a minority group in particular.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  201. Ben, Champaign, IL

    Champaign, IL

    YES, the courts should stay out! The people of California have spoken, and a state referendum is the clearest voice of the people we have in this system, especially when turnout was as strong as it was this year. The Judges in the country need to stop legislating from the bench and making their personal views the law, but to accept the pleas of the people to leave this alone and let the people's voice stand.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  202. Gregory

    When the courts are the last hope for sanity from those citizens whose votes have disregarded Constitutional rights, then yes, the courts need to take action. And those who say that it requires 'activist judges" to overturn Prop 8 need to understand that the basic idea of EQUALITY is in our Constitution.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  203. Beverly

    Yes. The american people have decided. Why give us the right to vote if our vote is could be overturned by the supreme court. There are more americans than there are gay americans. I don't think we should be given the right to vote on anything that can be overturned by the supreme court. That would be taking away our rights.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  204. spamer

    I believe that the media has done California a great injustice by changing the definition of Proposition 8. This was never about banning marriage but about defining marriage legally. This doesn't remove the rights of the homosexual community to continue domestic partnerships and maintain the benefits offered there.
    Please correctly refer to Proposition 8 in the media from now on!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  205. Beth Harrison

    Absolutely! The people voted. Too bad the losing side doesn't like the results of that vote. Last time I looked, this is a democracy and a government that is to be representative of the people! No legislating from the bench! The majority has spoken. End of discussion!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  206. Muriel Doyle

    Dear Jack, from the vantage point of Canada, where gay marriage was accepted some years ago and is now a fact of life, could I offer a few comments? When the French writer Alexis de Toqueville visited the United States over a century ago and wrote about his experiences in "Democracy in Anerica," he commented on the potential dangers he saw in what he called "The tyranny of the Majority". That's sure what proposition 8 sounds like to me! Maybe it's time to dust off de Toqueville and take a fresh look at what he says; it's very illuminating.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  207. Rich

    The Supreme Court of the US should be hearing this case. I am not gay but if gay people aren't bothering anyone leave them alone. It's the religious people who want religious freedom and government to stay out of their beliefs, yet they are the ones who always want to tell everyone else how to live. Life, liberty and the persuite of happiness.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  208. Del, Utah

    Unless I missed something, the vote changed the California
    Constetution. If so then the courts should step in.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  209. Kevin M

    Absolutely not. I think what needs to be determined is if marriage is technically a religious or civil institution and a direction needs to be made. There are arguments for both sides, personally I am in favor of gay marriage. Not because I am gay, or that I know gay couples – simply because I really do believe we’re all equals. If the courts determine it’s a civil function than all rights need to be afforded as a civil right, you cannot discriminate as stated by the California Constitution. If they determine it is indeed a religious ceremony than they have to address how to address that keeping with separation of church and state. Either way I empathize with the Justices as no matter what decision that make someone will be upset.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  210. Will

    Civil rights should be determined by the courts and our constitution, not by popular opinion. I'm sure African Americans would agree with this if segregation or the interracial marriage ban still existed and it was on a ballot. Even if you disagree with gay marriage, you should understand that it is wrong to put civil rights on a ballot!!!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  211. Luci

    No. It is the court's job to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Minority rights is one of the most important tenets of our democratic republic. Prop 8 is a great example of the tyranny of the majority.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  212. Bob from Boston

    The courts should be involved, Jacks. The cause of civil rights has always been advanced in this country first in the courts, and only later, after politicians get some backbone, does legislation follow. If voters can decide any issue, let's have a vote on whether segregation is okay.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  213. C. Miller

    The concept of marriage is a religious concept. Therefore, I think that there should be no state sanctioned marriages. Everyone who wants a state sanction for their union should be able to get a civil union and only a civil union. If anyone wants to get married also, they can go to their religious (or other) institution for that imprimatur.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  214. Sam Winchester

    Jack this is about choice and choosing what's best for the state of California, and that doesn't change just because the Supreme Court makes the choice. The problem is, that 7 California citizens will be making the choice for everyone. Is that democracy?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  215. Laura

    The state constitution should provide the same protections as the U.S. constitution, which is brilliantly conceived to assure that individuals' rights are not abridged by majority opinion, which can be terribly and unfairly biased. This issue should not have been brought to a vote. The issue needs the objectivity of a fair and just constitutuion and court system. Remember, the "wishes of the majority" can be unfair, biased, and harmful.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  216. Tom in Michigan

    The courts should definitely stay out and respect the voice of the people. It is not the court's constitutional role to write law, or the constitution, but to interpret it. The courts need to listen to the people, respect the culture, serve the culture, not shape and dictate the culture. This whole question should not be framed in terms of rights, but in terms of fundamental institutions and sacraments in our society. Children need to be supported by institutions that insure that they have a chance to have both a mother and a father. If there are any rights involved it is the rights of children to grow up in a family with one man and one woman as their parents.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  217. Conway from NY

    Anybody who believes that the courts should bow out just because the "majority" has spoken is making 2 mistakes (1) they assume that "majority" is always right on social issues and (2) they fail to understand the role of the courts in our society. The courts aren't supposed to blindly follow the majority. The courts are, however, supposed to blindly follow justice. In 1967 the "majority" in Virginia voted to ban interracial marriage between blacks and whites. The Supreme Court overruled this in Loving v. Virginia. If the court had followed the majority then, people like our current president-elect would not exist.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  218. Bert, Berkeley CA

    The California voters have spoken twice regarding this issue in recent years. It's time that the CA Supreme Court respects the will of the CA people and stay out of this issue. If not, CA voters may rise again and initiate a recall election of all those judges who think it's their job to legislate from the bench . Remember the Rose Bird Court?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  219. Rex

    Jack, I think we need to define "Marrage". There is a civil marrage that has nothing to do with Christian marrage. And untill someone stands up and defines this point, then the dumb agfument that it HAS to be between a women and a man won't be solved. Yes we need the Court.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  220. Erika in Boston, MA

    Absolutely not. It is the purpose of the Court to review the legality of Prop 8, especially as pertains to the constitutional validity of the measure. Based on the equal protection basis of the Court's May decision, it is very likely that Prop 8 was unconstitutional when passed. Additionally, for those who say that the Court should have weighed in before the measure took effect, just such a plea was filed, and the Court declined to review it, as it has never been the practice of the Court to review initiatives before they are passed. Those who say the government should stay out of marriage do not seem to understand that the equal marriage sought by same-sex couples is solely a government matter in its entirety. I hope that the Court is as offended as I am that some religious groups and out-of-state entities would attempt to enforce their will on the public at large and on a minority group in particular.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  221. Tim in Indiana

    Who do these judges think they are? They are undermining democracy and becoming dictators unaccountable to the people. Where is Andrew Jackson when you need him?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  222. Kooky in CA

    It is the job of the Supreme Court to call any unconstitutional measure null and void. Just because the majority wants to persecute the minority doesn't make it legal. That's what the Constitution and Supreme Court do, protect everyone's rights, not just the religious right.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  223. Dean H. - San Francisco

    Absolutely not. You can't just take away minority rights because the majority wants too. The 14th ammendment and the equal protection clause in the California constitution are being violated, and quite frankly the question "Can I have the same rights as you?" is ridiculous on the face of it. I pay taxes, I am a citi\zen, and I just double checked, nowhere on my birth certificate does it say "Second Class Citizen", or on my passport or any other ID, but the voters of California can just change that. Whose rights do we vote on next?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  224. bill Mattson

    If marriage is a contract, can that contract be broken? It appears to me that the ones who are being relieved of their civil rights are those that got married when marriage did not include the gay activities in that contract. They claim what happens in their bedrooms is no ones business. I agree but then they go and have their big parades where they show off their sexual toys and some run naked thru the streets as the police stand around and look on. They are above the law.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  225. Dominic

    While the substance of Proposition 8 is about stripping gays and lesbians of their constitutional right to marry, the California Supreme Court's review is different. It is not about gay marriage but about proper procedure used to take away a fundamental right from any particular group of people.
    This is not a "gay" issue, it is an issue concerning any minority group. That is why the NAACP, and leading Latino, Asian, and women organizations have filed briefs in support of the Supreme Court's review. It seems inherently "un-American," and certainly against any constitutional demoncracy, for the will of the "majority" to determine the rights of a minority.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  226. Ken in San Diego

    I'm in my 50s. For the first time in my life as a gay man, I feel like I have been relegated to the status of a second-class citizen by this vote. This is about EQUAL RIGHTS for all human beings. I am now being denied more than 1,000 rights that straight couples are given, not to mention the tax breaks and other "perks" that come with marriage. How dare any citizen of the United States of America in the 21st century write into the state constitution any amendment that legislates overt and blatant discrimination! It is the state Supreme Court's obiligation to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This should be a slam-dunk for equal rights.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  227. Janae

    No, the California courts should get involved – and quickly. To fall in love, be in a monogamous relationship and get married is a basic human right. We are talking about discrimination here folks! Are we living in the dark ages?! What or who does it hurt if gays are allowed to marry?? And don't say it hurts the "definintion" of marriage, as that is ridiculous! The courts should step in and suspend the ban immediately so the gay population can return to their loving, dedicated relationships/marriages worry-free. I think that the only reason there was a "majority" vote on this Prop. was that the black & hispanic population turned out in force to vote for Obama (yeah). However, the campaigning and wording on Prop. 8 was confusing to most if not all, therefore it passed by deceiving the voters!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  228. tabitha brown

    well first i would like to start off by saying this should not be a situation under review it should not have been banned in the first place. These people who are wanting to get married should be able to. it is there personal life and we should not be alowed to tell people who they can and cant love or in this situation get married, that is like saying that a black woman can't marry a black man. it is on the same level as being racist or sexist its not right people should be able to marry whoever they want if they are in love who are we to say that they can't this is supposed to be AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE!!!!!what happened to that?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  229. Rebecca D, Kansas City

    The CA Supreme Court should step in and declare that Prop 8 was designed to take away rights of individuals. Pres-elect Obama should step in and declare that all people are created equal, and deserve fair protection under the US Constitution, regardless of races, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc. What saddens me most about Prop 8 is that it perpetuates the feeling that it is OK in America to treat some people as less than others. It resounds and creates hate in people to harrass, threaten, persecute, beat, even kill LGBT people, because we are "not equal" with the rest of the nation. But how long did blacks fight for rights? How long did women?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  230. Rick - Mississippi

    No way!!! The California Supreme Court should here the arguments – no state constitution should be allowed to be amended to restrict the rights of a minority. Maybe we should take a lesson from our northern neighbors (Canada) that passed federal legislation extending the right to marry to same sex couples. Don't think taht country has fallen apart because of it!!!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  231. Roderick, Md

    This is not a matter of civil rights. Civil Right Laws are provisions set in place to protect against actions prohibiting the civil liberties of public citizens based on race, religion, or sex and not ones sexuality. One’s lifestyle is a privelege, not a right. The sanctity of marriage is more than a legal union, it’s the great observance of love that unifies all nations, and should be protected to no end.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  232. danny in at louis

    This is the purpose of our judicial branch – a co-equal branch of our government, by the way. They are meant to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by the majority. The majority is NOT always right. Ever hear of the concept of "tyranny of the majority?" if blacks had to wait for the majority to decide to grant their rights, Barack Obama would not be President right now. The rights of ant people should NEVER be subject to the will of the majority. By the way, can anyone name one person helped by the passage of Prop 8? Can anyone name one person harmed by a gay couple being married?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  233. Douglas Vogt

    The California State Supreme Court should over turn this hate legislation. Proposition 8 only passed by 2%. In 2004 2% gave us George Bush. A constitutional admendment should require a greater margin. At leaste 60%. By the way my husband Peter and I were married in San Francisco 8/19/08.


    November 20, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  234. Liz

    Jack, the court should definitely interfere, that's why they get paid.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  235. Brian

    No! The courts have an obligation to step in. This Constitution was written to help protect the people of this country, especially the minority. This is an issue where rights were given to a group of people based upon a Supreme Court ruling that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. This issue should never have been up for a popular vote. Just because the "majority" of voters agreed to ban gay marriage does not make it right. This new vote has stripped rights away from thousands of people, and forever changed their lives (again). I believe that if this was an issue over any other minority rights or religious rights, people would not be so dismissive...there would be a furor. Discrimination is wrong. Period. Without Supreme Court rulings, there would be no interracial marriage, no women's voting rights, etc. It takes a lot of nerve to deny rights to people that helped fight for your own rights. I think a little more respect is deserved.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  236. Sharon Craig

    The California Supreme Court needs to step in and determine how to allow equal rights. They also need to oversee legislation in the state to maintain separation of church and state. It is all about checks and balances to keep one group from discriminating against another.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  237. DJ

    Being gay and from Fla where they voted yes on 2 banning gay marriage I feel the courts shouls leave it alone. People voted and majority rules sucks but the way it is , try again later

    November 20, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  238. John M, Los Angeles, Ca

    The court must examine the issue because Prop 8 simply didn't have the right to rework the constitution of CA. The arguement for and against same sex marriage will continue sadly, but Prop 8 was improperly implemented. But hey, we can join Eharmony now! Marriage can't be far away!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  239. george longino

    Of course they should stay out of it. They people have spoken, now for the second time. The media has not done a good job of describing the proposition voted on. Couples of the same sex can continue to enjoy the rights they have been given in the past few years, whether the majority agreed or not. Men and women can continue to marry. But people of the same sex cannot "marry". So what? Any community that disagrees with the vote of the people has legal opportunities to try to overturn the wish of the majority, but to do so has the likely probably to one again marginalize that group.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
  240. John, Davis CA

    The courts should not get involved. Ruling against the will of the majority is not right, not fair, and not democratic.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
  241. Christian-Chicago, IL

    Yes they should! If it wasn't for the activist court sticking their nose where it didn't belong, we wouldn't have this problem. It is very telling that such a liberal state as California did not support gay marriage; this is not something the American public wants. What kids of precedent will this set if the court overturns the public's decision? Will we start challenging every vote that doesn't want go our way? This is a democracy and the people have spoken, so deal with it!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  242. Ann in Fall River Mills

    As a 67 year old native Californian I expect the Courts to protect me from the religous right zealots! Although that life style is not my choice, it IS somebody's choice, it is harmless, and none of my business! Why the Mormon church thinks that it can dictate lifestyle choices is apalling! Hopefully, we can insist that changing the Constitution takes a 3/5th vote. In the meantime, Courts, please save me from these people who think they can diminish my Rights!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  243. Jerry

    From governments point of view a Citizen is a Citizen, they are not male, felmale, black, brown, white, gay, straight, young, old, rich or poor, they are all equal. If any law is implemented using any criteria other than being an Citizen it should be inherently unconstitutional, laws must look at people as if they are in a sealed box where you can see no details, this is the only way that everybody would be treated equally.

    There is a reason that Justice is depicted with a blindfold.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  244. GVA

    Laws should not be influenced by current affairs or popular opinion. If the State's Supreme Court is needed to stop prejudice and hate, as displayed in 1964, they need to get involved.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  245. Mark Lawrence

    The Supreme Court should back off, Jack! The gay rights people cry out about how voters shouldn't infringe upon their rights....what would their position be had the vote gone in their favor? Thundering silence, I think!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  246. Emilio

    Speaking as a straight man, I believe that the California Supreme Court has an obligation to step in and rectify this issue as this amandment has clearly violated the civil rights and civil liberties of those who are gays and lesbians. This is a continuation of the religious right imposing its so-called values on those who may not share in their misguided illusions. This country has had a tragic history of condomning and/or legislating discrimination, I believe that time has come for this country to move in a new direction and embrace a future where all Americans can feel that they're being treated equally under the law. Reversing this ill-conceived amandment would be a good start!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  247. Guida Leicester

    Yes, yes and further yes!!

    A non-gay former Californian

    November 20, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  248. Cindy CA

    The people of California have spoken with their vote!
    Again, we have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Do not take away the power of our vote! Our Constitutional right to vote means nothing when a minority can rant to have judges legislate from the bench in oppositon to the clear vote of the people!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  249. Johnny Chew

    The court should be involved. I am a gay male living in California. I do not have a religion and should not be forced to accommodate my life to the beliefs of others. I believe everyone should have the same rights to marry. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Why would anyone even subject themselves to this lifestyle to experience all the discrimination?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm |

    Do we really need to ask the Supreme Court if gay marriage is legal or have we become the country that persecutes others because they don't believe as we do? .

    November 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
  251. Cathy

    Jack, this is not a "civil rights" issue no matter how much the gay community wants to cloak itself in the Civil Rights Movement. The gay community throwing temper tantrums, stopping traffic. vandalizing & storming church services and harassing the religious community because things didn't go their way is unacceptable. Deal with it, regroup, and think of a new strategy and try again next time. The majority spoke & the court is not there to legislate from the bench.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
  252. Joe in WA

    The proposition may have passed in California and as many believe it is an open and shut case with majority rules. But due to the fact that this issue may not be one of the majority but more or less one of constitutional interpretation then I believe the courts if prompted have the up most right to make a decision or at least one that might be unaffected by threats and false propaganda.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
  253. abdi


    Of course JACK, same sex marriage is now legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain as noted by Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, now he wants to help bring this fiasco to CALIFORNIA!!! Why don't we just send the gays to those countries.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
  254. Not a laughing matter

    I am so glad that the educated elit are able to wear black judicial robs and straighten out democracy whenever it errors. We can all take comfort that we have such kind big brothers and sisters who can tell us how to run our country without needing imput through votes. Who needs voting when we have such benevilant dictators, I mean judges.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
  255. Ryan

    I first off want to state that I am not homosexual to remove bias from my comment. I believe that no one has the right to tell me what i do in my bedroom, let alone tell me who I can or can't love. Why must those who oppose their belief's tell them that they can't get married. Let them live their lives, tax them as normal married couples and keep church and state separate and just mind your own business.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:32 pm |
  256. dilon, Canada

    The majority has no right to infringe on the rights of the minority. And marrying who you want is a right... nuff said!.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
  257. Nicholas, Atlanta

    I think my Kindergarten teacher said it best when she said, "What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular." Cute, I know, but right on the mark.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm |
  258. Trevor, Los Angeles, CA

    NO! The year Barack Obama’s parents were married, which is also the year Barack was born, interracial marriages were illegal in 22 states. In 1958 just three years before Barack’s parent’s marriage and his birth, a Gallup poll showed that 96% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriages. The “Majority Rule” is not always “Moral”

    November 20, 2008 at 6:36 pm |
  259. Karen (NY)

    Come on ... lets protect that traditional marriage with its 47% divorce rate...lets vote on everyone's rights!

    What do you think will happen if "da majority" voted on slavery or segregation?

    That proposition 8 vote wasn't even done properly per California's own constitution....

    I thought we came to this land to get away from religious persecution?

    November 20, 2008 at 6:40 pm |
  260. Beth Messler

    A resounding yes!. Since when does puplic opinion determine the rights of individuals. It's like comparing an Oscar to the People's Choice awards! The supreme court is qualified to interpret the law. This is not a popularity contest. Do you think a ballot vote would have passed the civil rights act? Ballot vote questions should be eliminated. Gay marriage rights had already passed. Since when do we waste time overturning equal rights that were already granted!!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
  261. Carolyn

    Yes. What good is our right to vote on moral issues if the courts disregard the majority? I believe that all humans should be treated with dignity and respect. Gay marriage is not about civil rights. Civil rights are defined by the legislature and the courts. Gays can have a civil union, but marriage is defined by God as between a man and a woman.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
  262. Frank Pate

    This question is the perfect answer to your first question re: 34% approval of the RNP.

    The party that wants less government in your life attempts to impose more government into our life regulating marriages and have no problem in using misleading languqage to "get what they want."

    Yes, the supreme court has no choice but to get involved, but there is no reason such a ballot ever came to a vote.

    Freedom is allowing those to do as they wish as long as it has no effect on you and not enforcing beliefs on one another. The RNP has forgotten this little concept.....

    November 20, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
  263. Darrell

    The courts should overturn prop 8. Prohibiting same sex marriage is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court should fight to uphold the constitution. It is time to devolve some power and return the civil rights unjustly taken away due to people forcing their religious beliefs on others. Religion should be left out of politics. We are a Democracy not a Theocracy!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:43 pm |
  264. Andrew

    No they shouldn't. If 30 years ago, a law passed outlawing african americans to marry simply because a majority of white people thought it was right would have been outrageous. This is no different. The Constitution provides equality for all including minorities.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  265. gov5225

    The courts should get involved and overturn prop.8. When you diminish the rights of one group you diminish the rights of all. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue not a right to marry issue.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  266. Scott K, San Luis Obispo Ca

    Our values as Americans have established this nation as a pinnacle of freedom and hope for countless people across generations. Ideas like liberty, civil rights, equality and freedom have been the foundation of our national identity. These ideas are built on the fundamental belief that all people, even those in the minority, are entitled to equal protection under the law. The courts exists as a check against both the tyranny of those in power, and the tyranny of the majority. The issue is not whether a majority of voters in California do not agree with gay marriage. The issue is very simply, does the passing of this legislation violate the civil liberties of law abiding citizens of the state of California. Your personal feelings about gay marriage are irrelevant. These people are adults who should have the right to make their own choices in life, and no legislative body has the right dictate matters of faith and religious dogma. If you disagree you need to read the constitution.

    November 20, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  267. Felice in Espanola, NM

    The courts should step in to protect the rights of the minority. Marriage is a civil right not a privilege!

    November 20, 2008 at 6:48 pm |