If the State of Ca has a right to recognize whom they allow to operate motor vehicles, then it is only reasonable to allow a state to recognize who can marry by its laws.

Establishing whether Marriage is a right or a privilege will be fundamental to determining if anything is being violated is all I'm saying. It seems a lot are assuming it's a right.

Ya, that's the attitude to get folks toh elp out your cause alright. I simply posted that if they can prove its a right then the argument will fly much higher. I didn't say It wasn't a right or anything like that. And comparing Sexual discrimination to Racial Discrimination is always a bit flimsy. A lot of you have too much emotion involved in this to be rational.

And if they can get >50% of the voters to agree to adding it as an amendment to the state constitution...yep. Quite frankly, then that would be what a majority of the voting population wanted. We all know that's not likely however.

The big question in my mind now that CA and FL have added (or will be adding) this to thier state constitutions, can the US Supreme Court override it as unconstitutional (as in the US Constitution) to do so? Or would another amendment in the US Constitution override?

Should be interesting if any of the current USSC Justices choose to retire during the upcoming administration...

And comparing Sexual discrimination to Racial Discrimination is always a bit flimsy.

You can’t compare the gay rights movement to the black civil rights movement. They aren’t even remotely the same thing.

Oh, really? Martin Luther King’s ally, Bayard Rustin, the major architect behind the 1963 march on Washington didn’t think so when he declared that how a country treated its gay and lesbian population was now “the barometer for human rights.” Somehow I think he’d have a better idea, compared to some of you armchair warriors, of how applicable it is to compare the gay/lesbian struggle for rights to the racial ones of this country once upon a time.

There are some of you with your l33t google skillz that will point out Bayard Rustin was gay, as if that somehow discounts his observations. I’ll simply point out that it makes him all the more qualified to compare the injustices done against the minorities in question by the tyranny of the majority, because he’s lived with them both.

Looking forward to Obama's SC picks.

If the State of Ca has a right to recognize whom they allow to operate motor vehicles, then it is only reasonable to allow a state to recognize who can marry by its laws.

Establishing whether Marriage is a right or a privilege will be fundamental to determining if anything is being violated is all I'm saying. It seems a lot are assuming it's a right.

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Any man can survive adversity; to test a man's character, give him power.

--Abraham Lincoln

(CNN) -- California's Supreme Court said Wednesday that it will hear the appeal of a challenge to Proposition 8, a voter-approved measure outlawing same-sex marriage.


California's voter-approved measure banning same-sex marriage has sparked protests throughout the state.

In a written statement, the court said it will not block the implementation or enforcement of the law in the meantime.

Proposition 8 passed with about 52.5 percent of the vote, making California one of several states to ban same-sex marriage in the November 4 elections.

But unlike the other states, California had already been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since May, after a state Supreme Court ruling legalized the unions.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed legal challenges to the vote, asking the high court to rule the ballot-initiative process was "improperly used" to strip away a right protected by the state constitution. iReport.com: Share your view on same-sex marriage

The court said arguments in the case could be heard as early as March.

In its May 15 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in California, the justices seemed to signal that a ballot initiative like Proposition 8 might not be enough to change the underlying constitutional issues of the case in the court's eyes.

The ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights "so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

In the hours after the proposition's apparent passage, thousands of protesters took to the streets of Los Angeles and other cities across California in protest.

Observances in support of same-sex marriage were held in cities across the country Saturday.

it definitely did not make those who believe that marriage should exist solely between one man and one woman happy

Message to the religious right - this isn't just about marriage, it's about history

I keep hearing all of this nonsense about us lgbts attacking people, about us using intimidation and violence to oppress people, about us somehow being ugly aggressors.

Newt Gingrich (who wrote the book on deceptive messaging during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives) actually accused us of being "secular fascists."

Gingrich's attack on us seem to be the prevailing theme with those on the other side of the Proposition 8 argument.

And I think there needs to be some historical perspective on this matter.

True, Proposition 8 has galvanized our community. We have become a bit more politically engaged in our anger. That is a good thing.

However, any display of violence on either side of the argument should never be tolerated.

Nor should letting the religious right frame the moment.

I have a few questions to people like Newt Gingrich, Bill O’Reilly, Chuck Norris, Gary Bauer, Peter LaBarbera and the rest who are trying to push this "gay intimidation" image.

Where were you in the late 1970s when Anita Bryant accused us of trying to “recruit” children?

Where were you in 1983 when Paul Cameron accused gay men of stuffing gerbils up our rectums and castrating children? Or afterwards when he went from state to state pushing his phony research papers all designed to make us the boogiemen of American society?

Where were you when Jerry Falwell exploited the AIDS crisis to generate more money for the Moral Majority? Or when those dying of AIDS were cast out of their communities and excommunicated from their churches?

Where were you when Colorado passed that law in 1992 that basically said cities in the state had absolutely no right to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination?

Where were you when over the course of 20 years all of those phony “pro-family” groups told lies in front of federal and congressional state houses in attempts to beat back pro-gay laws or spread discredited research that gave “upstanding, moral” families the perfect excuse to put their gay sons and daughters out on the cold streets?

Where were you when organizations like Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and Focus on the Family unconsciously gave reasoning for groups of roaming thugs to bash our heads in, chase us out in heavy traffic, beat us to bloody pulps with nail embedded boards, and hang us from fences on dark and lonely roads?

How is it that you can dare call us aggressive when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make America hate and fear us?

How it is that you can dare infer that we don't have a right to get just a tad angry when for over 30 years, you have done everything in your power to make us hate and fear ourselves?

Every lie, every indignity, every attempt to dehumanize the lgbt community has brought us to this point. The Proposition 8 vote was the last straw in a chain of indignities that stretch as long as Jacob's ladder.

This ain’t just about marriage. Nor is this a single moment in time.

We are not the aggressors. We are learning to fight back.

When I was coming out, it wasn’t the fact that I was gay that bothered me more than the knowledge that so many had already written my life for me; told me who I was, what I liked, what I didn’t like, and even where I was going after I died.

Worst of all, they had the nerve to tell me that I had absolutely no rights to the words "values," "family," "tradition," or "honor."

And you know what the saddest thing about this is? I was not alone. Hundreds of thousands of lgbts went through the same experience. It was our "rite of passage."

So while I may not have a media spin machine behind me and therefore very few will give a damn about what I say, while I may not be a member of a religious think tank who is presently working to use this moment to again dehumanize lgbts, and while I may not be considered as a "leading gay talking head," I am an American, a human being, and a child of God.

Therefore, I will never forget what has brought me to this point of outrage.

And I will do my best to make sure that this country never forgets either.

Lastly, I will do my best to make sure that YOU never forget.

I am very uneasy about the courts overturning votes and setting their own rules, if you eventually get the wrong group in power a lot of bad things can come from this.

Marriage is a religious institution recognized by govt.

Yah, that's part of the job of courts.

"Democracy" doesn't just mean that if you get enough people you can get anything you want. THAT is the unsettling possibility.

This belief, which many people hold, is part of the problem. Marriage is NOT a religious institution recognized by govt., it IS a government institution which govt allows the church to officiate. No church marriage is recognized by our government without the proper license. It IS a government institution and as such should be seen as completely seperate from any religious bullshit.

What is the government doing telling a church who they can and can not marry? If a church wanted to marry a homosexual couple there is nothing the state could do besides not recognizing it. Also, we have a slight separation of church and state issue with having the church subsidize the government by performing the service.

In the wake of Prop 8 millions of gays and lesbians all over the country have decided that we're no longer going to play by the old rules. We're not going to let people kick our teeth down our throats and then run and hide behind "Nothing personal—just my private religious beliefs!" That game's over.

If it isn't religious then there should be a set of reasons why it should not be allowed (no mentioning of the bible permitted!)

What are the reasons it is not recognized by govt.?

Several of the founding fathers were also slave owners. That doesn't mean that we were specifically founded on slave-holding values. The emphasis within the constitution(and indeed the Declaration of Independence) on freedom, and arguably equality was not really compatible(IMO) with slave-holding, nor does it really fit with barring gay rights. The only hump we need to get over is with the people in general, not the government's founding traditions.

But, the US was founded on general Christian principles.
That is not saying "we are Christians and that's that." No - not saying that at all. But it is a hump the gay right movement has to overcome.

You are like that annoying guy in the meeting who simply has to say SOMETHING - even if the point had been covered ad naseum. This is why you're not worth debating - you do this on virtually every discussion. You make no effort (or simply do not have the capacity) to read what was posted before you and make semi-intelligible responses. Instead, you spew forth your psuedo-intellectual tripe and chap your hands applauding your own wit.