Prop 8 Controversy Continues

The major problem I see with this push to the courts is that it comes AFTER the vote ["Same-Sex Marriage Likely Headed to Courts in California," usnews.com]. If the whole idea of the vote was wrong, then why not challenge the process BEFORE it came to vote? In addition, I don't agree with demonstrations and threats of vandalism or violence in the first place. The whole thing seems like a sore loser's reaction to me. If you really are trying to encourage acceptance and equal rights, why act like 5 year olds who lost a game of kickball? Pick yourselves up and move on. Better yet, challenge the rules of the game before you start playing or at least during the game and not after.

Comment by Sebastian Patterson of AZ

Religion is separate from government for a reason. The framers of the Constitution did not want to have religion overseeing government authority. This becomes evident when the [state] Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriage, and they went around the ruling by putting it on the ballot. Our government cannot let this stand. It is disrespectful to the decisions they make on behalf of the Constitution. If I were the judges on the Supreme Court, I would be very concerned.

Comment by Cindy Souza of CA

Gay marriage proponents need to actually try using the democratic process the way it should be by winning the support of the public and going through the legislative process instead of continually trying to manipulate matters through the courts.

Comment by Scott of MN

The passage of Prop 8 has completely reinvigorated the movement. There have been setbacks, but for the most part progress. Try to name even one similar rights movement for a protected minority of citizens that was halted and retreated into dissolution. It has never happened. So it's just a matter of time. I point this out in the hope that more people will realize: You don't have to like or understand or approve of homosexuality—no one is asking you to—but you can either spend your time, energy, and money fighting something inevitable . . . or fighting something that makes a difference like poverty, homelessness, disease, child neglect, or environmental concerns. Personally, I can't imagine what would drive anyone to find glory in fighting loving couples of consenting adults who are doing nothing illegal, who are happy, and who are supporting and contributing to society.

Comment by Anton of CA

The majority have spoken—YES to Prop 8. Hence, the issue has finally ended. There is no more reason for us to tackle this already resolved issue. The only thing we should do is to respect and abide by it. Let us move on.

Comment by Manuel Reyes of CA

This is not just about redefining words. It is about depriving a minority group of American citizens of basic rights that are enjoyed by the majority. If the minority in question were blacks or Jews then everyone would agree that this proposition is unjust and contrary to the principles of American democracy. This is a clear instance of the "tyranny of the majority," which the founders of our nation rightly feared.

Comment by Herb of IL

It's basic: Marriage is a religious concept and does not belong in our constitutional laws. Marriage is between you and your God. If we the people want to legislate that two people can form a contract for tax purposes or house holding--that's one thing. But legislating our religious beliefs on others is fundamentally discriminatory. Bigoted is the stronger word. I'm Catholic; I don't believe in marriage for people of the same sex in my religion. But I also don't believe that my religious beliefs should be made into law, nor do I believe that same-sex couples should be unable to marry or create contracts for tax or cohabitation purposes. It's simply none of my business.

Comment by Michael of CA

There is a very good reason why the challenge in the court is coming now, after the vote. Our side did present our case to the court before. The court turned us away, stating that they didn't want to get involved unless it was necessary, and at that time it was not necessary. For all they knew, the vote would happen and we'd all be done. I think it is commendable that the court chose not to intervene earlier. The process was working itself out. NOW is the time for the court, so now is when we are re-approaching them.

Comment by Dale of CA