We The People ??????,

[seapower]

You're kidding me, right ???? How can the will (proven with vote's) of the People, be over ruled by One judge's opinion????? Didn't California have a "Public" vote on Proposition 8???? Would someone please tell me how that vote went!!! The "People" voted their will and a judge who didn't agree with their "will" over ruled the MAJORITY, of the voter's. Is the judge "gay", it doesn't matter. You folk's on the left coast better start kicking some behind's and taking name's (starting with that judge). If you can't live by the law voted on by the majority of that State, exersise your right and move to another State (Vermont maybe). Can a melt down be far off ????? Frank

[Zummie]

Not that long ago it was illegal in may states for two people of different races to marry. At that time 70% of all Americans were IN FAVOR of these law. Then that pesky Constitution that says that we have to treat everyone equally got in the way and made all those states change the laws that THE MAJORITY of their citizens wanted.

[seapower]

Is there anything that the people have the right to object to? Just curious. Frank

[clt_capt]

It is Darwinism at it's best... They cannot reproduce with their same sex partner - eventually they are self defeating...

[seapower]

about the "gay" issue. My question really boil's down to this, how can the opinion of one judge over turn the voice of the voter's? Frank

[Glenn W]

Well, I personally feel that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior and reflects a psychological disorder that is simply not biologically "normal". As such, I don't believe that society should condone such behavior, let alone provide rights and protections as a result of it.---- I mean shit, Pino doesn't get any special treatment as a result of God only knows what all he does to all those goats in his barn

On the other hand, the legal implications of marriage provide definate rights and protections to individuals that should accrue to all people regardless of their very private beliefs and activities.

Since I'm not queer---- frankly I realy don't give a damn either way.
Oh, and Frank--- the California law was found unconsitutional because the Judge felt it violated the U.S. constitution--- Federal authority always takes precident over State law on U.S. constitutional matters.----

[seapower]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, so please bear with me. Does that mean to say that if this case made it to the Supreme Court and they decided that gay marrige was a Constitutional Right, that would be end of story Country wide??? If so where does the line between State and Federal get drawn? I mean if Federal Law alway's trump's State Law, what's the point of State Law's? Frank

[Glenn W]

WoW!!! There have been many careers devoted to such questions and problems.
I think that for this case, yes, this may indeed be a Chapter 2 in Roe V Wade.--- if not in significance, certainly in subject.
In fact, instead of providing any comment on states rights versus the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution, do a little reading on Roe v Wade and I think you'll get the idea much better.--- but in short, State laws are subservient to Rights provided under our U.S. Constitution.----- This happens all the time in that state laws are quite frequently found to violate our constiutional rights---- The situation in Arizona with ilegal immigrants comes to mind as a similar case (although the focus has shifted gears lately).

[Bligh]

One of the lawyers arguing in defense of gay marriage and their loss of equal rights is Ted Olsen the main republican lawyer that advised bushie. The way I see it then the states cant prevent a brother and sister from getting married??? or should we say animals and humans???

[seapower]

Ok, I'll take the arguement. Your a lawyer and I know you'll end up wiping the floor with me, but I'll try just the same. Roe V Wade as I understand it was a case heard on "morality" when it came right down to it. The case on legal merit could go either way, (choice). So how is this any different, this is about the moral fiber of this Citizenship that voted they didn't want the right's of many tarnished (or de-valued) by the few "special interest". In this case the gay's that wanted to get married. I don't think the voter's said it was against the law, or that they couldn't be "gay". I believe the issue is that they (as a whole) don't believe in gay marrige (or it's legality) and voted so. Again it's about morality, the dirty word that's not politically correct now. Yes I personally feel it has Biblical root's as-well, we tend to forget that God was interwoven in this Country's foundation (am I still allowed to say that?). Sad to me we've allowed it to continue to stray from that foundation. Frank