to live in Utah,

and not California

Although I am opposed to gay marriage by my own principles I that is not what disturbs me about this whole issue. What bothers me is the fact that the people of California had their vote neutralized by activist judges. Again if a State chooses to pass legislation that allows for gay marriage that is the right of it's citizens to choose. To have a vote nulified for political expediency is the death of democracy.

Just another example of judges legislating from the bench. So much for voice of the people.

Its about that word FREEDOM. Opposite sex people have the freedom to wed, and now same sex people have the exact freedom.

I know there will be many who will bring up the "Mormon" argument against Utah's ban on gay marriage, but the day we allow marriage to be undermined as California's "courts" have done will be a day of infamy. Today is already a sad day for the most essential foundation of this nation. It broke my heart to see how far we as a people have allowed this sacred union to be dragged in the dirt.

I am not a hater by any means. I believe everyone has the right to choose, but there are certain things that must be protected, especially when they are so critical to our strength and solidarity. Marriage is at the top of that list.

There is absolutely no proof that being gay or homosexual is genetic. They are not a class or a race. It is a choice. Just as with any behavior we have the ability to discipline ourselves to overcome and/or to eliminate any behavior from our lives. As a heterosexual, I have the ability to avoid pornography, premarital sex, and even bad thoughts. The world would have you believe otherwise. We cannot condone or except this behavior.

This will bring out the nut jobs on both sides-especially on newspaper comment boards. As an aside, it may turn out to be the worst thing that could have happened to the democrats this year.

Now in California homosexual couples can be as miserable as heterosexual married couples.

The gay couples who marry in California will no doubt be allowed to adopt children and it is those poor kids who will be the ones who suffer the most and the longest from this disgraceful action. California obviously has a huge homosexual population in SanFrancico which no doubt influenced this ugly ruling. What a HUGE step backward for Californian's. The repercussions of this will be felt as the years roll on and the side effects of drug abuse, suicide, etc.. occur from the poor children who will grow up in this dysfunctional and perverse home environment. So, the government takes kids out of the FLDS homes but will be more than willing to allow kids to live in a homosexual home. Go figure! A VERY sad day for California.

Scott McCoy thinks homosexual marriage should be allowed in Utah. Well unfortunately Scott, 99% of the state disagrees with you. Hopefully, the people of the state of California will vote away this fowl court ruling today in November. Thank goodness for democracy!

California the Nations biggest state?! Are they refering to population?

Then don't marry one.

This ruling won't affect public policy in Utah.

More interesting and relevant to Utah is the Michigan Supreme Court ruling a few weeks ago that said attempts by local governments to provide benefits for domestic partners (like Democrats on Salt Lake City and County Councils are always trying to do) are an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent state constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriage (like Utah voters passed a few years ago).

Four individuals have more power than a majority of voters who voted for the measure. Don't tell me judges don't have a political agenda.

Okay, so if Homosexuality were a choice, would that still justify not allowing them equality? Being LDS, Catholic or any religion is a choice as well, should we start legislating who can and cannot marry based on their religious choices?

We have had a lot of stuff about the Cathiolic church records, baptism for the dead etc. And All anyone has said is that if the dead don't want to accept the baptism they don't have to. The same rules should apply here. Allow gays to marry and if you can accept it, fine. If not, that's fine too, but let them decide what is right for them and stop applying your views on everyone else.

Everyone (heterosexuals and homosexuals) has the legal right to marry someone of the opposite gender.
No one (heterosexuals or homosexuals) has the legal right to marry someone of the same gender.
Everyone has the same FREEDOM under the law.

enjoy

I quote:
"There is absolutely no proof that being gay or homosexual is genetic."

There is absolutely no proof that being gay or homosexual is NOT genetic.
So pick a side.

Activist Judges blah, blah, blah... Homosexual agenda blah, blah, blah... Liberals, blah, blah, blah... Socialists blah, blah, blah...

Quit legislating your religion.

Where did you get the 99% figure from?

RE:ANONYMOUS12:31...HA!! FUNNY!!

Who should decide who can be married? Certainly the people aren't always right... (ban on interracial marriages) but it seems that since the state under current formulas has to recognize marriage for tax and insurance purposes that some standard has to be made. In the opening of the court decision they are deciding only the constitutionality of the people's proposition that marriage be defined as "between a man and a woman." They determined that restriction to be unconstitutional... but eventual some specific standard has to be made. Otherwise, why is it constitutional to ban plural marriage? Or why can't someone marry a goat? If the state has to set a standard, shouldn't the majority of the people be able to make that decision? I honestly don't know... but I think that the government maybe got in over their heads the day that marriage became a secular issue and not a religious one. One more argument for tax reform and universal health care.

So did the people of California vote against gay marriage?

If they did, then how did this get changed? Why does it need to be a state constitution issue? The people said by a majority - "we don't want it". I thought democracy was based of the majority, not a minority.

That should be the issue. People should be more upset that a majority vote was overturned, like Seperation of Powers said.

Quick fussing over the little stuff!

Hooray for freedom and justice in the Golden State!!!

I'm 60yo. I'm straight. I've been married to the same man for 40 years. And I've always believed what I learned in school about democracy, justice and equal protection under the law.

Anyone who feels "threatened" by knowing that loving people are protected by the same laws is merely announcing to the world how little personal worth and security in their marriage they feel. Justice protects us all and denying justice to anyone is what threatens us all.

I am proud of California's Supreme Court Justices today!

Why didn't the pro-gay marriage side have a referendum? Why must they depend on judges who, in their opinion, cite no actual law (read it) but instead repeat platitudes over and over rather than actually, you know, judging.

Remember, oh citizens of California. Your government doesn't want to hear from you. Just shut up and accept its policies like good little children. Government knows best...

As to Eric: this is called proving a negative. It is faulty logic. Even the APA has backed off from its previous "genetic" stance.

Looks like I won't be spending any more vacations in California. It's a shame, too - I'll have to go somewhere else to find nice, sunny weather. Oh well.

Why does it bother you? They don't want to marry you. They want to marry each other. What's the problem? Guess what they're still going to be doing if we don't allow gay marriage? They're going to be having gay sex! Who cares? It doesn't concern you. You don't like it? Tough! It's none of your business. Of course these words will fall on Deaf ears. I'm wasting my time printing this because of all the simple-minded folk. But it bugs me that so many people are so emotionally involved. Just because a gay man can marry another gay man, it doesn't mean that YOU have to marry a gay person. Leave them alone and mind your own darn business.

Great! Using the same reasoning, the legal ban against polygamy should be thrown-out also.

Society has a vital stake in women and men marrying (each other) and forming stable families.

Such marriages are the best way for competent functional adult human beings to be created and raised to maturity.

Society has zero stake in people "marrying" someone of the same gender.

Way to go California! Only 48 states to go. Utah will be dead last, of course, but it will happen. Even though the bigots are busy raising baby bigots, the light will eventually dawn on them.

My getting married has no impact on my neighbors' marriage. Their marriage does not impact my wife and I. What is this thing about "we are ok" "they are not" that seems to abound in the neck of the woods called "intolerance"?

Such incredible intolerance.

If having a majority vote for something makes it right, the Nazi Germany must have been the best thing for Germany. Segregation in Alabama.

Please. Use the Constitution that allows all of us, tall fat short skinny black white purple brown striped gay not gay, freedom.

Just plain old freedom.

Tell me that story again about how Mormons are all about free agency and it was Satans plan to force everybody to do gods will so that we could all go back and live in the sky with him. It's been a while since I've been to Sunday school.

If gay marriage was legal then gays could abstain from premarital sex.

To Jonathan, Separation of Powers and Balance of Powers:

In 2000, the people of CA passed a citizens initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This is the same as the legislature passing a state statute. It was not a constitutional amendment. What the CA Supreme Court decided today is that that statute passed by the initiative is unconstitutional because it violates the CA Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, due process and privacy, etc. In our system of government, the legislature or the people through initiative cannot pass laws (even if by majority) that violate guaranteed constitutional rights. In our system, it is majority rule with protected minority rights. So, if for example, the majority of Californians voted to ban the LDS religion and voted overwhelmingly to do so, this would be unconstitutional because it would violate at least as many guaranteed rights under the CA Constitution. This is how our system works. Now, those who dislike this decision can attempt to amend the CA Constitution to define marriage. If that amendment were to pass, then it would trump this decision and the highest law of CA would say no gay marriage. Get it?

Historically, Marriage is a "contract". A purely secular contract usually for some property consideration or family extension. Slowly over the years, the romantic version became the ideal. In many places in this world, the contract version is still the norm. Re the arranged marriage and dowry of Europe still stands the test of time.
It is the idea of the contract that should allow anyone to participate. After all, you cannot get a purely religious divorce, you need a judge to dissolve the "contract"

Democracy is the voice of the people. The voice of the people defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman (61% to 39%). Today, democracy lost.

What an amazingly badly-written article. Starting with the "nation's biggest state" error. Is this journalism or cheerleading?

So what is the definition of an activist judge one who rules against what you believe. one of the purpose of our judicial branch is to protect the rights of all citizens I know most of you believe we live in a country where majority rules but that is so not true we live in a country where all are protected equally (well it is suppose to be that way) thats why we need the judaical branch to protect people from the whim of the day

Everyone should read the court's opinion before commenting on the case. Is that too much to ask? Don't take the synopsis on FAUX News.

America teeters on the brink of the abyss. Unless we rediscover our moral compass in this country, our American way of life is doomed to repeat the same destructive cycle that destroyed other once-great civilizations.

This isn’t freedom and justice, it is moral decay, that will eventually destroy the very fabric and basic unit of society, the family.

Just as with any behavior we have the ability to choose. I have the ability to avoid smoking, pornography, gambling, premarital sex, and even bad thoughts. Homosexual behavior is are not a class or a race.
It is a choice.

We cannot condone or except this behavior.

"Anyone who feels threatened by knowing that loving people are protected by the same laws is merely announcing to the world how little personal worth and security in their marriage they feel." I have one question for you: Do you believe the same about having multiple wives as you do about condoning homosexual marriage? Hope what you've "learned in school about democracy, justice, and equal protection under the law" doesn't prohibit you from answering truthfully. The Supreme Court of California better not deny justice and equality to those wishing to practice polygamy. Hope someone doesn't show up at the clerk's office to get a license to marry their West Highland Terrier and gets turned down.

The Justices of California's supreme court show that the law's passed by a majority must conform to foundational legal principles established in the constitution of the state. Hooray for California. I can only sincerely hope that, despite the rampant homophobia of many in Utah, it too will awake and follow the lead of California's supreme court.

Today - Same-Sex marriage

Tommorow - Affirmative Action programs for gays, giving them advantage in adopting children, purchasing homes, getting jobs and getting into college

The Day After That - All churches forced to recognize and practice same-sex marriage

The Day After That - Elimination of all "age of consent" laws

Let Freedom Ring!

Looks like the LD Saints spent all those (tax free) millions in California to oppose same-sex marriage for nothing. Serves 'em right.

Ahh, to be living back in the sweet-smelling days of feudalism again!

I so loathed the days of democracy, when the nasty, brutish, bitter booboosie could have a say in how their government was ran. Perhaps one day we can get those idiots believing again in the divine right of kings!

The truth is, the people don't have the right to say who can and can't get married! Neither does the government. Whether you are for it or against it, people shouldn't be discriminated for who they want to marry. Everyone has the equal right to get married and that is how it should be! The government nor the people have the right to tell me I am not allowed!

If you support this redefinition of marriage, please join me in supporting a redefinition of taxes. Hear me out.

I should have the right to pay taxes any way I want. The government has no right to exclude my view of what taxes should be like. So from now on, instead of paying taxes to the government, I would like to pay taxes to my wife. Whether your spouse happens to be a man, woman, sheep, or whatever, it doesn't matter--same-family taxes are as valid and loving as traditional taxes.

Who's with me?

Good!
Conservatives want government to step in and ban it.
Always sticking their noses into other people's lives dictating how they should live.

The live-and-let-live liberals say: It's nobody's (blank) business.

Hooray for California.
Nothing like the Golden State!

Civics lesson:

Good argument, and I don't know the precise lanuage of California law (nor does anyone else here, I reckon).

But the broad interpretation of such equal protection clauses is going to become one more reason why they won't become more common. Give them an inch and the courts take a mile. So don't give them room to take an inch.

So the irony is that the CA decision makes it a bad day for expanding people's rights.

A West Highland Terrier is not an adult human being capable of consent, in case you weren't aware of that fact. Bad analogy--try again.

In what sense is California not the biggest state?

OK, in terms of area, sparsely-populated Alaska is the largest, followed by slightly more populated Texas, but California has the largest population, the largest economy, the largest number of electoral votes, and the largest number of representatives in Congress.

Ergo, "largest state." Hope that helps.

Also, this decision is not due merely to "judicial activism." The California Legislature, democratically elected, also approved gay marriage.

Finally, why is "judicial activism" OK when the SCOTUS appoints a conservative president, but not OK when it extends rights and responsibilities to an oppressed minority?

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

Wow, are judges now in the family psychology business? How do they know this?