Gay couples rush to get married

Many Chicago gay people feel mixed emotions about this great night. One one hand, we are happy Obama was elected and very proud to be part of it. One the other hand, we realize that the large black voter turnout in California actually contributed to Proposition 8's success, as black voters voted overwhelmingly in favor of the ban. While gay people see this as a civil rights issue, most black people don't. That's very disheartening, as gay people overwhelmingly support civil rights issues related to black people.

I proudly voted for Barack Obama and will always support him and any causes related to black Americans. I hope straight people will feel comforted and more secure in their marriages today knowing that gay couples will not be allowed to marry.

rmo GENIUS wrote:

PROP 8 !!!
WOOHOO !!!
hahahahaha!!!

Yay!! Nothing quite like crushing the hopes, dreams and rights of people that are inferior to us!! It feels great. We're the best!! We're number 1!! We're number 1!!

Johnny wrote:

The people of California alreayd voted no on this issue and judges legislating from the bench and ignoring the wish of the people allowed it. Good thing a vote came up and the people spoke loudly that marrige is between a man and a woman.

You're missing the point on this. The constitution is intended to protect the minority from the majority when the majority is attempting to take away equal rights. Do you think that if there had been a vote to end slavery in the late 1800's it would have passed? Do you think that if there had been a vote among men to allow women to vote it would have passed? The majority isn't always right just because there are more of them. The majority used to think the world was flat. The majority today seems just as ignorant.

They didn't speak loudly, they barely won this vote. Prop 22 passed by 62% of the vote, this one only had 52%. And Prop 22 was declared unconstitutional by the CA Supreme court, which is their job. Yes it is, learn how the three branches of government work you idiot. Also, the CA Supreme court is made up of mostly conservative republicans. Three of the four judges who voted to overturn Prop 22 were Appointed by the conservative right's heroes Ronnie Reagan and Pete Wilson. So they did their job, which you mistakenly call legislating from the bench. That should have been the end of it, but it wasn't. Hate filled religious bigots saw their first Prop was going to be overturned so they put another hate filled Prop on the ballot. And we will fight this one in the courts as Unconstitutional as well. Again, this is how our country works, you don't like it, feel free to leave. There are many problems created by this Prop 8. First, it does nothing to negate the 18,000 marriages gay couples had in this state, they will stand. That sets up a huge problem, how do you have some married gay couples and then deny others that same right? That is one reason this will eventually fall. Also, this Prop took away rights from people, that is going to be hard to make pass constitutional muster in CA. The idiots who wrote the Proposition worded it poorly. If the constitution denies gays the right to marry, it might mean that the courts will have to deny all couples the right to marry in CA due to the ruling on Prop 22 and the way our constitution is set up. So while bigots might have spoken, they did not speak clearly or concisely, leaving this open to battles in the courts for years to come. The bigots thought this would be over, but when people are fighting for their rights, which were just taken away, it will never be over until those people get those rights again. That means the bigots will have to deal with gay people and our supporters being in their faces for a long time. Something they didn't think would happen and that they cry about like babies now that they have "spoken".

Johnny wrote:

The people of California alreayd voted no on this issue and judges legislating from the bench and ignoring the wish of the people allowed it. Good thing a vote came up and the people spoke loudly that marrige is between a man and a woman.

Good, now you have to deal with us until we get that right back. Yes you will. We will be everywhere calling out bigots like you. And kids will hear about our protests, and then your kids will know gay people exist. Poor little creature, you will hate having to see us everywhere fighting for our rights back. Boo.

onerous wrote:

i do
thank you

It's soooo way past time to start revoking the tax exempt status of religious institutions who engage in political campaigning....especially when it involves the subjugation of another group whom they feel are a threat to their biblical 'worldview', or as I call it, their bubble.

The Mormon's and Catholics should be very careful with their money, since their is a good chance that some significant fines are coming their way over this.$73 mil for a political campaign....sounds a great deal removed from ministry needs.

Oh, and here's a big fat truth for you bigots, relious based or otherwise.....NO ONE CHOOSES TO BE GAY...IT IS AN IMMUTABLE TRAIT....EXAXCTLY LIKE ONE"S RACE OR EYE COLOR....IT CANNOT BE CHANGED. THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT. I know that bother's the fundamentalists, since they don't like empirical evidence or factual reasoning, but being gay is not a choice....However, YOU CAN CHOOSE TO BE WILLFULLY IGNORANT, BIASED AND HATEFUL....that IS a choice!

For the rest of us who are spritual in opur own way, but see no need to invoke dogma on others who aren't like us, we stand with our gay friends and family members on this.

No one group should ever be singled out and have their rights put up to popular vote. Majority vote on such matters is distinctly un-American, and reeks of theological tyranny.

The only thing that Prop 8 did was fill some folks pathetic need to feel superior....for a brief moment in time....since the winds of change are already blwoing out of your favor.

The generation coming up sees no reason for this. Celebrate while you can. The Jim Crow era for the gay community is upon us....it is only a matter of time.

Still happy you voted for Obama? He doesn't support your right to marry, but Arnold does. I guess gays are the new blacks, blindly supporting the Democrats while being ignored.

It is truly sad to read these ignorant comments on such a real issue in the world today. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to cheer for the failure of another's hopes is ridiculous. Like it or not, everyone has or will cross paths with someone that is or has had a homosexual experience.

Will God judge me for loving, or will he judge you for hating?

Congrats to Conneticut!!! Best wishes to those gay couples on their way to celebrate marraige!

The only resolution is for the government not to recognize any marriage. If people want to get married they could arrange for some private outfit to recognize their marriage, like a church. There would be a huge increase in income tax revenues.

Arch wrote:

When was marriage a right. This is called democracy. The majority has spoken. It is sickening to hear people to compare what has/is happening to the African American community with the gay community. They are two very seperate issues. ALL pastor's should stand up against what is clearly sin in the bible. A proud moment for California to fight the liberal agenda.

I think I'll start a proposition to get deny people who have ever used the name "Arch" in a forum the right to vote. If enough people (the majority) agree with me, then it must be okay, right? The majority would have spoken.

You can take your little book of fairy tales and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. This is not a theocracy.

Another case of judges legislating from the bench. So much for separation of powers.

Stanislaus wrote:

Another case of judges legislating from the bench. So much for separation of powers.

It is entirely appropriate in this matter for judges to intervene. The Supreme Court had to intervene in "Loving v. Virginia," and this is no different.
The rights of a minority shall not be determined by the majority.

funny thing is, the world didn't end when the gay people got married, the sky did not come crashing down, the earth did not cave in, in fact it seems a little like the smae old same old if you ask me.

Look, people who keep saying that the justices are legislating from the bench and going against the will of the people. The justices did NOT legislate. What they said is that the law banning same-sex marriage violated the constitutional protections of equal protection under the law.

Here's an example. We have freedom of speech in our first amendment to the US Constitution. Let's say that the population decided it didn't like discussions about abortion on TV, because it was too controversial and upsetting, and might give teens the "wrong idea." Say they got a proposition passed to ban such discussions in the media.

The courts would certainly overturn such a law as an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom of speech. Even though the majority was in favor of it, it is wrong to stifle free speech and open discussion.

The constitutions of the US and each state were designed to protect minority rights from the majority. We don't pass laws imposing Christianity as the official religion of the US and banning the practice of Islam, for example, because we have freedom of religion in the 1st amendment, too. Even though there are a lot of people who are down on Islam and associate it with terrorists.

The majority is wrong in some cases, and the minorities need protection from them. That is the beauty of our constitutional system of government.

Jim wrote:

So what prevents three or more people (same sex or mixed) from marrying each other? Seriously, if the courts are now saying that Equal Protection applies to marriage then what is to stop this type of marriage from taking place?

In order to say that there is unequal treatment, there must be something that you are measuring it against to reach that equality. Since no state allow polygamy, there is no equality standard to reach

It's sad to see so many people complaining about "legislating from the bench."
First, because they are clearly demonstrating a deep lack of understanding about the fundamentals of our nations legal system.
And second, because so many of them have benefited from this "legislation from the bench" in the past. Women, Blacks, Asians, and even Protestants have many of the rights they currently enjoy because, at some point in the past, a judge/judges "legislated from the bench."

Jim wrote:

So what prevents three or more people (same sex or mixed) from marrying each other? Seriously, if the courts are now saying that Equal Protection applies to marriage then what is to stop this type of marriage from taking place?

I love people who take things out of context to prove their own agenda. See theres this law against polygamism (that's marrying multiple people). If you want to get really technical, that shouldn't be illegal either. The only reason it is illegal is because many men took advantage of the ability to do that, abusing their wives in the name of religion. It would also be easy to abuse in order to get work benefits for multiple people, getting illegal immigrants green cards, etc. It's obviously a compeltely separate issue which you would realize if you weren't so blinded by your own religiously fostered rage against gay people.

The next time you are personally hurt by two people of the same sex being together let me know and I'll change my mind. "Ow Ow! Something I don't understand! It hurts my brain so the gov't has to stop it!"

Remember, this ruling in Connecticut is mostly symbolic. The real issue is repealing DOMA, at least the federal portion of it.

Gay Marriages, or civil unions, have very little legal value while DOMA is in effect. Not saying they are useless, just very limited.

Contact your congressional reps and insist on the repeal of DOMA!

Anne wrote:

Legislation from the bench. You have to love it....not.

You gotta love how people only look at one angle of this issue. It is OK if you agree with their decision, not OK if you do not.

I am going to guess you were quite pleased that SCOTUS "legislated from the bench" on gun rights in the Heller case.

Personally, I approve of both. The courts are there to prevent legislators from violating our rights. That includes issues you agree with, and ones you do not.

At least we have 2 smart states in this country. I hope the rest of us will catch up soon.