California's Supreme Court has upheld a ban on same-sex marriage - the latest twist in a long-running saga.

The judges rejected a challenge from gay-rights activists to overturn the result of a 2008 referendum which restricted marriage to heterosexuals.

Prior to the vote, same-sex marriages were legal for six months, during which 18,000 couples were married.

The judges said their ruling was not retroactive - meaning those couples will remain legally married.
Gay-rights activists stood outside the San Francisco court shouting "shame on you" after the decision was made public.

Some promised to continue their campaign.

"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said 62-year-old Jeannie Rizzo, who was one of the lead plaintiffs.

"I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day," she told the Associated Press.

But the court's decision was hailed as a "victory for democracy" by Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative group that supported Proposition 8.

"[The ruling is] a victory for the civil rights of clergy, county clerks and Californians across the political spectrum who did not want to be forced by the government to approve of same-sex marriage," he said.

[size=16pt]
I can't just imagine the pleasure one can derive from same sex marriage. Its simply Unproductive, Ungodly, Unnatural, bestiality etc[/size]

georgecso:

California's Supreme Court has upheld a ban on same-sex marriage - the latest twist in a long-running saga.

The judges rejected a challenge from gay-rights activists to overturn the result of a 2008 referendum which restricted marriage to heterosexuals.

Prior to the vote, same-sex marriages were legal for six months, during which 18,000 couples were married.

The judges said their ruling was not retroactive - meaning those couples will remain legally married.
Gay-rights activists stood outside the San Francisco court shouting "shame on you" after the decision was made public.

Some promised to continue their campaign.

"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said 62-year-old Jeannie Rizzo, who was one of the lead plaintiffs.

"I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day," she told the Associated Press.

But the court's decision was hailed as a "victory for democracy" by Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative group that supported Proposition 8.

"[The ruling is] a victory for the civil rights of clergy, county clerks and Californians across the political spectrum who did not want to be forced by the government to approve of same-sex marriage," he said.

[size=16pt]
I can't just imagine the pleasure one can derive from same sex marriage. Unproductive, Unnatural, bestiality etc[/size]

sodom had no bible as they say.

Wetin concern you with gay?

sleek_p:

Wetin concern you with gay?

OP, do you know the meaning of "bestiality", because I don't see the correlation between sam sex marriage and bestality, unless you're suggesting gays aren't human.

@ topic

I'm a bit disappointed with this result, California has just now created a second class of citizens, denying them the right of the pursuit of happiness.

California used to be known as a beacon of progress, but with this ruling, Californians can no longer claim that.

I hope the gay and lesbian community keeps fighting for their rights, the majority shouldn't be able to decide the rights of the minority.

This is indeed a great development, now I wish they could lift a ban on Gay practice.

the people of california would bulge by the time it's all over.

@blackspade,

There is nothing like a right to marriage - heterosexual or homosexual for that matter. Your natural right does not impose a burden on others. You cannot force the State to formally recognise your union when it does not favour the State to do so. Of what use is homosexual marriage to the society - none! That is not the case with heterosexual marriage, where the society depends on it for its perpetuity and stability.

The State will not be violating anybody's rights if it decides to not recognise any marriage at all.

Tayo-D:

@blackspade,

There is nothing like a right to marriage - heterosexual or homosexual for that matter. Your natural right does not impose a burden on others. You cannot force the State to formally recognise your union when it does not favour the State to do so. Of what use is homosexual marriage to the society - none! That is not the case with heterosexual marriage, where the society depends on it for its perpetuity and stability.

The State will not be violating anybody's rights if it decides to not recognise any marriage at all.

  Gbam!
It does not bother nor concern me if two people of the same sex want to get it on . . . as long as they don't delude themselves into thinking the rest of us[b] have [/b] to recognize their union. The majority have spoken in Cali, deal with it.

  besides they can always come up here to Massachusetts to get married    . . . *hisses* . . . useless liberal state

blackspade:

OP, do you know the meaning of "bestiality", because I don't see the correlation between sam sex marriage and bestality, unless you're suggesting gays aren't human.

@ topic

I'm a bit disappointed with this result, California has just now created a second class of citizens, denying them the right of the pursuit of happiness.

California used to be known as a beacon of progress, but with this ruling, Californians can no longer claim that.

I hope the gay and lesbian community keeps fighting for their rights, the majority shouldn't be able to decide the rights of the minority.

this is all liberal drivel. Gay people are not second class citizens, most gays are white . . . can they claim to be more discriminated against than blacks? You can hide your sexual orientation, you cant hide your color.

No one is denying them the right to pursue happiness, the state is not criminalizing homosexuality, it is simply saying that you dont have a right to force the majority to accept your own selfish orientation.

If the majority cannot decide the law then of what use is a democracy? Gay people have a right to "love" themselves" . . . no one is begrudging them that. The rest of us have an equal right not to be forced to recognize gay marriage.

this is all liberal drivel. Gay people are not second class citizens, most gays are white . . . can they claim to be more discriminated against than blacks? You can hide your sexual orientation, you cant hide your color.

what about a black female lesbian? oh wait, they are a minority that should be ignored.

Why should one have to hide their sexual orientation?

the state is not criminalizing homosexuality,

US states did about 50 years ago. Gay marriage is inevitable. It's only a matter of time.

this is all liberal drivel. Gay people are not second class citizens, most gays are white . . . can they claim to be more discriminated against than blacks? You can hide your sexual orientation, you cant hide your color.

someone has obviously never heard of 'passing'

If the majority cannot decide the law then of what use is a democracy?

would have been wonderful for you to have been a jew in nazi germany

don't mind davidylan, there are cases of many mullatto's passing for white.

in the plessy vs ferguson case, plessy was a guy who passed for white.

It's funny what people would say to defend bigotry.

@bawomolo,

Exactly where and when did Davidylan defend or excuse bigotry? Let's try to keep this discussion not only civil, but honest.

Gay people never quit. Sore losers!

I feel bad for The Gays. I want them to have freedom but they have to realize that the US is a christian nation that follows Christian principles.The US on the other hand have to realize that this country is a democracy. Everyone is entitled to the rights of liberty,Justice and happiness. I am a Christian but I think the gays are entitled to the same rights as every other citizens.Let God be the Judge.

@SeanT21,

This is not a religious issue, and don't let people make yout feel it is. First, I think you need to dismiss the notion that marriage is a Right. It most certainly is not. It is a priviledge for the State to recognise your relationship as a marriage. The State can grant such priviledge to any association it deems fit to give it to.

There are different unions that seek recognision from the State. You have heterosexual unions, homosexual unions, polygamous unions, polyandrous unions (I hope that word makes sense) etc. The question is, which of these unions makes sense for the State to recognise and promote?

Please note that the State is not against any of these unions per se. A man or woman can sleep with whomever they want and with as many multiple partners as they like without the State being involved. As long as these sexual, social and emotional relationships are carried out with a voluntary participation of all the parties concerned, all is well and good. The question now is, why should the State take a step further to recognise one or more of these unions while ignoring the others? What interest does the State have in promoting any of these unions?

The answer is not far-fetched at all. The State like every institution, seeks self-preservation and stability. No doubt, the only union that is in the best position to make this happen is the one betwen heterosexual couples. Here, children are born into the family by natural means. The children are raised up by their biological parents who provide a sense of belonging and unconditional love necessary for a healthy growth and assimilation into the larger society. The State feels the need to promote and in some cases subsidise this institution. Back in my social studies class in secondary school, the nuclear family was described as the smallest unit of the society. In order words, the heterosexual marriage is the building block of the society. You cannot say the same for homosexual marriages.

If this discussion continues, I might feel the need to expand what I have said so far and buttress my position with more salient points.

blackspade:

OP, do you know the meaning of "bestiality", because I don't see the correlation between sam sex marriage and bestality, unless you're suggesting gays aren't human.

@ topic

I'm a bit disappointed with this result, California has just now created a second class of citizens, denying them the right of the pursuit of happiness.

California used to be known as a beacon of progress, but with this ruling, Californians can no longer claim that.

I hope the gay and lesbian community keeps fighting for their rights, the majority shouldn't be able to decide the rights of the minority.

I agree. . . .i mean they do deserve to have equal rights like every other citizen. . . .its going to be a long and tough road, . . .

Hopefully things will pan out for them eventually!!

LOS ANGELES - An openly gay teen was voted prom queen at Los Angeles' Fairfax High School in a campaign that began as a stunt but ended up spurring discussion on the campus about gender roles and teen popularity. Sergio Garcia, 18, was crowned queen Saturday night at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel.

"I feel invincible," Garcia said in his tiara and charcoal-gray tuxedo.

I guess king is the new queen. I hope there was no king and queen dance that night.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/national/dpg_gay_teen_prom_queen_lwf_052809_2521035

Tayo-D:

@SeanT21,

This is not a religious issue, and don't let people make yout feel it is. First, I think you need to dismiss the notion that marriage is a Right. It most certainly is not. It is a priviledge for the State to recognise your relationship as a marriage. The State can grant such priviledge to any association it deems fit to give it to.

There are different unions that seek recognision from the State. You have heterosexual unions, homosexual unions, polygamous unions, polyandrous unions (I hope that word makes sense) etc. The question is, which of these unions makes sense for the State to recognise and promote?

Please note that the State is not against any of these unions per se. A man or woman can sleep with whomever they want and with as many multiple partners as they like without the State being involved. As long as these sexual, social and emotional relationships are carried out with a voluntary participation of all the parties concerned, all is well and good. The question now is, why should the State take a step further to recognise one or more of these unions while ignoring the others? What interest does the State have in promoting any of these unions?

The answer is not far-fetched at all. The State like every institution, seeks self-preservation and stability. No doubt, the only union that is in the best position to make this happen is the one betwen heterosexual couples. Here, children are born into the family by natural means. The children are raised up by their biological parents who provide a sense of belonging and unconditional love necessary for a healthy growth and assimilation into the larger society. The State feels the need to promote and in some cases subsidise this institution. Back in my social studies class in secondary school, the nuclear family was described as the smallest unit of the society. In order words, the heterosexual marriage is the building block of the society. You cannot say the same for homosexual marriages.

If this discussion continues, I might feel the need to expand what I have said so far and buttress my position with more salient points.

NICE ONE~~THNX!!

SeanT21:

I feel bad for The Gays. I want them to have freedom but they have to realize that the US is a christian nation that follows Christian principles.The US on the other hand have to realize that this country is a democracy. Everyone is entitled to the rights of liberty,Justice and happiness. I am a Christian but I think the gays are entitled to the same rights as every other citizens.Let God be the Judge.

THE US was founded mostly by Masonic Deists.  attempts by christian extremists to paint this country as some theocratic one is bogus.

You wonder why a Christian nation would condone slavery and segregation. oh wait,

Here, children are born into the family by natural means.

why not make in vitro fertilization illegal then?

why not ban barren or infertile heterosexuals from marrying?

You guys are hypocrites

You cannot say the same for homosexual marriages.

what if they adopt kids.

I think you need to dismiss the notion that marriage is a Right. It most certainly is not. It is a priviledge for the State to recognise your relationship as a marriage.

marriage for an adult should be a civil right.

bawomolo:

THE US was founded mostly by Masonic Deists. attempts by christian extremists to paint this country as some theocratic one is bogus.

You wonder why a Christian nation would condone slavery and segregation. oh wait,

Don't be silly. The founding fathers were devoted believers who enshrined their belief in God into the nation.

C2H5OH:

Don't be silly.  The founding fathers were devoted believers who enshrined their belief in God into the nation.

show proof the founding fathers were CHURCH GOING Christians and not predominantly masonic deists who enforced separation of Church and state.

It's funny how people go through remarkable means to mask their homophobia.  I guess a couple has to have kids in order to be beneficial to the state.  Homosexuals on average have more money and contribute more taxes to the state and federal government but hey the kids are more useful to the state.

I didn't call them church-going. Who knows what they did in their free time. I repeat, their belief in God has been rooted in this nation since the beginning of time. And so shall it be, forever and ever, Amen.

You should attend a couple of churches once in a while. Really, it's not so bad.

Separation of church and state was not even enforced until recently. We all know that.



But what has homophobia got to do with a bunch of monster-headed sore losers who refuse to recognise the glaring difference between a priviledge and a right? I don't feel a single ounce of pity for them.

You should attend a couple of churches once in a while. Really, it's not so bad.

i do, it's not so bad. It's just boring to me and i'd rather watch the disney channel. The founding father's belief in God had little to do with Christianity. You have to wonder why some Christian men would love to kill native americans and own slaves. Separation of church and state is/was an integration part of the constitution. Is our constitution a Bible?

I don't feel a single ounce of pity for them.

They want their liberty and not your damn pity.

what does don't ask don't tell or gay marriage have to do with pity? Do you think homo's are begging for hugs?

bawomolo:

i do, it's not so bad. It's just boring to me and i'd rather watch the disney channel.

but think about the millions or billions who actually enjoy it. it is the pinnacle of their life. it gives them hope and makes them happy. a better world for everyone of us.

They want their liberty and not your damn pity.

I wonder which choir they are going to preach this to. AFAIK, they are not being tied down by a rope. Speaking of constitution, gay marriage ban is an integral part of california's constitution. Is our constitution to be desecrated for a cult of sex freaks to have their way?

what does don't ask don't tell or gay marriage have to do with pity? Do you think homo's are begging for hugs?

I really do. don't ask don't tell and gary marriage are two different things. If not, they would have given up by now. To make matters worse, they have brough violence into the equation. They have begun vandalizing homes and properties of those who disagree with them. Ridiculous isn't it?


[quote][/quote]

On Tuesday's Today show, Miss California Carrie Prejean says her anti-same sex marriage answer on Sunday's Miss USA competition cost her the crown.

"I knew at that moment, after I had answered the question, that I was not going to win because of my answer, " she said. "Because I have spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God."

See photos of more celeb scandals

Asked if she could have a do-over, she said, "No, I wouldn't have answered it differently. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct; it's about being Biblically correct."

See today's top celeb news photos

Giving a middle-of-the-road response "goes against what I stand for," Prejean went on. "When I am asked a specific question, I am going to give a specific answer. I am not going to stand in the middle."

"I am so proud of myself, " she added. "I wouldn't change a thing."

Bunch of Godophobes penalizing people for standing up for what is right.

Is our constitution to be desecrated for a cult of sex freaks to have their way?

how does gay marriage desecrate the constitution?

but think about the millions or billions who actually enjoy it. it is the pinnacle of their life. it gives them hope and makes them happy. a better world for everyone of us.

good for them, i would pass on the false hope though.

don't ask don't tell and gary marriage are two different things. If not, they would have given up by now.

why does don't ask don't tell exist if homosexuals are "already" free to be themselves.

bawomolo:

how does gay marriage desecrate the constitution?

Miserably trying to insert something where it does not belong. It spits in the face of justice. Voters deserve the justice of having their voices heard, California deserves the justice of having its constitution obeyed. Advocates of freakshow do not respect what has been written in our constitution.

why does don't ask don't tell exist if homosexuals are "already" free to be themselves.

because they whined to put it in existence

because they whined to put it in existence

how did they whine for it's existence. i thought gays were against don't ask don't tell in the army.

Miserably trying to insert something where it does not belong

i thought the constitution was meant to protect minorities. i guess it's cool for the majority to dictate the "privileges" of the minority.

On Tuesday's Today show, Miss California Carrie Prejean says her anti-same sex marriage answer on Sunday's Miss USA competition cost her the crown.

"I knew at that moment, after I had answered the question, that I was not going to win because of my answer, " she said. "Because I have spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God."

See photos of more celeb scandals

Asked if she could have a do-over, she said, "No, I wouldn't have answered it differently. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct; it's about being Biblically correct."

See today's top celeb news photos

Giving a middle-of-the-road response "goes against what I stand for," Prejean went on. "When I am asked a specific question, I am going to give a specific answer. I am not going to stand in the middle."

"I am so proud of myself, " she added. "I wouldn't change a thing."

one wonders what a self professed true christian is doing in a godless , vain competition that celebrates beauty

one may have admired her, but she then did an about turn and sued. so much for accepting the consequences of your convictions


question : so what is the archbishop of canterbury? ( i forget his name - is he also a godophobe?)