Excellent decisions!

Horrible decisions and SCOTUS is filled with a bunch of liberal political lackeys!!!

That is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. Whatever your thoughts are on the underlying issue, true ignorance is demonstrated by objectively incorrect assertions.

Of the nine justices, five are quite clearly Republican: Scalia (Reagan), Alito (W. Bush), Roberts (W. Bush), Thomas (H.W. Bush), and Kennedy (Reagan).

More to the point: none of them are "political lackeys." They are not elected, and enjoy lifetime tenure so as to prevent the judiciary from being beholden to political interests.

In any event, you sound like you were dropped on your head as a child.

Wake up people!! This is how societies get corrupted and civilizations end.

This what you will get if you continue to be sheep. Don't tell me you are not warned.

Thanks for listening.

Julia Pardini from Alamo

For the poster who thinks there are Republicans on SCOTUS, ever heard the phrase a wolf in sheep's clothing. Also you moron, lifetime tenure means they can push their own political agenda with no repercussions.

They will all get their comeuppance according to the Bible (Genesis 19:23), so I know all will be right in the end!

Hoping a large part of the population will "get their comeuppance" for seeking equal treatment under the law doesn't seem terribly Christian to me. Doesn't really reconcile with loving thy neighbor.

Dear Julia,

I believe you've truly outdone even your wildly antagonistic rantings. However, allow me to offer something to the lesser masses that, perhaps, just touches the cerebral musings that you've given the us this day.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!

Web Link

... And here's a further pithy video quote, paraphrased from Mr. Boies' Prop 8 remarks: Web Link (mildly nsfw)

It's religious zellots like Douglas & Julia that make people from the outside world think Danville is home to a bunch of uneducated, nuevo-rich, bible thumping hypocrites.The Bible also disapproves of divorce, infidelity, and body augmentation, but Danville certinaly has it's share of people who commit these crimes against God. And for the cardinal who is upset by the Courts decision, wonder how God feels about the Catholic Church condoning child molestation.

We shoud all celebrate the Court's decision! Question for those of you who are upset: How does allowing two people who love each other the ability to get married adversley affect your quality of life?

I think Doug may need to wear a helmet when he walks around.

The US Supreme Court is gay and corrupt itself. The supposed highest court in the land cannot legislate morality. Everyone still knows putting your private up someone else's excrement cavity is just plain unnatural and wrong.

US Supreme Court decision is corrupt and bent. Homosexuals celebrate!

Please allow me to clear up something.
This is the real Julia Pardini from Alamo.
What some of you have read above was not written by me the real Julia.
I wonder why someone would use my good name to express their opinion.
Oh well, it takes all kinds to screw up our community.

This is a message to the Julia imposter.
Have guts and voice your opinion using your own name.

I know you know I have a wonderful following and you want to jump on my wagon, but be honest and be a strong woman...create your own identity and let your opinion be heard.

Thank you for listening...Julia Pardini from Alamo

My comment is basically independent of the content of Prop 8, but instead is related to the legal reasoning of the SC, and what it means for CA propositions in general. The SC didn't rule on the constitutionality or merits of Prop 8, they just said that the backers of Prop 8 didn't have "standing", and therefore were basically not allowed to appeal the lower court's decision to block Prop 8. In short, the SC said that only the state of CA itself had proper standing to defend a proposition that was passed via the state's ballot proposition process.

But our governor (Jerry Brown) and state Attorney General (Kamala Harris) refused to defend the proposition, and so the practical upshot of this was that no one is/was allowed to defend Prop 8 in court.

What this means is that propositions that are legally passed in CA, but are then overturned by a court (and you can almost always find SOME judge to overturn anything...) will only be defended in court if the current governor and AG personally agree with them. This essentially gives the current Governor and/or AG a sort of veto power over propositions, which was never the intent of the proposition process.

Taking the long view of the SC's decision, CA voters have been told that propositions only "count" if the governor and AG personally agree with them. Why bother voting? For that matter, why bother going through the time, effort, and cost to put a proposition on the ballot, if a single judge can overturn it, and then no one is allowed to appeal unless the CA AG decides he/she wants to?

In the end, even if Prop 8 had been sustained, it would only have been a matter of time before something else would have been passed that reversed it. So in that sense the SC decision might not really matter that much. But in terms of future propositions, I think it has greatlly limited the "power of the voter" to pass propositions....

The governor and state attorney general have a duty to not enforce unconstitutional laws.

Suppose the majority of Californians passed a law that authorized torture. Should the governor enforce that?

Supreme Court was right. DOMA violated the equal protection clause and was unconstitutional. Clinton and Democrats who passed DOMA should’ve known better.

I wish the Supreme Court had ruled on the substance of Prop. 8, instead of dismissing the case on procedural grounds.

California Civil Unions already give gays all the legal rights of marriage under California law. So the fight over Prop. 8 was about the marriage label only, not any substantive rights beyond that.

The California Supreme Court said there is a fundamental right to use the marriage label. I think that’s crap. Fundamental rights are rights that have been endowed to us by being human, such as the right to breathe, not to be tortured or deprived of food, to be secure in our person, reasonable expectation of privacy, the right to assemble peacefully, etc. Decades ago, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a fundamental right for hetero couples to be married.

I think it is logical to extend the fundamental right of marriage to gay couples. It is basic human dignity to be allowed to marry the person of your choosing, regardless of gender.

I disagree, however, with the idea that a marriage must be labeled “marriage” by the government in order to secure that fundamental right. Whether the government calls that relationship “marriage” or “civil union” or gives it some other label does not affect the substance of that right to marry.

I believe Prop. 8 should have been struck down, however, on the basis of the equal protection clause. I think the Supreme Court would have ruled that it is not a violation of the equal protection clause to classify gay relationships differently than hetero relationships, so long as there is a rational basis for doing so. I believe there is no rational basis for classifying gay unions differently from hetero unions, so I think Prop. 8 would’ve been struck down.

I do not understand why gay people feel the need to poke religious people in the eye by adopting hetero marriage customs.

But this is America, and people should be allowed to do what they want, and everyone deserves the decency and respect for their legitimate life choices.

happy sodomy,you sick soles

Just wait until churches/mosques etc are forced/ pressured to do HOMOsexual "marriages." The fact that the liar-in-chief (who didn't support HOMOsexual marriage 2 years ago) said the t will NOT happen is a sign that it will!!! He also said the Catholic Church would NOT have to pay for workers birth control/murder of babies in their health insurance under Obamakill. Lies all.

If it'll help you breathe any easier, gary -- sodomy between-or-among consenting adults, of Every sexual persuasion, was already legal in all fifty states. Yesterday didn't change that.

And wait -- there's more!

As an obvious stranger to marriage, you'll be comforted to know that, if the experience of us breeders is any guide, gay people will be having a Lot LESS of it once they get married! They've fallen into a cruel trap -- ain't that grand?

As usual, Cardinal is wrong once again. Studies show that married people have more sex than single or partnered individuals and more sexual variety.Web Link

While I greatly and really respect your capacity for redundant phraseology, I would note that your weblink does not refer to ... ahem ... sodomy, my dear Mr. Killjoy.

Or were you referring to Mr. Cordileone (whose actually an arch-bishop in the same set of pews)?

Seems pretty pathological to be worrying about and wanting to control what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I don't think most happy, healthy people are terribly concerned or judgmental about the intimate lives of others. Maybe some therapy??

Well, S-P, regarding your first post and not the rather limited menu suggested by your second edition, the stick is obviously in the eye of the beholder. If you agree (as it appears from the rest of your writing that you do) that the essence of marriage is the deep commitment of two consenting adults to each other for life, then it is the same commitment, regardless of the sexes of the participants.

Marriage is also The Fundamental Social Unit of our society -- not just the fundamental unit of Heterosexual society. To call it a "heterosexual custom" reserves it to you, and excludes others -- but you don't own it! The very attempt to exclude their relationships suggests that you believe, inappropriately methinks, that you stand in a position to do so -- a position superior to theirs. That bugs ME -- and I don't even play on their team!

Further, what we call things does matter, as well you know from your studies if nowhere else. I made that argument in an earlier thread, and you seemed to agree at the time, but I guess it didn't 'take.'

Here's me, in part:

"What’s in the name “marriage?” Juliet asked the same question. If words didn’t matter, she and Romeo could have been married without incident. If words didn’t matter, trademark law wouldn’t exist, and Chevron’s gasoline couldn’t command a premium over chemically identical generic fuel (“Techron?” Please). If words didn’t matter, you could put Subaru insignia on a Mercedes and not affect its market value. The CA Supremes got it right in the original Marriage cases, circa 2008:

“One of the core elements of this fundamental right [to marry] is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership —pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry.”

We’ve tried “separate but equal” in this society. It didn’t work out so well."

And your response, in similar part:

"A lot of people have the view that denying the use of the marriage label is demeaning to gays, as if to say their union is less valid than a hetero union. They think forcing everyone to acknowledge their relationships as marriage will create a more just society. I get it. Sounds good to me.

Cassius Clay wants to be known as Muhammad Ali. Who are we to say no?"

I agree that gays should be allowed to use the marriage label if they want. I don’t care. I don’t see any rational reason to oppose it.

But I don’t understand why people insist on using it.

To use your analogy, I don’t understand why a person would feel the need to put a Mercedes symbol on a Subaru. A Subaru is fine car just the way it is. It doesn’t need the Mercedes symbol to be worth a lot and to be valuable to its owners. It is not somehow “less” of a car just because it doesn’t have the Mercedes symbol.

When I’ve discussed this issue with my gay friends & co-workers, my gay brother, my gay cousin, they’ve all told me they don’t care about the marriage label. They just want to live like everyone else, to be free from prejudice, to be loved and accepted for who they are. For them, it’s the substance of the relationship that matters, not the label.

But of course, they don’t speak for everyone. For a lot of people, the label matters. That’s why I think gays should be able to use the marriage label if they want.

This is completely insane. Now all those southern rednecks that Neil Young sings about are going to want to marry their goats & sheep and have sex with them.
Oh wait...... they already have the second half covered.

The great southern lies:
"Honest sheriff, she only looks like my sister..."
"My teeth fell out during a fight with one uh' them lib-e-rals"
"No no officer, I'ze just helpin' my lamb over the fence"

they've all been had by the government. Now that they've assumed the label marriage, all it really means is more revenues for the proletariat (see IRS code / aka "marriage penalty"). Well done, it's about time.

Yeah, THAT'll fix 'em -- especially that estate tax thing. You know, the $350K penalty that Ms. Windsor can now recoup?

I agree with CRM's concern about the Supreme Court's less-than-courageous rationale for getting out of having to make a ruling on Prop. 8. You can't have a fair trial without two sides arguing. I think California needs to set up a mechanism for authorizing the defense of a law which doesn't require the governor or Attorney General to argue in favor of something they have concluded is unconstitutional.

I support gay marriage, but I also support good legal procedures. The Supreme's ducked having to make a ruling on the issue but created a potentially greater one. Fortunately, this wake up call will let us deal with it.

There you go again, Julia. Your rants and unchristian attitude is appalling whether it is the real you or not. So whoever is posting for Julia, the same goes for you, too.
Post something nice and kind for a change, OK?

Many of the comments here are disturbing and show a real lack of understanding of American values and Civics 101. We have a Bill of Rights and Constitution that should be applied equally to all US citizens. DOMA prevented certain types of families from enjoying the rights and protections granted to other families without a compelling federal interest in doing so. If you are a heterosexual married couple, the Supreme Court's decisions on gay marriage will have no impact on you or your family. Nothing at all changed for married couples. The people whose lives are profoundly changed by the decision are gay married couples and their children who now have equal treatment under federal law (except for the states where gay marriage is not legal, that's a gray area that will have to be addressed in the future). Nothing decided by the Supreme Court compells churces to perform or accept gay marriage because in the United States, government shall make no law infringing on the freedom of religion. Nothing bad happened last week. If you hold a religious conviction opposed to gay marriage, you are entitled to that belief. However, the government may not impose your beliefs on other US citizens and their children. It's not always easy to be an American because we have to protect all our citizens, even the ones we don't understand or agree with.

Elizabeth,
Please post more often. This forum needs more smart and sensible contributors.

What the hell is wrong with religion that it breeds such hate espoused as mainstream views.

The only religion that breeds hate in the modern world is that supposed religion of peace--lol--Islam.

Julia Pardini:

If you are concerned that someone is hijacking your user name, I suggest that you become a registered user of the site. That way a password will be required to use that user name, and your postings will indicate that you are a registered user (as I am).

If you don't want to register, then don't complain about user name hijacking.

Citizen pain - why are you so arrogant and self-righteous? Likely straight from the same article you google'd: "Same-sex marriages are more likely to be dual-earner, which means they're likelier to see a marriage penalty."

The point really is that you can assume numbers that will demonstrate Any position you want to take -- and when the issue is freedom, economics take a far back seat. (BTW, we're All arrogant and self-righteous at times -- especially when viewed from an opposing angle. I'll try to be more humble and self-effacing, but you might not notice.)

Here's a related Q for you: assuming you're right and on balance it'll cost gay couples more in taxes (TeaBaggers rejoice! -- but I digress), How Much would YOU pay to have the same freedom to marry that everyone else enjoys? Or if you're married, have you contemplated divorce for the sole reason of tax avoidance?

Just for today, let's celebrate and let Freedom really Ring, including newly-minted, hard-won Freedom!

This should be a mute point. Same-sex partnerships are recognized as legal entities by the state. "Marriage" is defined in the Bible. Call it something else and I believe you'll receive less pushback from the general public and religious folks.

Also, being "gay" shouldn't be a label. What you do in your bedroom behind closed doors is your own business. I don't care what your sexual preference is, just don't flaunt it in front of my children and teach it in school. School should be a place for learning - math, reading, science, FACTS, and other knowledgeable subjects that provide education and future skills. Sexual orientation should be left out of the classroom. As a PARENT, I will discuss this sensitive topic personally with MY children.

My opinion: If you like to take it in the a**, good for you! I don't care! Please keep it to yourself... No one else goes around shouting what they do in their bedrooms. Give me a break!

Rainbow sticker? How about a black/white sticker? I like to f*** the opposite sex. I mean, really? What's the point except to differentiate yourself from others and call attention to what you do behind closed doors...

America, are you related to Confused and Fed Up from the other recent protracted thread? Your reasoning is similar.

Why should any loving consenting adult couple not be able to enter into marriage? Is your relationship, the love you share with your partner, different or superior in some way that justifies exclusivity?

Gay marriage isn't about an announcement about what goes on in the bedroom any more than heterosexual marriage is. The rainbow isn't about sex, it's about love. And what should be taught in school is that many types of families are legitimate. That's not about sex. It's about humanity, decency, and celebrating family.

If you see sex in everything, that's too bad because accepting gay marriage really has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with accepting that two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, perhaps raising a family, have just as much right to do it as you do with your partner.

@CFU (er...America the Beautiful) -

Mute? It's "moot."

C.R.Mudgeon,

even your "alias" is brilliant. It is unfortunate that your literary skills, logic,and unbiased clear clarification of facts, sails way above the heads of the majority of Californian readers. I applaud your futile attempt. Seems that the overall mentality of Californians is to throw a temper tantrum, along with name calling, until they get what they want. You and I live in the wrong state.

CRM is a Thinking Man's Conservative -- an endangered species and always a welcome sight on this board. Looks like he sparked this week's RC, with his comment, above.