Comments:California Supreme Court strikes down ban on gay marriage

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

How is this decision at all tyrannical? Was the Supreme Court's decision on Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 "judicial tyranny"? If a decision made in the high courts GRANTS RIGHTS to people, it is the opposite of tyranny. - 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

``Judicial tyranny"? Wow, sounds like doublethink to me. --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree. The other counter-argument is that other "non-traditional" forms of marriage will now take over the world and destroy our children. This also makes no sense. "Non-traditional" marriages are not equal. Marrying a man you love, if you're a woman or a man, is much different than marrying a goat, or a whole harem. Do we really need to break this down into simpler terms so people understand this concept? "A goat is a goat. It cannot sign a contract." "1 man + 1 man does not equal 1 60 year old man + 20 15 year old girls". Come on religious people. Get with the program here. - 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Considering that the people of California did initially decide that they didn't want gay marriage it isn't intrisicaly unreasonable to let that decision stand. I'm also curious as to why marrying a harem is different. If they are all of consenting age what's wrong with a single person marrying two people? Finally, in regard to "Come on religious people. Get with the program here"- many religious individuals are in favor of allowing gay marriage. It is not useful or accurate to claim that "religious people" need to somehow change. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
What if the law being overturned was on a different topic? Should four judges be able to overturn the majority view of 4.6 million people that voted for Proposition 22? Activism by judges seems to be a slippery slope. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, define activism. If for example a majority of Californians wanted to establish a religion the court would strike that down quite correctly. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I felt shame to hear. edit

Hi As we all know America is christian based country.We should be moral to the rest of the nation as a good christianity practioners.Our forefather shed their blood to build this country.whatever we are enjoying the all the plants laid by our forefathers.How could we disobey the God and put shame to our forefather by allowing such stupid laws.This is really shame even think if such things happen in somewhere in world we should rise our voice to protest but sad that we doing that stupid stuff.Let us pray that God will open eyes of understanding at least to the lawmakers sothat country will be preserved from wicked plans of Devil.--11:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Kiran

Thanks for your comments, 69. While I have great respect for your personal beliefs, please consider whether you are personally affected by this decision. Does this cause you or your family any suffering? (Other than self-imposed, that is) Or do you simply believe that you have the right to decide the fate of other civilized persons? Basically, as this decision doesn't abuse the human rights of any party, I do not see how ``I don't think they should do it" can be a valid criticism. Best wishes, --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

this country was not founded as a christian nation, nor was it founded on christian principles. where is christianity mentioned in any of our founding legal documents and which laws reflect the laws of the bible? many of our laws in fact, our rights guaranteed, conflict with biblical laws and principles.

i also take exception to your expectation that "we" should be good christians. what if we are not christians, but of another of the many faiths americans are free to entertain?

while some of our founding fathers were indeed christian, some of them certainly were not. deists and atheists also filled their ranks, and having experienced the religious tyranny of govt sponsored religion in europe, together with their christian contemporaries they formed a country certain to have room for peoples of all faiths, . kind of odd then for you to suggest they are being dishonored, no?

given how christianity manifested itself in the years prior to our country's formation, it could be argued, and intelligently so, that the greatness of our country happened in spite of christianity, rather than as a result of it. - Imind (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

About time, but HEY! Wait a minute! Now you're discriminating against me and my future wife. edit

California is poised to start allowing same sex marriages on Jun 17thish. The problem's with the name change rules for Hetro couple under the age of 62.

They need to give the counties guidance on the name changes allowed. This is all fine and good for same sex couples or Hetro couple with at least one member over the age of 62. They can enter into a RDP (Registered Domestic Partnership) and put any allowed middle and last name for each person on the form. They then turn around and get married with the names they want. I and my fiance on the other hand are out of luck. Neither of us are over 62, and ack... We're kinda Hetro at the moment... Soooo because of that we can't change our names to what we want for the marriage. There is a new law coming into affect 1/1/09 AB102 Current Health & Safety CA Code 103175 and 103180 both make references to male and female. The court should order AB102 which is gender indifferent go into effect on Jun 17, 2008 instead of 1/1/2009.

Since it looks like Jun 17th will see the start of same sex marriages, there will be tons of name changes at the DMV. I'm working with Assemblywoman Fiona Ma's Office (author of AB102) and the staffer who originally worked on AB102 to push the implementation of it up from 1/1/09 to Jun 17th with the start of same sex marriages.

Yes there is several problems with the up coming June 17th date of the new same sex compatible marriage license forms using the current sample forms at

Problems: 1. Loop hole for certain couples to change names via RDP and not others who have to wait until 1/1/09. 2. What Name to use in the case of previously married persons. 3. Changing the complete name at time of marriage; first, middle, and last. Many many examples below. 4. The lack of having an official document with the recorded names to be used after marriage until 1/1/09. Affects all couples now and will be worse Jun 17th.

Couple types: 1. Hetro Sexual Couples with both partners under the age of 62. 2. Hetro Sexual Couples with one or both partners the age of 62 or OVER. 3. Same Sex Couples.

Here it is in a nut shell: Couple types 2 and 3 can get RDP Registered Domestic Partnerships for $10 to $33 and change names, then turn around and get married using the names they want. Couple type 1 can NOT get into a RDP Registered Domestic Partnerships and change names. So when they marry they can only change their names according to current CA Family Code 306.5 and 355 also CA H&S Code 103175 and 103180 and then do a $300+ (more like $1000+ after time, fuel, and fees) Suprior Court name change.

   This really helps young couples just starting out in life and thru marriage trying to get a new name.


i dont understand the ignorance of homosexual couples ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply