Comments:Gay marriage banned in three states; other ballot measures decided

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

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

I found it hard to believe that California can essentially amend its constitution with a simple majority. I always thought that constitutions in general required a very high majority to change. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Every state can amend with a simple majority except Florida (they require 60%). Mike Halterman (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

They should get with the program! Gays are people too! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuals and Unborn Babies

Wow! Sounds like this election turned out pretty bad for homosexuals and unborn babies. Maybe in another 4 years, the American people will come around, and realize that marriage should not be controlled by the government (it started in the church, and that where it should stay), and that babies are people too (just really small) and they deserve the full protection of the law.

—74.245.112.85 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh my! You're so incredibly smart! Marriage DID start in the church, 200,000 years ago! Before Christianity, when people were JUST making up imaginary gods and worshipping them! Perhaps we should give all control of marriage over to the church of the Great Big, Round Rock, then? Because that's where marriage originated from... AND THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD STAY! You're just brilliant. Ugg the Caveman would be proud. 24.56.51.114 13:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it's a big blow passing the Initiative 1000. Banning gay marriage in Cali, FL, & Arizona was a good thing though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.27 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither the government nor the church can define what a family is or isn't and should not attempt to do so. I firmly believe that marriage is a personal thing and should be decided based on a person's values. Polygamy: OK, Homosexuality: OK. If it's what you want to do and you're not impeding other people's rights while you do so, then you're within your rights.

America was founded on freedom of choice. One should be able to choose how many people one can marry and what gender they are, as long as all involved are OK with it. I am certain there is a UU minister willing to marry them. How one defines their family is a personal choice and should be kept such. This is the 21st century: we need to stop enforcing outdated values. On top of this: it doesn't belong in a constitution at all; those should be kept spare and light.-Eric 19:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

gay marriage

to my mind it's unfair to ban gay marriage.it's seems to my as breach of their righrs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.253.63.3 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8

It is absolutely ridiculous the they passed this! How can we limit the rights of an entire group of people and not consider it discrmination? This country may have been FOUNDED upon religion, but this is NOW, church and state are "seperate" and yet we let religious values dictate how our country is run. How does a gay couple expressing their love by getting married negatively affect anyone? your life would be no different simply because a gay couple is married. They may still be able to be "common law" but there are 128 rights that common law couples do not have that a married couple does. Thats 128 rights that they are not allowed because of their sexual preference. Everyone makes a big deal about racial discrimination, but i think people need to be MUCH more tolerant of this issue. It is not fair to limit their rights, especially in america where we're supposed to be accepting of everyone despite differences of opinion. This is unfair and just simply not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.9.25.115 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)