1. Yay! I am in Wisconsin so my partner and I still can't get married, but at least we are making progress!!!

Posted at 2:43PM on May 15th 2008 by Ann

2. Well what can i say... FINALLY!!!! New Zealand has allowed same sex marrages for ages now, and i thought that it was really strange that America wasnt up there.

Good luck Ann, and when you do get married let me be the first to say congratulations!

Posted at 4:53PM on May 15th 2008 by Ashlea

3. Good luck Ann. Always glad to hear about some progress being made on this front. Personally I think the government shouldn't be allowed to grant marriages to ANYONE, gay or straight. The fact that people are so squeamish about gay marriage says to me that it's an inherently religious word and therefor has no place in government. Call them ALL civil unions (since that's really all the STATE should be able to grant)... with all the legal benefits that currently go with marriage. Leave the religious definition of marriage up to individual churches.

Posted at 3:39PM on May 15th 2008 by Meagan

4. Except that they acted against the will of the voters. It was pure judicial activism. Proposition 22 was enacted by the voters and defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

If the voters in California do not wish to be subverted by the activist judges they will need to pass a marriage protection amendment so that judges do not arbitrarily decide the defintion of marriage.
Instead of being restrained by its limited role as an academic interpreter of law, the California high court violated the will of the people and assumed the posture of a radical social change agent.

I don't particularly care if they allow civil unions, but I have a huge problem with the judges acting in this manner.

Posted at 5:56PM on May 15th 2008 by Karen

5. Actually I think the judges are merely ruling that "the people" don't have the right to violate the rights or will of other people.

Posted at 7:36PM on May 15th 2008 by Meagan

6. Meagan, that's call democracy - government by majority.

Posted at 8:39PM on May 15th 2008 by pbhj

7. Well, it's a good thing we live in a REPUBLIC then.

Posted at 8:49PM on May 15th 2008 by eugene

8. Except that you dont' have a RIGHT to marriage because the term was defined as between a man and a woman. If it is between two other people - use a different word.

The reasons the government is involved is because of the benefits that marriage brings to our democratic republic.

I suspect that CA will do as FL is doing and pass the ammendment which the judges can't mess with.

Posted at 12:32PM on May 16th 2008 by Karen

9. The law does not actually define a person's natural rights. Part of the purpose of the judicial branch of the government is to determine when laws are infringing on a person's constitutional rights. It's one of the checks and balances of our system. Remember Brown Vs. The Board of Education? You know, when the majority believed the law should segregate schools? Remember? In the case of gay marriage, people who define marriage as between a man and a woman do so for religious reasons. According to this judge, and I agree... that definition is unconstitutional.

Posted at 1:45PM on May 16th 2008 by Meagan

10. There goes the neighborhood.

Posted at 7:00PM on May 15th 2008 by Doug

11. It's about time. Frankly, I think government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. Let marriage be a religious institution between individuals, their church/temple/whatever and their God, god, gods, godessess, giant spaghetti monster, whatever.

There should be a legal institution called a "civil union" that is completely seperate from "marriage"

that way, everyone one can be happy. If you belong to a progressive or tolerant church that allows marriages between same sex partners, great, if the church doesn't, find a new church. But religion has no business dictating whether or not two people have the right to have a legal recognized partnership.

Posted at 7:59PM on May 15th 2008 by eugene

12. Eugene, that's the way it is in the UK, I gather. You can have a "civil partnership" separate from a marriage.

Thing is people don't like that, I think they seek legitimacy for their views and being "married" provides some token of that.

Marriage as an institiution was primarily designed to provide a stable grouping in which to raise children. That's the responsibility that come with the right for a man and woman to marry.

>>> It also sends a positive message to kids that love does not equal sex

I can see you're trying to spin a "think of the children" angle, but it doesn't really work. All that is being said is that now anyone who screws someone can get married, whilst before the implication has been one of lifetime commitment to one-another and to raising a family.

Genuine question, if you value your identity as a homosexual then why try to assume the trappings of heterosexual life by trying to get "married", why not live together and make whatever commitment you want to each other?

Posted at 8:54PM on May 15th 2008 by pbhj

13. I don't understand your reply to me. Not every church or religion is against gay marriages... which is why I specifically said that if your church doesn't recognize you as a human being, find a new church.

As for all the other stuff...

So, if marriages are intended for the birthing and raising of children, what does that say about infertile couples? Should their marriages be annuled because they're not able to fullfill what you claim is the basic foundation for a marriage? What about polygamy then? Nothing is more fertile than a single man and multiple wives. So shouldn't a polygamist enjoy a higher status, since they are producing lots and lots of babies? What about married couples who just don't want to have kids? Have a kid within a year of marriage or have it annuled by the church?

Your argument is so completely ridiculous it's beyond laughable.

As for your "once in a lifetime commitment", yes, that's nice. And that's what my wife and I plan on and work on doing. But if that's your measure for what a marriage is... then I'll just point you over to the fact that nearly 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, oh, and the figures for the "moral majority" aren't any better.

It's simple, keep your religion out of government. Your god.. or your interpretation of god, should have NO bearing on whether or not two people have the right to marry or raise a family.

Posted at 9:02PM on May 15th 2008 by eugene

14. Why try to "assume the trappings of a heterosexual lifestyle?"

Uum, so that you can have to same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple. You know insurance coverage, who legally is allowed to make medical decisions for you if you are incapbable of doing so yourself, who is legally considered "next of kin," tax benefits, and all those other sorts of things that are considered the rights and benefits of a "husband" and "wife."

Posted at 9:23PM on May 15th 2008 by Sherry

15. Wanting to get married to the person you love does not mean a homosexual couple is trying to act straight. Nor does it mean they do not "value their identity" as a homosexual couple.

Why do heterosexual couples get married? To make a commitment to each other before God and their familes. To create a stable family structure (whether or not children are a part of that). Because you love your spouse and want to spend the rest of your life with them. Etc, etc, etc. Why is it so hard to understand that homosexual couples would want the same thing?

And let's not forget, many homosexual couples DO have children. Whether they are from a previous marriage, adopted, invitro, serrogate, whatever... they have the same desire to create a permanent family for their children to grow up in.

Next time you try to say that marriage is just a legal term and that it has no bearing on a couples commitment to each other... or that homosexuals should just "get over it"... think about how you would feel if you were denied the right to marry the person you love. My husband and I lived together for several years before we got married and it IS different.

Posted at 3:05AM on May 16th 2008 by Heather

16. It has nothing to do with re-defining more hi-jacked words from out of the Websters Collegiate . . . It has all to do with a group of mentally-strained people trying to politically posture themselves into a world of normalcy. It can't happen. It is not about race. Race is race. Brown could have versus the Gladaitors; who cares? If you don't then it doesn't have anything to do with being a racist; any more than not liking broccalli sprouts should make one a bigot. What will it be next? What will it take for a practicing homosexualist to finally realize that he/she/or whatever can be cured of a highly curable/highly treatable mental illness? . . . If only the victim will admit it and confront it headon and leave the politics to the greedy to play with??? (NPI)

Posted at 4:46PM on May 16th 2008 by Sam DePecan

17. Mental illness? wow. You're still buying that line from the hate mongers like dr. dobson eh?

The only mental illness here is in people like you. People who feel an overwhelming need to hate others for reasons that have no affect on you or your life.

Posted at 5:09PM on May 16th 2008 by eugene

18. "This is wonderful news for the families that have, up until now, had to try and explain why a child's parents can't get married when other parents can."
I've never thought about a child asking why mom and mom or dad and dad can't get married. I think there would be more questions and confusion about why they have 2 same gender parents in the first place.
I think same gender "marriages" should be termed civil unions instead of marriages. Marriage should only be used when it pertains to a man and a woman.

Posted at 7:20PM on May 16th 2008 by ame s

19. People like me? ... And you are talking about "Hate?" If you call everything that you disagree with "HATE" then please do us all a favor and keep your definition of "LOVE" for sharing with your shrink. [And if you are mentally ill then for sure you do need a shrink!] I don't know any Dr. Dobson, but for sure, I don't need a politician to tell me what kind of sex I am either. My great-great grand-parents didn't require it; and I am not about to let less than 10% of the total population tell me that I have to have THAT IN MY LIFETIME. I am a man and I am married to a woman. Just by virtue of the fact that I am married, I am obviously married to a woman. That can go without saying. If we need an amendment to the Constitution to figure that out then we might want to first try to prove that tree bark isn't plastic. Open for ridicule? . . . EXACTLY!!! In fact, it's stupid! Men can't marry men!! It's impossible!!!

Posted at 5:57PM on May 17th 2008 by Sam DePecan

20. "Men can't marry men!! It's impossible!!!"

Not in California it ain't.

Posted at 9:25PM on May 17th 2008 by Uly