From the AP - "The most recent polls, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that 51 percent and 49 percent of survey respondents opposed making gay marriage legal, while 43 percent and 45 percent endorsed the idea."

So isn't gay marriage NOT the will of Californians?

I really dislike what Arnold said about the ruling. It's like saying: "You people aren't smart enough to rule yourselves, so let me make all your decisions."

Good morning Cab

Go team red

I thought it was okay if politicians ignored polls and the will of the people because it's about leadership and not popularity.

Unfortunately, this isn't a politician ignoring the polls. This is the court ruling against the people.

We could still have segregation in parts of the country if the courts always bowed to the will of the people.

"We could still have segregation in parts of the country if the courts always bowed to the will of the people."

By ruling cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education, the supreme court completely railroaded the Constitution. They should have amended the Constitution, not ruled from the bench. By doing so that sets precedence for the courts to do as they please, and not uphold the law of the land.

Arnold has said all along that he thought it was an issue that should be left to the courts and he's standing by that. No surprise there.

At first, I was concerned this was a case of the court ruling against the people, but the more I've read the more comfortable I am with it. The California state constitution has specific language regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. It also specifically states "No contract of marriage, if
otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated by want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect." It does seem clear that the California state constitution can be interpreted to protect same-sex marriage.

In fact, when he originally vetoed the legislation (both times), he specifically said it was an issue that should be left to the courts not the congress.

Does anyone know if they are going to change the definition of Marriage? Just curious.

Cine I know that Constitutionally this should be a state thing, but I think for ease it should be a federal desicion, what if a same sex couple gets married in one state and then their job transfers to a state that doesn't recognize it?

I think we should either give it or not, but not give it and then take it away.

To be honest, when it comes to Same sex marriage I don't know for sure it should be a State thing Constitutionally. It might fall under federal. Either way, I agree it should be a federal ruling, but if under the Constitution it does fall under the State law, then before it goes to a federal ruling they should amend the Constitution, instead of ruling from the bench, which is dangerous. The law of the land should not be disregared.

It would also head off a lot of future problems.

Yea I hear ya, I agree.

Out of all the issues we have to do deal with I feel like this is the easiest to solve and not the of the biggest concern, so I just want it to be settled already!!

I agree cab.

What do you all think about getting government out of the business of "marriage" altogether? What if only churches could marry, and the government could grant partnerships to anyone who wanted to be legally bound? I'm thinking maybe two widows want to be legally responsible for each other — great! They can do that. And then churches can decide who they want to marry. That's just my "if I ran the world" thought. What do you think?

Why would they need to change the definition of marriage? Whose definition? Is there a definition anywhere in legal terms? Why shouldn't gay people marry? Why are straight people so weird about it? Like it will mean their marriage means less somehow? What is going on!!??

hmm interesting thoughts citizen, i never thought of that...

i will ponder it while i'm sunning my buns at the beach today!

Um...I never said I was against Gay marriage. Not once. I actually wish that if it were legal they would amend the Constitution so that in the future it cannot be over run.

The reason I asked about the changing of the definition is because the definition of marriage is: 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

So if we change it to encapsulate same sex marriage then people who say marriage is between a man and woman, could not use that excuse anymore.

Citizen, I have thought of that before, and I think it is a great idea.

I promise to implement it in Cine/Syako 2012!

Citizen - I completely agree. Especially considering that the majority of people who oppose same-sex marriage make the argument that marriage is a very traditional and even sacred institution. Why should the government be involved at all!?

The only issue I can see with it is that it gives the psycho bridezillas yet another function to add to their month-long "wedding" jamborees.

I like the idea Citizen.

Since the definition of marriage biblically was between one man and one woman, and it was blessed by Jesus, many (myself included) feel that calling a gay couple companionship as marriage is another attack on the religion I/we hold very dear. IMO, this country seems hell-bent on eliminating any trace of Christianity, while bending over backwards for any other religion that isn't Christianity. It's a sad state of affairs, especially since this country looked to the Bible when it created the national constitution, and many of the states did the same.

I'm humbled to be a major policy force in Cine/Syako 2012 Thanks!

Cine, huh? I think your redirect was in response to my comment. It had nothing to do with what you said. It was just a generalized question about this debate.

It was a direct response to you because you started your comment with: "Why would they need to change the definition of marriage?"

Which I could only assume was in response to my comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

ah, yes, the republiatarian ticket for 2012... cine/syako!

Love that idea Citizen!

Hate to be a party pooper Sy, but will you be 35 years old in time for 2012?

Nope.

The VP has to be 35 too???

Good Morning Everyone!

UnDave: You say "this country seems hell-bent on eliminating any trace of Christianity, while bending over backwards for any other religion that isn't Christianity."

Well first of all that is an over the top statement and I'm hoping you know that just as much I do. I have no problem with Christianity among Christians. If you are a Christian hey knock your self out, but if I'm not than please do not impose your values on me.

The following I posted on the day the news broke that the ban was over turned but it was late that night and the discussion had ended several hours earlier. You may or not have read my two cents on the matter. If you have than as Dion would say walk-on-by bumbum bumbum.

I can understand that some people have been brought up with much defined values tied to religious perspective & tradition that some families have chosen to live by. If you and your's are happy with that ideology than I'm happy for you.

To those who are apposed to the ruling where religious tradition/family values becomes a problem for me as a homosexual man is that your family's values encroach into my personal life & freedoms and has the audacity to tell me how to live my life. Last time I checked we have religious freedom here in the U.S. and by trying to impose a faith based value on anyone who does not want it is wrong and probably unconstitutional. With all do respect I'm sure you're nice people but I do not want to be part of your family therefore your family values should stay in your family.

As for the critics that I’ve been seeing on the news since the ban was over turned. I find it interesting how many of them said that this is not a legal issue it’s a legislative issue and the courts should not have been involved. My question to them is then what were they doing in court? Why didn’t they save all that money and put their efforts into a legislative constitutional amendment right off the bat? If they truly believe that it’s not a legal issue than why waste the time and effort going down a path that they feel has no relevance? Seems to me like they’re grasping at straws. A national amendment has very little support and I and a state amendment will probably suffer the same fate.

Yeah, same as for Pres. I only thought of that because of your high school drinking t-shirt yesterday.

Gosh, steph, you're such a Debbie Downer

Oh well, we can wait until...... 2020???

I think we all knew that about me already. If it helps, you made me feel positively ancient yesterday.

And don't rush past 29, gravity does wicked wicked things to you after that!

Yeah, I'm happy where I am right now...

Sorry I made you feel ancient.

dave: actually, marriage wasn't created by jesus. it's been going on long before he was "born". and you don't have to be married in a church in the united states - you can go to a courthouse, or your friend can get a license online, even a ship's captain can perform the ceremony.

i believe there are elements of our constitution that are rooted in what you would call christian values (although a majority of those values are also found in most other world religions), but the truth is a good number of the founders of this country were deists, who believed in a god-like creator who does not interfere with human life. i.e., separation of church and state, etc.

this ruling is a huge step in equal rights for a large portion of our population. so i'm just curious, how do the rights of a bunch of people you don't even know negatively impact your every day life?

I suppose we will have to wait because I won't be 35. Thank goodness!

Undave never said Jesus created Marriage.

"IMO, this country seems hell-bent on eliminating any trace of Christianity"

Seriously?

I didn't way it was created by Jesus. I said that it is blessed by Jesus.

My problem is that it went against the will of the people. When the people are denied their voice, democracy ends.

cine: he's saying that the definition he believes we all adhere to in the US is the biblical version, which is approved by jesus, and involves a man and a woman.

i'm saying the institution of marriage has been around longer than that - and that in this country you don't have to be christian to be married.

sorry if i was unclear.

Two cities in WI are in COURT as we speak because 50+ years ago someone donated a monument with the Ten Commandments, or a group donated land for a cross that overlooks the town. A new professor to the area says that violates his freedom of religion, and wants those removed....

Okay first of all. What if everyone in California decided that Christians couldn't practice their religion anymore? Would you seriously be okay with that because it's the "will of the people"? Come on!

Second of all, I think if a cross is on private land then great, so be it. Just because some loonies want it removed doesn't mean that the entire COUNTRY is hell-bent on removing any traces of Christianity.

Lastly, you are definitely insinuating that a CHRISTIAN marriage is the definition of marriage that is what should be upheld. Why, what makes that more important than the definition of OTHER marriages? Jesus doesn't bless Jews getting married so do two Jews getting married violate the definition of marriage?

i think the real problem people have is not that this goes against "the will of the people"... it's that this ruling goes against THEIR will. even people who don't live in california. strange.

if this was a ruling about the rights of people to wear velcro instead of laced shoes, i doubt they would care about a split in public opinion of +/- 7 percentage points. that's just about the same size as most error margins anyway.

Pop, there is also the banning of saying "Merry Christmas".

Who has banned whom from saying Merry Christmas?

You are not allowed to put signs with "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Chanukah" on public land. People have changed the name of public Christmas trees to "Holiday Trees". My friends father who works for the State is not allowed to wish people a Merry Christmas or Happy Chanukah.

The will of the people can will all it wants with in the guidelines of the constitution. Once the will of the people steps out side those guidelines it is up to the judiciary to tap us on the shoulder and say excuse me but you can't do that as the constitution is written. The Supreme Court did its job nothing more and nothing less. They deliberated with out passion and handed down an objective legal interpretation of the California constitution.

Hypno, I miss your cocktail picture

I'm in a pensive mood cine.

Is there an actual ban on state workers saying 'Merry Christmas' or is it frowned on? I tried googling it and saw one article, from England, that said Illinois workers were barred but when I googled Illinois on the matter nothing came up. I found one university that said it was getting a lot of flack for banning Christmas when it had in fact not banned anything. It's hard to separate the hype from fact on that issue.

Well I guess banning crosses and Merry Christmas signs on public land and whatnot would fall under a separation of church and state.

As for Christmas trees being named Holiday trees, well I think that's silly, but it's certainly within their rights, no?

I don't mind seeing Christmas stuff up during the holidays. But obviously it bugs certain people and they've complained and rules were made accordingly.

However, I still think that the idea that the country is trying to obliterate all traces of Christianity is just silliness.

I guess I don't see how removing a cross from public land affects individual's personal relationships with God and Jesus, or prevents them from worshipping.

Plus, I think language like that in reference to silly small law suits in Wisconsin does a disservice to people who are living in countries where there is true religious intolerance, and people really can be obliterated by believing in a certain God.