Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Video: California Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Mihangel apYrs 26 May 2009, 7:36pm

    next stop – reintroduction of slavery. Why not? It oculd happen if a majority want it!!

    They just don’t understand that removal of civil and human rights diminishes the freedoms and prrotections for everybody

  2. Have the Riot’s started yet?

  3. Is there no hope that this decision can be revoked in a higher court? How do these Propsitions get introduced? (excuse my almost total ignorance of the US legal system). Would it be possible to introduce a popular but wholly wrong Proposition to show just how stupid the process can be if majority rule is always right? The slavery suggestion is a good example of the kind of thing I mean, but there must be lots of things that many people want introduced but which are abuses of other people’s rights.

  4. Shocking and tragic. Nothing is safe. People need to egroup and gather energy for a bigger battle to come. If something like this can be taken away then what is to stop racists from taking away mixed race marriages?

  5. Boi Polloi 26 May 2009, 8:25pm

    Of course! The courts deem something is Unconstitutional, so why not just change the Constitution to MAKE it constitutional?

    As geeky as this sounds, I’m reminded of Emperor Palpitine in Ep. 1 of Star Wars:
    “Is that legal?”
    “I will MAKE it legal.”

    I don’t like the idea that a group of people can strip other people’s rights after the fact by changing the rules.

  6. I was only made aware of the fact today that California does have “domestic partnerships” which carry all the legal rights of a conventional marriage. What we are actually talking about here is nothing to do with equal rights, but pure semantics.

    All these people complaining that these people have no rights is absolute crap. It’s just the Right-wingers don’t like the idea of equating the relationship with a Christian marriage.

    OK, so it isn’t equality like some sticklers would like, but it is as much as LGBT people need, even if it isn’t what they want.

  7. Vo Dong Cung 26 May 2009, 9:03pm

    It’s funniest that judges put ash over their faces. And I see clearly the Christian do not have any love to their gay children. Also American strip their own citizen, then they don’t have any right to ask any country to respect human right.

    Not thing as non-human as to celebrate over the pain of other. Catholic is religious or non-heart task force?

  8. Sadening. At least they havn’t decided to divorce 36,000+ people though…

    And the fight goes on. I think the next move planed is a ballot mesure in the 2010 elections.

    RobN
    1)Calafornian Domestic Partnerships DO NOT carry the same rights as marrage; they carry *some* of the rights of marrage, but I think ‘seperate but equal’ was cast out a while back.

    2)If the christian-right dosn’t like equating same sex civil marrage with christian marrage maybe they should stop protending that CIVIL marrage (a legaly binding contract betwean two indeviduals and the state) and religious marrage (a ceramony/ritual and subsiquent informal agreement betwean indeviduals and a religious institution) have anything to do with each other and remember that the USA practices speration of church and state (aparently).

    3)Even if the above statements where true, it would only be what LGB ‘needed’. Any law that discriminates on ground of gender will disctiminate againt the T population.

  9. aluta continua ! the bigots are in the majority lead by supposed ‘christians’ – (small c intended).
    I guess America is anything but the land of the free, only the land where money makes all things possible – only if proponents can raise more money than the catholic church, mormons, and the religious right can they hope to succeed. sad stuff.

  10. Jonathan K 26 May 2009, 9:38pm

    America has not ‘moved forward’, America has moved backwards. Wait until Texas decrees that Blacks aren’t allowed on buses!

    This is SO disappointing!

  11. John: Sorry if I got this wrong, but this is what I read on the BBC website: “Like several other states, California allows same-sex couples to enter “domestic partnerships”, which afford many of the same rights as marriage.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8068019.stm

    I think many of us non-US people would appreciate an explanation as to what a marriage allows that a domestic partnership does not.

    There is no point in having a huge argument over something when none of us have our facts straight, (including me!)

  12. John: Sorry if I got this wrong, but this is what I read on the BBC website: “Like several other states, California allows same-sex couples to enter “domestic partnerships”, which afford many of the same rights as marriage.”

    I think many of us non-US people would appreciate an explanation as to what a marriage allows that a domestic partnership does not.

    There is no point in having a huge argument over something when none of us have our facts straight, (including me!)

  13. Daniel Loftin 26 May 2009, 10:50pm

    RobN-
    Domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage. There is no reciprocal recognition by other states or by the federal government.
    If your partner becomes hospitalized in another state, for example, your “partnership” is not recognized. You have no visitation rights, cannot sign legal or health documents for him or her, or do anything that a person walking in from the street can do.
    Domestic partnerships are not recognized by the federal government, so you get penalized on your federal income taxes. If you buy a home, you get none of the tax breaks a married couple might be eligible for.
    The list goes on and on. There are over one thousand compelling reasons why domestic partnership is not the same as marriage.
    It is chilling that a public vote can take away a right previously recognized by the courts.
    California was once a leader in civil rights. Now, states like New Hampshire and Iowa take the lead.

  14. RobN:
    Exactly, ‘many of the same rights’ is not ‘all of the same rights’.
    I’m hardly an expert, and it’s too late at night to go chasing round the web to find every detail, but I think wikepidia has a basic list if you want somewhere to start.

  15. Daniel: Thanks for that. Why don’t the USA get their s–t together and stop f–king about with this state/federal crap, and just have one set of laws? It would make life a whole lot easier.

    It’s like running a family with 50 squabbling children that won’t shut the f–k up. If they can make some federal laws, it’s about time they did the lot, and gave all those kids a bloody good slap.

  16. RobN: That would be fantastic, but civil wars have broken out over less than that. I think some of the states are still upset they aren’t federated sovereign countries so they can hold on to their discriminatory vices, which is why “states rights” is a buzzword you still hear now and then. I doubt I’m going to see broad federal agreement on this any time soon. Some U.S. states have culturally less in common with one another than some countries do on opposite corners of the globe.

  17. Vo Dong Cung 27 May 2009, 1:57am

    I don’t think this is the decision of the Judges, but the rather the decision of Republic Party. I’m not sure who apointed 6 Republic judges but only one Damocrat Judge. Who is behide the lobying of this apointment?
    Please make the question, why the Court recognized gay marriage before and now they don’t? And watch the decision, it creates two level of LGBT citizen: one can marry and other can not under the same state constitution. Is this the constitutional judgement?

  18. Bill Perdue 27 May 2009, 2:21am

    RobN is a font of misinformation. “… California does have ‘domestic partnerships’ which carry all the legal rights of a conventional marriage. What we are actually talking about here is nothing to do with equal rights, but pure semantics. “

    That’s a lie. There are 1200 plus US federal laws that grant tax breaks and other considerations to married couples but deny them completely to persons joined by civil unions and civil partnerships.

    “it is as much as LGBT people need, even if it isn’t what they want.” RobN states time and time again that his internalized homophobia prevents him from having relationships with gay men. That makes him the perfect Tory; a beggar whose only wish is hold hands with Cameron and other Thatcherites and sing Kumbayah while the rest of us are denied our rights.

    —————————————-

    Archdeacon Brian Hurtin is a lying racist. Up to 67% voted for prop in a few unknown precients, but not state wide because they, like the overwhelming majority of voters for prop 8 who were Euroamerican christian bigots were emboldened and galvanized by Barak Obama’s bigoted remark that ‘gawd’ opposes same sex marriage; “gawd’s in the mix”. Even if all eligible African Americans voted and voted in unison they don’t comprise a large enough group to swing the election one way or the other.

  19. The fight for this has only just begun. If Christians think that we are going to be quiet and just accept injustice and not have equal rights, then think again! We are going to get better organised, spend more money and WE are going to find out who ALL of these Christians are and let the world know about them and their businesses. Watch the Christians ‘run’ when their ‘material GOD’ is threatened!!!!!!!!!

  20. Mihangel apYrs 27 May 2009, 7:34am

    “Archdeacon Brian Hurtin” HONEY:

    black rights were given by constitutional amendment AFTER the constitution was written. Remember, the Americans fought a little civil war where this was an issue. A right once conceded shouldn’t be removed just because a bigotted majority wants it to be.

    I notice that the proposition didn’t go the full way “marriage being between one man and one woman for LIFE”: that would have met the biblical aspiration, which I’m sure you would support.

    Civil marriage =/= religious union. A marriage isn’t legal until the paperwork is complete, and all the religius elements mean fuck all legally.

    Your point about the black community voting against the gay marriage and for bigotry merely shows that the religious right has managed to disassociate gay rights from balck rights in California. The blacks may live t reget that when other propositions come forward limiting their rights and benefits – the gay community may deicide to say “stuff ‘em”

  21. I think this is sad. But more importantly, it is only a matter of time until we all look back at these battles and think that they were quite absurd. I think we will see gay rights fully respected by the whole of the mainstream in Western societies within our lifetime. The days of these irrational bigots are numbered. This is just the nature of things.

  22. I agree. Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote and bring back slavery !!!!

  23. Simon Murphy 27 May 2009, 2:42pm

    It is so incredibly sinister that California courts allow the electorate to remove the legal and civil rights of a law abiding minority. It’s not Germany in the 1930′s but similar enough. I suppose sexual apartheid is the best description.

    The result in California is particularly sinister as it involved actual REMOVAL of a legal right enjoyed by a minority population. In a state like Texas gay people have always been denied equal marriage rights which while sad is simply representative of the state.

    What California has done is so much worse as it removes rights previously enjoyed by a minority group.

    Who is the next group whose rights will be targetted. No-one’s rights are safe in California any more.

    I sincerely hope there will be continued protests over this. This is now far bigger than simply gay rights. This has become a struggle for democracy.

  24. Archdeacon Brian Hurtin 3 Jun 2009, 3:23am

    Wow! I am nearly famous as you are talking about me even though I have said nothing about this subject. Thanks guys, I appreciate the fact that you think I am worth talking about even though I have said nothing.

  25. Tiglathpileser 9 Jun 2009, 8:21am

    Be careful for what you wish for. Apparently every society that embraced homosexuality without restriction ended up destroying themselves. The Roman empire is a clssic example. Homosexuality was rampant and approved right up to the top. The Roman empire is no more and will stay that way.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all