Reader comments · Opponents file appeal over ruling on California’s gay marriage ban · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Opponents file appeal over ruling on California’s gay marriage ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Those people filing the appeal are hateful, monstrous bigots.

    And ALL are inspired by their vicious, hateful, monstrous religions.

  2. Trying to deprive other people of rights is nasty, spiteful and pathetic. It says a lot about the instigators of this and their low self esteem. People who get their kicks from bullying and discriminating against others are sad losers.

    Presumably they’ll also be campaigning to ban the re-marriage of divorcees (adultery according to the bible) and interracial marriage (religion was used a lot in the fight to keep a ban on that)? Not.

    Anyway, their religious beliefs should be irrelevant – I thought there was a separation of religion and state in the US? You wouldn’t know it sometimes looking at US society and politics…

  3. Ian Bower 6 Aug 2010, 1:27pm

    Aren’t most, if not all, the Supreme Court Judges Republican appointments?

  4. Four of the nine Supreme Court justices (including the one appointed yesterday) were appointed by Democrats. But that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The judge in this case was first appointed by Reagan (that appointment was blocked by the Democrat controlled Senate). He was then appointed by H.W. Bush (blocked once by the Democrats in the Senate, but eventually confirmed). The usually swing vote on the Supreme Court is Justic Kennedy, a Republican appointee.

  5. douglas in canada 6 Aug 2010, 2:55pm

    ***”Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the board of NOM, said: “Here we have an openly gay . . . federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our constitution.

    “We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage.”***

    Well, Ms Gallagher needs to read her own American history. It wasn’t until August 26, 1920 that women finally won the right to vote throughout the nation. Her Founding Fathers would have been appalled to think that she had an opinion that counted, let alone that she could chair a national organization that included men!! Please, Ms Gallagher, take a seat and re-learn your own history!! If the Founding Fathers had their way, YOU’D STILL BE IN THE KITCHEN !!

    Note also, that the American Constitution was expressly created in such a way to keep religion out of politics, because prior to that, religious ties were skewing the whole system, and people were fed up with that.

    Your dear Founding Fathers would be sickened to see what religion has done to their country.

  6. Our Lord Jesus Christ will NEVER allow same sex marriage in his chosen country (US). Gays and Lesbians should be exiled to the infamous Greek islands used by the Romans for the bandits and by the Americans for the Greek communists during the 40s and 50s.

  7. de Villiers 6 Aug 2010, 5:13pm

    > Chance could mean the ruling being struck down by three conservative judges and the Supreme Court refusing to get involved.

    Yet another problem with the outsourcing of questions regarding rights from elected parliaments and congresses to panels of judges. These are questions of politics not law.

  8. The Judge was very insightful with regards to why there should be same-sex marriage. Ben Summerskill and Stonewall would do well to read the judgement and learn why it should be Stonewall’s over-riding priority. (I have written to him to this effect)

  9. Jarvis, Jesus has already allowed it. Same sex marriage is permitted in a number of states and Jesus is very happy about His people getting equal rights. He also says to tell you that he LOVED your joke about the US being god’s chosen country – classic!

  10. BobbetStillTheSame 7 Aug 2010, 3:22am

    Jarvis, come here and sit on my lap. I have a story to tell you.

  11. David North 7 Aug 2010, 10:27am


    I think you will find that the (U)lcerated (S)phincter of (A)rse did not exist in Jesus’s day.

    And no doubt the Greek islands during the 40’s and 50’s is where silly little fools like you would have sent everyone of “different
    skin colour”.

    Please just go away.

  12. Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conlusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples…
    Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…
    Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling it’s constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

  13. de villiers – thanks heavens not all decision are left to the mind numbing slowness of parliaments and congresses, otherwise the states would still have sodmoy as being illegal in most states – yes use political ways but legal ways are also very useful!
    “U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (2003) invalidated sodomy laws in the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. …..”

  14. gotta love how they are pointing the finger like “well he’s got gay preference, and thats like if a woman judge had favoritism towards woman, or a black judged favored black people!” and to that I say

    Kinda like how a christian majority tries to impose their religion and its bigotry on OTHER people? or like how a religious judge could favor towards a person or ruling that flies under the banner of Christianity? OR if he hated a minority or somone with different views to his own he could try and sway his ruling to pass his own morale judgment on somone? hmmmmm?!

    Seriously, pot and the kettle, that’s all these people ever are.

  15. John in Calif. 9 Aug 2010, 4:35am

    With Governor Schwarzenegger and the Attorney General of California announcing that the government will not appeal, these religious groups may lack standing to continue the legal battle on their own. Remember, they are only “interveners” and not “defendants.” There’s growing speculation that the appeal might be rejected by the appellate and supreme courts on purely technical grounds. That’s one way for the justices to avoid a ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage (and upsetting the political powers in Washington) while still allowing Prop. 8 to fall.

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