Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

California Supreme Court to hear gay marriage case next month

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Tell them to sod off !

    Tier beliefs are their choice. Who we love is not and equality to marry who we want is a legal right.

    1. equality to marry who we want is a legal right.

      Arguing for gay marriage is one thing. But arguing for what you say is something else. In that statement alone under the guise of runaway equality (which lead to homophobic christians demanding equal rights to deny goods and services to gays) you will have to give the “equal right” for sisters and brothers to marry, for a man to marry an animal.

      Under the guise of “equality for all” ALL must be included. If you say you are not in favor of incest marriage or marrying animals and the like please answer why you are opposed to those types of marriages if under “marriage equality” ALL marriages are to be accepted as “equal” and therefore given that status.

      The only way I see gay marriage being applicable to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is that of equal protection based on gender. Other than that there is no constitutional right to marry.

      1. If you argued for a gender neutral legal definition of marriage and marriage equality for couples whether they are opposite sex or same sex couples, then it would not be at all scaremongering to say that this would obviously mean that a troll could marry a gorilla and a goose and live in a legally recognised and protected menage a trois or even a menage a quatre or a troll could legally marry both his own parents and all his siblings plus however many farmyard animals the troll wanted to enter into marriage with, even possibly inanimate objects would then be eligibkle as potential spouses, In the fractured mind of a troll there really would be no limit to this slippery slope that would result from marriage equality.

        1. Yet I’m the one who “contributes nothing” to the discussion.

          Serious points merit serious answers. Unless of course you are pavlos… lol… sounds more like a rap song to me. lol

          Pavlos you never fail to amuse me lol.

      2. It’s enshrined in Declaration 16 of the UN Convention of Human Rights.

        http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/16.asp

        It does not say that a man may only marry a woman, nor does it say that a family is an opposite-gendered couple plus children.

  2. Exactly. This is about a civil right to have a civil marriage. These damned “christian” bigots need to be put in their place, once and for all.

    i don’t understand the American political system. It’s supposed to have separation of church and state, yet a religious denomination/cult can contribute money to a campaign of any right wing organization to take away the rights of a minority by holding a political referendum while claiming tax-exempt status. About time that ended.

    1. Agreed!

      1. So you agree he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

        i don’t understand the American political system.
        -Robert

        1. David Myers 3 Aug 2011, 8:58am

          Troll.

          1. As always, the childish reactions.

            What else is new?

    2. @Robert :: As an American I don’t understand what has happened to our political system either .. well that’s not true you hit the nail on the head .. The xtian bigots revisionist history is sickening .. and with the drum beat of Murdoch’s FoxNews propaganda machine all to willing to mislead and repeat lies often enough the sheeple soak it up in their wee minds. It is a very dangerous sitution and even Obama has continued the Bush policy of favoring religious orgs for federal tax money.

      1. It is a very dangerous sitution and even Obama has continued the Bush policy of favoring religious orgs for federal tax money.

        As well as war mongering, continuing the patriot act, being against gay marriage, continuing torture and secret arrests, violating civil liberties, giving the big banks bailouts after bailouts, looting the coffers, decreasing benefits for seniors, spending without limits…

        Hm, I wonder why Jockstrap didn’t go all crazy on you for criticizing his favorite American politician since according to him Barry Sotoro is WAY better than Bush and totally a different president. The ignorance. LOL.

    3. i don’t understand the American political system.

      At least have the courtesy to at least learn something of our system before you go on the attack and be bigoted against christians for which many of them have approved gay marriage.

      Your statement above is the only believable thing I can accept from all that ignorance that you are spilling.

      I try to at least learn how the political system works in the UK in order for me understand what is going on. From history, the royal family and its shady german past, and the parliamentary system. I got to know a lot about British culture and law and its quite interesting. I do this because I want to learn and not be an ignorant bigot like you.

      So I suggest you do your homework. Learn that we are a Republic, with 50 states, each with its own legislature. (think of it as devolved governments of N. Ireland and Scotland) Each with a governor, various departments etc etc. I mean there is much for you to LEARN.

    4. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 11:15am

      Exactly Robert.
      -
      Now that the idea of marriage Equality becomes more and more possible and acceptable it is funny how religion has hijacked the civil marriage system for their own too, when it actually has nothing to do with them.

  3. Well done to the LibDems who have promised us marriage by 2015.

    1. Sorry, I don’t think the LibDems can be trusted. The government deadline to start working with those who have an interest in equal civil marriage and partnerships has passed.

    2. this is quite funny…

      maybe I should direct you to Chapeau’s awesome quote from his post above with some few minor corrections:

      and with the drum beat of Murdoch’s FoxNewsPink News propaganda machine all to willing to mislead and repeat lies often enough the gay sheeple soak it up in their wee minds.

      wee minds indeed.

    3. Like they promised to scrap tuition fees?

      Are you an idiot or is this an ironic statement?

  4. Christine Boyd 2 Aug 2011, 5:23am

    The state just doesn’t want to give gay couples any marriage benefits.

    Social Network for Same-Sex Wedding Registry
    http://www.weddingpride.com

    1. Well for one if gay activists stop insulting people and going to the elementary schools and sexualize children, more members of the public would be more politically motivated to give gay people these benefits. The majority is already on our side, but they are turned off by a lot of the things gay activists do on our behalf.

      1. David Myers 3 Aug 2011, 9:09am

        Again, I say, Troll! Institutionalized homophobia is taught in the schools and reinforced by not criticising or challenging it. Letting students be so bullied that many, including those who are not gay but have been merclessly harrassed and bullied as though they were gay or lesbian, until they, in desperation, commit suicide, and doing nothing about it is condoning homophobia and bullying. Until every school board which does not protect its students – all of its students, is sued and teachers and administrators are given the tools and training to confront bullying for all reasons, including homophobia, this problem will never be solved, and children will continue to die. This is not an issue of “the majority . . . being turned off by a lot of the things gay activists do on our behalf”, it is, in fact, the essential steps that must be taken to end this genocide of children who are or are preceived to “be different.”

  5. it’s about time. The judge should rule these clowns have no standing and throw Prop 8 out for good.

    1. well they don’t have standing since they are not a member of the government nor the original defendants.

      it would be like I sue you, then I win, then you say okay I will pay, then Stu or Jockstrappo comes by and says NO, I want to be the defendant and defend xrk9854 on his behalf.

      this does not make any legal sense what so ever.

  6. If you argued for a gender neutral legal definition of marriage and marriage equality for couples whether they are opposite sex or same sex couples, then it would not be at all scaremongering to say that this would obviously mean that a troll could marry a gorilla and a goose and live in a legally recognised and protected menage a trois or even a menage a quatre or a troll could legally marry both his own parents and all his siblings plus however many farmyard animals the troll wanted to enter into marriage with, even possibly inanimate objects would then be eligibkle as potential spouses, In the fractured mind of a troll there really would be no limit to this slippery slope that would result from marriage equality.

    1. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 11:18am

      People who use those kinds of argument are already losers if you ask me.
      -
      To sink to such sick arguements show them up for the truely desperate low lifes they really are.
      -
      Your right Pavlos – Trolls indeed.

      1. People who use those kinds of argument are already losers if you ask me.

        This is why people don’t take you seriously. You refuse to address valid points. And just, like a typical gay sex activist, go ahead and throw insults at people. Now I don’t care you do it to me, I’m used to your childish rampages, but I could just imagine you trying to persuade people over this. You will put off a lot of people, that is why in every state of the union that gay marriage was up for a vote, the people not only voted against it but also voted against those who are aggressive and mean spirited and whose only goal is to spite other’s people’s concerns instead of addressing them.

    2. Excuse 2X post, this came up in the wrong place.

      1. Sometimes when you are overtaken by rage and desperation these things happen.

  7. Jock S. Trap 2 Aug 2011, 11:09am

    Well here’s hoping… It’s about bloomin time things were sorted and all given the option to marry.

  8. As usual, PinkNews’s reporting on this issue is very poor. The Ca Supreme Court are not deciding standing for the case in the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit asked them if ProtectMarriage.com would have standing in CA courts. If you want to understand these issues prop8trialtracker.com is a good place to start. PN, please learn something about the subject before writing about it or stop reporting on US topics.

  9. Pepa, under the Loving vs. Brown case of June 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that there was no reason to deny interracial marriage.

    1. Supposedly the argument there was that equal protection was denied because of a person’s race.

      With gay marriage you simply argue that equal protection was denied because of a person’s gender.

      By clarifying this we avoid to having to explain ourselves why we would not extend “equality for all” to others who want to marry animals, their siblings, children, objects etc.

      But heed my warning, don’t use the Loving analogy as blacks get really offended by that, lol… go figure…

      1. With marriage equality you argue that equal protection was denied purely because of a couple’s sexual orientation for no good reason and causing demonstrable disadvantage and harm to the same sex couples who are denied access to marriage while providing no beneft to anyone. The State has no legitimate interest in obstructing same sex marriages.
        Those who object to same sex marriage cannot demonstrate that they are harmed in any tangible way by same sex marriage.

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