http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html

As a firm opponent of Prop 8, I have to say that I am exceedingly pleased with this. The battle is just beginning though, since the supporters plan to appeal. However, if a conservative, Bush appointed judge struck it down I really don't think the appeals will go anywhere.

I was reading the comments after the article and is it true the judge is gay? Because I if that is the case then his ruling should be deemed invalid. That's just my opinion on the matter.

I've always been torn on the issue. Religiously I think it should not be allowed but I can't feel right about forcing my religious opinion on other people in a secular society. However, like you said Elara, this fight is far from over.

I got a few questions and concerns regarding gay couples...

1) What is the point in marriage if your not going to have children?
2) If two males get married who gets their name changed?
3) I don't think its right to adopt children unless they are gay too or that would just mess with them, and would probably suffer a lot of insults in school if kids found out about it.

I honestly see no point in gays getting married, gays can love one another yes but as for marriage I really think its not right unless its man and woman who want a family and have children who get a chance to have a mom and dad.

the point of gays getting married is that there are certain rights and benefits that married couples get that unmarried couples don't.

second, many heterosexual couples get married and never have kids (by choice or because they simply can't).... should they be unmarried?

There is no evidence that gay parents produce gay children. Look at it in the opposite way. Heterosexual parents produced homosexual kids.... so, it doesn't work that way.

If you looked at the end part of that article, you would have seen that studies have shown that having gay parents is no different than straight parents.

And from a purely historical standpoint, marriage was created for legal reasons only. Specifically for property and inheritance rights.

And I have heard absolutely nothing about Judge Walker being gay, and if he was that should have no bearing on it. That is like saying that if he ruled the other way and was straight the ruling should be thrown out.

As for the name change, whoever wants to or neither. There are plenty of straight couples who do not change the woman's name. Welcome to the 21st Century.

"And I have heard absolutely nothing about Judge Walker being gay, and if he was that should have no bearing on it. That is like saying that if he ruled the other way and was straight the ruling should be thrown out."

Well, to a degree that is true.... but if he has a vested interest in the outcome of his own ruling then it could be deemed that there is a conflict of interest. That's all I'm pointing out here. I have no idea if he is gay or not.... but having a gay judge strike down a ban on gay marriage does not seem like a smart way to handle things.

I am in no way saying I disagree with the decision, but if he is gay then that will only add fuel to the opposition of the decision.

Gay people don't accidentally get knocked up and are forced to raise a child. They go into it knowing that they would like to raise a child and have a family.

And I could see gay marriage being illegal if this were a christian or any other religious nation. But it isn't, so despite what most politicians say, this is supposed to be a nation that is open to all systems of beliefs and principles.

Did research, and yes, Judge Walker is one of two openly gay judges. However, the decision was based on testimony not his personal feelings one way or the other. Judges are selected for being impartial, and that includes following the spirit of the Constitution no matter what.

Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics". Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker's sexual orientation.

Bold inserted by me for emphasis. So yeah, of all the judges to hear this, he is perhaps the most impartial choice. I mean, the guy's a libertarian.

I personally don't think the government should have gotten involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage is a religious joining, and government should not endorse it or bar it unless it's violent or breaks some other law. Any law, federal or state, giving tax breaks for marriage is the most blatant infringement of the seperation of church and state. If anything, marriage should be considered a contract between the people involved, but even that is questionable.

Also, it is impossible to be completely impartial. Everyone draws upon their own life experiences and knowledge when making decisions. A big reason we even have a judicial branch is that the law has a lot of gray areas and it's their job to fill some of those in. Personal discretion is part of the job.

Edit: added a little bit. And again.

I am not gay but do support them because a few members are my family are gay and are one of the nicest and respectful people you can meet. I am going to live in S.F where its basically the 'gay capital' in the United States but that doesn't bother me and I'm not gay. I am pleased with the overturn of Prop 8 and to me it's another step closer to getting 'Equal Rights' for everyone!

This case annoyed me. This guy dares to strike this prop down even though its what the people wanted.

Hoochman : This is not about what the people want. It's about upholding our Constitution. Going by the Constitution, gay marriage can't be legally banned. Refer to what Lagslayer said.
Lagslayer : I'm with you on this one... even though I personally am against gay marriage.

I am really glad this happened. I think that gay couples should have every right given to straight ones. I totally agree with what lagslayer said about separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state was founded on a Christian principle by Christians. Our forefathers never meant for it to keep the church out of the state, but the state out of the church. Our freedom has completely reversed the intentions of our forefathers.

Marriage isn't even in the Constitution, and if the government can't do anything about marriage than it shouldn't be redefining it.

tRIUNE : actually, that was in the constitution because when the royal family ruled england, the catholic church had a lot of control over the royal family and the founding fathers did not want that.
Hoochman : well no its not mentioned in the constitution but there are laws about it so the government can do something about it technically.

metal572 : Separation of church and state was not in the Constitution, that was a private letter between Jefferson and a church leader, and was meant in the same way the Constitution is actually written:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Jefferson wrote:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Since marriage is in effect a religious institution, and like Lagslayer said almost a contract between the two people, then you really can't legally ban gay marriage. Making a law against something that revolves totally around opinion and is in no way harmful to other people.... seriously... yes, I believe it is wrong, but since it really hurts no one, and pretty much only affects the two people and any kids they adopt, you can't actually make a law against it... that's total bias. I don't like it, but it's biased, and not a Christian thing to do. Let 'em live like that.
Hoochman : The thing is, you can't really redefine something through law when the law gives no definition in the first place. I don't see where you're coming from.

bigNATE : my bad ,forgot about the letter but it is in the constitution http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/. but the reason for our fore fathers wanting it are just what i said.

metal572 : lol, no worries man. Just making sure the facts are straight .

marriage is not a religious institution... sure it's practised in many of the major religions but that doesn't make it solely religious.

marriage IS a legal contract between 2 consenting adults (in most places between a male and a female) which binds them together and gives them legal rights and responsibilities to each other and any offspring they may have.

bigNATE : I don't think we understand the full effect that allowing gay unions to be prevalent will have. I'm not suggesting that society will crumble, but from a Christian perspective I can't imagine that making yet another sin became mainstream and legitimate is going to be a positive thing for our society as a whole. But I think like you I don't feel right about forcing my religious perspective on people who disagree with me.


However, I think in a democratic society that the majority should rule. If they majority vote for something then that's the way it should be. If you don't like that then move somewhere that the majority has voted differently.