Hi,
What is never discussed is the lack of rights for immigrants to this country. If we truly had marriage equality, then as a gay man from England, I would be able to gain immigration based on my relationship like a straight couple. Domestic partnerships DO NOT address this.
I came to this country 8 years ago and am appalled at how the Church has such influence and how the judiciary has not protected gay rights in this case. I thought that one of the major purpose of the judiciary was to protect the rights of minorities so that the majority could not simply override them.
If Marriage is such a divisive word, it would make more sense to me to federally define all partnerships, gay and straight, as domestic partnerships. Give all the tax and immigration benefits to all who are in a domestic partnership. Let marriage be something that churches perform and that bestows NO EXTRA benefit to the couples, except in the eyes of the church.
Lets see the straight religious bigots scream and shout at that idea, which would truly be equality under the law.
What has happened to separation of church and state. I am shocked and Disappointed by the intertwined nature of the church in this countries laws and all my friends in Europe are of the same opinion.

Richard
Sonoma County

That bothers me as well... i have a gay friend who is an immigrant and her domestic partnership will not save her from deportation if her work visa expires... that's just sad...

The idea that the rights under a domestic partnership are equal to marriage is just more propaganda by the opposition to try and make us think gay marriage is not necessary...

Any Englishman will naturally be puzzled by America's disinclination to apply rational thought to the same sex marriage question. I am frustrated by it, but not puzzled. Americans are simply too emotional and illogical on this subject.
My hope is that the Cal Sup Ct decision will be applied completely as written, ie, you can't call it "marriage" but a formalized "domestic partnership" may be entered into which will have PRECISELY the same legal status as does our long-standing marriage partnership. Then, in time, dom parts may be similarly regarded under Fed law.
I sympathize and agree with those who insist not calling it "marriage" is the equivalent of the old "separate but equal" doctrine under racial segregation. Logically, all couples should be able to avail themselves of either a civil or a religious "marriage" (provided no religious denomination or minister should legally be forced to -- or prevented from -- marrying any couple).
Church and State are supposed be quite separate, and all "persons" in the U.S. are entitled to practice any (or no) religion -- and no religious organization may be forced to start or stop practices with which it disagrees (except one which is perceived to be clearly harmful -- forced circumcision; withholding medical treatment, etc.).
I have so far been unable to find out what actually happens in the U.S. when a foreign national becomes a U.S. resident (and/or a U. S. citizen) along with 2 or more spouses. How does State and Federal law deal with it. Which spouse, if any, is the recognized spouse? How are State or Fed benefits (Soc. Sec., Military, death, etc.) benefits administered. Regardless of Fed/State laws, what in fact actually happens in all these wonderfully complex situations.
In America, we can complicate cornflakes -- welcome to our shores!

Though it pains me personally, this is clearly the "correct" decision for the time being. We live in a time when judicial activism of any sort is routinely derided by right-wing partisans. Throwing out the results of a valid referendum based on what would look like a technicality -- whether the question amounted to an amendment or revision of the Constitution -- would reek of special interest favoritism.

Best to make do with the state's strong domestic partnership laws for the time being, and allow that 3% or 4% or society that seems to decide all elections these days to catch up to the rest of us.

Keith Brady
Berkeley, CA

Judicial activists are merely those with whom you happen to disagree.

As I sat outside the courthouse reading the ruling, it hit me that I was watching a huge transition... California is departing from a democratic republic where rights of minorities are protected into a democracy where majority rules and any right of any minority that is not protected by federal law can be taken and the court has no power to stop it. For example, we can now pass an amendment that prohibits republicans from holding elected and appointed state positions and if it were to pass, all republicans are out... or we could do the same to prohibit latinos or asian from state jobs. Welcome to the new democracy of California.

If the "right" to marriage is not given to ALL the population, then it should not be given to ANY of the population

Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor
"Moved by the understanding that purity of the German Blood is the essential condition for the continued existence of the German people, and inspired by the inflexible determination to ensure the existence of the German Nation for all time, the Reichstag has unanimously adopted the following Law...
S. 1. Marriages between Jews and subjects of the State of German or related blood are forbidden. Marriages nevertheless concluded are invalid, even if concluded to circumvent the Law...
S. 5. 1. Any person who violates the prohibition under S. 1. will be punished by a prison sentence with hard labor...
Passed by the Reich Party Congress meeting in Nuremberg, September 1935. Adolf Hitler, Fueher and Reich Party Chancellor, Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior.

I find it disconcerting that NPR (not KQED, as of yet) keeps referring to this as a "compromise" ruling. A "compromise" ruling may have been to allow marriage equality every other month instead of all year. I fail to see how removing the right to marry is a "compromise"

While I'm grateful that my marriage is still recognized by the state, the fact remains that LGBTs are unequal citizens in this state and this country.

Do people not have enough faith in the strength of their interpretation of "marriage" that they think that the desire of gays to enjoy their rights is a threat?

The over 50% divorce rate of heterosexual marriages seems to be a far greater threat to the institution of marriage.

Yes! The greatest threat to the institution of marriage is straight marriages themselves.

There is suppose to be a separation of church and state since that is not the case in same sex marriage. Religious conservatives believe that marriage is between a heterosexual couple so the only way to have equality is to remove/change the word marriage from the Constitution.

San Diego college students, Al Shams and Kaelan Housewright, have started framing a constitutional amendment initiative to replace the word "marriage" with "domestic partnership" under California state law. 3/9/09 Secretary of State Debra Bowen authorized the initiative # 09-0003 to gather 700,000 signatures by early August to get the initiative on the ballot.

Here is the San Jose Mercury news story: http://www...source=rss

Here is their DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE website that has an Adobe petition for you to fill out and mail in: http://www.dompar.org/

There will always be some portion of the population that is unhappy with any given decision made by the courts. Unfortunately, a few of those people just have to have their own way, and do not seem to be capable of being tolerant of views other than their own. Tolerance is key to civilization, and grows from an understanding of, and respect for, the opposing point of view. Without these things, we cannot engage in intelligent debate.

If you disagree with this decision, try to put yourself in the position of someone on the other side of the debate and see their perspective. And then try to put yourself in the position of someone in the court who had to consider all of the facts and make a decision that they, too, could live with.

To those that believe just granting domestic partnerships is good enough, two very tangible differences between marriage and domestic partnerships are highlighted below. These are both federal level marriage benefits, but if you can't get married you have no standing to even petition the federal government for these benefits.

1) The right to social security benefits upon the death of one of the couple. This is a benefit all married couples get but domestic partners do not.

2) The right to immigration for same sex couples. All opposite sex couples can petition the US government for immigration for one of the couple when they get married. Domestic partners have no such right.

The lack of these two rights alone have profound and lasting effects on peoples lives.

I'd like to see a bigger law passed, in the way we have laws against frivolous law-suits...
I believe we should have a law that would prohibit frivolous ballot measures and propositions... Because this was a frivolous and expensive ordeal... It's odd to me that it is even legal at all to be able to use changing the constitution to get across a religious message...
The fact that this harmful measure was even allowed to be voted on really opens up the possibilities of person private changes we may see on ballots in the future...
I would like to see a block to the ability of a religious, cultural or racial group of any kind to attempt to pass laws or change our constitution based on their groups beliefs. I have to agree with the caller who asked: "who's next? who's next for the majority to strip rights away from?"
When should a civil rights issue ever been voted on? Did Californians vote to abolish segregation? Did Californians vote to grant land ownership rights to Asian immigrants or even Women? I have to think that if citizens had voted instead of our representatives, these major steps probably would have never happened...

Proposition 8 is as much about women's rights as it is about gay rights. If we are all honestly equal there is no difference between a marriage and a civil union. However, clearly right now in California there is a difference. "Traditional family values" is a euphemism for traditional gender roles. True equality, wherein women may be husbands and men wives leads to the logical conclusion that institutional inequality (of pay etc.) cannot stand. It pains me that this is a frightening concept to 52% of our voters.