While I'm personally against Prop 8 and am pleased with the ruling, this judge should have known that his personal situation would color the validity of the ruling and should have recused himself.

WHY the heck do we bother voting anyhow? Judges seeem to think that they know better what the voters SHOULD HAVE done, and don't give a hoot about our RIGHTS AS VOTERS!! This judge CLEARLY SHOULD HAVE recused himself,and, IF he is so darn smart WHY did he not?
Simple: because he had HIS agenda to complete before he retired!

In the gay community's efforts to REDEFINE marriage -- God clearly defined it in the manner in which he created our species -- they might as well try to REDEFINE water, or "sky", or the color green! Things ARE what they ARE, and the biggest mistake the liberals and gays have made is this effort to redefine something that IS what it IS! They've already been given civil rights beyond their earlier expectations; let it be.

@reasonable
In case you didn't notice, the ruling is that Judge Walker's sexual orientation DID NOT color his ruling. Wake up.

@Disgusted!
I'm cheered by your incomparable successes at showing all right-wingers to be the hate-filled clowns they are.

Dear Lib - you have in the same way proven that libs are elitist hate mongers in their own right.

Disgusted, obviously in this case judges DO know better than the voters. They have determined that the voters wanted something that is *unconstitutional*. They care about the RIGHTS of ALL people, that is why they are overturning a vote that sought to take those rights away from a certain group of people.

What about people who do not believe in YOUR God? God's definition of marriage means nothing to them! Have you heard this before: "Separation of Church and State"?

When you write something like: "They've already been given civil rights beyond their earlier expectations; let it be.". All I can do is shake my head in sadness that people think that way. You sound like the type years ago who would have said something to the effect of: "What them Blacks want to marry Whites? We've already let them drink from the same water fountain...isn't that enough? Shouldn't they be happy with THAT?" Your moniker should read "Disgusting", not "Disgusted" in my view.

This ruling by judge Ware was predicted by the defenders of voter-approved Prop. 8. Ware's ruling will be appealed to the 9-th circuit court and from their to the U.S. Supreme Court. Stay tuned!

A decision has been made. It's time for all happy campers to moveon.com!

You mean the world hasn't ended?

reasonable, ... following your logic, then a heterosexual married person should have recluse themselves. Meaning, it leaves no one except an unmarried heterosexual to make the ruling.

Disgusted!,"WHY the heck do we bother voting anyhow?" In the 19th Century, they did. The majority outlawed the rights of minorities to vote, hold property if they were not white, not allow people of color to marry whites, and so forth.

The best and fairest method is to make a joining of a couple a civil matter, meaning, civil union. "Married" is another concept and should have never been part of the political government.

If, Mike, as you claim 'marriage' should have never been part of the political govt., then why not allow religious institutions to decide who they do and do not allow to get married within their belief system? [I'll not address the thornier question of what nonreligious heteros and gays are supposed to do if they want to marry outside of a religious institution.]

And then, so why, in your estimation, are civil unions better and more fair than marriages? And why even bother making the distinction?

I do not follow your reasoning at all. To the extent I do, it seems you're trying to smuggle in an unjustifiable standard for marriage that denies gays a fundamental right.

I agree, dublinmike. When this whole thing started my stance was that I would give up my right to be "married" if gays were excluded from it. We should ALL have civil unions. Then, if people also want to get married in a church, that's fine. If, for example, a Catholic Church refused to *marry* a gay couple because it was against the church beliefs, I wouldn't like it or agree with it, but I'd be okay with it. Right now, the line is muddy between church and state - when gays are excluded from the current system of marriage, there are non-religious rights they lose. A marriage certificate is a *legal* (not just religious) document that is recognized by the government (not just the church).

Oh, I think I understand dublinmike's point now after Julie's comment. I was confused by the apparent inconsistency between his first set of remarks and his last set.

Still, now that gays are so close to having the right to marry, inside OR outside of religion, do we need to cavil about the 'proper' terminology? (See too the positive developments occurring in NY as we write.) There are plenty of religious institutions that are willing to marry two people of the same sex. If an institution refuses, there is always the state as 'fallback' where being married by a judge is every bit as legitimate.

Gay judge should have recused himself?!?! And I suppose black judges can't rule on cases involving blacks or Jewish judges on cases involving someone Jewish?!?! Give me a break! The anti-marriage equality folks know that Judge Walker's ruling was a sound, legal decision based on the Constitution. They have NO real way of winning this thing in the long run, so they are now just making...well...DUMB ARGUMENTS!

As for the idea that "civil union" are no different than "marriage"...seperate but equal doesn't work and is also unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that this is about EQUALITY under the law. Your belief in God or non-belief in God or whatever should have nothing to do with it! If you're against gay marriage...don't marry a gay person!

"The best and fairest method is to make a joining of a couple a civil matter, meaning, civil union. "Married" is another concept and should have never been part of the political government."

Finally, a comment that makes perfect sense and captures the crux of the issue. Stop imposing your will on married couples by changing the institution and only allow civil unions as an option for those who want to be joined outside of a religious context.
This whole episode is a power struggle by gays to flex their political muscle and to diminish the standing of the institution of marriage. Sad, really......

One day, we are going to look back at this sad chapter of our society and call this what it is - discrimination against gays. Just like we ultimately did for blacks, women, etc. It may take longer than we'd like, but we are moving forward and recognizing the inalienable rights of gays.

Maybe, independent, although I don't lump race and gender preferences in the same bucket. We shouldn't consider a group deprived because they want what someone else has. It's a cliche to say life is not fair, but I suppose the same things is true about nature---you can give gays marriage rights just like the rest of society, but it'll never be the same as the original intent of joining a man and woman. You can call it equality, but it only changes and cheapens the institution of marriage.

Independent: I feel the same way. Let's at least hope.

Steve, what do you mean *you* don't lump race and gender preferences in the same bucket? You mean it's okay to discriminate against gender preferences, but not against race? Why? A gay person does not choose to be attracted to the same sex anymore than I "chose" to be White! I was born White. I was born Heterosexual. Basically, I feel like I won the lottery since there is so much discrimination against non-Whites and gays. My only "imperfection" is that I am a woman because that group still also is discriminated against.

We shouldn't consider a group deprived because they want what someone else has??? Well that depends on the "what". I agree with that statement if the "what" does not involve a basic right! I don't feel "deprived" because some of my friends can afford 2nd homes and I cannot. However, I would feel deprived if those same friends could get married, but I could not.

Allowing gays to marry does not "cheapen" the institution of marriage! The slime balls who father children outside their marriage, the couples who think one little fight should result in divorce, liars, adulterers, etc. - they "cheapen" the institution of marriage!

Marriage is a partnership as anyone who has been married for decades like I have knows. Partnerships can happen between many types of people.

Given the current divorce rate is near 50%, I'm not sure how precious marriage is to most people these days.

While I often contend with progressives regarding fiscal and entitlement matters, I completely agree that gays deserve the same rights as everyone, including the right to marry, and to withhold this is a form of discrimination.

It is just a matter of time before this form of discrimination is cleared away.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

This thread is being closed because it has deteriorated into bickering between a few commenters.