commentaries

I wouldn't get too excited over yet another incorrect ruling by an out-of-control radical appeals court that is the most-reversed appeals court in the country. There is no 'right' to marry in the US Constitution. It is up to the states to determine their societal values regarding marriage. Millions of California voters said California marriage is between a man and woman, yet these judges simply voided that with no sound legal basis. This issue will be decided by the US Supreme Court, which will find that it is up to the STATES to determine what constitutes marriage.

"The narrow ruling is in keeping with the president, who says his views on same-sex marriage are evolving." You spelled "pandering" wrong.

@minn12: Check out the second sentence of the 14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Marriage may not be the right in the Constitution, but it is definitely a privilege.

@minn12 and other like-minded people: Where in your lifetime has there ever been a ruling on the justification of your right to marry? You're right, as is mine, is up to the state to decide and California has done so twice in favor of gay marriage and once against it. It was 52% to 47% in favor of a separate and Not-so-equal system. Remembering slavery and the Jim Crow laws were popular at one time as well. would you say that because the states decided and it was more popular than not in those states at the time that you, as a man/woman of moral fiber (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, here), believe that African-Americans should have been treated that way because the states decided it should be so? That because the states said so that these people were indeed less-than? What happens when my religion believes whole heartedly that as a member of its congregation that I have the right, given by the creator, to join in union with the man I love? Yes, I am gay. Am I not entitled as an American citizen (The same as you, I'm assuming) under the first amendment to practice my religion without fear of the government impinging on me, its religious views? How about the fact that I can be in a committed relationship with my husband for years, pay my taxes (Again, same as you, I'm assuming) but yet not have any of the legal and tax benefits which are Not religiously based when wanting to start our family? How can you sit behind your computer and not say that my freedom to marriage is not in the Constitution? Its called Liberty; the right of self-determination, free from despotic governments (and your "religious" beliefs). My freedom to marry the man I love is found in each and every word that explicitly gives you the right to marry whomever you love. I am an American Citizen, damn it, don't forget it!!

@zekim09:"Check out the second sentence of the 14th Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Marriage may not be the right in the Constitution, but it is definitely a privilege." Ahh, you have it correct, but apparently don't understand that 'privileges' are GRANTED and are NOT an inherent 'right'. Privileges can be granted or removed, and it is up to the PEOPLE of states to determine their own privileges in regards to marriage. While I am against gay marriage, I have no problem if a state chooses to grant that 'privilege' (by vote of the state's people) to its citizens. The point is that it NOT a power found in the US Constitution, but it is only reserved to the states or their people.

Marriage is a financial institution. Roommates will be collecting health benefits and "spousal" social security. Is this something we really need to "watchdog" or try to enforce? The next thing will be polygamy, child marriages, and yes, I want to marry my dog. He, next to my spouse is my best friend. Get a civil union thing going and even the evangelicals will come on board, eventually.

Obama's views are "evolving"? In other words, it is an election year and he will say anything to appease his base of extremists.

There seems to be a self-corrective process in society to abandon those practices that are illogical and harmful. This process seems very dependent on our youngest citizens especially when it comes to promoting civil rights. While polls show that attitudes are changing across the board for extending equal protection under the law for gay marriages, the younger generation is leading the way. Even for evangelicals, I read that while the younger generation mirrors their parents’ attitude towards abortion, they are questioning previously held negative attitudes towards homosexuality. While it is only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal in our country, we should act sooner rather than later to make this occur.

The panderer in chief's views are evolving? His views are determined by the way the wind is blowing.

The 2008 Obama was against same-sex marriage and thought that Prop 8 was only "unnecessary". Apparently a national marriage amendment is nec. above and beyond DOMA to keep roques like the 9th Circuit from making new laws.