To David of Salinas, CA

I'm sorry, it's the Declaration of Independence that makes reference to God. Why should Government care what God wants? Because without God you and I wouldn't be here. Everything that we have is because of his doing. We exist because of him. It is impossible to take God out of Government, HE is the Government, and he said that homosexuality is an abbomination in his sight. Think about how our bodies are made. Can two men or two women procreate? No, it is unnatural. We all come into this world with weaknesess, tests, but we are expected to overcome them. But don't take my word for it, pray about it, ask God yourself if this is true. If you don't want to do that, you can ask him when you meet him again.

It's a lonely road when you stand up for what is right. I want to add my support for traditional marriage between a man and a woman. God bless you, Mitt.

Guess what Jon from Sacramento, I don't believe in god and we have no national religion. So there is your end of story.

David ~ Salinas,

Actually - if you really want to know what Jesus had to say about homosexuality you would have to understand WHO Jesus was (from the Christian point of view):

Jesus = God incarnate (God in flesh form)
Jesus = God
Jesus = God of the Old Testament
God of the Old Testament = homosexuality is bad

Some will then say Jesus came for many reasons - one of those reasons was to deliver the "higher law" (sermon on the mount). However, Jesus NEVER took a sin and backtracked saying it was ok. If anything he made the laws somewhat harder because it became a matter of the heart (adultery could know be as simple as lusting after a neighbor's wife).

I seriously doubt you will find any traditional Christians that support the notion Jesus approved of homosexual behavior.

MY HUMBLE OPINION: God (Church) linked sex and marriage to be apart of each other. Certainly this would cause procreation, in-tact families, reduce single unwed mothers, etc. Polygamy was permitted so young widowed mothers could have home and safety. SINCE same-sex unions would never produce offspring and not qualify for "marriage", God said the act was wrong. LOVING another person is not wrong. SEX outside marriage was wrong (whether hetero or homo).

End of story.

What the issue of same sex marriage issue comes down to is belief in God, our Heavenly Father, and that we are all His children on earth. He has proclaimed that marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman. That is it. Governments for hundreds, actually thousands of years have held sacred the same about marriage, that it is between a man and a woman. Our laws as a nation are based on beliefs and values, and made by men and women who hold those beliefs and values. That the people of Iowa and their elected representatives made laws supporting this time-worn belief and value in the sacredness of marriage is right, and it was the right thing to do to go on record to state it once again. Something such as this is either right or wrong, just like slavery was once in this country. It was proved wrong, led by Abraham Lincoln, and this principle is also wrong, that of marriage between same sex people. It is right to ban it, and lawful, and the court decided wrong because the law was appropriately made by the people.

David from Salinas
"Jesus said nothing about homosexuality". He said nothing about a lot of things, but it doesn't condone it. If you believe in the Bible, God through apostles and prophets have condemned it.

If you lay all tradition and morals aside for the sake of equall rights for people of the same sex to be recognized as married, what if three men who live together and care for each other want to be recognized as married? What dictates what should be a fair new law? In my view the laws of democratic society are based upon the morals of the people governed by those laws. Everyone must look inside them for the answer of what is right and what is wrong. For me, I believe marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. If homosexual couples desire recognition of there togetherness I believe it should called by a different name other than marriage, for heterosexual married couples should have the right to protect the name of there union.

To curlysue of Orem UT:

The word “God” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Some churches oppose gay marriages. Other churches perform them. Our government has no business favoring one view over the other.

I don't see how Romney is being unconstitutional. The constitution is a document that makes reference to God. How is God for same-sex marraige? The last time I checked, it was an abbomination in his sight. I applaud Romney for saying it like it is and standing up for his God and my God! ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!

Daryl:

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and he had nothing to do with the destruction of Sodom, which occurred in the time of Genesis, thousands of years before his birth. Jesus preached a gospel of tolerance and forgiveness, qualities sorely lacking in today’s Christian right wing.

I supose it's stupid to point out that the country is ruled by the constitution when the current group of them seem so bent on destroying it. Well just a thought… well I hear a funny sound on the phone lately so got to go now. I didn't say a thing.

To David: I think you misinterpret the Bible. Christ never supported homosexuality and evidently destroyed Sodom for it. Claude cast no stones, but clarifyed that God punishes the wicked, as is shown in the Bible.

To: Dan of Sammamish, WA :

While it is true that children with two parents prosper far better than those from single-parent families, there is no evidence that the gender of those two parents makes any difference at all.
Numerous studies have shown that socially, intellectually and economically, children with gay parents do just as well as those with straight parents. (And no, they aren’t more likely to grow up gay). Gay marriage will strengthen our society, decrease promiscuity, and increase family values. Hopefully we can also do something as a society for the single parents struggling to raise their children on their own. Every child deserves a family. But not every family is the same. It is indeed about the children.

And to Claude of Mesa AZ who writes:

“It's Sodom and Gomorrah all over again. Time is obviously growing nigh and God will destroy this and other wickedness.”

You might want to read the rest of your Bible, Claude. There’s a new section in the back of the book that has some interesting things to say about casting stones. WWJD?

I agree that for legal, financial and other purposes a civil union or agreement between two individuals is everyone's right. However,that is much different than marriage. The purpose of marriage traditionally has been about family, about children. In all of the comments I yet to hear why marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Every child deserves to be raised by a father and mother. Yes, you can find many examples of disfunctional, divorced families but that does not change the facts that a traditional family functions best when there is a loving father and a mother. Are we prepared as a society to enter into an experiment to find out what happens when many children are raised by same-sex parents. Of course the gay community will point to the sad examples of traditional families that certainly do not provide a good environment and how can we judge them. This is not about gay rights. It is about children's rights.

To Rick from Chicago
It's interesting that you say you are not interested in changing marriage and that you support it's traditional view. If we go back to the 'fundamentals' of traditional marriage we can see that it has changed quite a bit over the past two thousand years (it has actually been around longer than that but let's just take it from here).
The 'fundamentals' of marriage is that it was not voluntary (at least from the female perspective) it was primarily done for distribution of labor and for economic reasons, love, was rarely, if ever a factor. Women had no marrital rights and could not even legally divorce their husbands even if they were being abused.
As society changed, so did marriage. In Western cultures marriages are voluntary and woman have equal rights in their marriages (as we gained other rights as well). When I hear people say that they want to defend the fundamentals of marriage do they really know what they are defending??? Gay people aren 't trying to change the fundamentals of marriage we(heterosexuals) have already done that.
Now let me give you something to think about; if you have children and one of them turned out to be gay and they came to you and said "Dad, I just want the same things that you do. I want to find somebody that loves me and makes me happy. I want to be able to share my life with that person and I want to be a parent someday too because I think I would be a pretty good one sincle I had such a great role model…you"
Would you be able to look your child in the eye and tell them that they don't deserve any of these things because they are different than you?

Rick -

You quoted my question, but you didn’t answer it.

David,

I have no issue regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. I understand there are no federal laws banning the discrimination of people based on orientation. Is this right? No. It is a struggle that many groups have dealt with. Some groups have overcome the discrimination. Some groups are still fighting the good fight. I'm sure one day an "activist judge" will find that discrimination based on orientation is illegal, setting legal precedent.

The distinction is that those laws of discrimination apply to the individual. I don't care what orientation my boss, my secretary, my financial advisor, my neighbor, or my politician has. All I care is that they abide by the law and do their job. Their right to not be discriminated against is an individual right which should be recognized by legal precedent.

Individual right against discrimination and the right to marry is very different. As it is right now a man has the right to marry a woman. That is a universal right that applies to everyone, gay, straight, and androgenous. Until recently NO ONE had the right to marry someone of the same sex, whether they are gay, straight, or androgenous. This is why I say the right to marry someone of the same sex is a new right.

The overriding argument is one of "I should be able to marry the person I love." Okay, I have no issue with that in principle. The argument isn't that simple, however. Two adults suffering from downs syndrome fall in love. Should they be allowed to marry? What rights should they have? Who is the legal guardian in the event they have children? This is why government makes laws restricting marriage.

Not all marriage laws are good. In the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967) an "activist judge" found Virginia state law banning interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause when Virginia incarcerated Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man. Virginia ordered the couple to leave the state. The court, against the "will of the people" found Virginia's actions violated the Constitutional rights of the couple in question.

This is why we have a Judicial branch of government. Government does have a place in marriage and rightfully so if you ask me. It is up to the Judicial branch to untangle the legal and constitutional aspects of the law. It won't be an easy struggle and it shouldn't be. When the day comes that marriage is defined as One person and One person you can bet real money that a group will come along wanting the right to marry more than One and One. Are gay marriages okay and plural marriages not?

There's a big can of worms just waiting to be opened. This is why the Judicial branch is so reluctant to take up the issue.

Eveytime we ask the same-sex-marriage opponents to explain how this would affect them personally, there is nothing but silence.

Now why is that?

Why is it all we get are some muddled legal arguments or something about following the will of the people (which in this instance is the same as saying "gay marriage is wrong because myself and people who agree with me say it's wrong"… herein lies the difference between an explanation and a justification).

But really, the very first question should be: "How does this affect you personally?" I myself find it rather telling that no one's able to answer this. The fact is, there is no answer to this question, and everyone knows it.

"What business is it of yours what consenting adults do in private, or who someone else marries?"

Hi David (Salinas),

Interesting that when a person or Church does not agree with the gay agenda the labels of "small-minded" and "homophobic" are thrown about. As if a reasonable, well-considered opinion CAN NOT exist contrary to the gay agenda without some bigotry or prejudice.

Can a male college student try out for the Girls' softball team? NO? It must be SEXISM considering there aren't intercollegiate boy's softball team. Right?

And what about those pesky "minority only" contracts awarded by the government? Can a business owned by a single white male apply for those contracts?? Why isn't THAT unconstitutional??

The reality is society has for thousands of years held that marriage is between that of a man and a woman. I support this traditional view and don't see a compelling reason to begin changing it because a few individuals cry about not fitting in.

If your arguement is purely legal - great … offer the same benefits of inheritence, tax rates, medical access that is provided to traditionally married couples. But I do not support changing the definition of marriage simply because of sexual orientation.

By the way, David, are you also a big supporter of polygamy?

Rick of Chicago, IL:
David of Gilbert, AZ;

Gay Americans are not asking for some new right. They’re asking for the same rights as you and I: the right to not face discrimination from employers, banks, landlords, insurance companies, hospitals, immigration officials, courts and the military. They don’t want to expand the idea of marriage, they want exactly what we’ve got: the right to marry their partners in life, the people they love, in accordance with the sexuality they possess. How would you feel if that right was denied to you?

Personally, I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Everyone should get the exact same form of government-sanctioned civil union regardless of gender or sexual orientation. If you consider marriage a sacred rite and your church chooses to be small-minded and homophobic, that’s your right as an American under the first amendment. But if our government is going to sanction any marriages, they ought to sanction all marriages, not just yours.

They anti-gay arguments from biological or constitutional positions have never made any sense. Why not be honest and argue from your religious convictions or your irrational fears rather than spouting absurdities about gays having equal rights to heterosexual marriage? Honestly, I thought you republicans were for less government. What business is it of yours what consenting adults do in private, or who someone else marries?

This has nothing to do with destroying religion or morals or whatever it is you think you understand, but are too inept and naive to think…

This has everything to do with equal rights and protections under law… first ammendment right.. a union is not a marriage, but you get government benefits… real simple folks… does it effect you in any way… NO… if you feel that homosexuals are going to burn in hell anyway… GREAT… but dont' yell about it.. that's your opinion…

This is why religion should have nothing to do with politics… it wouldn't be an issue

Big difference between marriage and unions people.

The fact that we can't seem to differentiate between the two is most disturbing about our country.

I'm ok with saying marriage is between a man and a woman based on whatever religion you believe in, but there are certain economic benefits from being "married" under law. A judge can easily give out a civil union between ANYONE, whether it is FF, MM, or MF, and these couples should get the same economic benefits as married couples.

Now if religious officials want to "Marry" same sex relationships, that is their decision…

But as a nation of diverse people… a civil union has NO effect on anyone of you people criticizing it…

The problem is the financial rights associated with being married. Such as when one dependent dies the other gets the rights to their property unless stipulated elsewhere such as a legal will. This and many other financial regulations with being married are the reasons the "rights" thing is comming up.

Romney was against gay marriage when he was Governor of Massachusets, a group of liberal activists judges from this great progressive state, took it upon themselves to redefine marriage, a petition with all the required signatures was obtained and before it could get to ballot it had to be approved by two consecutive sessions over two years.

It passed the first hurdle under Romney and then Deval Patrick (a Clinton crony) OPENLY twisted arms and bought off legislatures to magically change their votes. Petition refused.

The head of the group for gay marriage is on record as saying "The price that these legislatures are asking, keeps going up". On record.

Now I have 3 points to make and you can hammer me or not but:

I am tired of hearing that it is just right-wing, bible thumping, zealots that oppose same sex marriage.

That is BS, 45 or so other states ban same sex marriage when the people were allowed to vote, all red states, only Republican residents? Don't think so.

The votes were not even CLOSE, unlike the supposed electorate that is about 50-50.

Secondly, most of your beloved Democratic candidates OPPOSE this as well, are they haters and bigots as well or does that only apply to Republicans?

Lastly, I am in the majority of most Americans that oppose same sex marriage, but would fight for civil unions with all attached rights involved, ALL.

This is about rights isn't it?

I am no bible thumper (whatever), but I do believe that marriage is simply the domain of ONE man and ONE woman.

Posted By David, Salinas, CA: "What you’re saying is that gay Americans can have equal protection as long as they stop being gay. Interesting logic. Perhaps women can get equal pay if they become men. Maybe blacks can end discrimination by turning white. Then, when the whole world is made up of straight white males, we’ll all be equal at last."

I cannot say what Rick meant in his post. I can saw what I understood Rick's to mean to me. Gay Americans have exactly the same rights that heterosexual Americans have, to get married to a person of the opposite sex. Gay Americans have never been denied this right.

What Gay Americans want, and what the court system has acknowledged even though the finding has been stayed, is a new right. That new right is to get married to a person of the same sex. Heterosexuals did not have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Neither did gay people.

Being allowed to marry someone of the same sex is a new right, one acknowledged by the courts. I personally have no problem with the court's finding. I do have a problem with gay people that constantly cry their rights are being denied. They are not and never have been. What gay people are asking for is something new, the right to marry a person of the same sex. No one has ever had that type of right. It's completely new.

Perhaps Mitt Romney’s strange belief that not all people are equal and should not have equal rights is due to the fact that he a Mormon. Mormons have many strange beliefs which color the way they view the world around them. Here are just a few of interest from exmormon.org…

 God was once a man like us.

 God has a tangible body of flesh and bone.

 God lives on a planet near the star Kolob.

 God ("Heavenly Father") has at least one wife, our "Mother in Heaven," but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her nor pray to her.

 We can become like God and rule over our own universe.

 There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds.

 Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are brothers, and they are our brothers - we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father.

 Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.

 We should not pray to Jesus, nor try to feel a personal relationship with him.

 The "Lord" ("Jehovah") in the Old Testament is the being named Jesus in the New Testament, but different from "God the Father" ("Elohim").

 In the highest degree of the celestial kingdom some men will have more than one wife.

 Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a "pre-existence", during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.

 Dark skin is a curse from God, the result of our sin, or the sin of our ancestors. If sufficiently righteous, a dark-skinned person will become light-skinned.

 The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere.

 Not only will human beings be resurrected to eternal life, but also all animals - everything that has ever lived on earth - will be resurrected and dwell in heaven.

 Christ will not return to earth in any year that has seen a rainbow.

 Mormons should avoid traveling on water, since Satan rules the waters.

 The sun receives its light from the star Kolob.

 If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood.

You can show Mitt with all of the best camera angles and make up but it still can't hide the ugliness he has inside. Shame on anyone who calls themselves a 'Christian' and would try to deliberately hurt an entire group of people by taking their rights away. If Jesus were walking the earth today he would not shun people for wanting to express thier love for another human being. Love is the most important thing in a marriage and until us heterosexuals perfect marriage, I don't see how we are in a position to judge others.

David,

What I am saying is the current laws apply equally to all people (marriage = 1 man + 1 woman). Black, white, gay, straight, two legged, handicapped - the same LAW.

Perhaps the military (government) should STOP refusing admission of handicapped people into basic training? Or perhaps blind people should be allowed to become military pilots? How about immigrants allowed to become President of the US? How about polygomy be legally allowed too - we can't discriminate against the adult consent of 3+ people can we?

"How can you possibly allow straight people to vote on the rights of a gay person and call it fair? Would you allow only men to vote on abortion? Would you allow only skinheads to vote on slavery?"

This statement doesn't make any sense, Rodney. How have gay people lost their right to vote?

Based on your approach only felons can serve on juries, only parents can vote on childrens issues, only minorities can for on affirmative action policies, only immigrants can vote on immigration reform?

By the way… it was a court of MEN that ruled in favor of Roe V Wade! It was a WHITE REPUBLICAN that lead a nation to abolish slavery (Lincoln).

Rick -

What you’re saying is that gay Americans can have equal protection as long as they stop being gay. Interesting logic. Perhaps women can get equal pay if they become men. Maybe blacks can end discrimination by turning white. Then, when the whole world is made up of straight white males, we’ll all be equal at last.

"Why should the gay population (5% of the entire population) be controlling the laws governing the other 95% of the populace?"

Posted By James, New Haven : August 30, 2007 10:15 pm

So James, if allowing gay people to get married (5% as you say) What harm will that do you? How can that possibly affect your life in any way? It won't so butt out.

How can you possibly allow straight people to vote on the rights of a gay person and call it fair? Would you allow only men to vote on abortion? Would you allow only skinheads to vote on slavery? Come on, get with it people.

What happened to "seperation of church and state"? Marriage is a religous issue and religion should not be a factor in deciding the governmental rights of each human being. If gay people pay taxes the same as every other citizen, why are they treated as second class? Where is the protection they deserve? Religion has gotten out of control. Can't you see that science is proving every day that there is no God. Skeletal remains are being found everyday dating back millions of years. Each time, it looks more and more like an ape which proves evolution. If God created man in his own image, he must be one ugly dude.

What's the big deal?

Gays can marry - people of the opposite sex. The same rules that apply to heterosexual people apply to gay people. If a heterosexual person wanted to marry a person of the same sex - will they allow it? No.

Where is the discriminiation?

Poor Mitt - the grandaddy of all Republican hypocrites! He led the only state in the union that legalized same sex marriage and he was pro-choice for most of his life until the last 2 years, and now that he's stumping for the Christian vote, he's suddenly against both positions. Is he a politician or what?

Seriously, what's with all the bad mugshots of Mr. Romney? C'mon CNN, can't you make your democrat favoritism a little more subtle? With all the cameras flashing constantly, how hard is it to post nice pictures of all the candidates?

The right wing loves to use the term "activist judges" when a ruling goes against what they want. Give me an unelected judge any day of the week. I certainly don't want an elected judge's decisions based on campaign contributions. Mitt Romney, a disaster governor of Massachusetts. The next time he speaks, count how many times he says the word Massachusetts. He only references of the name of the state are in contempt.

Abortion and same sex marriage take up too much time in our national politics. Frankly, I don't care at all about these two issues. And, the politicians use these issues to pander to simple minding, religous zealots across the country.

Here are issues I care about, and you should also:

* Iraq
* Healthcare
* The economy
* Social Security
* Our failing schools
* The homeless

When will the people of this country focus on issues that really impact our daily lives…not issues like abortion and gay marriage that only impact a very small number of people?.

The courts have ruled against the "will of the people" throughout the history of this nation. The courts are impartial entities. The Judicial branch of our government is a third check on the Executive and Legislative branches. The responsibility of the Judicial branch is to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, even if the decision flies in the face of the "will of the people."

One requirement of the system is that a legal action has to initiated by an individual or group before the courts will take action, in many cases outspoken activists.

If it were not for activists white male landowners would be the only people allowed to vote. At the beginning of this country's history only white male landowners had the right to vote. If you did not own land you did not vote, regardless of who you were.

If it were not for activists women would not be allowed to vote. This country was well over 100 years old before women were allowed to vote in national elections. "Housewives!" announced a Massachusetts journal, "You do not need a ballot to clean out your sink spout."

If it were not for activists black people would not be allowed to vote. It wasn't until 1965, within the lifetime of many people reading this post, that Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act. Even so the Act did not include a provision prohibiting poll taxes. The Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) held that poll taxes were unconstitutional.

The Miranda warning came about as a decision by the Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was the courts that defined the rights of Congress to regulate commerce. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is a famous case overturning State laws defining "seperate but equal" segregation. These decisions flew in the face of the "will of the people" at the time.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people forget, or simply do not want to acknowledge, the purpose of the court systems when decisions are made which they do not like. They scream about activist judges who find in favor of certain civil liberties but are more than happy to keep quiet when the courts find in favor of discrimination, such as the case with the Boy Scouts of America (Dale v. BSA 2000). I don't recall the outcry of Mitt Romney when that decision was made.

"Finally, a politician who has the will and proactivity to oppose this part of our society which is pandering to the small minority while the majority of the population is fully against such measures.

Why should the gay population (5% of the entire population) be controlling the laws governing the other 95% of the populace?"

I guess if it wasn't taboo, you'd also be advocating against black people getting married. That used to be the will of the people too. Why should 10-15% of the population be controlling the laws governing the rest of us? Just because it makes some people feel icky doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law.

"Why should the gay population (5% of the entire population) be controlling the laws governing the other 95% of the populace?"

James from New Haven, what an ignorant thing to say. I should inform you that laws which allow homosexuals to marry *only apply* to homosexuals. Tell me how this impacts the rest of the public. You are not "governed" by these laws until you become a homosexual.

And suppose that, on Sept. 12, 2001, 51 percent of Americans supported stopping all citizens of Middle Eastern descent on the street for random searches, fingerprinting, interrogation, etc. Would that have made it right? No. There are some things that, frankly, are beyond the province of popular votes.

And really, I'd like to hear from someone an argument against gay marriage that is in no way informed by religious beliefs. Seriously. Your religious beliefs only apply to you — no one else.

I'd like to hear someone give me a reason for why gay marriage isn't just WITHOUT mentioning RELIGION or GOD at all. The problem is marriages allow special rights for the married couple, if you banish it from the minority of gays then you are taking away their right for certain financial rights.

I'm Hindu and I don't tell Christians not to eat beef, eat whatever you want, it not affecting me in anyway, same way we should see gay marriage.

It's funny because American ancestors fled to America to evade European persecution yet we are hypocritically doing the same in our country even dating back to the slave trade.

On a lighter note, I feel we need better schools in the South to educate ill-informed "super conservatives." Is their a reason all of the ivy-league and most of the well reknowned colleges are up north? HAHA! Just messing.

Re: James, New Haven

I couldn't agree more, James. Whether those who cry "flip-flopper" without looking at the facts of Romney's career like to admit or not, this man has ALWAYS been on the side of traditional marriage and he is spot on in this instance that this is just "another example of an activist court" ruling. This is no more than a biased ruling without the vote or opinion of the (majority) citizens of Iowa being questioned.

Those involved in this should be relieved of their duties because they can neither judge nor execute, as Romney put it, the will of the people (in other words this was not a democratic decision).

You know, Brown v. Board of Ed (no more separate but equal) was against the will of the people in the South, too. I wonder what Romney thinks about that activist court ruling.

September 21, 1996, HR 3396 was passed by the State of Iowa which defined "Marriage" as the union between 1 man and 1 woman.

This judge, by striking down this passed legislation, has individually vetoed the will of the people of Iowa (the majority of the people at least).

Perhaps the Supreme Court in Iowa will better hear the will of the people and uphold legislation. Considering the Supreme Court Justices in Iowa are elected (after initially being appointed) - the Will of the People shall be heard… one way or another.

I'm pretty sure 100 years ago a law allowing a black man to marry a white woman would have been against the will of the people. However, that would not have made such a law unjust.

The dems are worried about Gonzales firing prosecutors not pursuing the law and yet fully support this judges subversion of the law? Another fine example of the dems two-faces bias support for activist judges.

Bigots come in bunches, Birds of a feather flock together, so Romney and Craig are surly birds of the same feather.
They chose to use religious reasons to justify bigotry, and this is the same religion that thought killing in the name of god was just a Dandy Idea ( Can you say Crusades ) Religious fanaticism has caused the death of hundreds of millions of people.

Those pesky activist judges. Why, if it weren't for them, we could still have all of those wonderful Jim Crow laws and segregation and no inter-racial marriage.

/sarcasm off

Claude, maybe you should let your God do the judging and you can worry about removing the log from your eye. Since when did "love your neighbor as yourself" get trumped? Or are you an old testament Christian?

Just because the majority voted and decided on a law doesn't make the law just. Our government was founded on the principle of protecting the minority rights. You can't vote away one groups rights. –Jason, LA, CA

Its called democracy Jason. Where the majority make the laws and judges follow them. If the majority voted for gay marriage, it will be a law too. Back door judges should be thrown off the bench by their ear..

Disregard the will of the people? Please don't lump me in with thoes people. I live in Des Moines, and I am very proud of what the judge did for equal rights yesterday. Mitt, please speak for yourself, you are not from Iowa and the only people you spend time with when you are here are narrow minded ones simmaler to yourself.

James, could you please explain how the gay population controls the laws that affect the heterosexual population? Because, from where I sit, it's the other way around. Anyway, in regards to this piece, Romney is completely off base by saying that the court's decision is against the will of the people. Yes, it may be against the will of bigots and those who desire to discriminate against the gay population. Unfortunately for them, however, the court's decision is entirely in line with the law, as outlined in Iowa's state constitution. It guarantees equal protection and due process, and preventing same sex couples from marrying is in direct violation of those clauses and, thus, the law. The court did it's job; it upheld the law. The U.S. Constitution's equal protection, full faith and credit, and due process clauses would also make any federal efforts, including a constitutional amendment, to ban gay marriage unconstitutional and, thus, against the law. So, from a purely legal perspective, the arguments against gay marriage are weak at best. From a broader perspective, it shouldn't be the government's business to deny people rights, especially when such denials are unlawful. How do so-called conservatives, who always call for smaller government and less government interference in the lives of its citizens, countenance such efforts without coming across as blatant hypocrits? How does a same-sex marriage threaten a "traditional" heterosexual marriage? If anything threatens traditional marriage, it's divorce, so where is the national effort to outlaw divorce? See, these are the questions that gay rights opponents never seem to be able to answer. As a result, any arguments against gay rights, especially marriage, only come across as homophobic or bigoted, since they have no legal or moral foundation.

guess what? : marriage is an old "contract" that says the groom will take a man's "worthless" daughter off his hands and pay her bills and she usually didnt even like the guy…how's that for a sacred bond?
you [..]guys that think your opinions on human rights matter need to wake up.
youre probably all racists too.
oh yeah, whether or not you beat back the inevitable for a few years, gays are going to continue to live together and do everything else too. "marriage " wont stop gays from existing…which is what you "haters" really want. OH YEAH Romney's just kissing [...]butt to get your votes…he knows plenty of gays (they're everywhere) and i'm sure they hate his fake stance.
what would jesus ban?

Funny how the "will of the people" did not override major court decisions in the South when it came to overturning Jim Crow laws. The judges took a proper stand to eliminate governmental prejudice. I see no difference in allowing for marriage or civil unions between any two adults and anything less remains governmental prejudice.

Not one single Law Abiding, Tax Paying American Citizen deserves to be discriminated against. Regardless of what percentage you represent.

"Why should the gay population (5% of the entire population) be controlling the laws governing the other 95% of the populace? Posted By James, New Haven : August 30, 2007 10:15 pm"

A persons, religon, color, nor sexual orientation is permission to treat ANY person less that the American Citizen that they are. If you do not believe in same-sex marriage, then do not marry someone of the same sex.

The magical golden disks of prophecy told Romney that gay marriage is not covered by the US constitution. Meanwhile, actual constitutional scholars (not partisan so-called 'think tank' propagandists) would state otherwise.

Who are we to judge others? Gay people aren't telling straight people they can't get married. Why do certain straight people get to control gay people? It's just absurd. History will look back on these bans as an atrocious injustice to civil rights.

Lest we forget, "Slavery" and "Jim Crow Laws" were also once the "will of the people" AND it took activists, both in and out of the courtrooms to right those uncivil wrongs. Makes you wonder where Romney would have stood regarding those "wills of the people."

"Why should the gay population (5% of the entire population) be controlling the laws governing the other 95% of the populace?"

Hmmm, maybe we should have thought about that when the civil rights act was enacted, and when the courts struck down laws banning inter-racial marriages. After all, the vast majority of people were against granting equal rights to blacks, and allowing inter-racial marriages. And, what will happen if all of a sudden the vast majority of people decided that red-heads should not be allowed to vote? Should we uphold laws banning red-heads from voting? Also, how does 5% of the people controll the law for 95% of the people in regard to same sex marriage when those 95% will not be entering into same sex marriages? In fact, 95% of the people will not be affected by any law recognizing same sex marriage. Its the hatred of people like that commentator that needs to be fixed. Again, its the tyrianny of the majority the judiciary will protect the minority from.

The Mittster's campaign is a boorish collage of cliches calculated to reach social bigots!

Only when court decisions go against their way, do rethuglicans play the activist judge deciding against the will of the people card. What he and his fellow homophobic anti-gay bretheren seem to forget, is that the judiciary was set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. For three years now, my husband and I have been married [same sex marriage in Massachusettes] and this has not had any effect on hetero-marriage. Rather, Mr. Romney, its hetero-divorce that is ruining heter-marriages. You and your cohorts are nothing but a bunch of bigotted goughns!

Romney says this ruling is trying to define marriage? Actually, I thought it STRUCK DOWN a law that defined marriage.

I just need to get this straight in my own head. So, in one sentence, he says that the ruling bad because it is trying to define marriage. In the VERY NEXT sentence, he says this is why we need a Federal Marriage Amendment to….define marriage? Am I going crazy?

I don't understand why people get so upset that gay people want to get married. It's not like they are coming over to your house and fornicating on your lawn. Maybe you should take a tiny stroll to the left and realize that you are wanting to deny people rights based simply on the fact that you don't like that they are gay.

I'm guessing that most of you are Christians and base your decision on that. I've seen the Constitution, and I don't recall God's name being on there, so until this is a theocracy, please keep your ignorance to yourself.

I tend not to take seriously a group of people whose spokesman is Larry Craig.

Good for Iowa. However… Marriage is unique in that it's the only religious ceremony recognized and performed under civil law. If people don't want to support gay marriage, then end civil marriage ceremonies and move them into churches. That way, gays and straight people who don't want the religious sacrament can still have legally binding contracts and benefits, and religious sensibilities are not offended. Everyone wins.

Why should I have to remind people that this government is supposed to be a Republic? That is, it is based upon INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, not upon the TYRANNY of the majority. The Iowa ruling is reasonable. Let the ranting bigots manage their own lives (that includes you, Mitt Romney).

WHY do we have to get a license from the government when we want to marry? WHO are these people anyway? The decision to get married is between those getting married. They can ratify it however they please - privately, publicly, by contract, by church, whatever! The government has no role in deciding this. My marriage is sacred because I hold it so, not because some stupid bureaucrat stamped the paper.

"Why should the gay population (5% of the entire population) be controlling the laws governing the other 95% of the populace?"

Posted By James, New Haven : August 30, 2007 10:15 pm

The answer to your question, James, is that even 95% of the population do not have a right to decide who an individual of legal age and sound mind can marry. This was true when the prohibition was against mixed race couples, and it is true now when applied to same gender couples. Equal protection is just that, Equal.

By the same token, no one will tell you that you HAVE to marry a man, James, so you can relax.

Kudos to Iowa for their important step in making sure the America of tomorrow knows no discrimination. Decisions like these show exactly what can be achieved when you look at what todays America was built on, and realize it says nothing about choosing a specific group of people to deny basic rights to.

Marriage is a holy sacrament, and as such should be granted by a minister, priest, imam, shaman, or other practicioner of religiosity.

Let the government grant a civil union to any set of adults who wish to form a social unit for economic and emotional security.

Let God or the gods grant marriage to those who want to feel that their union is blessed. Let the government sanction contracts among adult citizens who wish to form an economic union for the purposes of insurance, inheritance, property ownership, etc.

Let every tiny minority who imagines itself to be "real" Americans who support "real" American values (Catholics, fundamentalists, gays, capitalists, feminists, etc.) shut up about this so we can focus on some real problems.

Claude of AZ says: "Wow! What is this country coming to? It's Sodom and Gomorrah all over again. Time is obviously growing nigh and God will destroy this and other wickedness."

This is the kind of person that frightens me the most. Osama bin Laden is less of a threat to my freedom than Americans who know what God is thinking.

The government, fed.,state,local should just stay out of this.
It is only a decision between the two people involved.

Oh, let's not let something trivial like facts get in the way of the comment. Iowans are permitted to vote to retain or dismiss all judges. And it is not taken lightly. Two Iowa political conservative groups have made it their goal in life to remove those 'activists' who don't subscribe to their 'point of view'. Perhaps Mr. Romney should have given call to all 'good' Iowans to vote Hanson out without fail… and the MSM should be calling Romney on his blatantly factual 'error'.

Let's see, abolishing slavery was once not the will of the people and neither was ending segregation…The will of the people is not always right as the majority often see fit to supress the minority.

I identify myself as an American, not a Californian or a Texan or wherever else I've lived in the U.S. Something as fundamental as who is and who is not allowed to marry should be national. And, like it or not, sometimes the majority opinion isn't the right one. Something that is true is still true whether you believe it or not. Romney may be expressing a somewhat unpopular opinion in regards to gay marriage, but being popular and being right are two very different things. Don't let a few people change the meaning of a word. Support a constitutional amendment with the real definition of marriage.

Don't worry, He'll change his mind on that soon enough.

Flip flops for everyone!

Does't everyone realize that women were given the right to vote, Blacks were given the right to vote, Interracial Marrage, all of these were all against the will of the people at the time - looking back, were those "morally wrong"? It was not until after the laws were passed that the public accepted these laws as the right thing to do. Mitt, go back to Utah and keep your opinions of hate to yourself.

I identify myself as an American, not a Californian or a Texan or wherever else I've lived in the U.S. Something as fundamental as who is and who is not allowed to marry should be national. And, like it or not, sometimes the majority opinion isn't the right one. Something that is true is still true whether you believe it or not. Romney may be expressing a somewhat unpopular opinion in regards to gay marriage, but being popular and being right are two very different things. Support a constitutional amendment in support of traditional marriage.

We do not need Romney and his rich friends running this country. Am i the only one who veiws this guy as a joke.

Those of you opposed to gay marriage need to either grow up or wake up. Society, if nothing more is always progressive. Don't believe me? Think back 50 years to interracial marriages..they were scandalous and very rare and something that most people did not speak of in public…now how are interracial marriages viewed?????? They are part of the norm, yes, there are still parts of this country where racisism still exist but those areas are getting smaller evey year.
Same sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for years and I know that my life in Florida hasn't changed just because some people that I don't know fell in love and decided to make a commitment to one another, has your life changed since that law was enacted?????

Mitt, Mitt, Mitt…Sigh. When will these politicians learn, I ask you, when?? Apparently, there is no greater evil in the United States of America than banning gay marriage. Hunger? Nah. Homelessness? Nah. The Healthcare system? Nah. Bush and Cheney? Heck no!! We must deny gay marriage to keep our morals high. Whatever. I'm married, a father, a Catholic, think that gay marriage is fine, and I have no internal conflict trying to resolve my religious choice with any social choices I believe in. There are larger problems to deal with in the U.S.A. than gay marriage…put it on the back-burner where it belongs and try to answer some harder questions from the majority of Americans instead of pandering to the ultra-right wing minority.

Lets get this right! Same sex couples want to marry and be faithful to eachother.

Married Senator cruising a restroom for sex. Senator coming onto pages.

Hypocrit?

Judge not unless ye be judged.

The citizens of Iowa should end this nonsense of immoral judges proclaiming ridiculous rulings by swarming that court house and physically yanking that idiot off the bench.

Romney's family values are perverted: they deny some adopted children the societal benefit of married parents.

YES James of New Haven I think you are onto something. Another thing we should think about, Why do we let the Native Americans which are only 1.5% of the population make laws that affect and govern the land. I mean we do control the 98.5% left over. In fact since that population is so small why don't we re-introduce the Dawes Act. Then we can move on to the other races and religions and in no time we will have a country that rules solely upon the views of the Straight White Christian Man and his humble subservient wife. You really are onto something there!

See his comment below!

Yes Romney, Yes!!!

Finally, a politician who has the will and proactivity to oppose this part of our society which is pandering to the small minority while the majority of the population is fully against such measures.

Why should the gay population (5% of the entire population) be controlling the laws governing the other 95% of the populace?
Posted By James, New Haven : August 30, 2007 10:15 pm

He's just appealing to the conservative base and making a fool of himself. His comments mean nothing to me other than prove what I already know: that he is a flip-flopping presidential candidate like John Kerry was. Must be something in the water in Massachusetts. Just appealing to whatever is most popularly accepted at that minute, only to change the next minute when the "people" change their views. Why don't you come up with your own views and stick to them?

“All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”

Mitt Romney 2002 Massachusetts Gay Pride Weekend Poster

Even if Romney is right, and gay rights are against the will of the people, it is irrelevant in our government. We have majority rule, but it is tempered by respecting minority rights. That is all that keeps a democracy from descending into mob rule.

The majority may not merely decide to grant or deny the minority's rights- their rights are self-evident. Our government has the has the right to defend minority groups from the angry masses.

Ah, good ol' flip-floppin' Mitt. Why can't you people who support him see beyond his blatent pandering? He's switched positions since my car had its last oil change.

This is a handsome man, yet you continually find the worst mug shots possible.

Romney is a fool. The court isn't writing new laws, it is protecting the laws already in place in the constitution of Iowa and the United States. These constitutions prevent discrimination of individuals. Just because the majority voted and decided on a law doesn't make the law just. Our government was founded on the principle of protecting the minority rights. You can't vote away one groups rights.

Sounds like Romney and Craig made a perfect match; they're both hypocrites. Too bad they broke off relations.

Absurd commentary by Romney. Members of all branches of state government are required to uphold the state constitution (they take oaths). Courts have an obligation to strike laws that violate the state constitution. The judge is just doing his job — he would not have to be so "active" if the legislature had not violated the state constitution by passing it.

Would someone in the press corps ask Mitt specifically why the "equal protection under the law" guarantees in state and federal constitutions are _not_ dispositive of this issue, without reference to religious doctrine?

Republicans have done almost nothing to ban gay marriage on the federal level. Romney is a flip-flopper and so is the newly "anti-gay rights" Rudy Guliani. Both have supported gay rights. Do not believe that Republicans will ban gay marriage or that they use it as more than just a campaign issue to court religious. This Christian will not vote Republicans as they promote death in Iraq instead of feeding the poor.

Funny. Mitt Romney only comes here to win votes and stump for himself. . .somehow I don't weigh his statement that this is "against the will of the people" very highly. Y'know, seeing as how I live in Iowa, and I'm pro Marriage Equality.

Yes Romney, Yes!!!

Finally, a politician who has the will and proactivity to oppose this part of our society which is pandering to the small minority while the majority of the population is fully against such measures.

Why should the gay population (5% of the entire population) be controlling the laws governing the other 95% of the populace?

Ruling against which people, Romney? Conservatives? Republicans? Those too nosy to keep their business to themselves? I don't see how it is "the people's" business if two gay people can get married. We give way too much clout to the conservative majority in this country. Wait… what am I thinking? I guess I should love having my life affected daily by the decision of the people. Great people they are, too. Right?

Finally, equality in America without others imposing their biases.

Now that they have same sex marriage pretty soon they are going to want same sex divorce.

Same Sex Divorce will that be constitutional too? Are we going to have a National Debate about that too?

Tell me Mr. Romney how a same sex couple getting married will effect you at all? I have been to countless same sex marriages, so banning it won't keep couples from getting married

"Ruling against the will of the people"? Only the bigots. Are you saying you are in favor of bigotry, Governor?

When's Romney's "I am not gay" moment coming?

An elected official choosing to stay in Iraq even though it's supposedly against the will of the people…fine by Romney. An unelected official choosing to make a decision supposedly against the will of the people…not fine by Romney. I guess only elected officials aren't responsible for upholding the will of the people.

Wow! What is this country coming to? It's Sodom and Gomorrah all over again. Time is obviously growing nigh and God will destroy this and other wickedness. Mitt, I am so glad you have taken the correct stand.