CNN

Where are all these anti-judicial (GOP) comments coming from?? The job of the judiciary is to "interpret the law"...including the constitutionality of the laws. Seems to me that is what happened! Where's the rub?
Oh yeah...you just don't AGREE! Now I get it!
Have a nice day...

News flash:

Republicans hate freedom and equal rights.

Libertarian conservatives like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan had no problems with gay people, and there used to be more gay Republicans before the Evangeliban took over the Party.

"A state's autonomous nature allows it to change its laws as the citizenry sees fit, but it should be done by the people, not through judicial decree."

See? I told you so. They're conducting a symphony of secessionist sentiment. They'd rather the federal government collapse and the union break apart than live with not having control over it. FACTS like the federal Constitution trumping state constitutions bother the hell out of them because they HATE that they cannot get the federal Constitution changed to fit their own narrow-minded beliefs...at least not as easily as they can get a state constitution changed. You see, they know for a fact now that they are becoming a marginalized and REGIONALIZED PARTY. What better way for them to find a silver lining than by encouraging secession and start blathering about state sovereignty?

Not so long ago it took a man and a woman to prolong the human race. Not so anymore. Just give me a sperm and an egg and a test
tube and viola- -baby. Now when you get man-man or woman – woman you are minus one ingredient either way. No more human race. My stance – -Ban homosexuality its unnatural. Cnn care to print this?

Dumb remark "The people Vote for something or get legislation passed and a few dast talking tongue twisting Lawyers convince a couple of Judges to overturn it. This has got to stop !
The needs of the few do not out weigh the needs of the many."

What conceivable NEED does anyone have for gays not to marry, Einstein?

People want to stay out of your bedrooms,its you who wants people to know what's going on in your bedrooms,I for one don't want to Know.

@ jimmy, show said "made by unelected judges "

JUDGES ARE NOT ELECTED BECAUSE JUSTICE IS BLIND TO POPULAR OPINION (or at least it's supposed to be). Take a civics course. The level of ignorance about our system of government displayed daily on the Ticker is both frightening and infuriating.

AS a life-long Democrat i side with conservitive republican's on this ,
subject. if it is put to a national vote just like the office of the President,
Same-sex marriage would lose worser than John MCcain.

It seems any time there is a ruling that contradicts extreme right-wing dogma, the conservatives are quick to lable it "judicial activism". Never mind if constitutional transgressions clearly exist; the right wing-nuts and their Talibangelical base only care about a constitution (or any civilian rights, for that matter) when it agrees with their sanctimonious recidivism.

Besides, what hypocrites Steele and Romeny are. Steele benefitted hugely from minority protectionism, so to hear him deny others is ludicrous. And Romeny, whose religion is the only one in the US taht to this day tacitly condones polygamy, ought to be quiet on the subject of marriage.

Here is a idea...eliminate the word marriage in government and make everything a civil union since that is really what it should be classified as.

Someone can still get married in their respective faith. Different faiths have different rules about marriage so then it would be up to the couple to find a compatiable faith.

I am a proud Iowan today! Yay for equal rights!

Blue state , enough said.

Who cares what Republicans think, which is a generous description of their mental activities. All citizens are entitled to equal rights and protection. There is no provision or benefit on imposing a bogus, fear-based religion on the rest of society.
The protesters are generally from the same religious groups that were outraged over interracial marriage citing passages that their god intended for the races to remain separate. If there was a vote over Loving vs. Viriginia back in 60's, the supposedly good christians would have demanded its overturn, which today we regard as ignorant, backwards and bigoted.
If these people are really sincere about protecting the sanctity of marriage, why aren't they picketing courthouses every day where people willingly and knowingly end their marriage vows.

If people want to live in a country where the laws of God dictate the laws of the state, then move to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. The rest of the civilized world (aka, "us liberals") will get on with our lives. Seriously, our economy is in the tank, and we're back to arguing about who can and can't get married?

Besides, can anyone tell me how two people who love each other and happen to be of the same gender getting married is a greater harm to the institution of marriage than divorce is? Sorry, I just don't see it.

Spot on and a rousing cheer to Tom and Jim in San Jose:

Republicans: the party of small government: just small enough to get into your bedroom.

"Mr Romney´s comments is a joke coming from a religion that condones multible wives for a man.."

Actually, Mormons don't practice polygamy, nice try though.

Once again, Mitt is right. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, anything else is a misuse of the term.

@Jim in San Jose, Sara, and anyone one else comparing slavery to this nonsense. Neither one of you are stating fact! Just your opinion! Here's my opinion. This decision is wrong and against God's plan for humans. The New Testament speaks out against homosexuality, yet says nothing concerning interracial marriage or anything else you are throwing up as a smoke screen! If you know your history, you would know the Founding Fathers acknowledged God! Today, the Iowa Supreme Court did not, just like the Mass and CT supreme courts!

Hey Republicans and Christians,

You better fix your marriages first before you tell someone else how to do it.

65% divorce rate and plenty of republicans getting caught in bathrooms and hotel rooms....

They are just too much. Why is it that when the courts handed Sir Bush the 2000 election they were just interpreting the law, but when the Iowa (not exaclty a hot bed of liberalism) Supreme Court interprets the Iowa constitution as a document that provides equal protection under the law for all citizens it becomes an "activist court". The hipocracy drips so thick they are indanger of drowning in it. I read the court decision which is on the internet for all to see. There are multiple references to the prodtections afforded by the Constitution. This is not a matter of Gay or Straight, it is a matter of the rights of a citizen to live their lives without societal interference. The right of human beings to be equal under the law. It seems to me that the small government Republicans, only have a problem with government interference when it does not jive with thier twisted view of morality.

"I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and the definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts."

So what if "the people" decide marriage is a relationship between any two willing people? As usual, Romney hasn't actually taken a viable position. Instead, he's said that HE would imposed his beliefs on everyone else.

To Michael Steele who said "A state's autonomous nature allows it to change its laws as the citizenry sees fit, but it should be done by the people, not through judicial decree."

I wonder how he would feel if Iowa, or Kansas, or California decided to "legislate" that a marriage is only available to people of the same race?

In fact, that was state law for many years back in the 1950s, where it was "unconstitutional" for whites to marry blacks, or blacks to marry asians.

This is not a religious question, it is a Civil Rights issue.

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and many, many other thoughtful Democrats have stated repeatedly that they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, that they favor civil unions but not gay "marriage." Why do we only have Republicans weighing in on this? Where are all the Democrats who repeatedly said they favored the traditional definition of marriage? This unfortunate Iowa ruling, made by unelected judges with degrees from places you've hardly heard of, is so extreme that even our leading Democrats have consistently expressed their opposition for exactly this kind of action. Where are their voices now? Their silence is cowardly.

This is so irratating. The people Vote for something or get legislation passed and a few dast talking tongue twisting Lawyers convince a couple of Judges to overturn it. This has got to stop !

The needs of the few do not out weigh the needs of the many.

Republicans are just plain silly.... So out of touch!!! The party of affairs and men tapping toes to show they are willing to have gay relations, as long as you don't marry the man right....!!!!!! Hypocrites...

I believe the Iowa Supreme Court said it best:

"A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion."

HAHAHEHE these phools have the Political radius of a disabled
three year old! Hey as long as decent people want to be educated
we have a chance to override these dummies from the hate they seem
to cling too!

Micheal Steele aka jewish nazi is unbelievable! He hates himself so
much it's sickening! The token tar baby is a disgrace to the human
race! Being an Afro-American I reserve the right to speak in candor
and facts! Mikey forgets that not to long ago my wife (Jewish) and I
wouldn't be able to marry! So disingenuous so hypocritical so
republican / conservative circa 1965

Do these religious zealots not get it? Any marriage is a civil union. If not, then why did my husband and I have to go to city hall to get a license? Marriage is a legally binding contract, otherwise, why do I need a lawyer to disolve it? Last I heard, discrimination against people entering into a legal contract of any kind was against the law. Let's take out religion and romance from this arguement!

I dont know...my life with my spouse really doesnt hinge on whether two men or two women are making love or cutting up grocery coupons in Iowa. In fact, it's more affected by lunatic religious freaks who try and impose their own values on everyone else and at the same time piss and moan when they rail against government expansion or legislating from the bench. Means nothing to them if a judge rules in their favor on an issue, that's not legislation, its jurisprudence! So phoney, so hypocritical, so petty.

The majority of people opposed to gay marriage are just as ignorant as the majority of people that wanted to continue slavery and suppress women's rights. The second that marriage became a government institution with benefits, the rules that applied to marriage were the Constitution first, then the Bible. And the primary job of the courts is to interpret the constitution, which is exactly what Iowa did.

Opponents that say the court crossed the line need to go back to school since they obviously didn't pay attention in their government class. Or they're just mad because the ruling didn't go their way, so they'll say anything to get attention. Get educated and grow up.

I live in Iowa and I think we will be okay. We don't need alot of outsiders telling us what to do. But as usual, the Republicans will whip up mass hysteria among the self righteous holier- than -thou crowd. I am not for gay marriage but have no problem with civil unions which is probabaly the way this will end up. I have not seen any change in our state since yetersday.

In 1837, the voters in many states would have passed legislation denying blacks the right to vote. Until 1920, the voters in many states (all men) would have passed legislation denying women the right to vote. Just because legislators, governors, and a majority of citizens think a measure is right, that doesn't make it right, just, or even constitutional. That's why we have the Separation of Powers. And now that we aren't under the Bush administration's control anymore, can we go back to seeing this process as the one designed by our founders?

So, um... I guess same sex couples don't have family values?

I guess "acitvist judge" is anyone that declares a law unconstitutional.
I could have sworn that was their job. But, hey, thanks GOP, for giving me the real definitiion. Stay classy!

I wonder if Mr. Steele's philosophy of judicial activism applies to all laws or only to those with which he personally disagrees. Perhaps slavery ought to have been up to the people of each state to decide as well and judges who upheld the Constitutional rights of African Americans were imposing their views upon those who disagreed.

Our constitution was written to guarantee equal rights to all citizens.

Was it up to the public to allow interracial marriages? Women the right to vote? Desegregation?

The GOP embarrasses itself by playing the "holier than thou" or "family values" card. ( We all remember the corruption and hypocrisy that has come to the forefront in recent years).

Bottom line: If you believe that marriage is between a Man and a Woman that is fine. It doesn't mean that everyone else needs to think the same way. If my religion is tolerant of gay marriage, so be it. Part of being a person of faith is tolerance.

This is neither a Republican or Democrats issue. In fact it's not even an issue about individual choice. Right now in all 50 states, two (adult) people can make a private decision to engage in sex without interference from the government, church, or any institution.
You have that freedom whether their are laws in favor or opposing.

Telling people it's a backward way of thinking doesn't change the fact that mankind is the only one out of all the species walking the earth (plant or animals) that makes this choice.

Whatever happened to the will of the people?

Republicans hate everybody, even themselves at times.

I am a WASP. I am a senior citizen. I am a Democrat, I guess a lib.
I am heterosexual.
After saying all that, I say let the states handle this the way that the people of that state vote to do. If the gays are not happy with the vote, then challenge it in court.
I was brought up to believe " to each his own " Why does anyone feel threatened by gay folks or their desire to marry ? It is no ones business except the people who are involved. They are not asking you to support them. As for the religious aspects of what gays do. Let them work it out with their God. Who are any of us to preach religion to others. I think we would all be a lot happier if we would just mind our own business.

"The Iowa Supreme Court's decision today to reverse an 11 year old state law outlawing same-sex marriage is sadly another example of judicial activism currently threatening family values in America."

So now "judicial activism" includes guaranteeing the same rights to ALL citizens? Nice. It's good to see what the Republican Party really stands for.

These Republican loudmouths need to read the opinion before making stupid comments. The decision is based on an equal protection argument, not judicial activism.

Those advocating that these matters should be left to popular vote miss the point entirely–just because an idea is popular (and therefore wins a majority in the legislature) does not make it legal. The judiciary exists expressly for this reason.

It is the job of the higher courts to interpret the law and the basis of law in a state or the federal constitution. It is amazintg to me that a group of polititions who have probably never read the Iowa constitution feel they can just automatically call the court (4 of which are Republicans) "Activist" judges because they disagree with their decision which was based on sudying that constitution in depth.
That is like calling the judges on the Terry Schivo case (who were all Republicans) Activist, or Trent Lott who examined a 10 second video clip diagnosed her as "Alive, Sentient and Suffering".
When will Republicans ever learn the difference between disagreement and legality?

When a man can make a baby, I will support this movement, meanwhile, God rules!!

A question for Michael Steele:

If Civil Rights should be voted upon, how do you think the vote for segregation would have gone in 1965 Alabama?

Not well?

If people voted on civil rights back in the 60's as Michael Steele suggests, then Michael Steele wouldn't be the President of the Republican National Convention. He'd be waiting its tables.

New Flash! Being gay is not all about sex...

When it comes to raising a famly, from blacks, asians to Hispanics, WE ALIGN with the RELIGIOUS RIGHTS of the ELEPHANT PARTY. For those of us that go to church or have strong cultural faimly background, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE. ELEPHANTS you are not alone in this fight to preserve the family. I dont know the sooner we legalize it, the sooner the end of the world wil appear at out doorsteps. So let it begin!!

The last time I checked Iowa was a part of the US. This is supposed to be a free country isn't it? They did the right thing.

When are the Republicans going to stop critizing everything and just learn to live with people of all different races and backgrounds? Everyone in this country should have rights, not just straight men and women.

boooooooo.......

thank goodness the Iowa supreme court believes in such things as freedom, equality and justice.

1. How is a straight marriage affected negatively by a gay marriage?

2. If the purpose of marriage is exclusively to produce children, should the infertile be prohibited from getting married?

3. Can anyone come up with a reason there should be no gay marriage that isn't religiously based? Don't cite "tradition" either, because it used to be "tradition" that women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property, black people weren't human beings, and that those who didn't believe in the Christian God were executed.

Read the decision, the court simply said that the only way gay marriage can be denied is that if the court were to declare that gay people weren't human beings, let alone full citizens.

You know, this is a real opening for republicans. That is to say, it's an issue they poll well on (with this very political ticker featuring an entry on how the majority of americans oppose same sex marriage) and they can use that to their advantage. The Obama administration, in political expediency, has sided with the majority on this and has opposed same sex marriage (though upholding civil unions).

Which places Obama in a precarious position of opposing a position some of his left base feel passionately about. If the republicans press the issue (in which they'd have to be very tactful, in view of the pressing issue of the economy), they could put some distance between Obama and a protion of his base. It'll be interesting to see how widespread republican reactions to the ruling are.

The Republicans are permanently stuck in the twentieth century!

Why does anyone listen to Republicans they have no clue how to run a country let alone some ones rights. The last administration screwed the American people over and over for 8 years. If they want to complain they have enough in there own party to point fingers at. LEAVE THE PEOPLE ALONE.

Yes, put it to a vote!! If we put all minority rights subject to the majority we would still have segregation, the criminalizing of a woman's right to choose, and so many other rights the Constitution guarantees!! That's the point of a Constitution. No worries my my gay and lesbian friends, this "debate" will soon be over and those opposing equal rights will be relics of the past. Good for the Iowa Supreme Court for upholding the Constitution.

If marriage is a "god" thing strictly defined by religious bigotry, it has no role in state or federal legislation. Civil unions for everyone! What you do in your own church shouldn't have any legal significance.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. The dangerous thing about allowing this foolishness of same sex unions given the label as marriage is you open a door to another level of depravity. The next thing you will hear about is people wanting to marry their pets. I personally do not care that people choose to participate in same sex relationships, if it makes you happy -great, but do not put it on the same level with a marriage between a man and woman. It is like comparing night with day, and apples to oranges, not even close. It is wrong for the courts to decide something as serious as this for an entire state. This matter in Iowa would have received a resounding, earthshattering-NO, if the voters had decided. Please do not say this comment is anti-gay, I am pro marriage=one man+one woman.

Why are republicans concerned about who the guy or women around the corner or down the block or in the next town are in bed with. I don't care what my neighbor is doing as long as he ain't doin it with me. Mind your own personal business. What happened to "government should stay out of our personal lives". I think who I sleep with is way more personal than me wanting to carry a gun. But, you rethugs won't stop interferring in Americans private lives. Even the pro-choice thing is a women's personal issue – MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

@Shooky You say that this should be left to the people to decide. I simply point you to the CONSTITUTION and ask if you ahve ever read it or understood it. THREE SEPERATE BUT EQUAL ARMS were built into our Government. An Executive Branch to negotiate and direct overall policy and enforce the laws, a Legislative Branch to write the laws, to fund specific projects and to approve any negotiation, and a Judical to over see the laws, contracts and funding that are written and approved and ensure they are within the guidelines of the Constitution. Within the Legislative Branch there are TWO houses a Senate (orignally APPOINTED by each state but since then this wise decision was overturned) and a House. The House was designed to reflect the will of the people, the Senate to reflect the will of the country, these tow together were what was supposed to write our laws (not lobbiest as during the bush administration). The JOB OF THE JUDICAL BRANCH IS TO OVERRIDE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. There is a way to override the Judicial branch and that is by a 2/3 majority of the people AND STATES agreeing to change the Constitution. In the case of personal freedoms this has NOT occured and therefore these laws are rightly and correctly overridden! So to answer your implied question the will of the people is subordinate to the Constitution unless the people override the Constitution, this has NOT happened and therefore the will of the people loses and these CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGES ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND ALL THE RADICAL RELIGIOUS RIGHTWING SPIN AND WHINE CANNOT CHANGE THE FACT THEY ARE CORRECT!!!

"Should be left to the people not to an activist court."

Activists decisions are those that do not adhere to the constitution. It is not "activist" for a court to find an assurance of basic human and civil rights in the constitution! The very most basic reason for having a constitution is to guarentee those rights to people who's rights would otherwise be violated by the "will of the people." We do not "put it to the people" to decide wether a group is entitled to basic human and civil liberties! That is constitutionally guarnteed and we have courts to make sure that that guartee is not violated!

By this logic Brown versus Board was the work of activist judges.

We are still waiting for credible proof that gay marriage provides a tangible threat to our society or marriage as a whole as opposed to a threat to people's religious view of marriage. By the way, tradition is such a poor argument. Please don't bring that one out because it is not a valid point. We shouldn't venerate traditions just because they are tradition. The wrong thing done over a long period of time doesn't make it any more right. No one is forcing your church, clergy, etc. to perform marriages and go against their beliefs. Oh no! Scary gay people are declaring their love for each other! From past Supreme Court rulings, "separate but equal" has already been found to be unacceptable as it should be. Which btw doesn't really even apply seeing as civil unions across the country aren't always giving equal benefits to marriage.

I live in Republican country called Tennessee and i can tell you there are more gay people in this state than in any other state I've lived in. My husband is a therapist and he constantly has someone in his office who is married with children and mentions that they are gay but haven't told anyone. Also, everyone knows that most of the Christian musicians in this town are gay. So I would guess that some of the Republicans who are against gay marriage are probably in the closet.

It always amuses me when judges rule on an issue that the extreme Right (read: extremely narrow-minded) disagrees with, and they are therefore labeled "activist judges". What is not amusing, is that thousands of non-thinkers will be parroting the same spew tomorrow on the talk shows.

NOTICE the courts are ALWAYS called Activist went the decision is against Republicans and Religious fanatics? It never fails! Why don't you do something about divorce, adultery and domestic abuse that are in your own homes and families? That will benefit marriage more than attacking gay marriage.

WHY is it people seem to lose their cognitive skills when it comes to gay marriage???

There IS NO DISCRIMINATION!!!

Gay people can get married... to a person of the opposite sex.

Straight people ALSO are prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex.

Where is the discrimination??

this is why the Republican party is dead.

Steele is just a token for the GOP, Romney's a moron, and I like Huckabee, but I don't agree with him.

Iowa's Supreme Court ruled it. Deal with it. Respect the High Court.

Nobody is trampling on their rights! They have the same rights to marriage the rest of us have. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

There you go again republicans...trying to force your ideals and beliefs on other people. I thought you were all about less government!?

This is pathetic. They need to understand how the constitution works. It's not up to a governor or legislators to decide if a law is constitutional. The legislation made their position known 11 years ago when they wrote the law outlawing gay marriage. Then, when a citizen (a person since you're so big on letting the PEOPLE have a voice) challenged the law, it was up to the court to decide if the law was constitutional. Do they think that the court should've said "I don't know if this is constitutional or not; we better have a vote to decide"? The rights of a minority should never be subjected to the vote of a majority because the minority will ALWAYS lose.

Nonsense. The Iowa Supreme Court was fulfilling its duty to protect a minority class from the tyranny of the masses. This is the very reason these checks and balances are put into place.

There are zero secular reasons to deny gay and lesbian citizens marriage equality, and our nation supposedly guarantees a separation of church and state. Any religious argument against gay marriage is therefore moot.

Case closed.

No one has the right to say whether a gay couple can get married or not. It's not up to the popular vote or what a judge says, it's up to that couple!!!
They say dems are socialist but what do they call this?

Activist judges?! This is a constitutional issue. If the Iowa state constitution prohibits descrimination, it is the job of these judges to rule as such. Republicans are, yet again, displaying their gross incompetence and ignorance of the rule of law.

This is why the republican party is slowly dying off. Nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative... but what's liberal and conservative in the bedroom should be decided by the individuals behind those bedroom doors, not the government.

The bedroom and the home is one place we don't want government to interfere with our lives. Just because one person feels its wrong to have same sex marriage doesn't mean that they should push their belief onto others who have no problem with it.. especially those who are gay and want to get married.

Since when it is "activist" to uphold the United States Constitution. I thought courts were here to uphold the law? Obviously our legislatures don't know how to do it.

"The Republicans weigh in...." translation: this entire story is utterly irrelevant.

This is why the Republican party is history. Drag yourselves into the 21st century people. God, I'm glad to be Canadian.

If all of these decisions were left up to the people we would live in a country where segments of the population were still classified as property.

Courts are around to make sure the laws that the people vote on and pass are CONSTITUTIONAL, and therefore LEGAL. The court in Iowa found that the same-sex marriage ban violated the state constitution's equal protection clause, and thus ILLEGAL.

If rights were subject to a vote, slavery would have lasted another 50 years. Think about it people!

That's right Michael Steele, without those "activist judges" deciding that racial discrimination was unconstitutional, your black self would be waiting it out for the southern people to take it upon themselves to decide that you were a full 5/5ths with your own inherent human rights.

This is one of many reasons the Republicans are now and in the future going to have problems with holding any offices. They seem to think it is okay for Gov. to step in on issues like this but not okay for Gov. to help out in getting our economy back on track. As much as they want to they can not have it both ways. Issues like marriage/abortions/gay rights/religion does not belong in our Gov.

Why don't they just admit that they'd just rather wipe all homosexuals from the face of the earth?

They are exactly right, LEFT TO THE PEOPLE! What is it to be American anymore if a activist judges usurp the will of the people? Put it to a vote!

Okay, let's make this simple.

If the sanctity of marriage is so absolute, then outlaw divorce.

As for that 'activist judges' nonsense - anyone who upholds the Constitution is an activist judge in the eyes of the Republicans. If that's the case, then we should ALL be activists since the Constitution is there to protect us from people like these so-called 'opponents' to gay marriage.

This is America. Discrimination is ILLEGAL here.

This is the first time republicans made sense to me. I'm sure it will be the last.

Unbelievable. These guys are so far stuck in the past.

Once again, the "less government" GOP party trying to legislate their own narrow view of morality. Let us all love and share relationships with any consenting adult, whatever the gender.

If all decisions of civil rights were left up to the public, the legislators, and governors, there would still be laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage, women's rights, voters' rights, ... ... ... . The list goes on. The purpose of the Judicial branch of government is to protect the rights of minorities in spite of the majority. Anyone who disagrees with this ruling should not be allowed to comment on it unless they have read the full 69 page discussion by the Justices. Don't waste time commenting here if you can't take the time to read and understand the ruling. Who knows, you might just learn something.

Why do they care? Old people marry young people. Skinny people marry fat people. Stupid people marry smart people. Americans marry foreigners. African-Americans marry whites. The list goes on. Why pick on some couples that look "different" together, and not others?

If it's because of their religious beliefs, why aren't they up in arms about Jews marrying Catholics or Atheists marrying anybody? Maybe they should be looking for something more important to fuss over.

Mr Romney´s comments is a joke coming from a religion that condones multible wives for a man.. I wonder if one becomes rightous, before or after they become a Republican, especially since the party has so many members like Rush and Newt... Two great examples of "family values".

Mr. Steele if the courts did not uphold the rights of a minority, you sir, would still be in slavery!

Just because the majority wants it does not make it either right or just and cannot be used to dominate a minority.

The founding fathers envisioned this and that moron, is why there are THREE branches of government of EQUAL power.

Wow, I bet the BGLFA will be pissed! don't ever expect to get their votes in 2010 or for that matter EVER!

Just because Romney and Steele believe something doesn't mean it is right. If we are truly a country of equality, equality should apply to everyone. Everyone should be able to marry whoever they want. it is not the job of the government to tell people who they can or can't marry.

Wow. Despite the heavy loss of support, these morons STILL don't get it.

if activist courts had us goose-stepping to church all day every day the Dumbpublicans would be cheering on that one, you betcha!

Poor poor poor members of the radical religious rightwing party. I am soooo sad for them, their atempts to hijack the Constitution and turn this country into a Theocracy have yet again been thwarted by those evil Contitutional judges doing thier part in the checks and balances of our government. Taking an illegal law approved by a Senate and throwing it into the trashbin of history. Mean old activist judges how dare they do their job!

Three down 47 to go before all Americans can enjoy the same freedoms!

Stay in your bedrooms and out of anyone elses bedroom.