The Times editorial board praised the New York Legislature for becoming the sixth and largest state to legalize same-sex marriage Friday. However, while New York is helping blaze the civil rights trail, California "is stuck in reverse," though the board noted that polls show sentiment toward gay marriage has shifted from slightly opposed to slightly in favor since the 2008 passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.

The New York legislation's success was also due in part to support from lawmakers with gay and lesbian friends and relatives, a well-organized campaign, and from donations from Republican billionaire Paul Singer. Here's an excerpt from Monday's editorial:

New York's historic vote should help speed things along. With its large population -- third in the nation, behind California and Texas -- there will be more same-sex marriages than ever and more opportunity for Americans to observe and grow accustomed to them. Many of those couples will move to other states where they will press to have their rights recognized.

[…]

Today it is New York's turn to bask in the knowledge that it has moved the entire country forward in the ongoing struggle for equal rights for all. California should learn lessons from New York's victory and quickly put itself back on the right side of history.

Readers  mostly stuck to picking apart each other's arguments, with some offshoots of conversation about bisexuality, polygamy and, as always, some erroneous arguments.

Civil union should be good enough

The article says "WE" believe..... and "WE" feel this way..... Who is "WE"? If this issue is going to end up on the ballot again, it will once again get shot down. The gays will still refuse to accept it though, and some liberal judge will once again overthrow the will of the voters. When will California gays realize that most people in this state don't believe in their wanting to get married. Why isn't a civil union good enough? NO! They want to get MARRIED.

Gays these days are calling anyone that disagrees with them on this a hater. I am not a hater and I am not a religious nut. I just don't agree with gay marriage. If you want to see hate, just look at the hate that will be directed at me for stating my opinion here. 

--LAzyPD 2011

Separate the religion from the law

The fact is, marriage is as much a civil institution as a religious one, if not more so these days.  And in matters of the law, religious beliefs or texts should not play any role.

--HiVeloCT

The "right" to marry isn't a right

This is yet another "progressively" manufactured false issue. There is no "right" to marriage of any kind, be it heterosexual or gay. Interesting how anytime a "progressive" thinks something is "unfair," it morphs into a Constitutionally defended "right" somehow. Which is about the only time they ever pay attention to the Constitution. I don't care what your sexual preferences are. Really. I won't poke you in the eye with my "heterosexualness;" please feel free to stop poking me in the eye with your "gayness." I. Don't. Care.

--Shawn P

Marriage only between human male and female

 I'll say this again, "marriage" can ONLY BE between a human male and female.   Human because the act of "commitment" is reserved for only those with critical thinking, capable of improving upon the previous generation.   Male and female because a marriage is a "union" both physical and emotional.   Only a male and female can unionize in a manner that is designed to produce the continuation of the species.   Any other construct is a "relationship".  

 Secondly, I don't think "marriage" is what homosexuals are really after.  I believe that the goal is "formalized legitimacy" and "marriage" is the closest and strongest thing that approximates that end-goal.   The problem is that even if the Supreme Court decides that gay marriage is constitutional, it will never be accepted in the hearts of conservative believers, much the way abortion has never been accepted.   

--P-Funk

Let's hope future generations don't repeat this bigotry

[…] As any other civil rights struggle, the US will have marriage equality eventually, no matter who is against it. Nobody can stop it.

As a guy from another country, I had never understood why it took the US so long to give blacks what they deserved by birth, how so many people were against African American rights (and so in favor of violence and discrimination) and, mostly, how many said nothing to support those rights a few decades ago. Now I can understand because I hear and read the same non sense arguments against gays, the same stupid violence, and the same dehumanization of people -- to make them an easy target -- that have the same hearts and needs as anybody else.

It's worth saving these comments to make future generations understand why it did not happen before.

--Pablo G

"Sanctity of marriage" is already ruined anyway

Straights have thoroughly botched marriage. Gays could do no worse.

--DGates

RELATED:

Should illegal immigrant workers have more rights?

Does the U.S. need China?

Who takes Michele Bachmann seriously?

Alabama's harsh immigration reform law

Obama: Another disappointing black politician?

--Samantha Schaefer

Marchers hold signs thanking Gov. Mario Cuomo for keeping his campaign promise and legalizing same-sex marriage during the 2011 NYC LGBT Pride March on the streets of Manhattan on June 26. Credit: Jemal Countess /Getty Images

Should the federal judge who struck down Proposition 8 have his ruling nullified because he's in a relationship with a man? The easy answer is no. This is just a variation on the argument that Judge Vaughn R. Walker should have recused himself from the case because he's gay. It's no more valid than the first argument.

But the conservatives challenging Walker's role in the case are, ironically, drawing on a theory of diversity more often heard from liberals. The argument goes something like this: Having a judge who is African American or a woman or a "wise Latina" changes the way justice is administered. Life experience, in this view, is a valuable credential.

Now apply this theory to a gay judge: If you argue that his or her life experiences play an important role in how they behave on the bench, you're playing into the hands of the conservatives who would disqualify Walker.

There are other arguments for diversifying the bench. One is the role model theory. Appointing or electing members of a minority group encourages members of that group to aspire to a judicial career. Then there is the the most traditional argument for diversity: redressing past discrimination.

But the "diversity does as diversity is" argument is the most beguiling. It's also the most problematic.

RELATED:

Respecting all marriages

Prop. 8: Who's fit to judge?

Blowback: Nothing defensible about DOMA

Defense of Marriage Act: Attack the law, not the lawyer

--Michael McGough

Photo: Vaughn R. Walker. Credit: Elaine Thompson / Associated Press

It's always teeth-gritting time when the debate over same-sex marriage turns to the words "responsible procreation," a phrase that I used to think meant not having children without the ability and commitment to care for them well. It was about pureed peas, not whether your relationship was with a person of the same or opposite gender.

Yet, as illogical as the argument about procreation always seems, it of course came up again Monday in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as the defenders of Proposition 8 sought to argue that society has a valid basis for regulating which adults can marry because marriage exists for the purpose of responsible procreation and the rearing of children by their biological parents.

If that's the purpose, why on earth do we let people marry who have no interest in having children? How can we let the elderly marry, or people with infertility problems? Why do we let people who aren't ready for responsible child-rearing give up their children for adoption, and why do we let couples who have all the desire and ability for children adopt them, and why do we let inattentive parents get married?

One could almost feel sympathy for the lawyers defending Proposition 8 -- that they have so little else on which to base their arguments than a view of families so rigid and narrow that while it insults same-sex couples, it also puts down blended families, adoptive couples, married-but-childless couples and people who find love late in life.

-- Karin Klein

President Obama would like to extend unemployment benefits, but Republicans are ready to block his every move. How, then, do we help people who're laid off; how do we grow jobs?

"The only way to fix the deficit," says William Drayton, "is to multiply jobs."

There are other ways to build jobs, argues an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. "For every job outsourced to Bangalore, nearly two jobs are created in Buffalo or other American cities."

"I survived unemployment, thanks to benefits," writes entrepreneur David Walker. Without it, he says he never would have been able to pick himself back up and start his own business.

"Unemployment benefits should not be held hostage to extend tax cuts to the wealthy," says civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Our editorial board believes, "Cutting off extended benefits for the unemployed not only hurts individuals who've been laid off but could dampen the economic recovery."

Will Obama's propensity for compromise doom unemployment benefits even more? In a post on her blog, Rachel Maddow urges the president to do the right thing, not the "Right" thing.

-- Alexandra Le Tellier

RELATED:

Be a budget-cutter too

Debt, deficits and delays

Sticking it to the unemployed

Photo: President Obama speaks to students, teachers and business leaders Monday at Forsyth Technical Community College in Winston-Salem, N.C. Credit: EPA/Davis Turner

In Monday's editorial on the Proposition 8 hearing, The Times' editorial board argued that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown should have defended the initiative in federal court. Without them, the defenders of the initiative faced tough questioning from judges on whether they had legal standing to argue for the same-sex marriage ban before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, possibly keeping the matter from being decided on its merits. The judges on the panel hearing the case Monday appeared to agree.

"What we have here is an attorney general and governor with no ability to nullify the acts of the people, and then, by not appealing, they do it," Judge N. Randy Smith complained. 

Judge Stephen Reinhardt called it "tossing in the towel."

"That does not seem to be consistent with the initiative process," he said.

Your thoughts? If the governor and attorney general (who's about to become governor) oppose an initiative passed by the voters, are they taking the moral high ground by refusing to defend it? Or are they reneging on the responsibilities of their jobs?

-- Karin Klein

RELATED:

The Prop. 8 show

Pixar to gay teens: 'It gets better'

Prop. 8: You're not helping, Mr. President

Marriage: A word? A relationship? Are the two the same?

'Since when has equality and justice EVER hurt anyone?'