Wow, what a dumb article.

Wow, guess we havent really come that far, now have we. I think it does read like a gossip piece, but I think thats the point...hence the words "students discuss." And to FAG, um, have you ever read one of the countless articles where a prof mentions their wife or husband? thats advertising their sexuality as well, so why is this any different? I personally think its a good article to show how people have been reacting. Its not about the story itself...cuz thats not a stanford story. The story is about how students have reacted, which is where the stanford story lies. I think its cool to do the story this way

So...I think people havent read the title "students discuss"


as I already mentioned, yeah its very gossipy, but thats the point. The news isnt that gay marriage was legalized...since thats not "stanford news" The news is how students have been reacting. I think to do that, its inevitably going to be gossipy

While the author of this article and most of the people commenting feel the need to stay politically correct, let me go ahead and point out what is blatantly true: if you don't support gay marriage, you are, 1) stupid, 2) bigoted, or 3) all of the above.
Why don't you stop pretending to criticize the article because its "unprofessional" and just come out and say it: "I'm a bigoted idiot" :3

Saying that all people who don't support the change are either "ignorant...." or whatever is not a very effective argument. How is that different from saying "all gay people are _______[insert negative word]"?

The comments after this article make me so disappointed in Stanford. They expose the extreme homophobia that some students here still harbor. I am disappointed that there are smart people in this world who cannot understand the negative impact that is caused by arguing for discriminatory laws against a group that cannot change how they were born. Not only does legalizing gay marriage validate queer people as members of society and acknowledge their relationships, but it also affords them hundreds of rights and legal protections that are immoral to deny loving partners. Is it really necessary that when a man's partner of decades dies, he be barred from visiting him in the hospital because he is not family? I don't see how that protects the institution of marriage. Furthermore, the above comments comparison of gay marriage to marrying animals is incredibly bigoted and closely parallels racist arguments about interracial marriage 60 years ago. I would like to believe we have grown as a society and need not repeat the same struggle for minority rights and acceptance with every generation.

me go to cali-thornia to make moviefilms. please watch. if not a success, i will be execute.

Also, everybody interviewed just happens to be gay/lesbian/bi. I don't see how much of a discussion can occur when everybody seems to either be LGBT or somebody who feels the same way.

What makes this article so high-school-newspaper worthy is that it is extremely one-sided in presentation. There are obviously many opinions on both sides of the gay marriage debate, and Stanford students obviously fall on both sides of the issue. But the reporter who wrote this article covered only a narrow range of the spectrum of opinion on the issue. Even a high school news reporter would be smart enough to not make this basic mistake.

Actually, many of the sentiments that do not support the ruling do reflect the thoughts of many students. The reason why these people do not make themselves heard is because it is easy to label a differing opinion as "ignorant" and "ridiculous." There are logical arguments against this ruling. I, as a current undergrad, am also opposed to the ruling and also have logical arguments to support my feelings. I can assure you that there are other students who feel the same way. At this liberal campus, is it really surprising that the majority opinion just happens to fit liberal views? I don't support gay marriage but I know better than to piss somebody off by stating my thoughts since it's easy to brush it off as 'ignorant' without bothering to listen to the logic behind the claim.

Someone commented that everyone who is quoted is lgbt...umm, you dont know me. Please don't jump to conclusions.
Also, I agree that it is biased, but seriously this has been a hard fight so I can see why there is a want to celebrate and within the LGBT community and its advocates, and I support the decision to write this article in that way.
I know Stanford students are smarter than a lot of these comments, so Im not even going to bother responding. They did make me laugh though(at you, not with you, hun).

This message is for Bruno: I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but I am a proud homosexual, a gay-rights activist, and I proudly support bestial marriage as well. Please don't demean those of us who dedicate our lives toward achieving legal equality.

hahahahah MR HANDS

Actually, I am a Stanford undergras who was interviewed and am not lgbt. This matters because it was annoying that someone before me was claiming that they only talked to lgbt people, when that is simply NOT true. So you have said nothing in contradiction to my statement in my orginal post. Actually. Shelby sent the email out to qnet, and it was forwarded to some other lists. A lot of people who were not lgbt were interviewed, but some did not make it into the article. And I know for a fact that one of the people mentioned is not LGBT. There is a huge bias, like I said before, and I am fine with this bias because, as I said, it is the right of people who have been working damn hard through their own means to make this happen to celebrate. If you were pro choice and got Roe v Wade overturned, I would stil be fine with seeing an article celebrating that. I think people should stand up for what they believe in and celebrate their victories. They have a right to put what they want in the paper and if this is what they want to celebrate, that is fine by me. If you have a problem with the viewpoint they are presenting, then you should join the Daily and write what you want to write. Now I am also all for hearing other viewpoints, and would certainly appreciate a future article with more reactions. However, let them have their moment and Id let you have yours. Maybe the article's title should be changed to LGBT Students and Advocates Celebrate, or something along those lines. I just think it would be difficult for someone who has fought so hard for something so personal to let the moment be soured. But as I said, I do look forward to a future article gauging further responses.

I agree. Let them enjoy this victory until the people make themselves heard and restore justice once again when this decision becomes overturned.