California’s highest court will hear three hours of arguments Tuesday on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to be legally married. The case stems from a combination of lawsuits from 15 same-sex couples and the City of San Francisco. The suits were filed the day after the court halted a month-long wedding spree in San Francisco in 2004. A ruling is expected within 90 days.

In this controversial and emotionally-charged issue, do you think the decision should be up to the courts, or should the voters be the ones to decide?

(Update Oct. 1, 2007) The U.S. Senate is was expected to vote this week on an immigration measure that would give tens of thousands of undocumented kids a chance at legalization, but the bill has died in the Senate for the time being, although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vows to get the measure through the chamber by mid-November.

The legislation, known as the Dream Act -- Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors -- would give high school graduates, who arrived in the United States illegally before age 15, and who have lived in the U.S. at least five years, eligibility for conditional legal status, provided they attend two years of college or serve two years in the military.

The Dream Act is controversial because opponents say it rewards illegal behavior. Opponents also argue that attaching the bill to the defense department is a ploy to pull young adults into combat situations for which they wouldn't otherwise have volunteered. Supporters say it provides educational opportunities for children who did not choose to enter the U.S. illegally.

What do you think?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments (Please email us to flag inappropriate comments). Read Guidelines>>

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reversed his public opposition to gay marriage Wednesday after revealing his adult daughter is gay. Sanders said San Diego will join the legal fight to overturn California's prohibition of same-sex marriages.

Sanders said, "I have decided to lead with my heart, which is probably obvious at the moment, to do what I think is right -- and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution."

[Read Statement by Councilmember Toni Atkins on Mayor's Signing of Marriage Equality Measure]

What is your reaction?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments (Please email us to flag inappropriate comments). Read Guidelines>>

Last week, President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, sparing him from serving a 2 1/2-year prison sentence in the CIA leak case. President Bush left intact the two-year probation and $250,000 fine -- which Libby promptly paid with a cashier's check.

U.S. Democrats have expressed outrage at the move saying the White House circumvented the rule of law to protect one of its own. But the president said Libby's "exceptional public service" and prior lack of a criminal record led him to conclude that the sentence handed down by a judge last month was "excessive." The House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearing on the commutation later this week.

What do you think? Was President Bush right to commute Libby's sentence, or was this a misuse of executive power?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>

Please email us to flag inappropriate comments>>

Family members are desperately searching for 29-year-old Pedro Guzman, who they say is a mentally-disabled U.S. citizen, wrongfully deported to Tijuana more than a month ago. Fearing the worst, Guzman's mother and brother have diligently searched Tijuana shelters, jails, hospitals and morgues, but to no avail. They've received very little help from the U.S. government - only a few phone calls from the U.S. consulate in Tijuana -- and last week a federal judge declined to order the U.S. government to help in the search.

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit stating that Guzman was serving a 120-day sentence in a Los Angeles jail on a misdemeanor trespassing violation when he was questioned about his immigration status. According to the Associated Press, the suit claims Guzman responded that he was born in California, but the L.A. Sheriff's Department identified him as a non-citizen, obtained his signature for voluntary removal from the U.S. and turned him over to Homeland Security for deportation.

The ACLU claims they have possession of Guzman's birth certificate showing he was born at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. Mark Rosenbaum of the ACLU of Southern California said, "Local jail officials and federal immigration officers deported the un-deportable, a United States citizen, based on appearance, prejudice, and reckless failure to apply fair legal procedures."

The story sheds light on the challenges facing law enforcement and immigration authorities in avoiding racial profiling and sensitively handling cases involving mentally challenged people; and balancing tougher immigration laws with individual civil liberties.

What do you think?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>

Please email us to flag inappropriate comments>>

The infamous Dr. Kevorkian, also known as "Dr. Death," was released from jail last week after serving eight years. Ironically, his parole comes just one week before the California Assembly is set to vote on the California Compassionate Choices Act - a measure to allow terminally-ill patients to die, with the assistance from a physician-prescribed medication.

Although Kevorkian's assisted-suicide actions prompted heated debates across the nation, not much transpired legally, during his time in prison. To date, Oregon remains the only state with a law in which terminally-ill patients can ask a doctor to prescribe a lethal amount of medication under certain circumstances.

A recent poll shows 68 percent of Americans say there are circumstances where a patient should be allowed to die, while 30 percent say in all circumstances, doctors and nurses should do all they can to save the life of the patient.

What do you think? Is it unethical for a doctor to actively help a terminally-ill patient end their life? Should physician-assisted suicide be legal?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>

Please email us to flag inappropriate comments>>

The Marine Corps has changed its policy on drinking to allow Marines as young as 18 to drink alcohol on base at Camp Pendleton, as well as other Marine bases around the country, during special occasions, including welcome-home parties after combat deployments. The current legal drinking age is 21.

In another change, Marines 18 years and older can drink overseas, with their commander's approval, depending on the host nation's drinking laws. Marine officials quietly revised the alcohol policy effective April 19.

The North County Times reports the decision is drawing cheers from some Marines who say that "if you're old enough to die for your country, you should be able to drink." Others are upset over the new rule, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who say the Marine Corps has made a big mistake.

What do you think? Should underage Marines be allowed to drink alcohol?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>

Please email us to flag inappropriate comments>>

A controversial exhibition of preserved human cadavers has arrived in San Diego. "Bodies: The Exhibition" features real corpses -- some of them skinned, some of them sliced into halves and thirds, but all of them theatrically lit and dramatically posed, with their insides showing for the outside world to see.

Exhibit organizers claim all of the cadavers were unclaimed or unidentified corpses obtained from China, through the Dalian Medical University Plastination Laboratories. Human rights advocates argue the organization had been previously implicated in the use of executed prisoners for commercial purposes, and suspect the bodies are likely those of Chinese prisoners, being unlawfully used without consent.

Nevertheless, the touring exhibition has drawn millions of American visitors - some who think it's an educational opportunity not to be missed, and others who think it's an entertaining, gruesome freak show.

What do you think? Is this exhibition education or exploitation? Will you go to see the exhibit?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>

Please email us to flag inappropriate comments>>

(Updated 3-8-07)The American obsession with super-size houses to go along with their super-size TVs, SUVs and meals, has some communities across the country banging down the doors of their local city council chambers. People are buying existing homes in older or historic neighborhoods, tearing them down and replacing them with McMansions or mega-houses, that consume entire lots, and often overshadow their neighbors. Opponents feel McMansions create an architectural eyesore that destroys the character of their neighborhoods. In addition, they argue bigger houses use more energy and resources. Homeowners say they have a right to use their property as they see fit, and believe their large homes brighten neighborhoods and add value to communities.

Solana Beach residents are currently grappling with this issue, and voted on an ordinance Tuesday to put a limit on house sizes in certain areas. The vote is too close to call -- leading by about a dozen votes -- and will be officially determined once all absentee ballots are counted. The unofficial final results show Proposition A or the Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance, passed by 67 votes

What do you think? In this issue of community preservation vs. property rights, how much power should a city have over a person's most valuable asset?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>

The Catholic Diocese of San Diego announced Tuesday (Feb. 27) it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They made the move hours before it was scheduled to go to trial in the first of more than 140 lawsuits alleging sex abuse by priests. In a letter posted on the diocese's Web site, Bishop Robert H. Brom said the diocese made its decision because any damage awards in the earlier trials "could deplete diocesan and insurance resources" and leave nothing for other victims. Plaintiffs' attorneys expressed outrage at the filing and accused the church of using bankruptcy as a way to keep potentially embarrassing information under wraps.

Bishop Brom says, "Our participation in this process will demonstrate that this is not a 'cop out,' but a sincere effort to face up to our responsibility." What do you think?

Please refrain from profane, derogatory or off-topic comments. Read Guidelines>>