Comments on: Goin' to the chapel and we're / Gonna get ma-ha-harried!

Goin' to the chapel and we're / Gonna get ma-ha-harried!

Faint of Butt — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:41:00 -0800

NewsFilter: The California Supreme Court has just overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriages. Read the decision.

By: scody

scody — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:44:27 -0800

WOO! I'd like to think that Mildred Loving is somewhere smiling.

By: Addiction

Addiction — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:45:34 -0800

By: Saucy Intruder

Saucy Intruder — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:47:13 -0800

nah, keep this one, since it links to the decision. From the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, welcome to the club, Cali.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:48:03 -0800

Ack. Was just creating this post. Anyway, it's unfortunately a situation where the pendulum is tilting one way resulting in a tilt toward the other way. Opponents of marriage rights have now submitted signatures for a ballot initiative that would create an amendment to the state constitution declaring same-sex marriages invalid. It needs only a simple majority to pass, and similar measures have passed by wide margins.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:51:06 -0800

Favorite graf from the ruling, BTW:

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

By: fiercecupcake

fiercecupcake — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:52:02 -0800

Wowie. I was just coming to post this. Looks like everyone's beat me to it. Thank you, CA.

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:52:24 -0800

The other thread has a Mariachi band and free Daquiris.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:53:35 -0800

This'n is better. Keepin' it.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:53:37 -0800

Those darn activist judges!

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:53:59 -0800

Sorry, meant to add- I find that passage significant because it's so important to the general concept of gay rights, not just vis-a-vis marriage. Despite what some people, even those on left, say, gay rights IS like women's rights, and it IS like minority rights, because the same concept is in play here- the idea that gay are legally inferior to other people. I think it's likely that, sadly, the amendment overruling this will pass, but I think that's an amazing precedent for the California Supreme Court to establish, and to flat-out declare that "an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

By: dirtynumbangelboy

dirtynumbangelboy — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:54:08 -0800

(repost from other) Way to go California. Of course, this just means that some yahoos are going to try for a constitutional amendment, but it's still good news for now. ATTENTION RIGHT-WING DICKHEADS 1) The world will progress whether you like it or not; 2) Come out of the closet, it's nicer out here.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:54:41 -0800

They just said that a law banning same-sex marriage while allowing opposite-sex marriage is unconstitutional. One rational conclusion from this is that this legalizes same-sex marriage, since it seems unlikely opposite-sex marriage would ever be made illegal, for the purpose of preventing same-sex marriage.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:54:41 -0800

"The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall. As the decision came down, out-of-breath staff members ran into the mayor's office where Gavin Newsom read the decision. Outside the city clerk's office, three opposite-sex couples were waiting at 10 a.m. for marriage certificates. City officials had prepared for a possible rush on certificates by same-sex couples, but hadn't yet changed the forms that ask couples to fill out the name of the 'bride' and 'groom.' Kenton Owayang, the office supervisor for the city clerk's office, said he's waiting for word from the state registrar's office about marriage forms and working on getting extra staff members in today in case the city is able to give out the certificates to same-sex couples." ^*

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:55:18 -0800

Anyway, it's unfortunately a situation where the pendulum is tilting one way resulting in a tilt toward the other way. Pendulums swing. They don't tilt. You must be thinking of windmills.

By: everichon

everichon — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:55:51 -0800

Oho! I knew I felt my marriage corroding. Thought it was my lackadaisical attitude toward prompt kitty stink-bomb removal.

By: mdonley

mdonley — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:56:15 -0800

The only thing keeping me from my ten-avocados-for-a-dollar-roadside-stand birthright has been removed!

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:57:08 -0800

(repost too...) Ahhhnold said he would not support an amendment to overturn it, FWIW. Not sure if it'll keep the hate-mongers at bay, however...

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:57:32 -0800

4-3 -- another razor thin margin. Two dissent on the grounds that there is no right to marriage for same sex couples, period, by historic precedent -- never mind that this might be wrong, it's the way it was, thus, it's the way it should be. The last dissent is based on the Prop. 22 vote eight years ago, and states that while he supports, they shouldn't override the will of the voters without compelling constitutional reasons, which he doesn't see. I would disagree, but he's right that the will of the voters should be given deference. The endgame will happen in November. There will be a constitutional amendment on that ballot to explicitly define marriage as being between one man and one woman. If you believe in this, and you live in California, you must make this amendment fail. Even better -- get one on the ballot that explicitly denies that definition.

By: harperpitt

harperpitt — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:58:40 -0800

Awesome, awesome, awesome! (Is it bad that one of the reasons - albeit a small one - that I'm happy about this is that I can now be married legally in a state/province with a decent climate? I'm sorry, Massachusetts and all of Canada...I just don't want a Vitamin D deficiency!)

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:58:52 -0800

By: interrobang

interrobang — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:59:09 -0800

Hooray! This is the major American Civil Rights issue of our time. Unfortunately, the timing of this means that the Republican pigs are going to trot out their standard "OMG the GAYS are trynna get abortions!" horseshit just in time for this year's election. Still, whoopee!

By: spiderskull

spiderskull — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:59:40 -0800

So how long will this last? The gay marriage debate pisses me off because it's just another arm of conservative manipulation to polarize voters. This shouldn't even be a debate -- the premise of it is completely insane. We may as well have a "debate" about whether interracial marriages should be allowed.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:59:41 -0800

Congratulations! Welcome to the club, CA.

By: mumkin

mumkin — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:00:17 -0800

GoodNewsFilter I think you mean. Though honestly, how long will it realistically be before marriage becomes an equal-opportunity institution nationwide? I'm optimistic, but all those damned state-level bans do depress.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:01:58 -0800

Didn't the CA legislature pass a same-sex marrage law, which was vetoed by Schwarzenegger, who said at the time it should be left up to the courts? Yep. Twice. But just last month... Schwarzenegger shifts gay marriage stand

"California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says that if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he's prepared to fight it. California's governor spoke Friday in San Diego at the convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group. He has previously vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage. A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman did not say what prompted the governor to shift his position. Schwarzenegger said he was confident a ban would never pass in California and called the effort 'a waste of time.'"

By: detune

detune — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:04:32 -0800

Still reading the opinion, but wow - this is a Big Deal: ". . . we conclude that sexual orientation should be viewed as a suspect classification for purposes of the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and that statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny under this constitutional provision." (p. 96)

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:05:27 -0800

Veddy interestink, ericb--- Why the Change of Heart? My only guess--angling for a VP slot on McCain's ticket-- seems like a longshot.) Did he see the light? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

By: OXYMORON

OXYMORON — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:05:41 -0800

Republicans, talk show hosts and 'news' outlets everywhere celebrate as Cali gives them a double edged wedge issue of gays and activist judges to go into the November presidential elections with. The decision is worth at least a Billion in fundraising. WV which embraced Hillary will now pronounce her unclean to hold office. Here we go again. How do these decisions find such good timing for the Presidential Elections?

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:06:37 -0800

"Schwarzenegger’s [new] stand [on gay marriage] has precedent. In 1978, former Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan came out against a ballot initiative that would have made it illegal for gay men and lesbians to work as teachers in California public schools, an act that 'made gay rights issues nonpartisan,' Geoffrey Kors [director of the gay rights group Equality California] said." ^*

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:08:22 -0800

How do these decisions find such good timing for the Presidential Elections? I'm also waiting for Bush to return from the mid-East and start issuing Terror Alerts. Remember them?

By: rtha

rtha — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:08:25 -0800

Didn't the CA legislature pass a same-sex marrage law, which was vetoed by Schwarzenegger, who said at the time it should be left up to the courts? At the time, I found that pretty odd, since most republicans were out there bashing "activist" judges. I'm pretty sure the CA Republican party does not count Ahnuld as a "real" Republican. The most infuriating thing about his vetos is he said "It should be left to the courts" and "It should be left to the people" but if there was a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, he would oppose it. There is such an initiative in the works, and he's said he would oppose it. Well, Ahnuld, the courts have decided, and the people, via their elected representatives, also decided, but thanks to your vetos, our up-to-its-ass-in-debt state will get to spend even MORE money because of this idiotic initiative, which never should have been birthed in the first place. Signed, A formerly gay-married-and-then-annulled California resident (who is legally married in Canada, at least - so, thanks, Canada!)

By: msali

msali — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:08:39 -0800

Finally! Some good news. It brings a tear to my eye.

By: MikeHoegeman

MikeHoegeman — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:10:33 -0800

getting rid of the all marriage specific features in legislation is really the best way to go. nancy polikoff describes this better than i can here. i watched her talk on book tv (on cspan) a while back, and found she expressed the issues well and presented very good solutions along with existing examples that can be found in various pieces of legislation today. http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9122&SectionName=Politics&PlayMedia=Yes

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:12:01 -0800

The most infuriating thing about his vetos is he said "It should be left to the courts" and "It should be left to the people" but if there was a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, he would oppose it. There is such an initiative in the works, and he's said he would oppose it. Well, Ahnuld, the courts have decided, and the people, via their elected representatives, also decided, but thanks to your vetos, our up-to-its-ass-in-debt state will get to spend even MORE money because of this idiotic initiative, which never should have been birthed in the first place. There certainly would have been an initiative if Schwarzenegger had signed the bill, no?

By: dersins

dersins — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:13:32 -0800

My only guess--angling for a VP slot on McCain's ticket-- seems like a longshot.) Especially since he's constitutionally ineligible to hold the office.

By: quin

quin — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:14:08 -0800

Unfortunately, the timing of this means that the Republican pigs are going to trot out their standard "OMG the GAYS are trynna get abortions!" horseshit just in time for this year's election. In a way, I hope they do. I hope the right-wing fear machine spins this one up again and starts shrieking about Teh Gays! Because in my fevered dreams, I sometimes like to imagine that the country is sick of this kind shit and got over it the last time it was used to distract us from the real problems in our nation. And then I like to think that the country, seeing this same kind of pointless fear mongering coming from the same people who did it last time, finally realize that they are nothing but a broken record and don't care one iota about "maintaining the sanctity of marriage" or whatever, and are actually nothing but hypocrites with several divorces each. And in this fantastic world my of my imagination, I like to think that the cooler and saner heads would just say "fuck it" and legalize gay marriage just to put the stupid argument to rest. Unfortunately, I then wake up and realize that they ran this up the flagpole once, and half of the country saluted like idiots, and it managed to completely distract the news outlets from reporting on anything substantive, and if they tried it again, it would probably work again. Then, when the anger subsides, I pray that this stupid issue doesn't actually become a part of this presidential race, because it won't do anything good.

By: munchingzombie

munchingzombie — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:15:44 -0800

Fred Phelps vows to picket ever funeral of every Californian! This news makes me so happy! I really didn't want to have to move to Massachusetts again.

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:16:19 -0800

I am silly and forgot he wasn't born on our soil, dersins.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:19:04 -0800

Woohoo! I'm proud to be a Californian today. No offense to Massachusetts, but as California goes, so goes the U.S. It's only a matter of time.

By: scody

scody — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:19:55 -0800

California: We Love Teh Gays! Seriously, I can't wait to see the weddings begin. I'm already getting choked up, I swear.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:22:04 -0800

Hey, Masssachusetts is where many things start first! "The Shot Heard Around the World" and all that. We're happy to have others help spread the commonweal.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:22:49 -0800

Hey, Homos! Get a room!* *A honeymoon suite. W00t!

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:25:24 -0800

Yay, my husband's middle-aged British-emigres-to-Los-Angeles been-together-over-25-years gay cousins can finally get married now! Oh God, what'll I wear?

By: Banky_Edwards

Banky_Edwards — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:33:56 -0800

Massachusetts: You Heard It Here First. Congratulations to California for catching up with the times. Now, about you, Rest Of The Country. Can you come to my office in about 10 minutes? We need to have a talk.

By: detune

detune — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:35:26 -0800

Following up on my post above - I think that no matter how the constitutional amendment issue shakes out at the polls, this is still a tremendously significant opinion for California because of the decision to treat sexual orientation as a suspect class under the CA equal protection clause. The only other state that adopts this is Oregon, and that was an intermediate appeal court, not the Oregon Supreme Court. Typically, to be treated as a suspect classification under CA precedent, the defining characteristic (e.g. sexual orientation, gender, etc.) must be (1) immutable, (2) bear no relation to the person's ability to contribute to society, and (3) be associated with a stigma of inferiority manifested by the group's history of legal and social disabilities. The appellate court decided that because sexual orientation was not immutable, it could not be a suspect classification. Remarkably, although the CA Supreme Court does not seem to disagree with that conclusion, they said that "because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment." It concluded that sexual orientation is therefore a suspect class. Here is why this is a big, big deal: it means that CA laws regulating on the basis of sexual orientation will be subject to strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny. To satisfy intermediate scrutiny, a regulation is valid if it involves an important government interest that is furthered by substantially related means - not a very demanding test. To satisfy strict scrutiny, however, the burden is on the state to demonstrate that (1) the regulation is justified by a compelling government interest; (2) the regulation is narrowly tailored (i.e. , not under- or over-inclusive); and (3) the regulation is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest. This is a pretty high bar to pass. (It is possible that CA applies a slightly different formulation of the above, since it's interpreting its own equal protection clause, but I would be surprised if it's significantly less rigorous.) So yeah. This will affect how future laws affecting persons on the basis of sexual orientation will be reviewed by California courts. Big deal.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:36:25 -0800

This thing? Again? Doesn't the government have better things to do than decide how close people's bits can get.

By: fusinski

fusinski — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:36:44 -0800

Awesome. I love when ignorance and bigotry get their faces stomped. Go California!

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:37:23 -0800

I'd be all fo gay marriage, if it weren't for the gowns: trrrrrashyyyyyy!!!

By: darth_tedious

darth_tedious — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:38:36 -0800

Granted, we don't know what the next step in the backlash will be-- amendment? Supreme Court intervention?-- but... Wow. Good to see I was completely wrong about the possibility of this.

By: malocchio

malocchio — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:40:26 -0800

*considers dusting off Universal Ministries ordination certificate and declaring self open for business*

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:41:04 -0800

Interesting data on the list of "defense of marriage" state constitutional amendments broken out by type. 27 states.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:41:09 -0800

This seems a good a place as any for: Spouses for Life, a series of wedding photos from 2004, taken by MetaFilter's own DaShiv. (get a hanky)

By: revmitcz

revmitcz — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:42:39 -0800

I found out about this through Equality California, where they posted a particularly interesting quote today from Schwarzenegger that said :

"I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Naturally, them's just words - but it's nice to hear/read such a thing from a Republican on this.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:44:15 -0800

Also, the history of states that have voted on such amendments.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:44:40 -0800

Great, just in time to use as a wedge in the 2008 elections. Truly, I'm happy for the gays of California, but a bit worried for the Democrats of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Gavin Newsom really did hurt us at the polls in 2004.

By: Stynxno

Stynxno — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:46:44 -0800

Republicans, talk show hosts and 'news' outlets everywhere celebrate as Cali gives them a double edged wedge issue of gays and activist judges to go into the November presidential elections with. 6 republicans sit on the California State Supreme Court and only 1 democrat.

By: msalt

msalt — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:49:16 -0800

I'm very happy with the merits of this decision but very worried about the politics of it. IMHO, the gay marriage issues single-handedly kept Bush in power is 2004. On shifting national consensus', courts have to be very careful, beause no one likes a court overruling voters' decision. (Liberals have gotten a good taste of this under the Scalia court -- kinda bitter, isn't it?) I've read some very compelling arguments that Roe vs. Wade hurt the pro-choice movement immensely -- that the trend was heading pro-choice very steadily (if slowly), but the court fiat mobilized conservatives and entrenched the 1973 status quo. Clearly, there hasn't been much progress on choice since then.

By: jenkinsEar

jenkinsEar — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:51:47 -0800

Separate but equal is inherently unequal

By: pointystick

pointystick — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:52:05 -0800

Oh, this is awesome news. "permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage" Thank you, CA justices for stating that as well.

By: Craig

Craig — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:52:53 -0800

Thank you California. It means a lot. Meanwhile, fuck wedge politics - I'm sick of being a pawn in a stupid game of 'win the redneck states'.

By: krautland

krautland — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:53:09 -0800

too bad visa issues are a federal matter. (come on, what other reason is there really to get hitched?)

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 15 May 2008 11:57:28 -0800

1) I absolutely believe that gays should have the same rights as straight people. 2) That should be accomplished with marriage by either a) legalizing gay marriage or b) changing all legal aspects of "marriage" to "civil union" for everyone and completely separating church and state. None of this separate-but-unequal civil-unions-for-gays-only B.S. 3) Even if a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage passes, I believe it would violate the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. If it ever goes to the Supreme Court, I don't see how banning gay marriage could be constitutional. 4) Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

By: digaman

digaman — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:01:04 -0800

Keith and I have been married in the eyes of our families, friends, and the universe for five years -- and together for 13. Now maybe we can finally have the legal rights of other married couples, as well as the respect. To the dustbin of history with the GOP wedge-issue cynics who exploited fear and ignorance for short-term gain at the polls. Mazel tov to everyone today. Love is love is love, and a blessing.

By: tachikaze

tachikaze — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:03:46 -0800

but he's right that the will of the voters should be given deference. Given the number of under-educated, ill-acculturated, religious mindrot-infested dumbshits running around, I disagree with this statement. 20th century US civics taught us that the "voters" are often wrong, at least initially. Government doesn't give us rights, it's supposed to protect them. Nobody is being protected by banning gay marriage, so the ban should be ash-canned.

By: tachikaze

tachikaze — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:05:10 -0800

If it ever goes to the Supreme Court, I don't see how banning gay marriage could be constitutional. the 5 Catholics on the court will find a way. You can take that to the bank.

By: Quietgal

Quietgal — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:08:12 -0800

*cautiously hopeful*

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:10:19 -0800

What's next, California? People marrying animals? Dogs and cats living together? Mass hysteria! Remember, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Although Eve did have that thing with the snake, too. So maybe people and animals would be OK. Ugh, the Bible is so confusing!

By: rmd1023

rmd1023 — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:10:51 -0800

from the craven commie commonwealth of MA, congrats to CA for moving towards joining the list of civilized states. (okay, it's a short list so far) hopefully, by the time a same sex marriage case goes to the SCOTUS, it'll seem obvious that loving v. virginia clearly applies.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:10:52 -0800

too bad visa issues are a federal matter The Sanctity of Family Values (TM) must be defended at all cost!

By: froggmaiden

froggmaiden — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:12:44 -0800

Progress! I hope we get to keep it.

By: msalt

msalt — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:13:12 -0800

If it ever goes to the Supreme Court, I don't see how banning gay marriage could be constitutional. the 5 Catholics on the court will find a way. Has nothing to do with Catholicism; William Brennan was Catholic. The fact that 7 of 9 were appointed by Republicans might be a teensy bit more to the point.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:14:20 -0800

Given the number of under-educated, ill-acculturated, religious mindrot-infested dumbshits running around, I disagree with this statement. Like these West Virginian voters [video | 7:40] highlighted (starts at 1:50 mark) by Jon Stewart yesterday. I'm still shaking my head after watching that video once again.

By: Perplexity

Perplexity — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:17:02 -0800

the 5 Catholics on the court will find a way In case anybody else is curious, here's the religious breakdown of the SCOTUS Justices (per Wikipedia): 5 Catholic (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts Scalia, Thomas) 2 Jewish (Breyer, Ginsburg) 1 Episcopalian (Souter) 1 Protestant (Stevens)

By: msalt

msalt — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:19:14 -0800

20th century US civics taught us that the "voters" are often wrong So we should give all the power to the Supreme Court that decided Bush vs. Gore.? Good call! They've shown they aren't afraid to correct the voter's mistakes.

By: scody

scody — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:23:46 -0800

The fact that 7 of 9 were appointed by Republicans might be a teensy bit more to the point. Yes, but so were 6 of the 7 CA Supreme Court justices.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:27:11 -0800

So we should give all the power to the Supreme Court that decided Bush vs. Gore.? Good call! They've shown they aren't afraid to correct the voter's mistakes. If only there were some way to... oh, say, balance elected and appointed officials against each other, so that they could check each other's powers. Nah. It'll never work.

By: sotonohito

sotonohito — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:39:00 -0800

Nice. A clean victory and without the stupid restrictions that Massachusetts put into their SSM laws. Don't get me wrong, Massachusetts did a wonderful thing, but the whole "no out of state people need apply" aspect was just plain dumb. Now, thanks to California's better approach a gay couple from Texas can get married there and challenge the idiot Texas "defense of marriage" ammendment under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. Victory there is the wedge that will give us victory everywhere, or at least it would if the current Supreme Court could be counted on to actually enforce the Constitution, as it is I fully expect that Scalia et al will cheerfully declare that under their bizarro "original intent" nonsense that somehow Article IV Section 1 does mean that Texas must recognize hetrosexual marriages performed in California, but not same sex marriages. Still, its a good thing. And to the people who worry about the impact of this in November, I say don't sweat it too much. Gay marriage amendments do increase fundie turnout, but they also increase the turnout of sane folks, some studies actually suggest that the presence of a gay marriage ban on the ballot does good things for us on the progressive side.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:41:00 -0800

By: felix

felix — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:42:24 -0800

Even in such a victory, I think we can all hear the alarm horns faintly ringing in the background. We didn't listen to them before, and we paid the price. I hope we do better this time.

By: driley

driley — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:52:05 -0800

As one half of the 103rd same-gender couple to get a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I would like to extend a welcome to the tardy but finally triumphant State of California. I can't help but think that the Secret Masters of the Gay Agenda have plotted some sort of clever pincer movement attack on the nation now that Massachusetts and California have fallen to the forces of hedonistic joint income tax (state, not federal) filing. Happy days!

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:52:07 -0800

Can they file their taxes as "married, filing jointly"? Here in Massachusetts:

With Marriage, Gay Couples Face Tax Tangles. Navigating Income Taxes for Married Same-Sex Couples .

By: hojoki

hojoki — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:55:11 -0800

This is beautiful news.

By: tachikaze

tachikaze — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:55:22 -0800

So we should give all the power to the Supreme Court that decided Bush vs. Gore.? Good call! Kohl's having a sale on Strawmen this week? Public policy, whether reached at via legal argument or the ballot box, is only as good as its philosophical, factual, and dare-I-say-it logical bases. All human institutions are corruptible. That's the point, and genius, of representative democracy with an independent judiciary.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:55:33 -0800

Newsweek: A Changing Tide -- Same Sex Marriage Around the World.

By: Dormant Gorilla

Dormant Gorilla — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:57:57 -0800

Are we sure this is a good idea? Because you know the gays are going to start right in on undermining the foundations of western society, with their...multi-tiered cakes, and their monogamy. Where will it end?

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:58:50 -0800

Nancy Pelosi:

"I welcome the California Supreme Court’s historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California’s citizens and families, which today’s decision recognizes. I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court’s decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution. Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride."

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:00:07 -0800

Arnold Schwarzenegger:

"I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:02:13 -0800

Even in such a victory, I think we can all hear the alarm horns faintly ringing in the background. We didn't listen to them before, and we paid the price. I hope we do better this time. Difference being, I think, that gay marriage isn't about any kind of wild, weird creative anarchy — or at least, it doesn't have to be. It's just about human rights. If good old Hunter S. had walked into a restaurant and seen a conservative, churchgoing interracial couple sitting together, I doubt he'd have seen them as kindred spirits. That's a good thing. It means that people of all races can love each other without needing to be caught up in some weird-ass movement. You know a right is well-established when even mainstream, dull, lazy or apolitical people get to exercise it.

By: mudpuppie

mudpuppie — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:03:15 -0800

This is awful. Being prohibited from marrying the person I love has always protected me from the harping "When are you going to get married? When are you going to get married?" of my mother. Thanks a LOT, justices.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:05:50 -0800

(Hmm. Flubbed that rhetorical example, seeing as interracial marriage was still controversial in the late sixties. Oh well. Imagine it was a later version of H.S.T., or there was a time machine involved, or.... oh, fuck it. The point is, basic human rights and the Greater Brotherhood of Freaks are two different things.)

By: Freedomboy

Freedomboy — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:09:13 -0800

So can those same petitioners try and have blacks, Asians, Women declared to be sudeenly some less than full class of citizens just because they have the votes? Think not. Just signing a petition don't make it likely or even possible.

By: felix

felix — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:14:06 -0800

Basic Human Rights and the Greater Brotherhood of Freaks are not two different things in the group lizard brain of America. They're distinguishable to you and me, but from the not inappreciable distance from which the rest of the country views it, they're so close together as to be the same point, a point marked, for no good reason, "THREAT". It was Karl Rove's avowed goal to get adam-and-steve anti- proposals on the November ballots, so that all the aggrieved hyperChristians, otherwise disaffected by what had dawned on them to be political lip service to their Great Cause, would show up at the polls and, lacking anything better to do, go ahead and punch out Bush on the ballot as the lesser of two evils. They are greater in number than you or I can conceive. That's not to say that you or I are doomed, or worse that we should change our behavior or delay/quiet our sensible, life-affirming legislation, but by fuck we have to be vigilant now. It's no time for party favors, the crocodile stirs in black mud and opens its unblinking yellow eye.

By: rtha

rtha — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:19:45 -0800

Are there any heterosexually married people commenting in this thread? Because I keep hearing about how threatening and dangerous my right to get gay married is, and how it will wreck heterosexual marriage. I got gay married in San Francisco in 2004 (that one got annulled, so the threat might not be viable), and then in Canada (foreign country, also might not count in the threat index). I keep getting told that I have all this power - I can destroy the American family! - and honestly, I ain't really feeling it. So please let me know, you heterosexually married mefites, if I, or any other gay married couple, has wrecked your own marriage yet, ok? Because my power, I wish to revel in it!

By: msalt

msalt — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:25:02 -0800

Public policy, whether reached at via legal argument or the ballot box, is only as good as its philosophical, factual, and dare-I-say-it logical bases. In a democracy, public policy is only as good as its legitimacy, which ultimately comes from elections. The democratic trend is clearly to the left, and specifically in favor of equal rights for gays. Shifting the decision to the courts takes the decision away from this emerging majority, and puts it in the hand of justices hand-picked by Bush and Reagan. Why is that good? Do you really think the gay marriage movement in 2004 helped anything? That it was not part of the reason George Bush was re-elected? We ended up with 27 regressive constitutional amendments, 17 of which ban civil unions too. I hope the tide has shifted a bit since then, but I would really have preferred to see this in December.

By: scody

scody — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:28:32 -0800

I hope the tide has shifted a bit since then, but I would really have preferred to see this in December. And if it would have come then, someone else would be wringing their hands over how it would fuck up the 2010 midterm elections. Much of the social progress that's been made in this country has happened without regard to the election cycle. And rightly so.

By: Zed_Lopez

Zed_Lopez — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:29:32 -0800

It was 60 years ago that the California Supreme court overturned California's anti-miscegenation law. This was the first time a state had legalized miscegenation in eighty years. This was the start of a trend -- over a dozen more states legalized miscegenation before Loving v. Virginia took care of it at a national level in 1967. I hope this marks another trend. I hope it doesn't take 19 years.

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:30:14 -0800

I know at least one straight couple here in NJ who won't get married until gay couples can here. So in that sense, rtha, the gay marriage issue is indeed messing with heterosexual marriage. Probably not what you meant though. :-) Congrats, CA. I'm unclear - was this decided on state const. merits, or on US const. merits? My understanding was it was on state, but I thought, if that were the case, it couldn't go up higher to SCOTUS - so one of those two assumptions of mine must be wrong, since people are talking about it being appealed up.... (and hurry up, NJ. I was counting on you being number 2.)

By: Quietgal

Quietgal — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:34:08 -0800

Hi rtha, I'm heterosexually married and if anybody wrecks my marriage, it will probably be me. Or Hubby. So I'm not really feeling that Gay Power of yours (sorry to burst your bubble there), but maybe if you go back to City Hall and get re-married... ;) Anyway, I hope we get to keep this step forward. And congratulations in advance to our future gay newlyweds!

By: rtha

rtha — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:36:05 -0800

State constitution, John Kenneth Fisher. The only way SCOTUS would come into play is if someone from a non-gay-marriage state came to get married in CA and then went home and challenged their home state's refusal to recognize their CA marriage. Then you get into the full-faith-and-credit thing, which is federal.

By: rtha

rtha — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:38:22 -0800

Dang it, Quietgal! My heterosexually married friends are all either "Nah, we're good," or "Well, we ain't gonna need your help - we can fuck up our own marriage all by ourselves, thanks!"

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:39:01 -0800

Basic Human Rights and the Greater Brotherhood of Freaks are not two different things in the group lizard brain of America. They're distinguishable to you and me, but from the not inappreciable distance from which the rest of the country views it, they're so close together as to be the same point, a point marked, for no good reason, "THREAT". Ah! Right! That's the point I was mangling a minute ago. I'll grant you that gay marriage seems pretty freaky now. But that fades. There are lots of things that used to seem freaky (interracial marriage, yeah — but also women's suffrage and unions and Protestantism and literacy and fire and whatnot) that even Joe Republican takes for granted now. Apart from a few real nutcases, nobody gets angry now when they see a Union Made sticker, or a translation of the Bible into English, or whatever. Nobody thinks metallurgy is witchcraft. Nobody runs and hides when they see a car. We get used to stuff. Eventually, if we play our cards right, there is a very real chance that the ordinary Americans you're so terrified of will take gay marriage in stride as well. There will still be stodgy people, boring people, slaves to authority, and ones who fear change and live their whole life on autopilot — Zombie Hunter H Thompson will still have just as much to be irritated about in 2108 as he had in 2008. But gay rights? Nah, we can maintain that if we try hard enough.

By: mrzarquon

mrzarquon — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:42:08 -0800

rtha- If i ever get married (which is seeming more likely as I am using the "not until all my friends can get legally married will I" excuse for my bachelorhood) and subsequently divorced; I will blame you.

By: rtha

rtha — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:45:41 -0800

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:50:11 -0800

I keep getting told that I have all this power - I can destroy the American family! - and honestly, I ain't really feeling it. So please let me know, you heterosexually married mefites, if I, or any other gay married couple, has wrecked your own marriage yet, ok? Well, right after my ex-boyfriend finished congratulating us, he told my wife not to take any shit from me. So far, he's still unmarried and she's still putting up with my sorry ass, but I'll keep you posted.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:50:22 -0800

By: xod

xod — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:51:30 -0800

And a toast to Harvey Milk!

By: arcticwoman

arcticwoman — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:52:08 -0800

One of the things I love about Metafilter is how gay-friendly most of you are. Reading the comments alone makes me tear up. Really, I'm wiping away tears now. Thanks, folks. Also, as a married Canadian lesbian: welcome, California! Stay awhile. No, really, please stay.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:54:19 -0800

(Hunter H Thompson? Jesus S Christ! This is not my day!)

By: detune

detune — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:03:19 -0800

So how precisely would this affect federal law? In other words, let's say a gay couple is married in CA. Can they file their taxes as "married, filing jointly"? How about social security benefits, etc.? If gay married is recognized in these federal contexts, does this create an additional argument for recognizing gay marriage in other states, in that failure to do so disadvantages gay citizens of states that don't recognize it vs. gay citizens that do? Pastabagel - because this decision is based on an interpretation of the California constitution, it has no effect on federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, "the laws of the United States," i.e. federal laws, are the "supreme law of the land," "any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Art. VI, Sec. 2. However, it may trigger a federal issue under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Art. IV, Sec. 1, if a couple gets married in California and attempts to establish those same rights in another state.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:23:52 -0800

Thank God! It was pretty fucking depressing when Michigan rammed through their retarded No Homo amendment, so I'm just glad to be in a state that's not pathetic and imploding. Somehow, I get the feeling that there will be a few fewer "confirmed bachelors" by tomorrow morning. Oh, plus—I'm a Universal Life Church minister. If any of you LA Mefites wanna do this on the quick, get ahold of me.

By: scody

scody — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:29:59 -0800

If any of you LA Mefites wanna do this on the quick, get ahold of me. Ooh! We could do The Big Gay Wedding Meetup!

By: CitizenD

CitizenD — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:36:07 -0800

it's nice to be proud of something happening in my country. for once. yay yay yay! although i still believe that government shouldn't have anything to say/do about marriage. separation of marriage and state, i say! why should all of you, who are lucky enough to have found love, also get tax breaks? sux to be single. *sigh*

By: friendlyjuan

friendlyjuan — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:41:24 -0800

public, not really sure what you meant by your comment up there. If you were trying to make a funny, you failed miserably. If not, this celabratory thread is probably not the place for axe grinding.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:44:43 -0800

Hetrosexually married male here. I love marriage so much that I recommend it to anyone who is so inclined. The fact that marriage between some subsets of loving couples is not legal in some places is and continues to be silly. A gay couple getting married no more threatens my marriage than any other couple getting married. In fact, the impending nuptials of Scarlett Johanson have specifically helped my marriage because now she won't try to seduce me away from my wife. I specifically encourage attractive gay men to get married because my wife seems to find attractive single men "hot" but attractive married men "off limits." Ergo, gay marriage helps my marriage.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:44:57 -0800

I keep getting told that I have all this power - I can destroy the American family! - and honestly, I ain't really feeling it. Barney Frank on "Real Time With Bill Maher" | March 2005

"I try very hard to be a responsible citizen and as a gay man I try very hard to keep track of the marriages I have destroyed, and there really aren't that many. I may have some secret admirers out there and I may have wreaked more havoc than I realize, but they haven't called."

By: public

public — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:48:34 -0800

friendlyjuan: I am sorry to rain on your parade but gay rights have a long way to go until they are equal with hetrosexual people. As for the funny or axegrindingness, well I guess that's up to the reader. Personally I think it's pretty sad.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:50:39 -0800

I know at least one straight couple here in NJ who won't get married until gay couples can here. Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie Support Same-sex Marriage:

"Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able."

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:58:49 -0800

And a toast to Harvey Milk! Off-topic, but related: the first official photo of Sean Penn as Harvey Milk in Gus Van Sant's upcoming (December 2008) biopic: 'Milk' (which recently completed filming in SF). SF Chronilce on the film shoot.

By: smartyboots

smartyboots — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:03:59 -0800

I was just at SF city hall for the celebration and it was pretty great - I haven't been that inspired by a political gathering a long time. Several of the speakers specifically talked about the significance of the state Supreme Court following the rule of law in spite of the controversial nature of the decision. People kept saying "as California goes, so go the country", so I look forward to having a working constitution again one day. The old anti-miscegenation laws also came up, and while I generally think that it's not a good idea to compare being queer to being a person of color, the issues of gay marriage and interracial marriage are so similar I don't see how you can NOT make a comparison. I look forward to the day when the reaction to gay marriage being illegal is the same as the reaction to interracial marriage being illegal, which is generally "Why would you make a law about THAT?"

By: friendlyjuan

friendlyjuan — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:08:06 -0800

Huh, apparently I read your comment the wrong way then. Apologies. Although, the way your comment is worded leaves your meaning open to various interpretations. I took it to mean that you were blaming the spread of AIDS on gay folks only, and that the epidemic would be worse were they allowed to give blood. Sublety is not of the Internets' strong points.

By: inconsequentialist

inconsequentialist — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:13:50 -0800

Awesome!

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:14:11 -0800

So please let me know, you heterosexually married mefites, if I, or any other gay married couple, has wrecked your own marriage yet, ok? Well, we know that Cindy Lou Hensley McCain wrecked John's marriage to then-wife Carol. Don't know how many gays were involved in arranging the extra-marital affair. Maybe it was Cindy's drug addiction and subsequent prescription drug theft. I keed. I keed the McCains.

By: Parasite Unseen

Parasite Unseen — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:14:35 -0800

The gays are coming to desecrate the sanctity of your marriage and make ass-slave converts of your children! It is vitally important that this election cycle you choose the candidate with the stones to stop them. The black guy? The woman? Come on! You know who you can trust! Ancient Conservative White Male for President '08!

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:19:40 -0800

So we should give all the power to the Supreme Court that decided Bush vs. Gore.? As a point of fact, this is not the same Supreme Court that decided Bush v. Gore.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:37:54 -0800

The risk of having America run by Negro President and seeing the Godless homosexualists free to get married? Way to energize the GOP's base, recession or not. McCain ftw?

By: digaman

digaman — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:41:05 -0800

"So-called 'same-sex marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies. "If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit." -- The Concerned Women of America

By: HotPatatta

HotPatatta — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:45:07 -0800

Please, fellow gays, lets have none of these.

By: zengargoyle

zengargoyle — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:49:52 -0800

I should start cleaning house and inviting old friends to CA. And I really wish some of them were still alive to see this, I would have loved to see them married. Go California!

By: msalt

msalt — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:54:27 -0800

As a point of fact, this is not the same Supreme Court that decided Bush v. Gore. True enough, it's MORE conservative (Alito for O'Connor). Doesn't that make it even worse to give them the decision?

By: ersatz

ersatz — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:01:16 -0800

Good job, CA!

By: jabberjaw

jabberjaw — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:52:24 -0800

Great. Now there will be *that many more* people to compete with for a wedding venue next fall. My engagement timing is impeccable.

By: LastOfHisKind

LastOfHisKind — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:55:28 -0800

Once marriage equality is constitutionally banned, it's only a matter of time before they start getting busy on banning divorce. Gays are merely the first, easy target.

By: ao4047

ao4047 — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:15:55 -0800

Metafilter: Making ass-slave converts of your children

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:57:08 -0800

I remember when Vernon Jordan said that gay marriage would turn America into "nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals." (And he said it like it was a bad thing.) Unfortunately, he seems to have deleted the ad from his web site. Fortunately, I kept a copy of this important hysterical document. Making ass-slave converts of your children See I was going to refer to Lawrence v. Texas as Texas v. Buttfucking, but thought it might be crass. Now that the ass-slave bar has been set maybe it's OK.

By: kamikazegopher

kamikazegopher — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:58:31 -0800

I would comment more, but I am busy PLANNING MY WEDDING!!!!!!

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:11:33 -0800

Hetero and married. Rock on.

By: mumkin

mumkin — Thu, 15 May 2008 18:11:58 -0800

kirkaracha: I think you meant to say Vernon Robinson, yes? Vernon Jordan, to my knowledge, does not have a website, nor do I believe that he's taken a stand on homosexual alien fiestas.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:24:11 -0800

This is all so very weird. Being a married, straight guy, why should I care that someone gay wants to get married? How is that even a threat to my marriage? Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansson wanting to dip me in chocolate and have a snack attack, that's a threat. Bill and Todd wanting shack up next door? Whatever, as long as they don't thrown their leaves in my yard.

By: wildcrdj

wildcrdj — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:39:33 -0800

The gays are coming to desecrate the sanctity of your marriage and make ass-slave converts of your children! It is vitally important that this election cycle you choose the candidate with the stones to stop them. The black guy? The woman? Come on! You know who you can trust! Ancient Conservative White Male for President '08! Too bad none of the candidates have the stones to support gay marriage. Obama and Clinton continuing the fine wishy-washy national Democratic position on the issue (civil unions but no marriage). (I'm sure Obama would be more gay-friendly than McCain, yeah, but for all his supposed awesomeness, he's still pretty meek on a lot of issues. Disheartening that two members of groups that also have and continue to face discrimination can't stand up for others)

By: wildcrdj

wildcrdj — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:43:03 -0800

Oh, and again I'm pleasantly surprised by Schwarzenegger. When he first got elected I could hardly believe my state made such a ridiculous choice, but while he's far from perfect he does manage to be more independent (of his party) than most politicians. Now, if he actually helped campaign against the amendment (instead of just saying he doesn't support it), I'll be really impressed. (I'm another of those heterosexual married people who fail to see the "threat")

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:58:01 -0800

Now, if he actually helped campaign against the amendment (instead of just saying he doesn't support it), I'll be really impressed. I was thinking about it tonight, and I think he's making the right decision. Nothing would rally the anti-gay troops more than if he came out and said, HEY EVERYBODY, I'M GOING TO MAKE GAY MARRAIGE LEGAL IN CALIFORNIA.

By: aqhong

aqhong — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:37:21 -0800

Too bad none of the candidates have the stones to support gay marriage. Obama and Clinton continuing the fine wishy-washy national Democratic position on the issue (civil unions but no marriage). It's disappointing, yes, but understandable given the political atmosphere at the moment. As TPS pointed out, nothing would galvanize the fundies more effectively. Obama seems to have admitted as much at a private LGBT fundraiser:

According to several sources, including Johnson and Lenore, Obama said he did not think it was “politically feasible” to secure marriage rights for same-sex couples in the country at this point. Sen. Obama acknowledged that the community wanted full marriage rights but said that he favored civil unions for now while leaving open the possibility that his position might evolve in the future.

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:09:37 -0800

I would agree, as a same-sex-partnered Californian who has a vested interest in the matter, with commenters above that any presidential candidate who now comes out in favor of the California Supreme Court decision is not only wishing upon himself or herself a repeat of Ohio in 2004, but is handing the anti-gay ballot measure forces the best weapon possible for their fundraising arsenal. As thrilled as I am that this has happened, and as historic as it is, the decision also virtually guarantees that the California anti-gay-marriage ballot measure -- which was given very little chance of passing before this morning -- will now at least squeak by. And the anti-gay-marriage ballot measure in California would not only ban marriage -- it would also ban the domestic partnerships that are already on the books here. For a preview of what's to come in California, look no further than Ohio post-2004.

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:29:20 -0800

I find weddings and marriage tiresome and pointless, but Yay Woo for those who don't.

By: gofargogo

gofargogo — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:06:33 -0800

Is it just me, or is it weird how many people are scared of how 'conservative america' will respond? It seems to me we should be rallying more than ever, making this a debate topic and doing everything we can to push this into the spotlight, because that's how you start to win. Set the agenda, set the talking points, don't be apologetic or passive aggressive. Just be aggressive. Make them defend the ludicrous position that just because you want to marry the same sex that you should be denied the same rights as everyone else in this country. And I think there are a lot of 'conservatives' who would agree that the current discrimination is bullshit. It's about helping make the country a better place, a fairer place, one where justice can actually be realized by anyone. It has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage and we shouldn't let them frame the conversation that way. But we need to stop acting so scared and actually fight to make this a better country.

By: geekyguy

geekyguy — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:18:34 -0800

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

By: scottreynen

scottreynen — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:50:19 -0800

Too bad none of the candidates have the stones to support gay marriage. Obama and Clinton continuing the fine wishy-washy national Democratic position on the issue (civil unions but no marriage). It's disappointing, yes, but understandable given the political atmosphere at the moment. As TPS pointed out, nothing would galvanize the fundies more effectively. Obama seems to have admitted as much at a private LGBT fundraiser I remember hearing him say that and thinking how great it was that he gave such an honest answer. But I still think he's wrong. The country is ready to move on this issue if someone would just demonstrate some leadership by pushing in the right direction. Equal rights should be a winning political issue; the fact that it's not is a problem with the candidates, not equality. It seems pragmatic to point out the likely negatives coming from this decision, but I think true pragmatism recognizes that the real cause of those negatives is bad politicians, not good judges. On preview, what gofargogo said.

By: msalt

msalt — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:57:00 -0800

It seems to me we should be rallying more than ever, making this a debate topic and doing everything we can to push this into the spotlight, because that's how you start to win. That's exactly what happened in 2004. Don't you remember? As a result, Bush won re-election and 27 states banned gay marriage in their constitutions; 17 went further to ban civil unions, so we lost ground there, too. That looks a lot more like losing than starting to win, IMHO.

By: mrzarquon

mrzarquon — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:19:05 -0800

The problem with pushing this into the spotlight and condemning it as wrong, bad horrible things to be homosexual is to scare already scared people into action. So much of their identity can be built around who they are not: they aren't gay, they aren't a democratic, they aren't a terrorist. To try to forcefully assert and threaten them is only going to cause them to dig in deeper and fight back harder. Unfortunately, we also have the fragmentation on the left. Some people just want marriage, some people don't want marriage as an institution to have any privilege at all, some people want polyamorous relationships recognized (well some of those are on the right also). So while people will be pushing forward on the issue, the cause could be fragmented and its so much easier to just shout NO! in opposition of any change. Of course, I wish that the issues are really part of a larger issue of opening up the backrooms of congress, getting more people actively engaged in their political systems, and to leverage technology to make a participatory democracy a possibility. Once that happens a lot of the noise makers and propaganda machines will (hopefully) start having less impact. The fact that this can be such a divisive wedge issue is a symptom of a government that uses controversial issues, propaganda, and secrecy to distract the public from the actual process of governance. I hope we can treat the cause for once (I honestly see it as a possibility with some of the work and issues Obama has been pushing for) that would make the fight for human rights (how about all of those folks detained by DHS and denied medical treatment, or our secret FEMA camps, or the fact that a country we should actually invade for once, Burma, is something we are tiptoeing around) possible. (also, I hope with all my heart that my friends and relatives who are queer will be able to get married just as I can and not have to fear discrimination. But if we want to push a topic and agenda that will make these, and other issues clear, and possibly resolvable, keeping the discussion on a systemic problem not just a symptom could go a lot further)

By: scody

scody — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:31:48 -0800

Equal rights should be a winning political issue; the fact that it's not is a problem with the candidates, not equality. Nicely put. That looks a lot more like losing than starting to win, IMHO. What's the alternative? Waiting around for the fundies and bigots to have a change of heart first? Any clear-eyed look at American history shows that one of the constants in the struggles for equality has been the ferocious -- even murderous -- opposition that rears its head, time and time again. There was fierce opposition to suffrage African-Americans and women; there was fierce opposition to the right to unionize; there was fierce opposition to desegregation. Not coincidentally, the arguments that are being put forth here that advocate going more slowly as the winning strategy on the path to winning our rights are the same arguments that were made in the 1870s and 1920s and 1950s. Too bad. If we wait around for the perfect time, for the opposition to melt away, for the magic moment when we divine that a majority of people are on our side, we will wait forever. On the road to progress, there will be victories, and there will be setbacks. Being crippled by the fear of the latter ensures that we will never get our full measure of the former. To me, it always comes back to what Frederick Douglass said in 1857:

The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

The road to progress is never, ever a smooth one -- but either we travel it, or we stay lost in the wilderness. Today's decision was one more step down that road. We will be pushed back, hard. It is simply up to us to push back, harder and longer, till we win.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:54:08 -0800

kirkaracha: I think you meant to say Vernon Robinson, yes? Shit. I regret the error. I couldn't even copy-and-paste properly. Stupid beer.

By: gofargogo

gofargogo — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:07:43 -0800

msalt, I do remember 2004, and I have to disagree with your assessment in one key way: We didn't take the charge. We let them set the talking points (attack on marriage) and put us on the defensive. And we lost ground in many places. But those losses aren't permanent any more than prohibition or interracial marriage bans were. And super-double yes to what scody said.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:07:53 -0800

msalt, I think you are strongly oversimplifying the behavior of the Supreme Court. I am not sure how familiar you are with recent decisions, but you seemed to imply that the fact that 5 Court members are Catholic, and that 7 were appointed by Republicans, will be determinative, but history simply doesn't bear this out. Souter and Kennedy were both conservative appointees, and turned out to be liberal mainstays. Looking to the past, Earl Warren and William Brennan (the king of liberal judges) were both nominated by Eisenhower. Kennedy, a Catholic Reagan appointee, does not vote in lock-step with the actual conservative wing of the court. Indeed, he wrote the majority opinion in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas. The Lawrence majority (Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens) is still intact, so the change from O'Connor (who concurred in Lawrence) to Alito will affect nothing if Kennedy votes the same way in a future gay-marriage case. Don't be so gloomy; there's hope yet.

By: msalt

msalt — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:40:51 -0800

2004 we didn't take the charge Hmm, my recollection is no one was even talking about gay marriage until city officials in San Francisco and Portland (where I live) took the initiative and started issuing licenses. Later the Mass Supreme Court ruled in favor. The talking points were the reaction. I think you are strongly oversimplifying the behavior of the Supreme Court. Actually, I argued against the Catholic link, citing Brennan as a Catholic liberal. And yes, Byron White was surprisingly conservative for a Democratic pick and Souter liberal for a Republican pick. But Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas (all very young) are ridiculously lockstep. What's the alternative? Winning slowly but solidly at the ballot box, vs. trusting the Scalia court to rule our way. No one under 35 is bothered by gay marriage, to speak of. Time is on our side. But we can lose big in the short run pushing too fast, and the Supreme Court with more conservatives appointed by McCain would lock in that loss long after voters have come around. Look, I don't mean to repeat myself or lecture folks; I'm just an old (46) jaded guy who has supported gay marriage since the 70s and saw us lose huge ground 4 years ago. I don't want any more of that.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:49:42 -0800

msalt Actually, I argued against the Catholic link Sorry, I misread the comments above. I didn't mean to stick you with things you didn't say. You are certainly right about those 4 (I hope they get a media nickname like the Four Horseman of Roosevelt's day). But I still think things are safe with Kennedy there. And you are right that McCain winning would be a nightmare: the liberal justices are the oldest ones, and I'd bet money that at least one is going to die/retire in the next term. Hopefully, the Democrats can avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory this time... I can see your point about waiting and letting the democratic tide turn its course. But on the other hand, as MLK said, "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism." There are real people suffering, not just because of the denial of marriage rights but from all the various other ways gays are harmed by the law. Is it right to wait 10, 20, 30 years for the country to come around? And what about the die-hard holdouts?

By: Talez

Talez — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:11:55 -0800

Doesn't banning gay marriage violate the establishment clause?

By: FelliniBlank

FelliniBlank — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:43:15 -0800

Good on you, California, and please sprinkle some of your pixie dust on my increasingly shameful state.