« A Match Made In Heaven | Main | Prostitot-chic »

Gay Marriage Update

The California Litigation

What the California Supreme Court did: California's top court invalidated the state's legislative bans on gay marriages.

What it means: Gays and lesbians in the Golden State will be getting married. Traditional marriage proponents will attempt to reverse the court's decision with a state constitutional voter referendum.

Winners: The liberal media, left-wing Democrats, and all those who believe in non-democratic means of achieving policy ends.

Losers: Traditional marriage proponents. Separation of powers advocates. Anti-judicial activism advocates.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/29709.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gay Marriage Update:

» Church and State linked with ACLU: Judges Gave Us a Gift

Comments (67)

Winners: Beleivers in indvi... (Below threshold)
tkp:

Winners: Beleivers in indvidial rights who think the state should stay out of people's lives.

Losers: Bigots who probably hated the brown vs board of education decsion almost as much (damn activist judges!). and hate when the courts overule democratic processes that violate the highest law in the state(or nation) the constituition.

For people who actually believe in freedom this is a good day.

tkp,Well said. </p... (Below threshold)

tkp,

Well said.

Losers: Those who believe t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Losers: Those who believe that unconstitutional voter referendums should be upheld because the majority is always right (i.e. morons)

Btw, how do "traditional marriage proponents" lose here? Did something happen to traditional marriage?

Winners: Beleivers... (Below threshold)
jpm100:
Winners: Beleivers in indvidial rights who think the state should stay out of people's lives
Marriage is the antithesis of your principle. It is a state sanctioned relationship.

Removing the ability to apply a standard to permitting such relationships hollows out marriage as anything but an expensive pronouncement of going steady.

Winners: By making marriage a triviality, people who harbor contempt to the concept of family.

The court ruled that the st... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The court ruled that the state will give a sexual deviancy the same rights as people who are traditional. ww

In this country, the marria... (Below threshold)
Rance:

In this country, the marriage contract is two a two part deal.

Part one is instituted by the religious entity of the couples choice.

Part two is the a contractual/legal part controlled by the government. You can have either part without the other. You don't need a ceremony, all you need is for an authorized individual to sign the wedding license saying you agreed to be married.

You can also have a religious ceremony that has no legal standing. A family member of mine had a wedding in Mexico. Since they didn't get a wedding license there, the ceremony had no legal standing. They had a filled out the paperwork in the U.S. and were legally married when they had the ceremony in Mexico. The two events were separate.

The California ruling says that under the California constitution, you can't stop a two people of the sex from having the same legal/contractual arrangement as a mixed sex couple.

As far as separation of powers advocates being losers, if the Supreme Court of California can't rule on whether or not a law violates the California constitution, what do you perceive their job to be?


You missed another winner -... (Below threshold)
Roy:

You missed another winner - John McCain.

The activist judge thing will make the Rep. voters move back into his camp. He may even pick up California, if the Dem voters are still PO'd and split after the DNC.

"Btw, how do "traditiona... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Btw, how do "traditional marriage proponents" lose here? Did something happen to traditional marriage?"

Are you trying out for moronic comment of the year? Or do you actually believe that traditional marriage has traditionally been between members of the same sex?

"Bigots who probably hated the brown vs board of education decsion almost as much."

Brown v. BOE was the right thing to do, but it was a horribly wrong way to do it. It was a regressive, fascist, activist judicial dictat, and as such an aboration to justice and liberty. I'd say that that one judicial dictat was probably the most evil in the history of the US since it opened the floodgates to fascist leftist judicial activism which is probably the greatest threat to America today.

While I support gay marriage this was in fact just as bad and wrong a Brown. You see, unlike you leftists, I do not believe ends do not justify the means.

Actually California already had the best solution to this problem. The gays could form unions that were in no legal way any different from a traditonal marriage, but that wasn't enough. A compromise is never eenough for the fascist "progressives". They want it all and they want it now.

Now Californian's will have to change their consititution to protect the people from the judicial system and even then some idiot will file a law suit claiming that the consitiution is unconstitutional. Just wait.

Wille...this must reinforce... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Wille...this must reinforce your desire to have terrorists released in San Francisco. Has your spittle dried up yet?

re: Sep. of power, Rance - ... (Below threshold)

re: Sep. of power, Rance - the court didn't just say a law violated the constitution, the law has always said marriage was man+woman, this was further strengthened by the recent vote, they didn't stop at saying this law was unconstitutional, which is within their purview - they took the further step of saying the traditional definition of marriage was itself unconstitutional and must be overturned and forced the state to marry gays. That's the sep. of powers issue, not just saying 'this law is bad' but, like Mass.'s supreme court, saying 'the state must now take a positive action and redefine what a marriage is to make it include things which is has never included before'. There is no law allowing this redefinition for them to uphold, there is nothing in the constitution for them to uphold, they had to manufacture a new right/force the State to take an action unrelated to legislation, which is NOT their job. Each citizen of CA has the right to marry, no one is arguing that, no one would argue that the CA constitution does not allow that. That's not what they ruled, they ruled that not only do they have the right to marry one unrelated, unmarried person of the opposite sex, but they have the right to have a new type of relationship called something which is has never been recognized as before pretty much in the history of the world.

I still believe the best an... (Below threshold)
Mattnu:

I still believe the best answer is for the state(s) to stop regulating marriage. We don't need the states permission to get married, if indeed marriage is a religious statement/sacrament etc.

If marriage is purely a legal contract between two consenting adults, then the state should treat it as such and at best record the contract for public reference. The state records and adjudicates contracts and contractual issues all the time, no reason to treat "marriage" as anything different.

Some of the best and longest lasting "marriages" I've witnessed were between persons that were not married by the state or any kind of religion.

JFO, it is you and your ilk... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JFO, it is you and your ilk that do not think terrorists that come out of Cuba are killers? Why are you afraid of them? Maybe you and your significant other can figure that out. At least you can get married in California now. ww

Are you trying out for m... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Are you trying out for moronic comment of the year?

No, but you sure are in the running.

Or do you actually believe that traditional marriage has traditionally been between members of the same sex?

I asked what effect this decision had on traditional marriage. I did not suggest that same-sex marriage was traditional. RIF

Actually California already had the best solution to this problem.

And they went ahead and improved it. Good on them.

They want it all and they want it now.

Yes, yes we do. Here's why:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And this:

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.

---------

Now Californian's will have to change their consititution to protect the people from the judicial system and even then some idiot will file a law suit claiming that the consitiution is unconstitutional. Just wait.

Keep waiting. Won't happen.

Huh? It's you Willie who wi... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Huh? It's you Willie who wished the release of terrorists in SF. And I'll bet you fancy yourself a righteous Christian don't ya?

Mantis: "Without due proces... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Mantis: "Without due process of the law" you dumbass. The legistature passed the law through due process with the voters approving. How much due process do you want? Nevermind. I don't think you know what you want. ww

Here's the post from... (Below threshold)
JFO:


Here's the post from that righteous Christian Willie on a blog about terrorists:


I wish they would release them to San Francisco. ww

1. Posted by WildWillie | May 7, 2008 4:00 PM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)

You would then like to see women and children killed in SF or just gays Willie?

Wild Willie is an insane ni... (Below threshold)
picknitter:

Wild Willie is an insane nincompoop who deserves far less attention than what you're paying him.

As for opponents of gay marriage who think it should be put to a referendum, I agree, only so long as your rights are subject to democratic approval as well.

As for this having no effect on traditional marriage (mantis' point), it doesn't. You can still have your traditional wedding and traditional marriage and traditional family and derive whatever worth from that you so choose. Now two men or two women in the country's most populous state can also engage in it. A hundred years from now gay marriages and same-sex parents will be nearly universally accepted, and the bigots who fought it will be regarded in the same light as those who fought (violently) to keep white women from marrying black men.

Massachusetts and Californi... (Below threshold)

Massachusetts and California.

No surprises here.

"I asked what effect thi... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"I asked what effect this decision had on traditional marriage."

Judging by the fact that almost every time this issue has been left to traditional American democratic processes gay marriage has been rejected, I'd say that the majority of the citizens perceive gay marriage to be harmful to traditional marriage.

I can't argue that I agree with that or fully understand the harm (when I did actually have the chance to vote on it I voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage), but I can respect the traditional American legal processes.

Again, I believe the best solution was the compromise of civil unions which already existed in California, but it appears that compromise, the cornerstone of American liberty, is unacceptable to leftist fascists.

Yeah, not sure how this aff... (Below threshold)

Yeah, not sure how this affects "traditional marriages" at all really. These would be marriages in the "eyes of the state", granting gays the same protections and benefits afforded to heteros; they are, however, not marriages in the "eyes of God".

If I'm not mistakes the state can't force churches to recognize gay marriages. If so, that would be an entirely different matter.

In the end, I've come to see the Republican/Christian opposition to this issue on the basis that it will affect traditional marriages as argumentatively weak, intolerant and, worse, not very Christian. Do I agree with gay marriage? No. I find one dude or dudette wanting to marry another dude or dudette and calling them "husband" or "wife" to be really, really weird and, well, oogie. But whatever. This is America and all men and women are to be treated equally, and the state not recognizing the marriage isn't being equal.

Most importantly, it doesn't affect me or my relationship with God or my wife whatsoever.

(I'm sure I'll get ooddles of negative votes. Go ahead, click away, Ye Openminded Christians.)

Black guy ca. 1930: "I want... (Below threshold)
picknitter:

Black guy ca. 1930: "I want to marry my white girlfriend."

P. Bunyan's Grandfather: "Most people don't think you should be able to. I happen to think it's fine, but rights are subject to democratic approval, and you don't have that. Let's compromise: you can live together, but we can't call it a marriage, because most people in this country are ignorant and prejudiced on this issue."

If everybody's wrong, P. Bunyan, fuck everybody. Every opponent of gay marriage can still enjoy all that 'traditional' marriage has to offer (tradition dating as far back as 1900, but not much further, 'cause marriage before then was one bizarro institution!), whether or not gay people can as well.

The legistature passed t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The legistature passed the law through due process with the voters approving. How much due process do you want?

Umm, how about all of it? Which includes the review of laws by courts. Or should we just follow due process up until it reaches the conclusion that you desire, and then dispense with the rest of it?

I believe the best solut... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I believe the best solution was the compromise of civil unions which already existed in California, but it appears that compromise, the cornerstone of American liberty, is unacceptable to leftist fascists.

And the three Republican justices in the majority opinion. And the Republican governor. Leftist fascists, all.

I generally support gay mar... (Below threshold)
Jayemay:

I generally support gay marriage (or it's legal equivilant,) but I'm greatly opposed to this decision. And I think that any supporter of the cause of gay marriage who is happy with this decision is a short-sighted idiot.

This decision WILL allow same-sex couples to marry in California, for a few months. However, since people (even Califorinians,) don't like having social policy dictated them by the courts, and will now turn out in huge numbers to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

It also will furhter entrench the "rightous anger" amongst gay marriage oponents. This means that it will become that much more difficult for supporters to win over the hearts and minds of the people to their side. And if and when the majority of the population does come to support same-sex unions, it will NOW require another constitutional amendment to reverse the one that this court decision has just garanteed will be enacted.

So good job advocates for gay marriage, you've just set your cause back 20 years.

"but rights are subject ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"but rights are subject to democratic approval,"

Wrong. Right are unalienable. But we're not talking about rights, we're talking about laws. And those are subject to democratic approval, or at least they were before the fascist leftist took control of our legal system.

Well, I'm working my way th... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Well, I'm working my way through the text of the decision. It is astonishing how it makes several leaps of logic and turns precedent and logic on its head. The court seems to think that volume substitutes for reasoning.

California's Supreme Court has put another nail in the coffin of constitutional government.

Instead, we get the rule of the judiciary trumping that of democracy and constitution.

we're talking about laws... (Below threshold)
Brian:

we're talking about laws. And those are subject to democratic approval, or at least they were before the fascist leftist took control of our legal system.

Laws are subject to court review. Or at least they were before the fascist right took control of our legal system.

This decision is going to i... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

This decision is going to increase the public perception of a judiciary that invents decisions without legal foundation. There will be a serious backlash in California. I expect that a constitutional amendment will pass in California, which will end up setting back gay rights instead of advancing them.

This is the result of the counterproductive strategies being pursued.

You're a fascist! No, you'... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You're a fascist! No, you're a fascist! Everyone's a fascist! The Doughy Pantload would be proud.

Instead, we get the rule... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Instead, we get the rule of the judiciary trumping that of democracy and constitution.

Democracy and the constitution established the judiciary as a mechanism of reviewing laws. Are you trying to have your personal opinion trump the democratically approved, voter approved, elected representative approved judicial process?

This decision is going t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

This decision is going to increase the public perception of a judiciary that invents decisions without legal foundation. There will be a serious backlash in California. I expect that a constitutional amendment will pass in California, which will end up setting back gay rights instead of advancing them.

Perhaps, but it is not the job of the courts to advance gay rights, but to determine the constitutionality of the law. And they did. If the voters of California want to pass a constitutional amendment forbidding gay marriage, that will be another struggle (I imagine such an amendment would have to amend the California Constitution's Due Process Clause, Privacy Clause, and Equal Protection Clause, rather than just declare gay marriage illegal - a tall order), but I doubt they will.

Brian, the foundation of th... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Brian, the foundation of the decision is a fraud. Sexual orientation as a suspect class is a fraud, as sexual orientation has never met the foundational elements of a suspect class. The claim that not establishing same-sex marriage as a equal protection violation is equally fraudulent as a legal theory - as it confused equal protection with redefining the very meaning of the institution supposedly not being applied equally.

This is not a review of law - it is a creation of law and imposition of it without authority.

Mantis, previous initiative... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Mantis, previous initiatives banning gay marriage already passed in California - that was what the court overturned in section 308.5, a voter approved statute - a constitutional amendment will pass as well.

Republican governor of Cali... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Republican governor of California:

"I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Brian, that's irrelevant. ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Brian, that's irrelevant. The Governor does not approve voter initiatives.

The Mormon polygamous thugs... (Below threshold)

The Mormon polygamous thugs in Texas must be cheering and celebrating right now, as they plan the rape and conquest of more young teenage girls.

The Muslim polygamous thugs in Michigan must be cheering and celebrating as they plan the rape and conquest of more young teenage girls.

If traditional marriage falls to the "gay" crowd, gay men and women won't be the ones who are hurt. The gays are not hurting now -- civil unions give them protection under the law. The ones who will be hurt are young women who, without the protections of traditional marriage laws, will be subjected to polygamous marriages, rape, torture and abuse.

Thanks, gay crowd. Way to go.

I didn't say he does. But t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I didn't say he does. But the lack of support from the party leader in the state could hardly be "irrelevant" to whether a potential constitutional amendment would have sufficient support.

Well, Frazetta_girl, your r... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Well, Frazetta_girl, your rhetoric is a bit over the top. You are correct that the reasoning of court cases like this and the incoherent decision in Lawrence v. Texas undermine the legal justification for prohibitions on polygamy, incest etc.

However, the prohibition on polygamy is essentially impossible to enforce these days, given the unenforcability of adultery / fornication laws, and the lack of societal sanction for living out of wedlock.

Brian, Schwarznegger can't ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Brian, Schwarznegger can't stop a petition drive for a constitutional amendment on the subject, and California voters will not take leadership from him on the issue.

The reality is that this supreme court decision may set back progress on the subject, as a constitutional amendment would take the subject out of the hands of the Legislature more than even the previous initiatives did. California voters have shown a willingness to overturn unpopular state Supreme court decisions in the past.

I have not reviewed the tim... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

I have not reviewed the timelines for voter initiatives, but Democrats better hope that opponents cannot get a ballot initiative qualified in time for November, or they'll have seen California go back into play for the Presidential election.

SPQR, tell the polygamous M... (Below threshold)

SPQR, tell the polygamous Mormons of Texas that they can't be punished for polygamy. I don't think they would agree. Thank God for the laws of the State of Texas, because these poor abused girls are finally getting a chance at a normal life.

"No fault" divorces are definitely a cultural problem, and guess who championed those laws? The left, of course, as they champion every attack on the foundation of a civil society -- the marriage of a man and a woman.

Straight from the Communist Manifesto, now on display in California.

Frazetta_girl, you are conf... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Frazetta_girl, you are confused, no one has been charged with polygamy in Texas.

Unless I'm mistaken there a... (Below threshold)
Jayemay:

Unless I'm mistaken there already IS a proposed amendment to the CA state constitution on this November's ballot.

(In anticipation of just this type of ruling.)

The left, of course, as ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The left, of course, as they champion every attack on the foundation of a civil society -- the marriage of a man and a woman.

Red states represent:

So tell us again how "the left" is "attacking the foundation of a civil society".

Brian, more logical fallaci... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Brian, more logical fallacies, I see.

Yeah, facts are so illogica... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yeah, facts are so illogical.

Jayson, you may wish to edi... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jayson, you may wish to edit your post. You write "California's top court invalidated the state's legislative bans on gay marriages." This is not really true, as the court recognizes itself that it is overturning the initiative voted into law by California's voters.

Brian, as is so often the case, your "facts" don't prove what you claim. They are a logical fallacy.

Actually SQPR you are quite... (Below threshold)
tkp:

Actually SQPR you are quite wrong as there is nothing illogical about Brian's statement.

You see he was responding to this little tibbit:

The left, of course, as they champion every attack on the foundation of a civil society -- the marriage of a man and a woman

He responded by pointing out if the left and their philosophy are actually attacking this then why is it in places the left governs is

1) the divorce rate lower?
2) unmarried mothers having children lower?
3) and teen pregancy so much higher?

It seems like you champions of civil society are royally fucking up.

Might try staying out of peoples personel affairs. It really doesn't affect you what two consenting adults do.


actually an error there. Te... (Below threshold)
tkp:

actually an error there. Teen pregancy is much highe in red states. You get the point I'm sure.

Why is it "judicial activis... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Why is it "judicial activism" when the courts make a decision that we don't like, and just courts doing their job when they make a decision we DO like?

More specifically: How is asking the court to strike down legally passed legislation that many (including me) feel is an unconstitutional ban on marriage of same-sex partners philosophically or legally different than asking the court to strike down legally passed legislation that many (including me) feel is an unconstitutional ban on owning certain types of weapons in a given city?

Answer; there is no difference, philosophically or legally. The objection to gay marriage is based mostly on what people FEAR might happen later, not the rights of the people involved NOW. The objection to weapons is based on hoplophobia, which is essentially the same thing, a fear of weaponry and what it MIGHT be used for.

I'm asking my "side" to think before they throw these terms like "judicial activism" around. Misusing terms like this WILL bite us in the ass later.

tkp, Brian's point - and yo... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

tkp, Brian's point - and your attempt to help "explain" it do not rebut the initial statement that was made. You both need remedial logic classes.

Jimk, the difference is in whether or not there is any legal principle upon which to base the ruling. The California Supreme Court's basis is in terms of legal principles, fraudulent. The Second Amendment is an explicit constitutional provision. Equal protection does not require that a marriage be redefined in a way never defined before. If California state law said that a gay person could not be married to anyone, that would be an equal protection violation. But the law does not state that - it says that marriage is what it always is. The union of a man and a woman. The court's reasoning getting around this is disingenuous and as a result the court is not interpreting the law / constitution of California - it is making up what it wants as a result. That's judicial activism.

And this conduct is very destructive to the court's integrity and reputation.

Brian, as is so often th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, as is so often the case, your "facts" don't prove what you claim.

I didn't claim they "prove" anything. I was pointing out to Frazetta_girl that if she really cares about "the marriage of a man and a woman" as she professed, there are more urgent areas that need her attention.

That's the third time you based your comment upon a claim that I said something that I didn't say. Are you being disingenuous, or do you just have poor reading skills?

JimKHow is aski... (Below threshold)

JimK

How is asking the court to strike down legally passed legislation that many (including me) feel is an unconstitutional ban on marriage of same-sex partners philosophically or legally different than asking the court to strike down legally passed legislation that many (including me) feel is an unconstitutional ban on owning certain types of weapons in a given city?

Because, the 2nd amendment is actually IN the Constitution and there is no consititutional argument for samesex marriage.

You should read the dissenting opinion in this case.

This was a judicial coup of California...ie voters, The People, can go pound sand because the whim and political gutrumblings of four judges are what counts.

Someone remind me, the difference between these judges and mullahs is...?

Brianyour argument... (Below threshold)

Brian

your argument is specious. The institution of marriage is no dependent on the behavior of people who reject it, or people who are not even in it (teen pregnancy). It's like saying the licensing of drivers if a failure due to accident rates.

Someone remind me, the d... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Someone remind me, the difference between these judges and mullahs is...?

Well, all but one of the judges were appointed by Republicans. I don't know about the mullahs.

It's like saying the lic... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's like saying the licensing of drivers if a failure due to accident rates.

No, it's like saying that if you're so concerned about the institution of driving, focus your attention on those who have accidents instead of trying to limit the number of people who can obtain licenses. Imagine that.

As Darleen points out, the ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

As Darleen points out, the dissent is far more coherent than the majority opinion. This is another embarrassment for the judiciary.

Evidently Brian, you don't mind being dishonest about what you wrote, even when it is in the same thread. You did not state that Frazetta girl had other areas that needed attention, you presented facts that you implied refuted her point ('So tell us again how "the left" is "attacking the foundation of a civil society".'). But those facts did not rebut her point, but were non sequiturs - one of your favorite logical fallacies.

My reading comprehension is fine, Brian, it is you who can't evidently comprehend your own writing. And inventing a post hoc justification for your comment only makes you more laughable.

tkp, Brian's point - and... (Below threshold)
tko:

tkp, Brian's point - and your attempt to help "explain" it do not rebut the initial statement that was made. You both need remedial logic classes.

I hate to break this to you SPQR but the initial statement. "The left, of course, as they champion every attack on the foundation of a civil society -- the marriage of a man and a woman"

is a profoundly illogical statement in and of itself. first off, if the key to society remaining "civil" is that men and women get married (of which there is nothing to support such a silly statement) then society will be just fine with gay marriage, as gay marriage in no way prevents a man from marrying a women. Meaning that there is no "threat" as you put it because nothing a man or women wish to do is affected, prevented, or harmed. that's basic logic there.

the facts Brian pointed out, also demonstrate that if gay marriage adversly affected society, then states without civil unions should be seeing consequences that red states do not. However, the converse seems to be true.
this weakens your point that the left is supporting a threat to society, because if society is seeing no adverse affects it weakens the argument of a "threat" to society.

again basic logic. I would suggest you be a little more careful before you accuse others of being illogical.

tko, I see no need to worry... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

tko, I see no need to worry about how careful I am, when you can't even get straight who is arguing what. Certainly since Brian did not list states with civil unions and without - he made claims about "red states". You've created yet a different argument that the links he supplied do not make.

Spare me your "lessons".

PicknitterI notice... (Below threshold)
MaggieM:

Picknitter

I notice you've got a sock puppet.
Don't let me catch you using your
nics to gang up on another poster,
such as Wild Willie.

You did not state that F... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You did not state that Frazetta girl had other areas that needed attention

I didn't? Hmm, I could have sworn that I posted three other areas. I remember it like it was only hours ago....

OK, it's pretty clear that the answer to the bonus question is "you just have poor reading skills". Really, there's no point in further debating with you. You just make up both sides of the argument on your own, anyway.

Okay, okay, you got me. I ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Okay, okay, you got me. I give up.

Brian, you write something ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Brian, you write something three hours after the comment that it is supposed to be read into and I am making up things? Guess you don't worry much about that coherency thing, eh?

Oh, and by the way, if you'... (Below threshold)
picknitter:

Oh, and by the way, if you're concerned with infidelity in the gay community as many conservatives are, wouldn't allowing them to enter into an expensive contract like a marriage be a good thing?

Or do you just think people should not be gay?

Seriously, everybody needs ... (Below threshold)
Sean P:

Seriously, everybody needs to settle down.

First of all, the California Supreme Court decision is veryy poorly reasoned, but an initiative to amend the California constitution to ban same sex marriage would render it moot, and just such an initivative has already collected almost enough signatures to qualify for the ballot this November (and I suspect this ruling will push the supporters over the top very quickly).

And second, and I don't know why this isn't getting mentioned more, THE INITIATIVE WON'T PASS. Prop 22 received 61% of the vote in 2000, which is actually a pretty low number when you consider how much the winds have shifted in the gay marriage debate over the last 8 years. If it barely cleared 60% in 2000, I doubt it will get 50% in 2008.

Sean P. last poll I saw had... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Sean P. last poll I saw had 57% of Californians still opposing same sex marriage. It has a pretty good chance of passing.

I see the issue going this ... (Below threshold)
patrick:

I see the issue going this way. All summer gays and lesbians will get licenses and be married. The amendment will appear on the ballot, I think it will pass, the married gays and lesbians will sue the state of California, and the district court will hyear it. If they uphold the amendment then gay and lesbian rights will be set back, if they, strike the amendment down then it will go to SCOTUS, where who knows how they will see it.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy