Excellent News From California

As goes California

California’s top court has ruled that a state law banning marriage between same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

The state’s Supreme Court said the “right to form a family relationship” applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality.

The revolution is happening and, pretty soon, you will all be required to gay marry!

Update: 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.”

Bad Republican! (via Sullivan)

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






108 replies
  1. 1
    cleek says:

    but i’m already married! to a woman!

  2. 2
    Anonymous Jim says:

    This decision just destroyed my family! I mean yesterday it was fine but today this happens and poof my family is destroyed.

  3. 3
    Should Know Better says:

    Sweet! We should totally gonna get gay married on January 20th 2009!

  4. 4
    Billy K says:

    I heard we’re gonna get a punch card with rewards. 10th one is free!!!1

  5. 5
    rob! says:

    i’ve never been attracted to a man, but now that i know i can marry one, i might just give up the whole “chicks are hot” thing, move to Cali, and shack up with a guy.

    i will still enjoy photos of Scarlett Johannsen, though, but only a purely scientific level.

  6. 6
    Zifnab says:

    First they came for our unburnt flags, and we said nothing.
    Then they came for our fetuses, and we said nothing.
    Now they come for our heterosexuality, and we still said nothing.
    What’s next? What’s that I hear? It’s the UN Black Helicopters come to take our guns and our white womens!

    Darn you, liberal elitists! Darn you to heck!

  7. 7
    Nikki says:

    Ya know…there’s a coupla cute chicks I got my eye on. Never been with a woman before, but now’s as good a time as any!

  8. 8
    Neal says:

    I think I want to marry my cat…you know, if teh gays can marry, why can’t I marry my cat!? It’s all the same, right?

  9. 9
    AW says:

    First line in that article:

    “Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens.”

    Emphasis mine.

  10. 10
    AW says:

    Thank God for the Supreme Court. Bring on the hot woman-on-woman action, please. :)

  11. 11
    rob! says:

    would this be an ok time to reveal same-sex crushes?

    i’m not gay, but if i was, i’d go after former Simpsons head writer and show runner David Mirkin.

    the guy is all kinds of hilarious, plus he’s a vegetarian, too–we’d host some killer dinner parties.

    i am trying to make any Republican who reads this head explode.

  12. 12
    David Hunt says:

    I, for one, welcome our new gay Overlords.

  13. 13
    rob! says:

    Thank God for the Supreme Court. Bring on the hot woman-on-woman action, please

    Nikki, you reading this? you could make some serious dough.

  14. 14
    Zifnab says:

    Ya know…there’s a coupla cute chicks I got my eye on. Never been with a woman before, but now’s as good a time as any!

    *hands Nikki a digital camera and my email address*
    For posterity. It’s a brave new world.

  15. 15
    Darkrose says:

    To be serious for a moment…the thing that was really moving for me was having several straight friends say that the first people they thought of were me and my girlfriend.

    At which point I looked at her and said, “So…you wanna?”

    “Yeah, at some point,” she replied, thus proving that we’re not really lesbians; we’re a couple of guys.

  16. 16

    Having spent half my life here in Northern California, and much of that living in San Francisco, I have watched my fellow citizens denied the rights of heterosexuals. I am so happy that this ruling has finally happened. I am old enough to remember white and black water fountains in Jackson, Mississippi. I remember when people of different races could not marry.

    Every step toward justice lifts us all up.

  17. 17
    Punchy says:

    Where can a guy like me marry a hot lesbian?

  18. 18
    zzyzx says:

    A great day for the country! 2 down, 48 to go.

    Moreover since all of the swing states passed their horrid initiatives in 2004, they can’t even use this as an issue again in 2008.

  19. 19
    Michael D. says:

    Don’t forget VT and CT. It may not be marriage, but I am happy they have what they have. A stepping stone, and a big one.

    One thing people don’t realize is that, until the federal rules change, people in states with civil unions have the same rights as those in states with marriage rights. Semantics is the only difference.

  20. 20
    Dork says:

    Never been with a woman before,

    Uh huh. Sure. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

    BTW, can I now change my “hotmail” account to “hotmale“?

  21. 21
    Genine says:

    Nikki Says:

    Ya know…there’s a coupla cute chicks I got my eye on. Never been with a woman before, but now’s as good a time as any!

    I encourage experimentation, its fun! It’s great to try new things. I don’t want to marry a woman though. When I marry, it will be to a man. Albeit, an open-minded and/or kinky one.
    But, I’d make an exception for my girl-crush, though! ;-)

  22. 22
    Face says:

    One thing people don’t realize is that, until the federal rules change, people in states with civil unions have the same rights as those in states with marriage rights. Semantics is the only difference.

    Christ. Cue ThymeZone. Here comes a thread explosion.

  23. 23
    rob! says:

    i think it was Karl Rove (!) who said that politicians don’t drive policy, they see what voters are worked up about, and then take advantage of that.

    well, that’s not true in this case. before Bush and co. went on their insane gay-bashing, the whole thing never really entered in my mind.

    i mean, if i had been asked, i woulda said “sure, gays should be able to get married” but it just wasn’t an issue on my radar.

    now, of course, i am as pro-gay marriage as i can be, and the hedging of the issue is one of the (few) things that disappoints me on Obama.

    both my senior citizen parents were against it, but my discussions with them about it have gotten my Mom totally on board and my Dad much less resistant than he used to be.

    so, George and Karl, it was YOU who made me rabidly pro-gay marriage. well done, fellas!

  24. 24
    RSA says:

    You know, I think this is a bullet point on the homosexual agenda, but for the life of me I can’t recall the rest of the agenda items. What comes next?

  25. 25

    I just had an epiphany. If John McCain wins by some twist of cruel fate in 2008, I’m moving back to California and leading the secession movement. We’ll control the most profitable geographical territories on the continent and our primary source of income will come from selling Apple products to the Formerl United States of McCainistain. We’ll even keep the Governator.

  26. 26
    Davis X. Machina says:

    What comes next?

    Judy Garland on the $5 bill

  27. 27
    zzyzx says:

    “Don’t forget VT and CT. It may not be marriage, but I am happy they have what they have. A stepping stone, and a big one.”

    Washington is annoying me, but we’re doing the boiling frog approach. Last year civil unions were created with most of the rights of marriage. This year, a large chunk of the rights that didn’t exist were added. Next year, there probably will be more. Just keep moving in the right direction while people like me say, “Come ON already!”

  28. 28
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    Gays are anti-family, which is why we need special laws to keep them from forming families.

    [/mindless fucking Republican trash]
    .

  29. 29
    Davis X. Machina says:

    This decision just destroyed my family! I mean yesterday it was fine but today this happens and poof my family is destroyed.

    You’re a holdout.

    My family was destroyed in 1999, when the Senate failed to convict and remove Clinton, thereby forcing me to commit adultery and ruin my marriage.

    Bastards.

  30. 30

    but we’re doing the boiling frog approach

    I’m sorry……what?

    I don’t seem to have the pre-requisite cultural references for that assertion.

  31. 31
    Doonhamer says:

    zzyzx Says:

    A great day for the country! 2 down, 48 to go.

    Moreover since all of the swing states passed their horrid initiatives in 2004, they can’t even use this as an issue again in 2008.

    My state, Arizona, isn’t a swing state (yet), but they’re going to try again. I was so proud when AZ told the hatemongers to stick it and in 2006 became the first state to reject a marriage amendment. If this one gets on the ballot, it might pass, as the last one failed in part because it also banned any sort of union that wasn’t marriage, including those between opposite sex couples.

    The Center for Arizona Policy, one of the main backers of the new amendment, already has the CA decision up on its website, saying “we don’t want that to happen here!”

    Ugh. The fight goes on.

  32. 32
    Michael D. says:

    Face: I didn’t mean to say it was a great thing. Obviously, I am not a proponent of civil unions. I absolutely believe that marriage is the only good option.

    Having said that, I will take it in increments. If and when CT and VT realize that the sky hasn’t fallen and that civil unions have proven that marriage is ok, then I think that’s a win. Obviously, some people don’t think certain states are ready for marriage. If my alternate choice is nothing, I will take CU’s any day.

    I may not like it, or think it’s a fair option, but I will take it.

  33. 33
    zzyzx says:

    The cliche about the frog in boiling water. Heat it slowly and he won’t jump out of the pot. Washington is trying to slowly move us towards same sex marriage without ever having a year that will scare people.

    “My state, Arizona, isn’t a swing state (yet), ”

    Not this cycle at least. The one swing state where it could be a chance to be an issue is FL; the one thing that scared me about Clinton’s electability is that she NEEDED FL to win and I didn’t think it would happen.

  34. 34
    area man says:
    but we’re doing the boiling frog approach

    I’m sorry……what?

    I don’t seem to have the pre-requisite cultural references for that assertion.

    I believe he’s referencing the fact that you can put a frog in a pot of water and slowly boil it to death without it jumping out, so long as the temperature increase is gradual.

    Not that I have ever/would ever do such a monstrous thing.

  35. 35
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Oh, great. It’s hard enough to find a woman, but now I have to find a guy? Damn you, activist judges legislating from the bench by saying that challenged legislation is unconstitutional!

  36. 36
    Incertus says:

    One thing people don’t realize is that, until the federal rules change, people in states with civil unions have the same rights as those in states with marriage rights. Semantics is the only difference.

    Yeah, but semantics matter, because the words we use affect our emotional responses. That’s why we get such insane responses to issues like this one, which if we were as rational as we claim to be as humans, would be pretty much a non-issue. There’s no rational reason to argue against same-sex marriage, but some people freak out like it’s the end of the damn world because they have an irrational emotional attachment to the word “marriage.”

  37. 37

    Ahh, par-boil the frog to avoid escapage. Got it. Guess that proves I grew up in Los Angeles, huh?

  38. 38
    RSA says:

    I believe he’s referencing the fact that you can put a frog in a pot of water and slowly boil it to death without it jumping out, so long as the temperature increase is gradual.

    Not that I have ever/would ever do such a monstrous thing.

    So using firecrackers is right out?

  39. 39
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    One thing people don’t realize is that, until the federal rules change, people in states with civil unions have the same rights as those in states with marriage rights.

    You can thank Bill Clinton for that. He signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law while running for re-election in 1996.

  40. 40
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    I have to admit I admire Ahnold for this.

    The gist of his position is that if the Legislature tries to come up with a constitutional amendment, he will veto it before it can go on the ballot.

    If people put a constitutional amendment on the ballot through initiative (there’s one in the works), he’ll still oppose it.

    Of course, if the initiative makes it to the ballot, we can count on a big wingnut turnout in November.

  41. 41
    Ted says:

    i will still enjoy photos of Scarlett Johannsen, though, but only a purely scientific level.

    Kinda like the way I enjoy photos of Fammke Jannsen.

  42. 42
    David Hunt says:
    but we’re doing the boiling frog approach

    I’m sorry……what?

    I don’t seem to have the pre-requisite cultural references for that assertion.

    Fountainhead, it’s a reference to frog behavior. I don’t know if these experiments have been done in recent times. It’s just one of those things that your hear. Anyway…

    If you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out, as it doesn’t want to die. However, if you place it in a pot of room-temperature water and start slowly heating it to a boil, the frog will never realize that the water is getting deadly hot and die. It can’t detect the slow incremental change in the temperature. That’s the way I heard it, anyway. Here’s it’s a reference to slow incremental steps being the way to bring about effective policy change.

    There’s a Roe vs Wade analogy there just waiting to rear its ugly head…

  43. 43
    Ted says:

    I believe he’s referencing the fact that you can put a frog in a pot of water and slowly boil it to death without it jumping out, so long as the temperature increase is gradual.

    This has been debunked by some college students, even recently. Heard about it on NPR, but can’t remember what university tried it out in what I guess would have been a biology class experiment.

  44. 44
    Jeff says:

    Zuzu

    Arnold is really trying to hold no position. He already vetoed two bills by the legislature to legalize gay marriage arguing that it was better for the courts to decide. A very non-Republican position.

  45. 45
    The Populist says:

    Darn. Gotta go home and divorce the wife. What’s the point anymore! /snark

  46. 46
    Mylegacy says:

    Great timing.

    Just when the wing nut religious right was starting to simmer down from their usual continual boil the California Supreme Court – by a split vote – CORRECTLY interprets the Constitution.

    So – now Obama has to beat the legit right, the racists, the NRA and now the soon to newly energized wacko religious right. Looks like McBush has himself a bright shinny White House to move into next January. SHIT!

  47. 47
    Sock Puppet of the Great Satan says:

    “Moreover since all of the swing states passed their horrid initiatives in 2004, they can’t even use this as an issue again in 2008.”

    Oh, I’m sure they’ll try a “we weally, weally, hate teh gey marriage” set of sequel initiatives.

    In the meantime, hooray!

    Gay abortions and adultery for everybody!

  48. 48
    The Populist says:

    “You know, I think this is a bullet point on the homosexual agenda, but for the life of me I can’t recall the rest of the agenda items. What comes next?”

    We will all have the right to be fabulous?

  49. 49
    Brachiator says:

    As goes California…

    California’s top court has ruled that a state law banning marriage between same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

    The state’s Supreme Court said the “right to form a family relationship” applied to all Californians regardless of sexuality.

    The revolution is happening and, pretty soon, you will all be required to gay marry!

    Of course, as far as the GOP goes, this ruling is like red meat to a shark, and has upped the ante going into the general election:

    Conservative pundits: blah blah blah blah blah damned activist judges blah blah blah Supreme Court blah blah constitutional amendment.

    RSA Says:

    You know, I think this is a bullet point on the homosexual agenda, but for the life of me I can’t recall the rest of the agenda items. What comes next?

    Lattes for everyone.

  50. 50
    Tom Hilton says:

    I can already feel my marriage crumbling.

    Oh, wait–I’m already divorced.

    17 years ago.

    Never mind.

  51. 51
    zzyzx says:

    So – now Obama has to beat the legit right, the racists, the NRA and now the soon to newly energized wacko religious right. Looks like McBush has himself a bright shinny White House to move into next January. SHIT!

    Eh, if you go to Red State and read their thread not even they are that worked up about this. There was a time where this was a huge issue but that has passed.

    Oh, I’m sure they’ll try a “we weally, weally, hate teh gey marriage” set of sequel initiatives.

    Yeah, but that won’t have the same level of urgency to get people out who wouldn’t otherwise vote.

    Oh, someone on MyDD had a great idea. Clinton should come out completely in favor of marriage equality. Seriously. What does she have to lose? It’s not like she’s not an incredible long shot to get the nomination and NY wouldn’t care about this. It would make Obama be the one looking old fashioned, it would give her all sorts of credibility – it would largely destroy the idea that she only is taking safe positions to get the nomination – and, as an added bonus, Andrew Sullivan’s head would explode.

  52. 52
    jcricket says:

    Just keep moving in the right direction while people like me say, “Come ON already!”

    The ridiculous standard the WA State Supreme Court used when deciding that the gay marriage ban was unconstitutional seems to have been directly contradicted here (and thank god). Good ruling (not just the outcome, but the logic used).

    I have no doubt the right will use this as a GOTV issue, but I think this is one case we’re in luck – our GOTV operation will be bigger, better and opposing the GOP on this issue will only help our turnout.

    I know civil rights advocates often hate it, but the gay marriage issue is exactly like the interracial marriage issue. A variety of state court decisions, initiatives and changes to state laws, all with different reasoning, and different levels of support/opposition lead to a condition where interracial marriage was still illegal in 18 states when the Supreme Court ruled on Loving V. Virginia.

    That settled it in the law, the world didn’t end, but popular opinion still took a long time (another 20 years) before a super-majority really “had no issue” with interracial marriage. Gay marriage is on the same trajectory, just faster (both in terms of how the opposition and supporters are acting).

  53. 53
    Dreggas says:

    As one of the B’s in LGBT and a Californian I definitely teared up hearing about this. Of course this now means I’ll have to get a suit to start attending friends weddings.

  54. 54
    Tax Analyst says:

    Michael D Says:

    The revolution is happening and, pretty soon, you will all be required to gay marry!

    And don’t forget your mandatory Abortion.

    I hear if Obama is elected white men will have to marry black men, too. And vice-versa as well.

    The whole world is upside down now…but I guess “Sexual Positions” probably belongs in another thread.

  55. 55
    jcricket says:

    Oh, wait—I’m already divorced.

    17 years ago.

    That’s how powerful mandatory gay marriage is, though. It can reach into your past and suck the life out of an otherwise stable, functioning heterosexual union. And really, was there anything other than stable, functioning heterosexual marriages before the Ebola-like scourge of mandatory gay marriage and drag shows came along?

  56. 56
    croatoan says:

    What comes next?

    Shop-ing!

  57. 57
    jcricket says:

    Of course this now means I’ll have to get a suit to start attending friends weddings.

    I bet the wedding industry (and it’s a big one) is just salivating now. Think of all the money to be made doubling the size/audience of magazines, increased business for hotels, caterers, florists, DJs, tux & gown rental shops, rent-an-officiant religious types, etc.

    Perhaps this is a better “economic stimulus” package (heh, heh) than the tax rebates.

  58. 58
    Birdzilla says:

    These are the type of judges from the CALIFIRNIA STUPIDPEUM COURT that the demacrooks want in our own stupreum court it sounds like their from the 9th curcut court americas most overturned court

  59. 59
    RSA says:

    These are the type of judges from the CALIFIRNIA STUPIDPEUM COURT that the demacrooks want in our own stupreum court it sounds like their from the 9th curcut court americas most overturned court

    I hope this post is responsive (it’s hard to tell what I’m responding to) but for what it’s worth, from wikipedia:

    The Court currently has six Republicans (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one Democrat (Moreno), although most of the Republicans tend to be moderate.

    Damn San Francisco Republicans will be the downfall of California.

  60. 60
    Dreggas says:

    Tax Analyst Says:

    Michael D Says:

    And don’t forget your mandatory Abortion.

    I hear if Obama is elected white men will have to marry black men, too. And vice-versa as well.

    The whole world is upside down now…but I guess “Sexual Positions” probably belongs in another thread.

    No you’ll be forced to marry TWO black men….OREO COOKIE BABY!

    LOL.

  61. 61
    Blue Raven says:

    No you’ll be forced to marry TWO black men….OREO COOKIE BABY!

    Migawds, you say that like it’s a bad thing.

    Do I get to pick the black men?

    Can I swap one for a black woman?

  62. 62
    b. hussein canuckistani says:

    What comes next?

    You do!

    Well done, California. It’s the first 2 letters of the state name that make you so Canada-like. Pretty soon you’ll be able to marry same sex partners, waterfowl, vacuum cleaners and D&D characters… just like us!

  63. 63
    Dreggas says:

    Blue Raven Says:

    Migawds, you say that like it’s a bad thing.

    Do I get to pick the black men?

    Can I swap one for a black woman?

    Bad thing (in) my ass! Of course you can swap, hell I’m bi myself or as George Carlin said I’m just fuckin’ greedy.

  64. 64
    Pisco Sours says:

    Not that I expect a conservative to be aware of this at all, but the California Supreme Court is a state appeals court and the 9th Circuit is a federal appeals court. Ne’er the twain shall meet, really.

  65. 65
    Dreggas says:

    b. hussein canuckistani Says:

    What comes next?

    You do!

    Well done, California. It’s the first 2 letters of the state name that make you so Canada-like. Pretty soon you’ll be able to marry same sex partners, waterfowl, vacuum cleaners and D&D characters… just like us!

    Ummm the D&D character marriage thing would be popular with some of my friends…and that does scare me.

  66. 66
    Genine says:

    I just want to say I adore Dreggas and Blue Raven. lol

  67. 67
    OriGuy says:

    Well done, California. It’s the first 2 letters of the state name that make you so Canada-like. Pretty soon you’ll be able to marry same sex partners, waterfowl, vacuum cleaners and D&D characters… just like us!

    I’d settle for universial health care, thanks.

    You could send down a few Tim Hortons, though.

  68. 68
    Dreggas says:

    Genine Says:

    I just want to say I adore Dreggas and Blue Raven. lol

    If ya ever get out to the WBest Coast let me know. I know the majority of the good goth clubs, industrial clubs, fetish clubs and some of the best toy shops evah!

  69. 69
    Michael D. says:

    OREO COOKIE BABY!

    Someday, I hope to use that as a post title.

  70. 70
    Dreggas says:

    Michael D. Says:

    OREO COOKIE BABY!

    Someday, I hope to use that as a post title.

    I lol’d. :D

  71. 71
    Darkrose says:

    And don’t forget your mandatory Abortion.

    See, this is where it gets confusing: if I’m going to get pregnant, I have to sleep with a boy, and then I’m not so much with the gay.

  72. 72
    Dreggas says:

    Darkrose Says:

    And don’t forget your mandatory Abortion.

    See, this is where it gets confusing: if I’m going to get pregnant, I have to sleep with a boy, and then I’m not so much with the gay.

    Spit baby?

  73. 73
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Crap, there goes all those dollars that California gays were spending up here in Canada, where they’ve been able to get gay married for a few years.

    Fine, go be fabulous in your own state.

  74. 74
    srv says:

    I just had an epiphany. If John McCain wins by some twist of cruel fate in 2008, I’m moving back to California and leading the secession movement. We’ll control the most profitable geographical territories on the continent and our primary source of income will come from selling Apple products to the Formerl United States of McCainistain. We’ll even keep the Governator.

    You are so behind the times.

    Arnold can have SoCal for his own empire.

  75. 75
    Dreggas says:

    ImJohnGalt Says:

    Crap, there goes all those dollars that California gays were spending up here in Canada, where they’ve been able to get gay married for a few years.

    Fine, go be fabulous in your own state.

    Like most of us weren’t before?

  76. 76
    Dreggas says:

    srv Says:

    I just had an epiphany. If John McCain wins by some twist of cruel fate in 2008, I’m moving back to California and leading the secession movement. We’ll control the most profitable geographical territories on the continent and our primary source of income will come from selling Apple products to the Formerl United States of McCainistain. We’ll even keep the Governator.

    You are so behind the times.

    Arnold can have SoCal for his own empire.

    I don’t have much of a problem with Ahnold really, he ain’t been great but he could have been worse (and Davis was a tool). That being said, no way in hell So Cal gets cut out of the deal.

  77. 77
    ImJohnGalt says:

    Like most of us weren’t before?

    Well, perhaps. But once you’re married up here, you’re not only gay, but g’eh!

  78. 78
    Dreggas says:

    ImJohnGalt Says:

    Like most of us weren’t before?

    Well, perhaps. But once you’re married up here, you’re not only gay, but g’eh!

    we give Hosers a whole new meaning.

  79. 79
    Krista says:

    Genine Says:

    I encourage experimentation, its fun! It’s great to try new things. I don’t want to marry a woman though. When I marry, it will be to a man. Albeit, an open-minded and/or kinky one.
    But, I’d make an exception for my girl-crush, though!

    Hm. Unfortunately, polygamy isn’t legal here, or I’d be SO up for that! ;)

  80. 80
    Dreggas says:

    Krista Says:

    Genine Says:

    I encourage experimentation, its fun! It’s great to try new things. I don’t want to marry a woman though. When I marry, it will be to a man. Albeit, an open-minded and/or kinky one.
    But, I’d make an exception for my girl-crush, though!

    Hm. Unfortunately, polygamy isn’t legal here, or I’d be SO up for that!

    Who said anything about polygamy? Never heard of Polyamory? I’ve been in several triad relationships, with more than one guy or woman and we all slept in the same bed too. It takes work but is actually pretty fun if you can make it work.

  81. 81
    Darkrose says:

    Ummm the D&D character marriage thing would be popular with some of my friends…and that does scare me.

    Considering that one of my current characters is a rather shy (but incredibly Charismatic!) v. v. gay boy, and the other is more interested in playing with his shiny glowing sword than anything else, I’d have to say no.

    I do kind of want to use the Wedding Pack in City of Heroes to do a couple of hot girls in tuxes, though…and if they happen to look like me and my FWIG (Friend Wot Is a Girl), then well, it’s just more geek love.

  82. 82
    Brachiator says:

    jcricket Says:

    I know civil rights advocates often hate it, but the gay marriage issue is exactly like the interracial marriage issue. A variety of state court decisions, initiatives and changes to state laws, all with different reasoning, and different levels of support/opposition lead to a condition where interracial marriage was still illegal in 18 states when the Supreme Court ruled on Loving V. Virginia.

    The recent obituary for Mildred Loving demonstrates how some of the issues in the Loving case were very similar to issues raised in gay marriage cases, and also how the words of Martin Luther King apply to both situations (Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68):

    But miscegenation laws struck deeper than other segregation acts, and the theory behind them leads to chaos in other facets of law. This is because they make any affected marriage void from its inception. Thus, all children are illegitimate; spouses have no inheritance rights; and heirs cannot receive death benefits.

    “When any society says that I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom,” the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1958.

    And Mildred Loving herself saw no conflict between civil rights and gay rights:

    Mrs. Loving stopped giving interviews, but last year issued a statement on the 40th anniversary of the announcement of the Supreme Court ruling, urging that gay men and lesbians be allowed to marry.

    For many people, especially those who have themselves struggled with bigotry, justice is colorblind and gender blind.

    And ironically enough, a 1948 California court ruling that struck down anti-miscegenation laws in the state always provides a broad framework for reconsidering laws prohibiting gay marriage (Perez v. Sharp)

    The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an area of personal liberty not yet wholly delimited. “While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated.

    Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” … Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means.

  83. 83
    Mentis Fugit says:

    Gay abortions and adultery for everybody!

    No, only for some. Small American flags for others.

  84. 84
    Krista says:

    I’ve been in several triad relationships, with more than one guy or woman and we all slept in the same bed too. It takes work but is actually pretty fun if you can make it work.

    If you can make it work, that’s awesome. I do better with monogamy (with a dash of flirtation on the side.)

  85. 85
    Darkrose says:

    It takes work but is actually pretty fun if you can make it work.

    The real trick is finding a) a house that’s big enough for everyone to have their own space and b) a big enough bed.

  86. 86
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    It me me very happy to hear about the court’s decision today and then really angry when I heard about the proposed amendment. It made me ashamed of my state. Why didn’t the bigoted fuckwits behind the amendment just go all the way and add an anti-miscegenation clause? The really sad part is that none of the heartless, brainless, dickless, morons pushing this thing have ever been able to coherently explain just how it is that anyone’s hetero marriage is threatened by gay marriage. Mayhap if they gave up cruising men’s rooms or creating parallel families, and just treated their wives and families decently they wouldn’t have to worry about the gays.

    I’m an old guy and I’m still naive enough to keep getting disappointed by how little progress we’ve made during my six decades.

  87. 87
    Dreggas says:

    Darkrose Says:

    Considering that one of my current characters is a rather shy (but incredibly Charismatic!) v. v. gay boy, and the other is more interested in playing with his shiny glowing sword than anything else, I’d have to say no.

    I do kind of want to use the Wedding Pack in City of Heroes to do a couple of hot girls in tuxes, though…and if they happen to look like me and my FWIG (Friend Wot Is a Girl), then well, it’s just more geek love.

    ROFL. Our groups is just as amusing especially given we’re all kinky and only 2 of the players are str8. I play Guild Wars when I am not playing Neverwinter Nights or Warhammer 40k. Haven’t done city of heroes.

  88. 88
    Dreggas says:

    Krista,

    It is all about trust, honesty and communication.

    Darkrose,

    with the exception that we were all in a 2 bedroom apt, we had a california king size bed during the longest (almost a year) relationship which was my ex-wife, me and another girl. It was kinda crowded but most of the time the girl slept in the cage that was the bed frame.

  89. 89
    Sock Puppet of the Great Satan says:

    ” Of course this now means I’ll have to get a suit to start attending friends weddings.”

    Man, the florists in San Francisco must be ecstatic. Business is going to be goood over the next year.

  90. 90
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    Zuzu

    Arnold is really trying to hold no position. He already vetoed two bills by the legislature to legalize gay marriage arguing that it was better for the courts to decide. A very non-Republican position.

    Yes, the first bill was in 2005 and tried to flat-out legalize same-sex marriage. Ahnold did have a point that it was an attempt to override an initiative statute without constitutionally-required voter approval.

    AB 849 veto message

    The second bill was last year, and while it included plenty of intent language regarding same-sex marriage, I don’t think it directly affected the statute enacted by Prop 22. He could have let it become law, but it would certainly have wound up in court anyway.

    AB 43 veto message

  91. 91
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    the California Supreme Court – by a split vote – CORRECTLY interprets the Constitution.

    Don’t forget, they’re interpreting their own state constitution. Which, among other things, has an explicit right to privacy clause. They’re also relying on their own jurisprudence, which (incorporating the privacy right) treats marriage as a fundamental right and classifications based on sexual orientation as suspect, both of which require strict scrutiny.

  92. 92
    Genine says:

    Hm. Unfortunately, polygamy isn’t legal here, or I’d be SO up for that!

    Who said anything about polygamy? Never heard of Polyamory? I’ve been in several triad relationships, with more than one guy or woman and we all slept in the same bed too. It takes work but is actually pretty fun if you can make it work.

    Aww, too bad Krista. That’s OK. I’ll pine for you from afar.

    Dreggas:

    True. The polyamorous relationships I’ve seen have been quite healthy. I know of some groups that have been together for years. The men actually talk to you and want to know what you think and feel, its exciting. It’s been watching these groups that have opened my mind about polyamory. Plus, I’d love for my partner to be with someone else anyway, so it doesn’t bother me. lol

    with the exception that we were all in a 2 bedroom apt, we had a california king size bed during the longest (almost a year) relationship which was my ex-wife, me and another girl. It was kinda crowded but most of the time the girl slept in the cage that was the bed frame.

    Well, isn’t that a cozy, domestic scene. lol Family values!

  93. 93
    Krista says:

    Aww, too bad Krista. That’s OK. I’ll pine for you from afar.

    Sounds good, kiddo. If you’re having a bad day, and are feeling unloved, just remember that you’ve got a far-away admirer who thinks you’re the bee’s knees.

  94. 94
    Darkrose says:

    Dreggas–NWN classic or 2?

    I have Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall–I’ve been holding off on GWEN until I actually finish one of the three main campaigns. I haven’t played for a while, though, because I12 of CoX is due out soon and I want to have at least one level 50 villain by then.

  95. 95
    Genine says:

    Krista Says:

    Aww, too bad Krista. That’s OK. I’ll pine for you from afar.

    Sounds good, kiddo. If you’re having a bad day, and are feeling unloved, just remember that you’ve got a far-away admirer who thinks you’re the bee’s knees.

    Aww, that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Though it makes me wonder what happened to the rest of the bees…

    But that’s OK. Thanks! :)

  96. 96
    Dreggas says:

    Dreggas:

    True. The polyamorous relationships I’ve seen have been quite healthy. I know of some groups that have been together for years. The men actually talk to you and want to know what you think and feel, its exciting. It’s been watching these groups that have opened my mind about polyamory. Plus, I’d love for my partner to be with someone else anyway, so it doesn’t bother me. lol

    with the exception that we were all in a 2 bedroom apt, we had a california king size bed during the longest (almost a year) relationship which was my ex-wife, me and another girl. It was kinda crowded but most of the time the girl slept in the cage that was the bed frame.

    Well, isn’t that a cozy, domestic scene. lol Family values!

    We were “family” LOL. It was fun while it lasted. My current GF is very much the monogamous type but she is enough for me and then some so it’s all good.

  97. 97
    Dreggas says:

    Darkrose Says:

    Dreggas—NWN classic or 2?

    I have Prophecies, Factions, and Nightfall—I’ve been holding off on GWEN until I actually finish one of the three main campaigns. I haven’t played for a while, though, because I12 of CoX is due out soon and I want to have at least one level 50 villain by then.

    I used to help run a world in NWN 1 and was the code monkey for it. I also play NWN2 though I have yet to check out any online worlds.

    I have all the guild wars campaigns and while I beat Proph I am currently going through again, want to beat all with the same character. Of course that’s going to take a long time. I also have Eye Of The North.

    My current character there is Dreggas Grazzt (basically the full spelling of my nick).

  98. 98
    jake says:

    Dear wannabe concern trolls, please study this fine example of the art before your next post:

    Great timing.

    Just when the wing nut religious right was starting to simmer down from their usual continual boil the California Supreme Court – by a split vote – CORRECTLY interprets the Constitution.

    So – now Obama has to beat the legit right, the racists, the NRA and now the soon to newly energized wacko religious right. Looks like McBush has himself a bright shinny White House to move into next January. SHIT!

    Me, I still say suck it, ‘phobes.

  99. 99
    Darkrose says:

    Dreggas Says:

    I used to help run a world in NWN 1 and was the code monkey for it. I also play NWN2 though I have yet to check out any online worlds.

    *nods* I played through the official NWN campaign and the expansions several times. I’ve been holding off on 2 until I replace my current laptop.

    My current character there is Dreggas Grazzt (basically the full spelling of my nick).

    I think my one Prophecies character left is Sif Gudrinsdottir; I’ll have to look out for you next time I’m on. :)

    (Balloon Juice: Come for the politics; stay for the game geekery and the kink.)

  100. 100
    flavortext says:

    California, fuck yeah!

    (And yes, sometimes some of us wonder why we need the rest of the union. But only during dark times.)

  101. 101
    Dreggas says:

    flavortext Says:

    California, fuck yeah!

    (And yes, sometimes some of us wonder why we need the rest of the union. But only during dark times.)

    well I do wonder that nearly every day but oh well. At least we get to be trend setters.

  102. 102
    jake says:

    Aw come on. Once you stop laughing after the rest of the country sinks and only Californication remains you’ll miss us.

    Just a little.

    Won’tcha?

  103. 103
    Dreggas says:

    jake Says:

    Aw come on. Once you stop laughing after the rest of the country sinks and only Californication remains you’ll miss us.

    Just a little.

    Won’tcha?

    considering the amount of my tax dollars that leave the state and never come back? I’ll consider it heh.

  104. 104
    Thomas Beck says:

    “The revolution is happening and, pretty soon, you will all be required to gay marry!”

    Not only that, but there’s a limited supply of marriage, and if we let the gays use some up, there won’t be enough left for the straight couples (in which case, Rudy Giuliani will be in real trouble.)

  105. 105
    flavortext says:

    well I do wonder that nearly every day but oh well. At least we get to be trend setters.

    I guess that sentiment is more widespread than I thought. ; )

    I wonder if there’ve ever been any polls?

  106. 106
    Person of Choler says:

    A couple of things I can’t wait to see.

    1. The wedding album from a high camp screaming flamer wedding in San Francisco.

    2. The screeching catfight that will be the first large-alimony gay divorce. (Not the Astaire / Rogers movie; the real thing.)

  107. 107
    Paul says:

    (Balloon Juice: Come for the politics; stay for the game geekery and the kink.)

    One of the reasons why I feel comfortable here. :grins:

  108. 108
    patrick says:

    I’m glad to see even some republican (conservative?) judges thinking reasonably on this issue.

    Y’know, I never understood why this is such a wedge issue. I personally think Government should get out of the marriage business. I’m Catholic, and I believe there are 2 distinct marriages, which causes all the confusion and ruckus. the first I’ll call Marriage (capital M), or Holy Matirmony, which according to Catholic (and most religion’s) doctrine is an unbreakable covenant between 3 entities: a man, a woman and God. The second is marriage (little m), which is a governmentally recognized contract between 2 consenting people giving them certain benefits and priveledges which can be dissolved at any time (divorce). You can have one without the other. Get Married in the Church, and if you don’t have a marriage license from the county clerk signed by 2 witnesses, you’re not legally married in the eyes of the government. Get married by a Justice of the Peace, the captain of a ship, or an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas, you’re not considered Married in the eyes of the Church until the marriage is blessed by a priest. If government just changed the nomenclature of their “marriage” to what it is, a “civil union” (whether it be male/female, male/male, or female/female), then all this bullpucky could be avoided.

    Now an interesting question: will churches in CA be forced to marry homosexual couples if it is against their religious beliefs, or will they be protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution? I would think (and hope) it is the latter.

Comments are closed.