Congratulations!

Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who’ve been together for more than 50 years, are finally married:

The lesbian couple were the first to participate in a 2004 challenge of California laws against same-sex marriage, exchanging wedding vows only to see the ceremony voided later.

But on Monday, Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, exchanged vows again. This time, California law — at least for now — was on their side.

“I think it’s a wonderful day and I have to thank our mayor for most of it,” Lyon said. “I’m very happy and very grateful for all of you.”

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who helped launch the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California’s one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at their wedding at City Hall.

Lyon and Martin will now be able to inherit from each other, have hospital visitation rights, and share in the many of the same things straight couples do (with the exception of federal benefits.) What won’t change is the state of your marriage. You and your husband or wife will still be able to love each other, raise your kids, file a joint tax return, and all the things you’ve been doing together for years. And if all that comes crashing down around Tony Perkins and Jim Dobson because Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin got married yesterday, they may feel the urge to scapegoat them. If allowing gays to marry is going to affect their marriages, then they probably just have a shitty marriage to begin with.

Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin - San Francisco Chronicle Photo

The truth is, for people like Dobson, Perkins, and supporters of theirs everywhere, this is not about marriage at all; it is about power and not wanting anything to change without their say-so. It’s about control of the political process and they will object to any social change if it doesn’t fit within their narrowly defined, small-minded worldview. When decisions are made that they have no control over, they see that their power over the process is slipping away. They see their power over the way people think and their ability to shape the debate diminish greatly. That must be a tremendous blow to their egoes. I thoroughly enjoy watching them implode and embarrass themselves on national television.

Oh, and it’s about raising millions of dollars to line the coffers of their churches and organizations and their own pocketbooks. Yeah, that too.

(photo credit: San Francisco Chronicle – Liz Mangelsdorf)






109 replies
  1. 1
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    Congratulations!

  2. 2
    caleb says:

    Jesse Ventura said it best…..

    Government needs to get out of the marriage business and into the civil union business.

    Any 2 people can join in a civil union, there would be no box to check off your sex, and marriage will stay in private sector of the churches.

  3. 3
    MBL says:

    Is that picture from their first go-round or today? I swear I recognize it.

    Also, the look on the face of the woman on the far left is spectacular.

  4. 4
    jake says:

    I thoroughly enjoy watching them implode and embarrass themselves on national television.

    Popcorn?

    Here’s hoping they try to make two little old ladies into the poster children for rampant sodomy in the streets. Oh noes! They’ll do naaarsty things to u with their evil, lustful … walkers and power wheelchairs!

    The truth is, for people like Dobson, Perkins, and supporters of theirs everywhere, this is not about marriage at all; it is about power and not wanting anything to change without their say-so.

    Don’t forget: It’s a great distraction from the skeletons – possibly of barnyard animals – in their closets.

  5. 5
    Cris says:

    If allowing gays to marry is going to affect their marriages, then they probably just have a shitty marriage to begin with.

    To borrow heavily from Amanda: Dobson, Perkens, et.al. are right that gay marriage threatens their own notion of marriage. Same-sex marriage formally establishes marriage as an egalitarian arrangement, where one party does not automatically get to dominate the other by virtue of his sex.

    God decreed that their marriages should be miserable. They want the law to support them in this.

  6. 6
    jake says:

    Is that picture from their first go-round or today? I swear I recognize it.

    First time.

  7. 7
    Punchy says:

    I suspect millions of straight marriages in Cali are in precipitous danger. I predict the complete catastrophic collapse of heterosexual unions in the next 24 hours.

    Gays are insideous that way.

  8. 8
    JL says:

    Michael, In GA the legislator who introduced the marriage amendment was divorced and had committed adultery. Hopefully Californians do not go the way of Georgia and add an amendment.

  9. 9
    Michael D. says:

    I believe the photo is from the first go-round.

  10. 10
    Darkness says:

    it is about power

    Thank you so much for pointing that out. I’ve been trying spread the word about that for years. It’s the only explanation for why right wingers want to control women’s bodies vis-a-vis restricting abortion, but on the flip side, not give a crap about children having access to health care. Everything the right wing does makes perfect sense once you examine the framework of power in the issues they froth at the mouth over. It also makes it clear why they want a mindless white woman kept alive, but killing a million Iraqis is just fine.

    ‘Course it doesn’t mean they get off from being flamin’ hypocrites or anything.

    I’m not much for marriage, period, wanting to keep the state out of my life, despite the benefits they dangle to entice one into it, but everyone should have access to it if they like. It’s just a civil contract. Not letting some random set of people enter into one is the same as saying blonde people can’t buy property, or tall people can’t get a dog license. It’s just silly to have an arbitrary restriction just because a few crazies are so uneasy about their own sexuality.

  11. 11
  12. 12
    b. hussein canuckistani says:

    I had thought I was through the stage in my life where I had to listen to my friends prattle on about their upcoming marriages and their dresses and their photographers blah blah blah, and then gay marriage was allowed in Canada and now I have to listen to my gay/lesbian friends prattle on about their upcoming marriages and it makes me crabby and affects my marriage.
    Bonus: the gay guys don’t prattle about their gowns.
    Curse: a bad lesbian match could result in both of them prattling about their gowns.

  13. 13
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Has anyone here ever heard one of the antis explain the means by which gay marriage undermines straight marriage? I ask because I have not. They simply say that the one is a threat to the other and that’s that. If someone could provide a link I’d be grateful because I can’t for the life of me figure out how the marriage of any two complete strangers would affect my own.

  14. 14
    Apsaras says:

    As always, the Family Research Council keeps the sober perspective we’ve come to expect from modern “conservatives.”
    Enjoy your Father’s day, it may be your last.

    And what the hell is in the “Free Marriage Protection Kit?” Handcuffs to keep your wife from running off with her new state-mandated lesbian lover?

  15. 15

    So far no fireball from the heavens, no earthquake, no floods out here in the center of gay marriage. What’s Iowa’s position on gay marriages, or does God have a bad aim?

    By the way, about that “power” thing, I will again suggest to anyone interested Wilhelm Reich’s THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM, which goes deep into how and why patriarchy and sexual repression are used in the service of the state.

  16. 16
    The Moar You Know says:

    And what the hell is in the “Free Marriage Protection Kit?” Handcuffs to keep your wife from running off with her new state-mandated lesbian lover?

    As it turns out, free informational pamphlets!

    Two articles and one booklet spell out the danger, dysfunction and deception of this ever-looming threat:
    The Slippery Slope of Same-Sex “Marriage”
    Ten Facts About Counterfeit Marriage
    The California Supreme Court’s Edict Redefining Marriage Will Affect All Americans

    Hysterical much?

    Marriage as we know it and as God designed it is in critical danger. California and Massachusetts judges have set ominous precedents by imposing counterfeit marriage. Other states’ bureaucrats are unilaterally advancing this dangerous agenda. The effects will soon ripple throughout the nation.

  17. 17
    Slappy says:

    Dennis – They don’t have an explanation. Ralph Reed (wtf) was on Alan Colmes last night and he had absolutely nothing when it came to that question.

  18. 18
    Zifnab says:

    Woo! Lesbian Honeymoon!

  19. 19
    Paul L. says:

    And now we can start moving the definition of marriage to include the legalization of polygyny using the “consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry”.

    And no support for this guy who has done nothing illegal and like the Texas FLDS is being harassed by CYS “for the children”
    Man sues for losing his kids over liaison with teen

    Note the default excuse from the Government for not commenting changing from yesterday.

    David L. Madison, the administrator at Fayette County CYS, said he had not yet seen the lawsuit and could not comment.

    David L. Madison, the administrator of Fayette County CYS, said he could not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit because of confidentiality requirements.

  20. 20
    Faux News says:

    Paul L, I want to Gay Marry you!

  21. 21
    Otto Man says:

    Outstanding.

    A beautiful moment, and long overdue. I didn’t realize they’d founded the Daughters of Bilitis. Nice to see they lived to enjoy this day.

    And speaking as a heterosexual married man, anyone who blames the failure of their marriage on anything other than the two people involved is an utter fucking coward.

  22. 22
    zzyzx says:

    Has anyone here ever heard one of the antis explain the means by which gay marriage undermines straight marriage?

    Yes, but it won’t convince you. Basically it argues that marriage is a societal method to encourage families to stay together for children. Loving your partner? Whatever. The point to is to have many, many kids. The fact that infertile people can marry is a bug in the system. Same sex marriage will further sever that connection and conversely, people will figure they can have kids without getting married since the association is gone. So the next generation of kids will grow up screwed up as parents won’t have the same pressure to stay together.

    It’s a pretty weak argument but it is one of the few calls to reason on that side of the issue, so I give them credit for that.

  23. 23
    Zifnab says:

    Paul L, I want to Gay Marry you!

    He’s saving himself for Mike Nifong.

  24. 24
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Dennis – They don’t have an explanation. Ralph Reed (wtf) was on Alan Colmes last night and he had absolutely nothing when it came to that question.

    Thanks, Slappy. I can usually figure out the other side of an argument but, in this case, I just couldn’t see it. Maybe their marriages are threatened because they’re authoritarian blowhards and teh gay gives them a convenient excuse to deflect.

  25. 25
    bago says:

    Marriage as god designed it. Like those polyamorous relationships of the kings of Judah. You know, many wives and concubines. I’ll bring that up when accused of infidelity next.

  26. 26
    Timmy Mac says:

    Whenever it’s from, that is one powerful motherfucking picture.

  27. 27
    Zifnab says:

    So the next generation of kids will grow up screwed up as parents won’t have the same pressure to stay together.

    LOLS! The next generation? Yeah, that ship sailed a while back, dude. Divorce rate is at 50% and it hasn’t exactly been dipping. I’m on a volley ball team with three divorcettes – all under 30. Two are hot and one regularly wears a cute little bikini. :-)

    And as a child of a one-parent household with friends in one-parent households, I like to think we made out alright. Two parents definitely beat one parent, but I wouldn’t start ringing the bell for the End of Western Civilization just yet.

  28. 28
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    zzyzx, thank you as well. The argument you present makes me wonder why the antis aren’t railing against an economic system that necessitates that both parents work, keeping them out of the house and away from their children for most of the day. Seems to me that financial strain is a bigger threat to marriage and child rearing than gay marriage could ever be.

  29. 29
    bostondreams says:

    I just want to say that it is awesome that those two women were the first to be married. 55 years together..how many straight couples can say that?

  30. 30
    Big E says:

    just think of the incredible threat to all the ‘good’ christians and neo-cons these two ladies pose…..
    ya just have to feel for those people with faith so fragile that it’s threatened by these ladies and others.

  31. 31
    Shygetz says:

    And now we can start moving the definition of marriage to include the legalization of polygyny using the “consenting adults who love each other should be allowed to marry”.

    And we all know man-on-box-turtle is next.

    There is a compelling state interest in maintaining legal benefits to a two-person system, which is all they were designed for. The current benefits cannot handle multiple participants, and it would be difficult to see how they could–how do you split presumptive end of life decision rights among two spouses? However, polygamists are welcome to have polygamous relationships with a “senior” wife designated as the legal spouse.

    And no support for this guy who has done nothing illegal and like the Texas FLDS is being harassed by CYS “for the children”

    You have your own blog; go to it.

    Dontcha just love people who come by and say “You’re not commenting on my pet issue NOW, so you must be a fascist/communist/misogynist/baby rapist”?

  32. 32
    Joy says:

    Now that’s a great picture. Brings tears to your eyes. I don’t understand how anyone can deny two people who love one another this joy.

  33. 33
    Punchy says:

    From Paul’s link:

    When K.K.’s mother learned of the relationship, she first went to the police. But, the lawsuit contends, there was nothing they could do because the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16.

    I had no idea the age of consent anywhere was less than 18. I bet there’s a TON more high schoolers (and pedophiles) in the Keystone state breathing easy knowing this…

  34. 34
    zzyzx says:

    Dennis – that’s what reading National Review does. I had to clarify that infertile couples are a loophole and it uses the logical fallacy of A-> B, B, therefore A, and that’s their strongest case.

    That’s why this won’t be an issue in 10 years. People will stay married, everyone will wonder why it was such a big deal, and the Republican party will be on record, causing them to lose an entire generation.

  35. 35
    Laura says:

    Dennis, I’ve got a slightly different take on their reasoning, and it’s one I’ve posted here before, so I’ll cut-n-paste, if you don’t mind:

    Oh, c’mon. It’s perfectly obvious why the GOP views “homosexual marriage” as dangerous and undermining to the “traditional marriage” structure. It’s all about maintaining a certain set of social expectations. Sure, I’d say the majority of young people still grow up wanting and expecting to get married someday, in the traditional sense. But there is a minority of people who don’t. Some because they’re gay. Some because they’re too self-involved, or too picky, or whatever. Pick your reasons. But these GOP types really do think that society depends on MOST of these people going ahead and getting married anyway, whether it’s what they really want deep down or not.

    I’m not saying this very well—which is a real bummer for a professional writer—but think about the “social expectations” that our grandparents grew up with. It was just understood that EVERYBODY would eventually “get married, settle down and have kids.” EVERYBODY. And if you didn’t—if you somehow made it to age 45 as a committed bachelor, or a spinster, then you were an object of mixed scorn and pity, with just a dollop of suspicion tossed in for spice.

    THAT’S the world the religious right-wingers want back. I honestly don’t think that most of them want gays thrown in jail, necessarily—but they DO want them subjected to social pressure and ostracism. The kind of social pressure that used to result in gays living double lives, publicly “married,” keeping their true selves secret and hidden.

    If gays are not just allowed to live openly among us, without fear of being thrown in jail, but also granted the same social benefits, so that society is “officially” welcoming them and accepting them—then where’s the social pressure going to come from? How are we going to maintain the overwhelming societal expectation that “getting married and having kids” is What One Must Do?

    Anyway, they aren’t going to come right out and admit that they want to impose hypocritical, empty “marriages” on unwilling but socially obligated participants. But that’s what it means when they say that gay marriage “undermines” traditional marriage. It undermines the set of societal expectations that those people want to impose.

  36. 36
    Punchy says:

    I’m on a volley ball team with three divorcettes – all under 30. Two are hot and one regularly wears a cute little bikini.

    Call me. Soon. Cole, stay outta this. I got dibs.

  37. 37
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    Dennis – that’s what reading National Review does. I had to clarify that infertile couples are a loophole and it uses the logical fallacy of A-> B, B, therefore A, and that’s their strongest case.

    Wonder how they feel about people who marry, or remarry, when the the bride is past childbearing age. According to the antis’ argument, they shouldn’t marry either. So many people to exclude, so little time.

  38. 38
    Smudgemo says:

    If god hates homosexuals so much, why not just let him/her deal with them in the afterlife?

  39. 39
    Paul L. says:

    I am sick to the cheapening of the pedophile label.

    I had no idea the age of consent anywhere was less than 18. I bet there’s a TON more high schoolers (and pedophiles) in the Keystone state breathing easy knowing this…

    So by your definition 16-17 years old is a child? Same as 1-13 years old?

    There is a compelling state interest in maintaining legal benefits to a two-person system, which is all they were designed for. The current benefits cannot handle multiple participants, and it would be difficult to see how they could—how do you split presumptive end of life decision rights among two spouses?

    How do you split presumptive end of life decision rights among the children when there is no spouse?
    So potential problems with the legal system are a reason to not legalize polygamy?
    I am sure the legal system has got gay divorce at figured out. Especially when including child support.

    I suspect there with be some interesting case law created when the first gay divorces start.

  40. 40
    Dreggas says:

    Oh hell now my life is over, my marriage a sham thanks to those elected justices on the CA supreme court and that girly-man governor. Might as well just destroy everything else while they’re at it. Oh wait…I am seperated with plans to divorce…I guess I am destroying marriage too…

    Seriously, I am so happy to see this happening. Gives me a bit of hope and makes me glad I live in Californiastan.

  41. 41
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    If god hates homosexuals so much, why not just let him/her deal with them in the afterlife?

    Odd, that. I’m not a Christian but, I’ve read the Bible several times. I just went back and reread Genesis, chapter one, verses 26 and 27. It still reads, “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…” Nothing about “except for homos.” I must not have the right Bible.

  42. 42
    The Moar You Know says:

    Longer Paul:

    I saw them two old ladies and they reminded me of my gramma and my gramma always used to whack me with a broom and yell at me in front of the neighbors when she would catch me playing with my peepee. I used to play with my peepee a lot. But anyways, those old ladies made me think of my gramma, which I haven’t in many years, and it made my man parts shrink up in my tummy and that’s not a nice feeling. You guys at Balloon Juice (I like balloons) made me feel not-nice either because the old ladies made me mad and I had to say something about the old ladies and men who make babies with lots of women which is why women don’t talk to me, they’re all marrying each other or marrying some big strong man who makes a lot of them pregnate at one time. And you made fun of me.

  43. 43
    b. hussein canuckistani says:

    The downside of gay marriage in the States is it gives us up here one less thing to be smug about. The upside is it’s just a decent thing to have.

  44. 44
    Joshua Norton says:

    I must not have the right Bible.

    Me neither. Funny, but the Fundie bible specifically states “homosexuality” is a sin. But that word didn’t even exist when the bible was first created. I think the scribes are once more inserting their personal agenda into the translations.

  45. 45
    4tehlulz says:

    So by your definition 16-17 years old is a child? Same as 1-13 years old?

    Paul L. fucks 14 yr olds. Discuss.

  46. 46
    zzyzx says:

    I thought I’d check out Rapture Ready and see how they were taking it.

    And then, wham, yesterday when they started showing the actual first marriages, and those two elderly women. . . and I just have this incredible desire to weep . . . and I mean WEEP, as in great, heart-wrenching sobs.

    These poor, poor people. My heart cries out for them. They’re flinging themselves over a cliff into eternal hell and they are so oblivious. . .

    I love it when people are so clueless about their own theology. Under their rules, it doesn’t matter if they got married or not, you either say a sequence of magic words or you don’t and that is the sole determinate of your afterlife status.

  47. 47
    Faux News says:

    And we all know man-on-box-turtle is next.

    I’d still Gay Marry Paul L. even if he was a box turtle. Or as smart as one. :-)

  48. 48
    gbear says:

    “Has anyone here ever heard one of the antis explain the means by which gay marriage undermines straight marriage?”

    It starts and ends with biblical quotes and the middle is filled with quotes from the bible. I had a ‘hate is not a family value’ bumper sticker on a car and a woman who saw it started going off about how that was a ‘gay’ thang. Before I could counter than no it’s a ‘bigot’ thang, she starts spouting the ‘love the sinner not the sin’ thang and on and on and on without stopping to listen to a reply. This was in the Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis, a very gay friendly neighborhood. I bet she was just looking for a fight. Anyway, to answer the question; this is how those conversations about marriage go.

  49. 49
    wasabi gasp says:

    Start filling sandbags.

  50. 50
    rachel says:

    I’d still Gay Marry Paul L. even if he was a box turtle. Or as smart as one.

    Well, he’s not dumber than one.

  51. 51
    Joshua Norton says:

    love the sinner not the sin

    They just love to harp on that chestnut. The funny thing is that it is not to be found anywhere in the Bible. It was said by Mahatma Gandhi on one of his not so good days. They’re not even quoting a christian.

  52. 52
    Punchy says:

    So by yourArizona’s, California’s, Iowa’s, North Dakota’s, Oregon’s….etc.. definition 16-17 years old is a child? Same as 1-13 years old?

    Yes. And why the fuck do you feel 14 is some point of delineation? Are you a high school teacher?

  53. 53
    Xenos says:

    Has anyone here ever heard one of the antis explain the means by which gay marriage undermines straight marriage? I ask because I have not.

    when the Dobsonites talk about family and marriage, they really mean patriarchy. And yes, gay marriage, birth control, women’s rights and so on are a serious challenge to patriarchy and male privilege.

    If you can’t successfully condemn and stigmatize the sluts who reject straight male control and the faggots who won’t knuckle under to patriarchal sex roles, then the patriarchal project is facing doom. That, to them, is the death of marriage and godliness.

    So, fuck ’em.

  54. 54
    phoebes in santa fe says:

    Congrats to Del and Phyllis. Hopefully the law will remain and they can stay married this time.

    Gays can’t do a worse job at marriage than we straights have. Let them love legally.

  55. 55
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    when the Dobsonites talk about family and marriage, they really mean patriarchy. And yes, gay marriage, birth control, women’s rights and so on are a serious challenge to patriarchy and male privilege.

    No wonder, then, that they hate the Islamic fundamentalists so much, they’re fighting for the same turf.

  56. 56
    Xenos says:

    I suspect there with be some interesting case law created when the first gay divorces start.

    The link, it does not logically follow your points. FWIW.

    And as for gay divorces, they work the same way as straight ones. Same statutes apply, same case law, same procedures, etc. Judge Rocket in Essex County, Massachusetts, managed to divorce a gay couple that had a VT civil union before the first Massachusetts gay marriages took place.

    It is totally not an issue. Aside from the novelty factor when you first see something like that, there is nothing remarkable about it. Boring, even.

  57. 57
    The Moar You Know says:

    So by your definition 16-17 years old is a child? Same as 1-13 years old?

    Oh my. Too much information.

    Paul, Chris Hansen’s going to want you to take a seat. Right over there will do.

  58. 58
    jake says:

    Marriage as we know it and as God designed it is in critical danger.

    Pro tip: If your God is so weak it can’t defend marriage, it’s time for an upgrade.

  59. 59
    Zifnab says:

    So by your definition 16-17 years old is a child? Same as 1-13 years old?

    Paul L. fucks 14 yr olds. Discuss.

    Even 14-year-olds have standards.

    Oh, wait. Paul L just pulled up outside my house in his van. Dude seems cool enough. I don’t see what you guys are worried about.

  60. 60
    Neal says:

    Oh shit. I was going to marry a woman this October 25 but now that the gays are allowed to marry I feel I need to call the whole thing off. Damn.

    Seriously though, I never understood the wingnut “sanctity of marriage” argument. Seems like that’s something us straight people fucked up a long long time ago (If there ever was such a thing). My parents sure screwed the pooch on that one and I turned out okay in the long run.

    I’m very happy for these ladies. I have an uncle who’s been with the same guy for a couple of decades. My fiancee’s parents have some friends, a lesbian couple, who are raising a wonderful little boy named Jackson. My father-in-law-to-be acts as his male role model/godfather. It makes me happy to know that given time, Jackson may have the same safety net other parents have should something happen to one of his two moms.

  61. 61
    Zifnab says:

    Pro tip: If your God is so weak it can’t defend marriage, it’s time for an upgrade.

    I’m like Allah. He’s good on the 12th hole and has a hard enough drive to make it in Par 4.

  62. 62
    Zifnab says:

    I love it when people are so clueless about their own theology. Under their rules, it doesn’t matter if they got married or not, you either say a sequence of magic words or you don’t and that is the sole determinate of your afterlife status.

    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start.

  63. 63
    Joshua Norton says:

    I never understood the wingnut “sanctity of marriage” argument.

    I’m not really sure if something you can do in a parking lot in Las Vegas in front of an Elvis impersonator is really “sacred” any more.

  64. 64
    cbear says:

    Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who’ve been together for more than 50 years, are finally married:

    And we all know man-on-box-turtle is next.

    Go ahead and laugh, you sodomites. I’m not.
    Within hours of the ceremony, I was sexually assualted by a gopher tortoise, an owl, and a Young Republican.

    Coincidence? You decide.

  65. 65
    Rosali says:

    The argument of the antis:
    It’s about choice. Currently, people marry members of the opposite sex because that’s the only option available. If states allow gay marriage, then our little kids will grow up thinking that they can marry whoever they want and some of them will choose a person of the same sex/gender. The horror!! Better to outlaw gay marriage so that little Johnny and Sally don’t get any bright ideas and marry only persons of the opposite sex. Forced straightness.

    It’s like their argument against abortion. Some women are having abortions now just because they can. If abortions are outlawed, the women would have the babies and would find a way to support them and there would be big, happy families.

  66. 66
    Dreggas says:

    Joshua Norton Says:

    I must not have the right Bible.

    Me neither. Funny, but the Fundie bible specifically states “homosexuality” is a sin. But that word didn’t even exist when the bible was first created. I think the scribes are once more inserting their personal agenda into the translations.

    read dogemperor’s diaries at the GOS. Simply put you don’t have the right bible.

  67. 67
    Dreggas says:

    Zifnab Says:

    I love it when people are so clueless about their own theology. Under their rules, it doesn’t matter if they got married or not, you either say a sequence of magic words or you don’t and that is the sole determinate of your afterlife status.

    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start.

    I always thought it was A, B select, start. Damn dyslexia

  68. 68
    jake says:

    Let’s hope the fresh outpouring of bullshit from the TalEvan encourages these toadstools to proliferate.

  69. 69
    The Moar You Know says:

    Within hours of the ceremony, I was sexually assualted by a gopher tortoise, an owl, and a Young Republican.

    It’s well known Young Republicans sexually assault everything within their reach.

  70. 70
    Neal says:

    As with so many things, it’s just the wingnuts in denial regarding reality. They’d rather see women using coat hangers in a back alley or gay people kept in the closet so that they can pretend these things don’t happen.
    They can’t be challenged. It frightens them.

  71. 71
    4tehlulz says:

    14 is way too old for Pedobear, Zifnab.

  72. 72
    Xenos says:

    The ‘sanctity of marriage’ is a strange thing. The main statement on the subject comes from George W. Bush, putative Methodist, who declared that marriage is a sacrament. Dumb jerk does not comprehend the basic doctrines and history of his own denomination.

  73. 73
    CBeck says:

    I had the good fortune to talk with Del back in 2000 (She’s a friend of my aunt). She is an amazing woman, and I’m so happy for her.

  74. 74
    Damned at Random says:

    My (hetero) husband, on hearing that gay marriage would be legal in Cali, said “Good. That’s another right for me. I don’t have to use it but I approve of more rights as a general principle.”

    Neither of us has filed for divorce in the interim.

  75. 75
    Dreggas says:

    I was just reading some of the comments in relation to an article in the OC register about this. I just wonder why so many of these good christians hate America? They say as much. Of course my advice to them is “America, love it or leave it”. I hear Iran has a policy on homosexuals that should be right up their alley.

  76. 76
    Bill in OH says:

    So, I grew up in a one parent household because my father died when I was young. Are these dolts going to try to outlaw death too?

  77. 77
    joe says:

    I am sick to the cheapening of the pedophile label.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

    Seriously, ask yourself: how does somebody end up “sick” of hearing the word “pedophile” applied this way?

  78. 78

    That picture is full of win. How anyone could be against a couple of 50 years publicly expressing their commitment to one another is entirely beyond me.

    I think I figured out how gay marriage devalues straight marriage, though. There’s this secret commodities exchange where marriages are quietly bought and sold. The granting of gay marriage rights would create a glut in the market, thus bringing down the relative value of the pre-existing straight marriages.

    It’s the only possible explanation.

  79. 79
    Pb says:

    Bonus: the gay guys don’t prattle about their gowns.

    Oh, I bet some of them do.

    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Select, Start.

    And that’s the two player version, too, how appropriate!

  80. 80
    Tsulagi says:

    Woo! Lesbian Honeymoon!

    Now usually that would evoke hot images. But damn, with these two I bet even their tongues are wrinkled. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  81. 81
    Zifnab says:

    I always thought it was A, B select, start. Damn dyslexia

    I’ve got bad news Dreggas. You’re going to hell.

    14 is way too old for Pedobear, Zifnab.

    hehe.

    The horror!! Better to outlaw gay marriage so that little Johnny and Sally don’t get any bright ideas and marry only persons of the opposite sex. Forced straightness.

    It’s like their argument against abortion. Some women are having abortions now just because they can. If abortions are outlawed, the women would have the babies and would find a way to support them and there would be big, happy families.

    Right on. It’s about religious control and the “Ew” factor. People want to ban what they find distasteful – foul language, public nudity, scary jungle-people music, two guys making out, dead fetuses – but without some grand overarching concern or serious cultural taboo, they can’t leverage popular support on their pet issues. So they assume the mantel of “religion” and use it as a cudgel against the icky realities of life.

    Everything that makes us say “Ew” gets applied to the culture wars, which is then tied back to being a good Christian in this “Christian Nation”. And if we don’t follow our Christian strictures to the letter, civilization will come crashing down, just like it did for the Romans (please ignore all of Roman History for this to make sense).

    It’s not just Forced Straightness or Forced Celibacy or Forced Frank Sinatra to Ballroom Dance. It’s a generic “Say no to Ew” mentality, where the religious fanatics get to define what “Ew” is.

  82. 82
    jake says:

    How anyone could be against a couple of 50 years publicly expressing their commitment to one another is entirely beyond me.

    It further highlights their own unhappy, pathetic, failed attempts at the same despite the fact that God sanctioned the whole thing.

    Everything that makes us say “Ew” gets applied to the culture wars, which is then tied back to being a good Christian in this “Christian Nation”.

    Unfortunately it has to be a majority (or vocal minority) “Ew,” otherwise fugly bastards like Bill Donohue would be forced to wear concrete burquas. They’d also be banned from romantic relationships with anything because the thought of something like that doing the nasty is Ew^2^

  83. 83
    Dreggas says:

    Zifnab Says:

    I always thought it was A, B select, start. Damn dyslexia

    I’ve got bad news Dreggas. You’re going to hell.

    Ummmmm is that really news?

  84. 84
    Brachiator says:

    Otto Man Says:

    Outstanding.

    A beautiful moment, and long overdue. I didn’t realize they’d founded the Daughters of Bilitis. Nice to see they lived to enjoy this day.

    I didn’t know about this either. It is very appropriate that two women who were in the forefront in fighting for the rights and dignity of gay people should be among the first to legally marry.

    God bless San Francisco. God Bless America.

    Take that, fundies…

  85. 85
    Krista says:

    I love that photo. I’m so happy for them. How can anybody not be? I just don’t get it.

    They’re happy, they’re in love, they’re triumphant and beautiful.

    Congrats, ladies! You kick all kinds of ass and it’s a joy to behold.

  86. 86
    Joshua Norton says:

    God bless San Francisco.

    Actually, Gavin Newsom thanked George W. Bush for pissing him off enough to do something about it.

    So, thanks George!

  87. 87

    […] -Balloon Juice commenter Darkness, on the recent California gay marriage decision This thing was constructed by Adam. You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback. « So many questions […]

  88. 88
    Church Lady says:

    Good for them! I can only hope that my relationship with my husband lasts that many years.

  89. 89

    There is just too damn much love in this world. We don’t needs gays adding to it!

    How dare they think that they have some sort of “right” to choose who to love, and in what manner.

    Everytime a gay gets married, Gawd kills a kitten.

  90. 90
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    I’m so happy for them. How can anybody not be?

    Because they’re pure evil and are destroying the very foundation of society, can’t you see that?

    OK, seriously, I’m very happy for them–and rather proud that we’ve taken yet another step (a baby step, to be sure, but a step nonetheless) toward some actual sanity and equality.

  91. 91
    Church Lady says:

    I had to go back and read Paul L.’s comments twice, trying to determine if he is crazy. It’s like he’s channeling Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum – if A happens, then we all know that B, C and D are going to follow and the world as we know it will cease to exist, the buring pits of hell will open up, and we will all fall in. I have determined that he is, in fact, crazy.

  92. 92
    sidereal says:

    What won’t change is the state of your marriage.

    Incorrect, sir!
    As a matter of fact, my marriage was improved slightly.

  93. 93
    Tsulagi says:

    I had to go back and read Paul L.’s comments twice, trying to determine if he is crazy.

    You’re a little slow there, Church Lady. Of course he’s crazy. Family values culture warriors like Paul L. need those DOMA laws and stuff. They’re the last thread they hang onto preventing them from bringing their polyamorous relationships with farm animals and wetsuits out of the closet and into the public. It wouldn’t be pretty.

  94. 94
    Blue Raven says:

    Seriously, ask yourself: how does somebody end up “sick” of hearing the word “pedophile” applied this way?

    I wouldn’t say I’m “sick” of hearing pedophile being stretched past the breaking point of its appropriate definition to cover post-pubescent teenagers more than I am weary of watching people who claim to be intelligent using a word designated to describe adults who rape pre-pubescent children as a term of opprobrium against an adult who has sex with a teenager who is of legal age of consent in his or her state of residence. Also, those who fetishize teenagers are called ephebophiles.

  95. 95
    YellowJournalism says:

    And we all know man-on-box-turtle is next.

    Yes, but you think they would include some exclusion for endangered species.

    Congratulations, ladies. This picture is very touching. I hope I am as lucky to get 50 years or more with the one I love.

  96. 96
  97. 97
    jnfr says:

    How can anyone not want more happiness in the world? I see the pictures and feel all the extra happiness, and I feel happier and it’s all a very good, joyful thing.

  98. 98
    Thursday says:

    Joshua Norton –

    I’m not really sure if something you can do in a parking lot in Las Vegas in front of an Elvis impersonator is really “sacred” any more.

    Hey! That’s my marriage you’re talking about! Okay, Elvis actually just walked the Significant Other down the aisle strumming his guiar and singing “Can’t help faling in love with you”, but the idea’s the same.

    Actually, Gavin Newsom thanked George W. Bush for pissing him off enough to do something about it.

    Which is exactly why two friends of ours got married when the Conservatives were voted in – they were going to wait until one set of parents died off (loved the partner, hated gays) one of Harper’s promises was to put gay marriage to a popular vote, so they got hitched quick to be part of the inevitable lawsuits. Ends up there weren’t enough votes to change the law back, so now they’re happily stuck with each other.

  99. 99
    Dork says:

    Several county clerks have said they will stop performing marriage ceremonies for all couples, gay or straight.

    Get fired for not doing your f’in job, much?

  100. 100
    Liz says:

    About. Effing. Time.

    I am so thrilled for all of the gay couples who are finally receiving equal rights under law regarding the people they love. I really, really wish my father and my ‘stepmom’ Bill could have been accorded that same right. As it was, my father was lucky enough to be living in a gay-friendly town and was permitted to be a part of Bill’s funeral and burial without obstruction by idiots.

    And I agree, I really hope that my marriage lasts as long as their relationship has. I don’t see myself ditching my husband to marry a woman anytime soon. (And I’m bi.) I married him because *gasp* I love him and want to spend the rest of my life with him, not because I ‘had to’ marry a man. We don’t even plan on having kids. I just want him as a part of my life and my family, with all the rights that goes with that.

  101. 101
    Liz says:

    Oh, and has anyone heard if George Takei and his honey have set a date? Inquiring geeks want to know!

  102. 102
    gbear says:

    I think George Takei and his partner were one of the very first couples to be married.

  103. 103

    […] Congratulations to all the couples who will finally be able to make true before the State of California what has been true in their hearts, many of them for decades. […]

  104. 104
    phoebes in santa fe says:

    I can’t remember why/how the FIRST law was struck down a few years ago. Does anyone else? And why is the law different this time than the first time.

    TIA

  105. 105
    Ed Drone says:

    Gays are insideous that way.

    Gays are inside o’us that way.

    Fixed it for you.

    Ed

  106. 106
    Manish says:

    FWIW, that photo is from 2004 when they got married and the court struck all those marriages down.

  107. 107
    Darkrose says:

    I checked with my co-workers this morning, and they all seem to still be married.

  108. 108
    Alex says:

    Some points:

    All that changed was the name. California civil unions already allowed inheritance, visitation, etc. etc. The California Supreme Court was very careful to point out that their ruling created no new rights for the couples beyond that to be called “married” (and emphasized that such a label was as important to the dignity of the couples as any other right).

    To Phoebes above, there was no law that was struck down in 2004. Mayor Newsom declared that he would marry gay couples, and the court issued an injunction to make him stop (because the law said he couldn’t do it). The commotion provided a basis to judge the law, which the Court struck down as unconstitutional (the case is worth reading for the reasoning).

  109. 109
    phoebes in santa fe says:

    Thanks, Alex.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Congratulations to all the couples who will finally be able to make true before the State of California what has been true in their hearts, many of them for decades. […]

  2. […] -Balloon Juice commenter Darkness, on the recent California gay marriage decision This thing was constructed by Adam. You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback. « So many questions […]

Comments are closed.