California Supreme Court strikes down ban on gay marriage

[Sarkus]

It seems to me that gay marriage is an issue that will be decided at the state level and not the national level.  First, I don't think there is a lot of interest in touching the issue at the national level, individual positions of support aside.  Second, I'm not sure the Supreme Court would uphold a national decision given how many strict literalist interpretors there are on the court.  Third, I don't think the court will accept any appeals to them unless someone is arguing a constitutional right they feel they need to clarify, and the make-up of the court suggests where that will come down.

You never know when the make up of the court will change, of course.   Even if a Dem is elected president this fall you'll probably only see the older liberals step down to be replaced by younger versions, which won't change the balance.

[Gratch]

...so I think opposition on this issue will have a lot more staying power, unless the Bible becomes irrelevant in the next thirty years.

With regards to lawmaking, one can only hope.

[Exodor]

Eh, I dunno.  Racial stuff isn't condemned by the Bible (and yes, I know some people say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality either - the majority view says otherwise, though, so that's what I'm going with)

Well, Leviticus and Paul seem overly concnered with it but as far as I know Jesus never addressed the topic.

[helot2000]

If you need a laugh, Brian Unger explains how gay marriage can be just the boost the economy needs.  I love how it opens with the 5th Dimension singing "Please marry me, Bill" from their song "Wedding Day Blues."

"Gay couples can turn Skid Row into SoHo like nobodies business."

[msteelers]

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

"Race Mixing is Communism" is my new favorite slogan.

[Doopri]

It's mostly a religious issue.  In their minds, they're trying to prevent society from giving a "stamp of approval" to a Biblical sin.

thank god - hopefully this means the next gay marriage banning-amendment to the federal constitution will be accompanied by an additional amendment outlawing the death penalty - just please dont put them into one id be hard pressed to vote against it!

[Electronic Dan]

 Given that California's domestic partnerships already gave gay couples the same rights and responsibilities as marriage from the standpoint of state law,  what does this change, other than having it called "marriage" instead of "domestic partnerships"?

Seems like much ado about very little, IMO.  I'll get more excited when rights and responsibilities are given in other states or at the federal level. *shrug*

[Ironrod]

Given that California's domestic partnerships already gave gay couples the same rights and responsibilities as marriage from the standpoint of state law,  what does this change, other than having it called "marriage" instead of "domestic partnerships"?

As it was explained to me, "separate but equal isn't equal."

[Electronic Dan]

Given that California's domestic partnerships already gave gay couples the same rights and responsibilities as marriage from the standpoint of state law,  what does this change, other than having it called "marriage" instead of "domestic partnerships"?

As it was explained to me, "separate but equal isn't equal."

Any examples of any couple who are now treated significantly differently by the state as a result of this ruling?  Or is it just standing on principle?

On the other hand, what this may end up doing is result in a backlash in California or other states that may be harder to undo.

[Pyperkub]

Carpe diem: Ellen Degeneris is marrying Portia DeRossi. How can anybody be against that?

I'm against it.  Portia can't do any better than Ellen Degeneris?  REALLY?

gellar

you only wish you could get against that :-)

[Pyperkub]

T minus 30 minutes...

I'm rather proud of my state today... the article is a good read.

Breaking ground is nothing new in the nearly six-decade relationship of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

 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.

On Monday, Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, will exchange vows again. This time, California law -- at least for now -- will be on their side....

[Mr. Fed]

So, from what I understand from the cultural Right, this means that I only had until 5:01 today until my marriage is so undermined that I have to get a divorce and go marry a toaster or my dead mother or a springer spaniel or six guys from San Francisco, right? Because that's totally inconvenient today. It's burrito night at home. Would it be okay if just for tonight I pretend that my own marriage stands on its own and is not dependent on society-wide cultural orthodoxy, and then marry the toaster tomorrow?

[Blackadar]

So, from what I understand from the cultural Right, this means that I only had until 5:01 today until my marriage is so undermined that I have to get a divorce and go marry a toaster or my dead mother or a springer spaniel or six guys from San Francisco, right? Because that's totally inconvenient today. It's burrito night at home. Would it be okay if just for tonight I pretend that my own marriage stands on its own and is not dependent on society-wide cultural orthodoxy, and then marry the toaster tomorrow?

Only if you really love the toaster.

[Mr. Fed]

So, from what I understand from the cultural Right, this means that I only had until 5:01 today until my marriage is so undermined that I have to get a divorce and go marry a toaster or my dead mother or a springer spaniel or six guys from San Francisco, right? Because that's totally inconvenient today. It's burrito night at home. Would it be okay if just for tonight I pretend that my own marriage stands on its own and is not dependent on society-wide cultural orthodoxy, and then marry the toaster tomorrow?

Only if you really love the toaster.

It is the pop-tart giver to my heart.

[Blackadar]

So, from what I understand from the cultural Right, this means that I only had until 5:01 today until my marriage is so undermined that I have to get a divorce and go marry a toaster or my dead mother or a springer spaniel or six guys from San Francisco, right? Because that's totally inconvenient today. It's burrito night at home. Would it be okay if just for tonight I pretend that my own marriage stands on its own and is not dependent on society-wide cultural orthodoxy, and then marry the toaster tomorrow?

Only if you really love the toaster.

It is the pop-tart giver to my heart.

Then I now pronounce you man and pastry.  You may tongue the bride.

[Electronic Dan]

So, from what I understand from the cultural Right, this means that I only had until 5:01 today until my marriage is so undermined that I have to get a divorce and go marry a toaster or my dead mother or a springer spaniel or six guys from San Francisco, right?

"Or"?  Why choose between them?