Look for new gasoline on the culture wars and sanctimonious politicians frothing at the mouth that marriage means boy-girl. Mitt Romney may split a gut.

— Posted by Mike McCaffrey

I will go with the reaction of Nancy Pelosi, a woman I truly admire.

— Posted by Lioness

The Legislature of California, which was elected by the people of California, voted to approve gay marriage twice. The only one in California who is not with the program is the Governor of California who vetoed the law twice.

An anti-gay marriage initiative passed in 2000 but, as we all should know, 2000 is long gone. I do not miss it.

— Posted by Wonks Anonymous

Great! Not gay myself but certainly feel this is a meaningful and important Legislation. Good for California, congratulations to all who are gay. I hope this will be the beginning of everyone in America to marry who they want!
Wren

— Posted by Wren

Next Pelosi would be standing by the polygamists and demagouging for their rights to marry how many ever they want…or won’t she…?

if the latter she becomes a demagoging hypocrite…
as would be any liberal buffooon that supports gay “marriage” but not a polygamists’ prefernce to marry more than one and have children with multiple wives…

— Posted by dravida

3.May 15th,
2008
6:13 pm The Legislature of California, which was elected by the people of California, voted to approve gay marriage twice. The only one in California who is not with the program is the Governor of California who vetoed the law twice.

An anti-gay marriage initiative passed in 2000 but, as we all should know, 2000 is long gone. I do not miss it.

— Posted by Wonks Anonymous
_________________

The Governor said he would respect the California Supremes courts decision.

How do I feel, I don’t care.

— Posted by Brenda, CA

I definitely like Nancy Pelosi’s response the best. I know Obama and Hillary are afraid that they can’t afford to take the same stance for political reasons, and they may be right that it would be political suicide, but I still think that people might actually respect them more if they didn’t compromise on this issue.

Hillary and Obama are both incrementalists and I respect that, but my personal take is that it is amazing that that gay marriage is even controversial in this day and age. I do have several married gay and lesbian friends who care more about equal rights under the law than the nomenclature.

— Posted by g english

An historic moment in American history that will undoubtedly lead to other states following suit. Congratulations from Canada!

— Posted by Blanche

I always tell the often-dismayed, this issue is on the rise. Can’t hold it back forever.

Such a shame the presidential candidates can’t just come out and support. I’m 100% sure Obama supports full gay marriage, and will work towards it once he’s in office. Unfortunately, it would be campaign suicide to declare it.

— Posted by jeremiah

I wonder if Senator McCain would also support the right of the people of Virginia to define marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and woman of the same race, or if he agrees with the Supreme Court’s ruling there (Loving v. Virginia).

— Posted by Kevin Costello

Mainstreaming homosexuality seems fair, however, I have a few questions:

Won’t we be legally bound to teaching homosexual sex in schools?
Young people are by nature sexually ambivalent. This could turn out in a very surprising manner.

Won’t we be legally bound to provide separate bathrooms and locker rooms for straights and gays?
Taking away the stigma of homosexuality will free-up those aggressive and overbearing tendencies that we only recently have been able to get under control in straight men.

Is there a system in place to test the legitimacy of same-sex marriages for the purpose of financial and other spousal benefits?
If same sex people are living together, they might as well get married if it benefits the household.

Are we going to destroy as many or more rights as those that we create?
Already, those that believe in the classic attitudes they learned as children and have practiced their whole lives are treated like there’s something wrong with them.

Have we thought this through sufficiently to be confident about going against 5000 years of sociological and political thought, experience, and policy?

— Posted by denise

I look forward to the constitutional amendment failing this November.

Sad that neither Clinton nor Obama can/will come out and wholeheartedly welcome an end to discrimination. Someday the rights to gay couples to marry will just be an embarrassment that we all will prefer to forget, just like the miscegenation laws. It was only in 41 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court finally said they were unconstitutional.

— Posted by kk2b

Civil rights for all; another step forward for the US. Congratulations to all those couples that can now legal commit themselves to one another.

— Posted by Kathleen

A few sobering thoughts: (1) The Court has 6 Republicans and one Democrat. So much for the Democrats saying that we cannot appoint Republican judges. The Chief Justice and author is a Republican. (2) Senator Obama visited California after Gavin Newsome directed the city clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, and Newsom and Willy Brown hosted two fundraisers for him. Obama’s condition was that he would not be photographed with Newsom because of the fallout Newsom’s courageous and ultimately legally correct act would have on Obama’s own poltical winds. A new politics? Baloney. I agree with reverend Wright. He’s just a politician.

— Posted by Michael

As expected, the usual buffoonery of the homophobes leaks onto the blog as soon as this story is posted.

— Posted by Tom

denise (11) - I’m not sure which straight men you’re talking about. All the ones I know support the right to marry whoever you want, regardless of what the government thinks. But then, all of my male friends were born in the 20th century, so that may be why we see things differently.

And regarding a “legitimacy test” for gay couples, why don’t you argue with the same zeal for a legitmacy test for straight couples? Wouldn’t a male and a female who live under the same roof be compeled to get married for the benefits, according to your logic?

What rights are being destroyed by the way with the legalization of same sex marriage in California? Don’t just make statements like the one you did, provide specifics.

— Posted by GinJ

Congratulations all LGBT, this is extraordinary and beautiful news. Courage!

— Posted by kim

Liberal fascism on acute display thru this ruling.

if only the heterophobes that “hail” this ruling,
know their history and understand how hitler used the Courts to overturn the will of the people, in the 1930s, to carry out his evil.

— Posted by deyada

Much ado about nothing. Now everyone can go through the misery of divorce settlements.

— Posted by Steve Hunter

FYI, regarding Gubernator Arnold’s vetoing the gay marriage bills. California law states that an initiative passed by the people CANNOT be reversed by the legislature. Therefore, even if he signed the law, it would only be reversed by the courts.

These facts are noted in the opinion.

Finally, HOORAY FOR LGBT! HOORAY FOR CALIFORNIA. I was in Australia when San Francisco started issuing the gay marriage licenses and I had never been so proud of my hometown. Now I am doubly proud of our state!

— Posted by Henry

Have we thought this through sufficiently to be confident about going against 5000 years of sociological and political thought, experience, and policy

You might want to actually read history instead of just proclaiming it. It’s obvious you don’t know about the multitude of ways that same-sex behavior has been institutionalized in various societies.

— Posted by MAJeff

To me, civil marriage is the legal equivalent of slavery, and as such, all marriage, gay and straight, is banned under 13th amendment.

As a non-binding religious ceremony, fine. But as far as a contract between two people involving property and other rights — no bond is ever so illegal and so onerous on human freedoms!

— Posted by John Bailo

Ah, the living state constitution. A right, unfound for 159 years, suddenly exists. How cute. Why don’t we just throw off the shackles of those silly documents.
Polygamy seems very popular in some places. If the justices want celebratory cheering, how about, “Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person(s) and responsibly to care for and raise children (Bunches) does not depend upon the individual’s number or age of partners — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.”

— Posted by NC

I wonder if Senator McCain would also support the right of the people of Virginia to define marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and woman of the same race, or if he agrees with the Supreme Court’s ruling there (Loving v. Virginia).

— Posted by Kevin Costello (#10)

Excellant questions. The answers are probably yes to the first, and no to the second. Marriage laws are something that the Fed has no business mixing in with. The California court made its decision based on the constitution of that state. Other states should do the same, and the national candidates should not feel obligated to take a position one way or the other, unless they have a personal opinion, and I supppose that is really nobody’s business but theirs.

This is going to be a great election year though. You know that the religious crazies will come out of the woodwork to denounce the decision and bring hell fire and brimstone down on the heads of the justices. Can anyone say Taliban?

— Posted by ravenswing2

Pelosi’s comments are pretty much on target. Of course, it would be difficult for her to say anything else, given her constituency. I wonder if she is inclined to take that firm a stand against amnesty for illegals and in favor of closing the borders. I doubt that, but I could be wrong.

— Posted by XFARB6

NC (#23); your line-drawing exercise - polygamy=gay marriage - is ludicrous. The differences are profound and obvious. Polygamy fosters abuse and institutionalizes power structures that the state seeks to deconstruct. No cognizable harm, aside from your own discomfort, can be said to exist in authorizing gay marriage.

Other than slippery slope fallacies, do you have any real arguments against gay marriage?

And as for the critique of the “living Constitution,” I suppose you’d criticize Brown v. Board on the same grounds.

— Posted by ACG

Deyada (#18) - the courts are the last bastion of liberty when the majority oppresses the minority without cause. American history is dotted with similar cases, unless you think desegregation was “liberal fascism” too.

— Posted by ACG

Hi Denise, I was out in high school and shared the same locker room with my teammates. Nobody cared.

My sex ed did discuss gay sex. Again, nobody cared.

I’m also not about to marry my (female) roommate for financial benefits. I can’t for the life of me imagine that would be a problem.

5000 years of what exactly? Many societies over the past 5000 years have had homosexual practices and structures of some sort.

— Posted by Max

I believe everyone should have to right to marry anyone of any gender if they both are of legal consent. However I do believe the whole idea of a legal shackle to someone is fairly sick. Not sure why we are still doing it at this point with our 50% divorce rate. I not sure what Ms.Pelosi did if anything to help this get through but she sure knows how to say what she needs to say when she believes it will make her look good. Just what contribution has she made to anything since she has been in her position? She reminds me of a female version of Dr. Dean.

— Posted by Diana

No matter what the candidates think — and I agree with ravenswing: it’s a state issue, but it’s still necessary for them to weigh in so voters know where they stand — here in SF it’s a beautiful (and hot!) day full of love and tears. Thank you California Supreme Court for fulfilling your duties under the Constitution, thank you Massachusetts for showing that equality doesn’t equal apocalypse, and thank you McCain for showing your authoritarian disregard for the American legal system and your complete doddering spaciness yet again. PS Message to Hill and Barry — some of us white working class people are gay, you know. We’re the sexy ones.

— Posted by Marke B

God almighty who cares??? If gay ppl want to marry why does this bother anyone? Dont you have better things to do??? — a married heterosexual

— Posted by nathan

It would be refreshing and encouraging if our presidential candidates (never mind Joe Average Citizen) knew enough about civics to know that it is indeed the SPECIFIC business of the high courts of each state and the United States to decide questions of constitutionality. The so-called will of the people cannot and must not hold sway in issues of constitutional rights. To create a “separate-but-equal” mechanism (civil unions) for legal partherships between gays/lesbians means that by definition they DON’T have the rights heterosexual partners have.
By the way, to those ignoramuses who claim this decision will (or should) lead to polygamy being legalized: the state actually has an interest in preventing the chaos that would result from simultaneous multiple marital partners of either sex. How does the state equitably decide property and inheritance laws if a person dies while married to twelve spouses (or divorces one or more)? And let’s not even get into the coercive/oppressive aspects of such relationships. Marriage between two partners is not always a marriage of equals, but it is PRESUMED to be so, and the state can reasonably treat it that way. Of course, we could always create the legal mechanism of civil unions for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. That way, the state completely removes itself from the religious tradition biz. If you want to celebrate your union in a church or synagogue, more power to you, but it wouldn’t have any bearing on the legal status of your partnership. I like it.
Anyhow, hallelujah for ALL loving partners who want to cement and protect their relationship and their families through marriage!

— Posted by Diane

Good for Nancy Pelosi. I look forward to the day when Democrats in general have the guts to stand up for equal rights.

— Posted by trudy

Hooray! Its about time we recognize that homosexuals have equal rights.
Oh and by the way to those who think it unnatural, remember homosexuality has existed for all of recorded history, seems to me that that amkes as natural as anything. Now lets get on with life and resolve some oher important issues.

— Posted by Steve K

Opponents of gay marriage want it both ways. On the one hand, they say that legislatures should decide the issue. But when the California legislature did just that the governor vetoes the bill, claiming that it’s up to the courts to decide. Then when the courts legitimize same sex marriages, everyone cries foul because they believe it should be left up to the legislatures. So which is it, opponents of gay marriage? Decide already.

— Posted by Patrick Blackmon

This is a historic moment, but one that is soured by the reactions of both Obama and Clinton (I never expected McCain to be anything more than a bigoted panderer to the right-wing on this issue).

Only Pelosi has the guts to stand up for what is right on this issue. Clinton says she thinks gays and lesbians “should have the same rights” but “believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal”. How are civil unions better than marriage? How is there one level of rights for straight and one for gays? A civil union in California means nothing when you move to Nebraska, it is in no way equal to marriage.

If equality is the goal than don’t create a separate, “but equal” institution.

— Posted by Rob Curry-Smithson

Welcome to Canada, California!. Welcome to Canada where we entered just wars — like WW 11 — long before the United States belatedly joined the cause of justice for all. Now, dear American friends and allies, we support you as you move ahead in the uphill struggle to treat all Americans, including gay people, as equals before the law.

— Posted by Ray Heard

Try not to think of this issue from the point of view of someone who wants to be liked.

Reflect on it as the leader of millions of people.

How should I arrange society for the future?

What laws can I put in place to lead the people in their most productive direction?

Can we respect all people and ensure their individual dignity without having the government sanction each of their individual idiosycracies?

— Posted by denise

I don’t care what anybody says; my now being able to marry a rich Republican will make it so much easier to have the transition from Democrat to Republican complete!
“Wedding Bells Are Breaking Up That Old Gang Of Mine!”

— Posted by Perley J. Thibodeau

I am ambivalent about this decision. I agree that gays should have equal rights, but I am uncomfortable with gay marriage at this time. I agree with HRC’s position on civil unions. It is more incremental. Why is Obama, the candidate of change, only for civil unions? He is always such a coward on difficult decisions. After all, he is the one who has campaigned for nothing but change, change, change. The only change he wants is that the Obama’s reside in the White House.

— Posted by Lisa Donohue

ACG (#27)- I’m sympathetic to gay lifestyle, though concerned by judicial social engineering. But, that’s irrelevant. Gay marriage needed an amendment or legislation, not a constitutional birthing.
I’m not an expert, but believe “Separate, but equal”, ratified by Plessey, was overruled by disregard to “equal”. Maybe, the Court should have waited for the good people of Topeka. The implementation of Brown was disastrous and has been nearly reversed. Sadly, one could argue the dubious education benefits.

— Posted by NC

this is 1 step towards the nation self actualizing its creed that all are created equal.

— Posted by tom

This is why I was for Dennis Kucinich at the beginning of all this. Only he and Gravel (I think it was Gravel; I could be wrong) were openly supportive of complete gay rights. If only to support my lesbian sister, I supported Kucinich.

There were actually many other differences. For example, Kucinich is against the death penalty; Obama and Clinton support it. Kucinich is against the border fence; Obama and Clinton support it. But we’re past that bridge.

I’m confident that, deep down, both Hillary and Barack support gay rights, but both of them are playing it old school - yes, even the sainted Obama won’t go for “Change” on this one.

Maybe next time.

— Posted by Jeff M in chicago

Sorry, but thats not enough for me, declare Obama. Thousands of gay men are ready to vote for McCain this fall. Knowing how many AA’s feel about gays have some courage and declare for us. Take a stand or earn our hatred.

— Posted by botan

In Pennsylvania before the Democratic primary, the Gay community took out a full page ad divided into 2 columns.

Each columns listed the support, the efforts, teh actions taken on their behalf, and interviews granted to Gay publications by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Clinton’s side was filled from top to bottom.

Obama’s was blank.

I’m voting Democrat in November.

I’m writing Hillary Clinton in on the ballot.

I urge all Gays & Lesbians and Bi-Sexuals and Trans-Gendered people to do the same.

It’s the only fair thing to do.

— Posted by Jay

Won’t we be legally bound to teaching homosexual sex in schools?

Won’t we be legally bound to provide separate bathrooms and locker rooms for straights and gays?

Is there a system in place to test the legitimacy of same-sex marriages for the purpose of financial and other spousal benefits?

— Posted by denise

Denise. Step back into the time machine. Turn the dial to 1947. Press the red button. You’ll feel right at home in no time.

— Posted by WaybackMachineOperator

@dravida:
the problem with polygamous marriages is that they are typically performed in situations which most people would consider coercive to the girls involved. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be legal but it is a trickier issue.

Also to say that polygamy is legally analogous to homosexuality is a weak proposition, as most people agree that homosexuals constitute a group that should receive protection under civil rights laws in the same way as ethnic groups, sexes, etc; it is much harder to make the same case for polygamy practitioners. A better argument legally would be that polygamy must be legal because to outlaw it is an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of religion.

I think that almost anybody, even die-hard homophobes, would agree that sexual orientation is a fundamental aspect of a person’s identity and that this isn’t true of polygamous preferences.

— Posted by sam

We need to more focus our fears and loathing on non-flag-worship, flag burning, homosexual proclivities / marriage and womens rights over there own bodies; thus avoiding any need to focus on actual problems that, based on our actions, will determine our position in the global food chain.

— Posted by northrhombus

Irritating.

I certainly tolerate homosexuals. I certainly don’t think they should be persecuted. I think they should be able to enter into any legal relationship anyone else can.

However, marriage is more than a legal form. It is society sanctioning two people coupling (pun very much intended.)

I don’t particularly feel I, as a member of society, should be forced to give an imprimatur of approval to what I continue to find unnatural and fairly disgusting. I’d rather not voice this view — but then, Gays are insisting on forcing the issue.

Yes, I will tolerate what Gays do. However, I resent being forced to applaud.

— Posted by Colin Wright

Congratulations to the people of California!

Also, I am proud of Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her courageous agreement with the ruling.

Of course, the right wing will be in an uproar about this. It is sad that they refuse to accept the fact that gay and lesbian people are PEOPLE. They are their neighbors, their friends, their co-workers, and their family members.

Only when we respect the rights of all people to live in freedom and give them the legal rights that they deserve can we call ourselves a free nation.

The decision in California is a step in the right direction.

— Posted by Mary in Pennsylvania

“Take a stand or earn our hatred.”

Go ahead, shoot yourself in the proverbial Judiciary foot and vote for McCain. Gays will be stuck with a supreme court chock full of Scalia-esque idiots itching to put a wholly/holy right-handed spin on the 14th Amendment.

— Posted by northrhombus

I think a huge problem is that “marriage” is a religious concept applied to secular society. What we ought to do is have everyone– gay or straight– get a legal civil union and leave “marriage” to churches. This way everyone would legally have the same rights and the rest of the mess could be taken up in the private religious sphere. Sure, there would still be bigotry and ignorance, but everyone would have the same constitutional protection and the religious argument would be unfounded and out of place in the public debate.

— Posted by CJ

Congratulations California! I am elated that the state’s government went beyond the “seperate but equal” safe ground in politics to set a true example of rights for all its citzens. Bravo!

The financial benefit of tax breaks for those “married” under the law should be reevaluated and set to an equal standard for each individual citizen regardless of marriage status. Many things happen in different and taking the tax burden if you didn’t decide to marry whether gay or straight is absolutely unfair.

— Posted by Carl

botan,

Smart move, help McCain pack the Supreme Court with more Republicans, that will really move things towards equal rights, not.

— Posted by trudy

to re-itterate an idea from Rep Paul, marriage is usually a religious institution. What is the business of or why is the government of the USA involved in people’s lives to this degree? Taxes? The governemnt does not have authority to delineate who can/cannot marry. People should be free to live their lives without constant government intervention. Isn’t that what the Constitution is for? to limit government power to the authorities stated in article 1 section 8?

I wonder if McCain will brin up the anti gay marriage amaendment Bush used in ‘04 to rally the christian right to the polls.

our nation has a long history of preaching equality while using the heavy hand of authority to oppress.

— Posted by tom

Sorry, but thats not enough for me, declare Obama. Thousands of gay men are ready to vote for McCain this fall. Knowing how many AA’s feel about gays have some courage and declare for us. Take a stand or earn our hatred.

— Posted by botan
—————
You think that you’d get less hatred with McBush and his rightwing nuts. Think again!
You give Obama and all those latte drinking libs a little more time and the colors of the rainbow will be clear in your eyes.

— Posted by Kindame

The Right has not hesitated to ask the courts to disregard the will of the people in determining Second Amendment rights of gun owners. But when the courts vindicate any other rights, the Right says that courts should stay out of it. “Legislation from the bench” is code language for “rulings I disagree with.”

— Posted by Anonymous

Yes. This country is falling apart, the whole world is falling apart but let us, particularly in this election year, concentrate on the really important issue: marriage.

— Posted by Jacques Weissgerber

I applaud California, and I hope many couples take their vows, finally.

My husband and I were not going to get married, but live together. We were happy with the arrangement. As time passed and ‘business’ issues needed to be decided, we came to the conclusion that it would be in our current and future best interests to legally marry. We did.

I am happy to see everyone have the same rights and opportunities afforded my family. I wish it were national, rather than just one state, but it’s a start.

— Posted by Susan

Why do straight people worry about gay marriages? I am straight and happily married to a wonderful woman, and yet, by California allowing same-sex marriages doesn’t change my life in anyway. I really find it difficult to understand why straight people are bothered by gays and lesbians. Straight people that are afraid of gay marriages are people who aren’t secure with their own sexuality.

— Posted by Adam Worth

Arnold is more supportive of the ruling than Hilary or Obama! Neither of them deserves my vote! Unfortunately, one of them will get it.

— Posted by thebigmancat

Sorry, but thats not enough for me, declare Obama. Thousands of gay men are ready to vote for McCain this fall. Knowing how many AA’s feel about gays have some courage and declare for us. Take a stand or earn our hatred.

— Posted by botan

Please clarify your comment, because I’m confused. Why would thousands of gay men vote for McCain over Obama? Obama at least supports civil unions and is for FULL repeal of DOMA (unlike Clinton). McCain keeps babbling about it’s a state issue while he supported Arizona’s attempt to ban gay marriage or gay recognition of any sort.

And why bring in the AA community. They have nothing to do with this. You’re using others to judge Obama? Well I can easily use the attitudes amongst whites to judge Clinton or McCain because for every AA who is against gay marriage I can give you two white people who are against gay marriage. But I’m not going to do that.

And an interesting tidbit, Reverend Wright you remember—the believed anti-American and supposed racist—well he supports gay rights. A hell of a lot different that McCain’s buddy Pastor Hagge who pretty much thinks gays should burn in hell.

— Posted by bma83

Every candidate for high office should be required to take a Constitutional Law class.

McCain might then know that it is NOT the role of the courts to simply endorse the laws passed by the legislature - it is their role to ensure those laws pass Constitutional muster. It seems as though the California court has done this job well, in the same spirit as the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia. Good for you!

ACG @ 8:55 pm - you said it best - “the courts are the last bastion of liberty when the majority oppresses the minority without cause.”

The homosexuality/polygamy analogy actually in interesting. I for one would be in favor of legalizing polygamous marriage, as long as it was clear that everyone involved was a consenting adult. The problem with polygamy, as we have seen recently in Texas, is that this is often not the case.

— Posted by DC

I hope that voters aren’t so witless and gullible that they’ll care more about the “culture wars” than about ending the war in Iraq, which has plunged us into debt and made us international pariahs.

It’s the economy again, stupid.

— Posted by CVH

How about marriage for people with kids and civil unions for people with life partnerships?

— Posted by jolene

This is why I was for Kucinich at the start of all this. He (and Gravel? I could be wrong here) completely supported gay rights. Hillary does not, and even the sainted Obama will not be looking for “Change” on this issue. They’re both chicken, and they are BOTH playing it old school on this issue.

— Posted by Jeff M in Chicago

Re: Denise you said young people are sexually ambivalent? I disagree completely. When I was 12, 13, 14 I VERY interested in sex, I knew I wasn’t interested in girls and I had never come in contact with an out gay person. I was raised in a stable environment and had no sex education. How did I turn out gay?
Furthermore the entire world has changed in the past 5,000 in ways we could not even comprehend. I don’t understand how allowing gays the right to marry takes away from the rights of heterosexuals???

— Posted by Shawn

Good for Pelosi (and good for Schwarzenegger, too). How we can be so callous to such a significant, (though minor) portion of our population is beyond me. Give ‘em their marriages…and then soak up the extra taxes those marriages would give to the treasury. You’d think politicians would love the opportunity to get more money from the American people. It’s a win-win!

— Posted by mike

Thank you California for this long over-due ruling. It does however highlight the fact that DOMA is ridiculously outdated and needs to be discarded during the next President’s term. Until DOMA is discarded the only United States of America that can exist for married gay couples is a union consisting of California and Massachusetts, for their rights won’t exist in any other state.

I also want to point out that, contrary to popular belief, marriage has always been a tenet of government and society NOT that of religion. Religion adapted marriage to itself when religion delved into power-grabs and wanted to control society through government laws. Throughout history marriage has been a means to acquire property, show societal status, and garner legal benefits. Adam and Eve were never “married” because there was no society to marry them.

2 down, 48 more to go…I sure hope its not another 4 years before the next state does the right thing.

— Posted by Steven in Florida

Colin Wright (12:59) - I’m sure all gays are glad that you “tolerate” them. And I’m sure they reciprocate.

You seem to be saying that marriage is about procreation. If so, then you must be of the mind that infertile heterosexual couples cannot marry either. Care to expound?

— Posted by Jeff M in Chicago

Denise: thank you for calling my sexuality an idiosyncrasy. It is an excellent contribution to the debate.

Also, when you say “the people,” you realize that gay people are included in “the people,” right? And, if you wanted to push “the people” in the most productive direction, you would at least permit all of them to start legitimate families with stable parenting and an equal playing field. Right?

ALSO, to those countless posters who draw the [preposterous] comparison to polygamy: I highly doubt that you’ll find even an ardent polygamist who argues that their desired marital structure is a “proclivity” or an “orientation.” It’s a philosophy. A belief. I hope I don’t have to tell you that homosexuality is not a philosophy.

— Posted by Adam

Gays don’t bother me, I don’t bother them. They don’t think much about me, I don’t think much about them. If you spend a lot of time thinking about them, then maybe you should take a good hard look at that. Maybe you should find something more productive and less bizarre to do with your time.
Gays are tax paying citizens protected by the Constitution. No more no less. Let the Constitution breathe and it will be best for all.

— Posted by rmc

Who cares about the marriage institution when its laws are derived from the same religious institutions that condemned homosexuality from the first place. I don’t understand the masochistic tendencies of gay couples who want to embrace this institution and its Church and above all, God the all mighty hater of the gay community.

Yes, of course they should have equal rights as anyone else in society, but be creative and come up with a better term for your union after all marriage linguistically does signify the union between individual of the opposit sex and to be correct in the a linguistic sense we ought to differentiate between the two unions as a matter of speech and for the sake of commonsense. We don’t live in a genderless society nor phisically we have identical organs yet. But maybe evolution will take us their oneday if we made it and maybe by then we rid ourselves from our reproduction system and become completely whole and sex wont be an issue anymore.

— Posted by la

If you truly believe that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, then marriage is not about love but rather biology. The logical inference being that a CONSENTING ADULT who is biological incapable of having children should not be able to marry.

— Posted by Unamerican

Nowhere are people more gullible than in the context of judicial decisions.

Judicial Activism is activism whether you agree with the decision or not.

1) The California decision on gay marriage is judicial activism for overturning an initiative, even if you agree with court.

2) A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning DC’s ban on handguns is also judicial activism even if you’re in favor of overturning the ban.

— Posted by Unamerican

Colin,

Marriage is a legal ceremony that entitles married couples to enormous rights at many different levels–societally, financially. People all around the world and throughout history have found each other “disgusting” when they are uneducated about people who are different from them. And this has led to people being slaughtered, abused, discriminated against, etc. etc.

As a woman who is in a primary relationship with another woman whom I consider the love of my life, I can certainly find many “disgusting” things about heterosexual sex. Things that don’t appeal to me personally. But that doesn’t lead me to deduce then that anyone different from me in their emotional/erotic tendencies is therefore less than me.

As for gays pushing the issue, would you say the same thing to African-Americans who boldly paved the way for school integration in the 1950s, losing jobs, personal/pyschological welfare, being taunted and physically hurt or killed? It’s ignorance like yours that creates intolerance the world over.

— Posted by Rachel

Gee whiz!

How can all of you democrats fall for this timely development right before another presidential election? This is the classic “wedge issue” that helped Kerry lose in 2004.

And to begrudge any candidate for taking the low road this time around is beyond me. Wake up! Is it worth holding anyone’s feet to the fire at this moment in 2008 over this ridiculous issue?

Most of these posts are so easily drawn into this debate that they act is if it’s the top priority for their vote in November. This is just a truly pathetic perspective, and you are all bad citizens if this is honestly your #1 issue in 2008.

— Posted by Robert W.

Young people are by nature sexually ambivalent…

How should I arrange society for the future? What laws can I put in place to lead the people in their most productive direction?

— Posted by denise

Well, Denise, the government should not be Big Brother. It is none of its business to legislate its citizens’ sex lives, as long as the people involved are adults and consenting.

If you want to “lead the people in their most productive direction,” you should be a minister or an inspirational speaker or something.

I don’t actually know anyone who is or was sexually ambivalent. Where did you get that idea, or are you expressing your own feelings?

— Posted by trudy

Unamerican: Yes, I suppose it IS judicial activism. The kind of judicial activism that our constitutional system purposefully provides. This is exactly what judges are supposed to do.

— Posted by Jeff M in Chicago

Here is a “one Size Fits All” response to our nations problems.

But most specifically, the ‘female problem’ and the ‘gay problem’ in this country.

Any 5 year old can tell you this story, and yet, most adults (Democrats) just still don’t get it, and probably never will. I am talking about race and religion.

The 5 year old and the sandbox is a fitting analogy.

When you take black ants and red ants and put either in or near the others nest or proximity, what happens? They attack and kill one another right? Same with whites, and then there’s all the other mongrel races against us whites.You forcibly mix them up real good and stir up the nest what happens? They attack and kill one another right? The answer is simple. Keep them seperated. Don’t try to integrate them for their voting block tally and political purposes (JFK/Johnson), or they will get what they deserve.

Okay then, moving right along to religion. Christians are the red ants and Muslims, (because they are darker complected), we’ll call them the black ants. You mix them up real good and antagonize the nest (9-11) and what happens? Us red ants get really pissed off and go off and kill every black ant we see (Muslims),until we possibly can’t kill any more of them.

The simple moral to this story? Stop trying to interject your race and religion dogma into your politics you Democrats, for the sake of votes, or it is guaranteed that many will die because of your “Democratic Ideals” and all you “support”.

For the really dense among you Democrats, don’t mix the red ants and the black ants, and you best keep them seperated, lest they kill eachother. And any 5 year old can tell you this too, the red ants (white males), always win.

Try it in your own backyard. You’ll see I am right.

Simple.

— Posted by Jeff M in Chicago

66.May 16th,
2008
10:37 am How about marriage for people with kids and civil unions for people with life partnerships?
— Posted by jolene
jolene: How about your reading up on the subject before you post a comment?
Gays want full marriage rights;
F-U-L-L-M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E-R-I-G-H-T-S-!
Full Marriage Rights, get it? Full Marriage Rights!

— Posted by Perley J. Thibodeau

Same Sex marriage has NOT changed anything in the State of Massachusetts, has it???

Civilization as we know it has NOT come to an end in that state….and the rest of the states should soon follow….

People need to keep their personal religious beliefs OUT of our CIVIL rights…!

— Posted by Coty21

I can’t say that I was surprised by the ruling - Afterall I lestened to the attorneys for the LOSING side on this issue. I am a gay man who is happily in a long-term monogomous marriage to my husband and best friend in the world - That’s right HE IS MY HUSBAND. We were married in SF and I still state to all who know me that I am MARRIED- not “domestically partnered” What lame brain thought up that term.

We are telling everyone that we know what our side of the story is; all those who are near and dear to us respect us for our life path that was pre-ordained - NOT a CHOICE. Can you straight men wake up one day and decide to be a GAY man? I certainly didn’t ask for this lot in life. I was created by the same G-d as my straight counterparts. What do you care who I have in my bed.

I was absolutely STEEPED in “christian propaganda” as a child - the worst thing they could have done was to educate ME in the Bible. There is no passage of scripture which when READ - IN CONTEXT that damns my soul to hell. The only damnation I will receive is from all of those self-righteous christian folk telling me what god thinks of me….. Did you forget the other books which teach love and acceptance? My mother taught me all the same crap that so many “christians” memorize - excluding the parts (overlooking perhaps) the other verses that surround the ones that mention my loving another man. There is Adultery, theivery, lust, lying, greed, hypocracy - one of my favorites.

I wont be infecting you with love of your fellow man. I am happy to see how many applaud the decision. Either way, the way that I see it - a victory is sweet only when on the winning side….

WE WON People - Accept it that you will seeing alot more couples who are not afraid to be seen. I for one am the loudest voice when my rights are being withheld. I fought to defend this country and gave my heart and soul to my service. I was GAY then, as I am now and maintain many of the relationships I had during my terms in service. They all know and accept me - get over it…

— Posted by Rico Camacho

I just wanted to comment on the Fallacies that the Christian Right has Put Forth in this debate. I will Quote the Chief Justice of the California Court to show “Strict Scrutiny” is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so called Suspect classification or impinges upon a Fundamental Right… We conclude that Strict Scrutiny is Applicable here because the statutes in question properly must be understood as Classifying or Discriminating on the Basis OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION a Chararistic that we conclude is a constitutionally suspect basis…

give me one reason that passes that muster

— Posted by Kirk

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Normally, it wouldn’t be accepted for everyone to see, and you don’t want children to be able to see it. I think being gay is a choice. It should be accepted in the home, and if people are led to believe it’s accepted, then they may be prepared to follow that path.

— Posted by Donna

Good for them,what business do others have? Who said what marriage is? as long as they are honest,happy and productive is all good.

— Posted by joaquin