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.

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

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.

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

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…

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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!

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.”

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?

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.