Gay marriage ban struck down by California Supreme Court

It looks like California is poised to join Massachusetts as states where gay and lesbian residents can get legally married.

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation’s largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices’ 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march.

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Noting the context before the ruling was issued, Andrew Sullivan reminded readers yesterday that the California legislature has already passed marriage equality twice, and this court ruling can permanently change the civil-rights landscape.

“Those in favor of civil equality better get ready,” Sullivan wrote. “The gay civil rights movement will never have waged a battle this big, this expensive or this important. We can win at the ballot box as well as in the courts and legislatures. And the good news is that the Republican governor has said he will oppose any initiative to take marriage rights away, if they are granted. Hold on tight.”

Today’s ruling, while welcome, will run directly into a measure pending for the November ballot in California.

Kevin explained yesterday:

I think it’s widely expected that the court is going to legalize gay marriage, and the initiative to strike down their ruling has already gathered over a million signatures and is just waiting for verification from the Secretary of State before it goes on the November ballot. It’s 14 words long, identical to the wording of Prop 22 back in 2000: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This time, however, it’s a constitutional initiative, not a statutory initiative, so if it passes it will be immune to court challenges.

Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 63% of the vote. Has 13% of the state decided to relax since then and allow gay couples to live in peace? We’re about to find out.

In the meantime, Americans have a welcome court ruling (pdf):

“[I]n 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 and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

“We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

This would leave state lawmakers with no wiggle room to speak of. As the AP noted, California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It’s therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.”

And that’s precisely what the court did. Good for them — and good for all of us.

THIS is what the Republicans have been praying for. Nothing energizes and unifies the Republicans like fag-bashing. Now they have the theme for their general election campaign: Homos/California/Uppity Negro.

  • “And that’s precisely what the court did. Good for them — and good for all of us”

    I’ll second CB’s words. God love ANY couple who want to get married and committed in these troubled times.

    However, I also agree with SaintZak just above. But hopefully the Republicans will be so generally dispirited that the “baiting” won’t work as well this election as it has the previous ones. Maybe the American people will finally wake up and stop voting for bogus social interests/against their own well-being. I can hope….

  • Agreed, SaintZak.

    I continue to believe that John Kerry lost to Bush on the day in 2004 that they started performing gay marriages in Massachusetts.

    I would like for gay marriage to be legal everywhere. But why do we always have these court decisions in an election year?

  • You know, Republicans try telling me that gay marriage will ruin mine. Not sure how, but they keep saying it.

    Personally, I think gay people have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us …

    😉

  • One thing I never understood was the definition of a ‘woman’.

    OK, now you all know I am nuts.

    Person A was born as a man and has had a sex change operation and now is a ‘woman’.

    Who can Person A marry?

    The birth certificate shows ‘Male’. The person has a y chromosone. That sounds like a ‘man’ to me.

    The person has female sex organs. That sounds like a ‘woman’ to me.

    If you are against gay marriage then you probably don’t have a good answer to the question ‘who can this person marry.’

    If you are in favor of gay marriage then your answer is simple.

    I believe that certain states look to the current sex organs and other states look at the original birth certificate. That would mean that those people could marry anyone they wanted if they choose the proper state to get married.

    So, I really don’t know what the definition of a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ is.

  • It will be interesting to see how the Dem candidates answer the first question they are asked today, what’s their reaction to the court decision.

    Keep in mind that 6 of the 7 members of the Cal. Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors. Hat’s off to Chief Justice Ron George for stepping up and writing the majority opinion.

  • It’s not 2004 anymore. America has gotten used to gays, and no longer finds them scary. (Has anyone here ever watched Judge David Young? Have they noticed how much the opening to the show stresses his gayness? And in New York, he runs on Channel 9, the Fox spill-over network. Or seen Ellen’s ratings for her talk show? Sounds trivial, but it isn’t. This is the type of thing that affects people, far more than ‘more important’ openly gay presentations. For that matter, almost every cable station shows LOGO, the gay network. A lot of people might turn in just for the comedy, but it helps. The same with gay characters on soap operas. We might find these trivialities — but we don’t need convincing.)

    Sure, the religious right is complaining and bitching, but, y’know, they don’t represent even the majority of Christians. Look at how even McCain found Hagee’s anti-gay comments ‘ridiculous.’ (And, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly, the person chosen as his spokesman after WVa was Charlie Crist — who is gay and nobody in Florida seems to care.)

  • “[I]n 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 and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

    Well, who’s “we”? Who’s “our state”?

    Courts tend to track, and I tend to agree with, elite opinion. Still, even when you like the result, it’s a little uncomfortable that the least democratic branch decides this sort of thing.

    But the right wages its battles for and in the judiciary, I guess we have to too.

  • I’m reminded of a few things:

    1] The New Yorker cartoon in which a man asked: “Gays want to get married? Haven’t they suffered enough?”

    2] The bumper sticker that circulated after Virginia passed the “Marriage Protection Act” that said: “Virginia is for Lovers. *Some restrictions apply.”

    3] The Onion headline: “Gay man tearfully admits to being governor of New Jersey.”

    4] Our ten-year-old daughter was watching the gay commitment ceremony with us on “Brothers and Sisters” the other night. When she saw two men kiss briefly at the altar she hid her eyes for a moment. I said, “Charley, watching two guys kiss is not going to make your head explode.” She quickly replied, “I don’t care about that! I just don’t like watching ANYONE kiss.” Oh yeah. She’s ten.

  • I am hoping (and hopeful) that the public will prove that they have gotten their priorities fixed since 2004 and they now realize that their own family members at risk in Iraq and their own bills and investments at risk in BushCo’s economy matter a whole lot more than who someone else can marry. If I am correct, then I actually hope the R’s do run on this. To run on it in a big way and lose decisively anyway would be the final nail in this incomprehensibly ridiculous issue.

  • We’ve got a second chance to frame this debate correctly this time:

    It’s not about gay rights; it’s about everybody’s rights. It’s about whether or not we want the government to have the power to prevent couples from marrying. It’s about giving the state the power to decree who may and who may not constitute a family.

    If the state only recognizes marriage as the union between a man and a woman, who’s to say there won’t next be a lobby to recognize marriage as only being between a white man and a white woman? Or a Christian man and a Christian woman? And even if there isn’t, how is the proposed initiative less unfair than either of these two examples?

    Oppose government interference in families: Vote NO on the Government Control of Marriage Initiative.

  • If the state only recognizes marriage as the union between a man and a woman, who’s to say there won’t next be a lobby to recognize marriage as only being between a white man and a white woman? Or a Christian man and a Christian woman?

    One problem with your logic in framing, Tales.

    The same bigots who oppose same-sex marriage would absolutely support white-white and Christian-Christian restrictions.

  • Great.

    Now we can have another election about gay rights, to the exclusion of all the other fucking issues.

  • IMHO:

    States need to just turn around and go the other direction. For many people, the problem is not that homosexuals want to form partnerships and have the same rights as other couples, but that they want to get married. The issue here is that the word marriage has a religious meaning, but then was later given a legal connotation by the government.

    The solution: the government should just suck it up, and admit that they made a mistake by giving a religious concept legal meaning. If a majority of the country doesn’t have a problem with equal rights, but many of these people don’t want gays to be “married,” then remove the decision from the realm of government. Guarantee equal rights to committed couples regardless of sex, gender, sexuality, or what have you, make every “marriage” legally a “civil union,” and then shift the decision on whether or not to allow “gay marriage” to the churches and other religious institutions.

    1) I think it might work… but I don’t think any politicians are crazy enough to try it.
    2) I’d also be really curious to see how them heteros react.

  • …“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

    This time, however, it’s a constitutional initiative, not a statutory initiative, so if it passes it will be immune to court challenges.

    I don’t think that’s true. Certainly voters couldn’t expect the courts wouldn’t get involved in a constitutional initiative phrased:

    “Only marriage between a man and a woman of the same race is valid or recognized in California.”

    There are fundamental limits to having a majority explicitly strip a minority of rights under any constitution.

  • Opposition is simple…anything but marriage between a man and a woman is perverted. But now that we know gay people are born that way…a female soul trapped in a male body etc. and now that we have become more honest in recognizing that same sex couples make amazingly good parents and same sex partners can love each other intensely on all levels and not just the idea of some sort of kinky sex and that in all things that matter there is no difference in their marriages…that opposition suddenly makes no sense at all. Homosexuals are wholesome people who have a different sexual orientation and most of America has woken up to that fact. Only pure prejudice makes same sex marriage an issue. Who really cares…what is the big deal…what real difference does it make to allow it?

    Republicans can finally start coming out of the closet

    ***Elvis Elvisberg*** “…Still, even when you like the result, it’s a little uncomfortable that the least democratic branch decides this sort of thing…”

    When the executive branch teams up with the judicial branch against the most democratic branch…the legislature…we have a barely restricted dictatorship because the legislative branch does not have the power or the forces to intervene when the judicial keeps approving the executive and the two ignore congress. Our founding fathers never thought we’d allow two branches to become so complicit and the result is corruption and a democracy in name only…and now the republicans are trying to disenfranchise huge blocks of voters they know aren’t going to vote for them.

  • NB @ #14:

    The issue here is that the word marriage has a religious meaning, but then was later given a legal connotation by the government.

    Actually, you have that backward. From my reading, marriage was a civil institution long before religion incorporated it. It’s purpose then, as now, was for the distribution of property. Boswell has a pretty good summary on it in Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. It’s a fascinating book that traces the history of marriage through the gay perspective. Informative, but it’s too much like reading a college textbook.

  • It is tragic for this country that these “wedge” issues so dominate American presidential politics and crowd out the issues that ought to matter most. Candidates have to walk a tightrope declaring their views on flag burning,abortion, guns, gay rights, and God, none of which has much to do with their duties and responsibilites, yet will instantly defeat them at the polls if they say the wrong thing. For example, if Obama said, “Of course I’m not a Muslim. I’m an agnostic,” he’d be toast.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’m 100% for full gay rights including gay marriage, but it ought not to be a litmus test for the presidency.

  • This is awesome. If I wasn’t already straight married I’d run out and get gay married right now. 🙂

    Sounds like we’ve got a real fight on our hands in November, though. I’ll sign up for the No on whatever campaign the day they start taking applications.

  • Hey, let the Republicans make the entire 2008 elections “about” gay marriage.

    No voters are going to be blind to the ongoing failed military occupation and the tanking economy. The Republican ploy will be evident on a huge scale, like a great wail: “We’re not relevant!”

  • Michael@17:

    From the reviews/background, the book looks extremely interesting, and I look forward to combating my own ignorance, but the overall gist of my suggestion remains the same:

    Change the legal language to “civil unions” for all couples and allow the decision about “marriage” to be made by religious institutions.

  • “Great. Now we can have another election about gay rights, to the exclusion of all the other fucking issues.” – RacerX

    oh, so you’d prefer that we wait for our civil rights until it’s more convenient for you?

  • I don’t think this ruling is going to effect the elections in November much, because I already assumed that the Repubs would try to bring the issue up again anyway. Ballot initiatives were probably going to be used to whip up the base no matter what the California SC did. It’s one of the few hopes they have. They’re desparate, and they’ll go with what worked in the past, and they’ll keep doing it until it fails or backfires.
    Remember, though, that in 2006 the ballot initiative in Arizona failed. Plus, Mass. hasn’t beren utterly destroyed by gay marriage as its foes claimed it would be. The issue may get tiring to some, but we’re stuck with it until the damn bigots are defeated and have a stake driven through their blood-pumping organs.

  • What I’m most concerned about is that those California voters who are opposed to today’s decision will be led to believe that the November constitutional amendment proposition simply overturns today’s ruling. The news media reports certainly contribute that impression. But it’s the wrong impression.

    Today’s court ruling merely says that all the laws protecting the civil unions of homosexual adults can be called “marriage”. After all, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

    The constitutional amendment would do far more than simply renamed gay marriage as “civil unions,” it will reverse many of the rights that gay Californians currently have by making many of their legal protections optional to private parties, and not manadatory, as they currently are.

    Unfortunately, the bone-headed media will likely screw this one up, and then California will have a ridiculous constitutional amendment which will lead to decades of lawsuits.

  • so you’d prefer that we wait for our civil rights until it’s more convenient for you?

    I’d prefer that we get rid of the Republicans, and then once we have the power give our gay friends their proper rights, so that by the time the next election comes the Republican Retards can get the hell over it. But feel free to help that one issue motivate the morons, and let things like the economic collapse of America and global warming take a back seat. Because increasing gay people’s rights is far more important than saving our fucking lives.

  • Hey Californian’s, good job. If you should meet one of the anti-gay people in the course of your day give them a big republican “Love it or Leave it”. I’m sure the irony will not be missed.

    Even if they lose in November, that would only change the verbiage, correct ? They will have the exact same rights ? If so, screw them, who wants what they have anyways, the word marriage only means what they decide it means, figure something cooler and way more hip. Make those clowns aspire to be like you instead of the other way around. No one ever thought hiphop could do it and look where they are.

  • A lot of Republican states already burned through this issue with their gay marriage bans, so most of the political currency has been spent.

    All I can say is, Go California!

  • “Because increasing gay people’s rights is far more important than saving our fucking lives.”

    go fuck yourself you sanctimonious pompous ass.

  • Easy there Racer X … seriously. I really don’t think the attack on just bill was necessary, since he just asked what is, in reality, a legit question.

    The thing is, while a few Republicans may try to bring this up as a wedge issue, they’ve already done that. The people have moved on. They want an economy that works, a war to come to an end, an environment protected, and decent and affordable health care.

    If the GOP wants to ignore all those issue, fine. But considering what has happened in MS this week, and LA and IL the past few months, it will fail. Epically.

    Don’t get me wrong — not trying to play hall monitor or anything. It’s just that you’re attacks are much, much better when aimed at the right target. In this case, you’re causing some unnecessary collateral damage by taking shots at the wrong guy.

  • Those of us who know the California landscape understand that a proposed Constitutional amendment could be trouble for the gay community, and the progressive community as well. Prop 215 (medical marijuana) is a constitutional amendment and that fact has in large part protected patients from prosecution from the state courts, and medical marijuana has been somewhat protected by it constitutional status.

    Unlike 215 which extended rights, this proposed amendment will take rights away, and is dangerous and will be expensive to defeat. Although California is allegedly a blue state, there are tons of right wing bigots who will be happy to vote for the amendment, and vote for McCain at the same time. Let’s hope it does not get the required signatures to be a constitutional amendment.

  • Let me try my take on this, which I understood to be Racer X’s underlying point:

    Any individual victory for gay rights, while welcome, will surely prove to be pyrrhic if it results in right-wing Republicans retaining control of much of the government.

    The more solid, likely ultimately more successful long term strategy is to maximize the power positions of gay-friendly D’s which should allow many more – and more easily protected – victories for gay rights.

    Or to answer just bill’s legitimate question more directly, speed of obtaining your rights doesn’t help much if you lose them again just as quickly. The goal is not just rights, quickly, but also rights that are sustainable as quickly as that is possible.

  • NB @ #21, that wouldn’t work. There are literally thousands of legal benefits, ranging from taxes to child raising to visitation and many many more, that the law explicitly ties to “marriage”. And not just state law, federal law also. Civil Unions are not “marriage” and so would miss out on all of these rights.

    The only way for gays to have full and total legal equality is through marriage. Civil Unions wouldn’t be enough.

  • Let’s not overreact. The Repubs have worn out their welcome with the gay-bashing-while-the-economy-burns shtick (is that how you spell that?). It’s not going to work this year, largely because we’ve gone past the place where people vote on social issues they think they can control because they’re mildly frustrated by the changing world they can’t. We’re well into “Bush and the GOP have fucked up everything” territory, and that’s what people are voting about this year.

    And while I’m sympathetic to the argument that Dems are constantly dying on the wrong hill, getting mired in petty details that never let us get to the big stuff, basic civil rights absolutely do not fall into that category. There’s always someone saying it’s “not the right political time” to desegregate the army, give women the vote, pass a civil rights act, end slavery, run a black guy for president, etc. It doesn’t work that way, you know. There’s never a convenient time to piss off reactionaries, but we move forward anyway — that’s how real change gets made.

  • Racer X @25:

    You are failing to understand that by ensuring all American citizens have the same basic human rights and dignity, we undermine the Republican party platform of wealthy white heterosexual christian male as the only class of person that matters.

    I’m particularly interested in what Obama has to say on the subject, since both he and Hillary have in the past stated that they are not for marriage equality.

    We uppity queers will continue fighting our battle for full citizenship rights on the timetable we’re given by state courts. My deepest regrets that a battle begun in 2004 took this long to get this far, and will continue in November at the ballot box. We apologize for the inconvenience to you and your campaign plans. IOW, yeah, go fuck yourself.

  • Shade, I think you missed my point…

    I want hetero “marriages” defined as civil unions in legalese as well. I want those tax, child, and visitation benefit laws rewritten to apply to “civil unions” only. It seems to me that the biggest fight here is over language, with all these jackass Dems insisting that they’ll create “civil union” laws so that the benefits will all be the same, regardless of the sexuality of the couple.

    The judges’ ruling outlines a distinct reason why this is an unpalatable (and unacceptable) situation:

    affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of of opposite-sex couples… (Glen Greenwald pulled this out this excellent excerpt)

    Language matters a lot, as the Republicans have shown us time and again. So, give churches the ability to perform “marriage” ceremonies, and make everyone equal in the eyes of the law. I say to the “defense of family” people, “Well, since you don’t like us using the word ‘marriage’ to refer to these loving unions, and we want everyone to be equal, we’ll compromise. Legally, every union will be defined as a civil union, and your church can deny performing ‘marriage’ ceremonies to whoever it wants. Homosexual couples, instead of supporting your discrimination with their patronage, should be able to find an accepting religious community that loves and supports them.”

    I’ve been to a Quaker-Jewish lesbian wedding and I know a lesbian Baptist minister; more and more religious communities are opening their arms to individuals of every gender and sexuality. I feel perfectly comfortable allowing churches to choose whether or not to ‘marry’ same sex couples.

    I realize this idea probably wouldn’t work because of the social backlash, but I think it’s a fun compromise…

  • Um, Joey, you seem to have confused transsexuals with gays. They are not identical. For example, I am a man in a man‘s body who likes to fuck men. I know a fair number of (male) transvestites (in case that’s what you’re thinking of) too, and while they’re fun to hang out with (especially the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence), I don’t find them attractive because they’re not masculine — see, I’m attracted to GUYS.

    “a female soul trapped in a male body etc.”? Gimme a break.

    (Apologies to you-all for my language but that pernicious and ignorant stereotype has been getting on my nerves for forty-plus years.)

  • Maria at #33. There’s always someone saying it’s “not the right political time”

    Beautifully put!

    Here in my state one of the strongest advocates for stopping the climate emergency is a gay legislator. A tireless supporter of gay marriage is Catholic. Another is a Lutheran minister. Other gay legislators support progressive taxation, strong limits on corporations, unions, limited military, etc. etc. These are just a few examples.

    We’ve had plenty of ultra-right looneys get exposed as gay. The only consistent theme I can find is this “repressed and self denying homosexuals seem to favor repressive government and domination / hierarchical structures”.

    It’s challenging being progressive / liberal because the central tenet is equal treatment, equal opportunity, and everyone deserves a place at the table. It makes it much more difficult to prioritize.

    At this point we face the meltdown of the economy, the climate, and our basic rights. When the true horror of peak oil and climate change become apparent fearful people will blame and attack minorities. Our only hope then will be to stick together.

  • The California state legislature has passed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage– twice.

    Schwarzenegger vetoed it both times.

    Fortunately this is not like Massachusetts, this is not “judicial activism,” this is a case where both the legislature and the judiciary now agree and the executive branch had put its foot down. Now Schwazenegger says he won’t stand in the way.

    I do think it is different this time. This is not 2004. We have far too many issues on the table for this to overshadow everything else– even if Americans can ignore a war overseas they don’t like (as they did in 2004) they cannot ignore a bad economy and $4 gas.

    Additionally, McCain will have a hard time using this against Obama since his record on same-sex marriage is a sore spot for conservatives– he has repeatedly refused to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Many are going to be pissed that McCain isn’t going to come out angrily about this decision. Watch McCain ignore it entirely.

    McCain walks a very, very fine line these days– tilt too hard to the right and the independents will go for Obama, tilt too hard to the left and the conservatives will stay home.

    All in all, just be happy this is happening in May and not October. K?

  • I’m a lesbian in a 9-year relationship. We don’t live in CA. But it’s still nice to know that a lot of same-sex couples and their allies go to bed with a smile on their faces tonight. This is progress and it makes my heart happy.

    That being said, I too had an initial reaction of “oh, geez, why now???” I truly hated 2004 for the fact that so much of the political demagoguery was about MY LIFE and the threat that my wife and I supposedly pose to The American Family. I can’t tell you how hard that was to watch, it truly broke my heart. I wanted more than anything for it to go away because of how it was being used to galvanize the ignorant at the expense of everyone else.

    But this cannot continue to be an inconvenient issue. This lawsuit started in 2004 and is ending now, 6 months before the election. With EVERYTHING we have going on in this country IF the GOP can take the idea of some queers in CA getting married the scariest thing going then we’re seriously fucked– and it’s not our fault.

    I think (and hope) that a lot of the shock value over same-sex marriage was exhausted in 2004. It’s not as if Obama even supports same-sex marriage so it won’t exactly highlight his position in a way that the GOP can really use.

    Also, if anyone else watched the corporate media news coverage today they might have noticed that it was mostly about Bush’s dems-as-nazi-appeasers comments. That and the tragedies in Myanmar and China– with a minute or two spent on same-sex marriage in CA.

    Gay marriage just pales in comparison to anything else going on right now. Let’s have a little bit of confidence that the American people won’t be duped or distracted by this issue a second presidential election in a row.

  • I can’t think of a better way to depopulate the Central Valley of the Okie Taliban, Orange County of the John Birch Society Taliban, and San Diego County of the Lifer Moron Taliban. Let ’em move to Utah and Idaho, where moron stupidity is part of the DNA.

  • Late, but I have to say that I’m still waiting for somebody to stand up in support of single childless white hetero gen-x median-income athiests. We refuse to be heard1! or something. Serve the servants a heart shaped box and drink pennyroyal tea on a plane after Frances Farmer has her revenge on her scentless apprentice.
    thank you
    ps. Rust Cage

  • Zoe Kentucky @ 39

    You summed up my thoughts and feelings very nicely. Hubby and I have been legally married four years as of yesterday (thanks to Canada), even though we have been “married” over 16 years. It’s probably too soon to tell, but I don’t think the backlash will be anything like what we saw after Massachusetts.

  • Zoe,

    I wish I could end the day happy about this. Unfortunately, I am well aware that “pro-family christian” groups have been hard at work for years getting the signatures required to put a ban up in November as a state constitutional amendment. Over one million signatures are being verified as I type. This issue is not over and done with, it won’t be until November, and even then I guarantee you that, just like in Massachusetts, every fundietard with a dollar and a latent tendency is going to make this an issue for every state constitutional convention from now until Doomsday.

    Why can’t they all just die? Or at least Rapture and go far, far away?

    Like gay activist Larry Kramer, I have very little hope for the future:

    http://peter-rivendell.blogspot.com/2007/03/larry-kramers-letter-to-america.html

  • A question for the Californians among us, or any activist who knows the details better than I:

    Does a constitutional amendment by ballot referendum in California require a supermajority?

    (I would certainly hope so, as most constitutional amendments do, and if not there would have been no reason for the homophobes to use the last referendum on a statute as opposed to amending the constitution)

  • I wonder if it’ll all come down to voter turnout? Dems turning out in record numbers to vote for Obama, most reject the amendment; a lot of GOPers just stay home because they find McCain to be too old, too lacking, and too wingnutty. How many right-wing lunatics really live in CA?

    Nationally, I really don’t think this will have the same impact as MA. Although if CA ends up with a marriage ban in their constitution it will be a very sad day.

  • “The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance. He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.” (Psalms 58:10)

    John McCain is the only cannidate that will fufill our presidents war on islam. What we need in these endtimes is a good strong

    anti-libaral, non-hippie who holds true to the word of our lord. I really hope WHEN McCain becomes president he lives up to the

    republican platform and ends abortion, criminalizes gay sex and marrage and stops de-regulashion. We need to invade andor

    nuke iran and all these terriorists before its too late. This is exacly what the bible pridected would happen if the world fell

    away from his word. Armogeddon is close at hand we must stop them as a global force and unite christians and live as the

    word would tell us. and wage war against the non-beilevers and democarats and libarals.

  • Comments are closed.