Congratulations, California!
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 15, 2008 11:21 AMTruly an historic day...thanks for posting...
One more request...please post the comments to this ruling by both the Clinton and Obama campaigns (when they release them).....
Thanks.....
Posted by PaulieB at May 15, 2008 11:31 AMYay!!!
Posted by CG at May 15, 2008 11:42 AMOy, more exquisite timing by a state supreme court.
And California's court is "Repub dominated", huh?
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 11:43 AMMarriage is the first positive step to a messy and nasty divorce.
Everyone should have the chance to go thru one.
It's also on the Az Nov. ballot thanks to the GOP.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 15, 2008 11:51 AMSomewhere Rick Santorum just bit his lip and cheered on the inside. ;)
Posted by snark at May 15, 2008 12:14 PMThis is going to be a problem for Democrats in Novemeber. Remember how Gay marriage issue hurt Kerry's run for Whitehouse? It is time for Gays to understand that Marriage is an old institution between a man and a woman. Why they want to impinge on it? Why not have Civil Union which provides them same benifits as a marriage. By insisting to have a marriage, the gays are meremly antogonizing the majority. If gays are happy having Republican regime, then their action is understood. However, I think Republicans have openly shown anti gay views and if gays do not see that then they are missing the point.
Posted by suresh at May 15, 2008 12:25 PMoff thread...McBush has just seconded George Bush's "Hitler/Obama" comments.....so much from distancing himself from Mr. 28%.
Posted by T2 at May 15, 2008 12:27 PMnever thought how someone else's marriage effect mine or how i parent.
bravo, the nuance here is that gay and lesbian marriages, last a helluva lot longer and seem/ appear more committed to each other than heterosexual marriages.
but then again, bubba joe would not get that nuance thang....
gay marriage is offensive to all bubbajoe's out there...
damn gay marriage.
go figure...
Posted by anthony at May 15, 2008 01:15 PMSchwarzenegger did not veto the bills because he was against gay marriage, but because he said that the issue should be decided by the state Supreme Court. He has never said that he was against it, and he has now not said that he will not fight the issue, he has said that he will not support a bill that seeks to overturn the court decision. Not quite the same thing.
Schwarzenegger may be (is) a Republican, but unlike most of that breed he knows what to do with his brain. He forms his ideas within a framework of Republicanism, but he forms his own ideas.
Thank God the reasonable people of California already have far more than enough signatures to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Since the referendum passed easily the last time, this will as well.
Posted by Markle at May 15, 2008 03:02 PMPlease provide one argument in favor of gay marriage that does not also argue in favor of incestual marriage or polygyny or polyandry?
Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 04:03 PMMcCain and Obama campaign reactions are up at TPM.
Pandagon has an interesting point on what suspect classification is and why its use in the ruling is big, big news.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 15, 2008 04:05 PMBags, please provide one example that you aren't a scum-swilling troll.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 15, 2008 04:08 PMHello idiosynchronic, always a pleasure.
P.S. Do you have (even) one argument that answers my previous post or are you just here to post invective?
Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 04:15 PMThe courts will handle your simpleton slippery slope shenanigans when the cases are presented to them, Bags.
Are you in the position to be a plaintiff? File your suit! Or have one of your wives do it! Make history! I can see it now, Bags v. Alabama, a landmark ruling....
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 04:48 PM"The courts will handle your simpleton slippery slope shenanigans when the cases are presented to them, Bags."
And the slippery slope is why the (California) courts came to this decision.
But, seriously, do you have (even) one argument that answers my previous post or are you just here to post invective?
Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 04:59 PMIf you want to have fun with hypotheticals, Bags, go to law school and learn the answers.
If those "situations" pose such a real concern for the country, why haven't there been any cases filed raising the "issue"?
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 05:17 PMUmmm, euzoius, I asked for a single argument in favor of gay marriage that does not also argue in favor of incestual marriage or polygyny or polyandry?
And you do not have one.
P.S. "If those 'situations' pose such a real concern for the country, why haven't there been any cases filed raising the 'issue'?"
There actually have been cases concerning these "situations."
Polygamy challenge: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,585037355,00.html
Incest challenge: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/03/08/incest/
(In the second article, it does reference a "situation" in Germany, but wasn't it Justice Breyer -- one of your heros -- who advocates for US law to find precedence in legal decisions made in other countries?)
Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 05:29 PMCankered minds embrace the absurd, trumpeting their madness to the winds, cold inferno, sky beneath my feet...
Posted by onar at May 15, 2008 05:38 PMI have many answers to the question, but am not going into your distraction, at least not tonight.
And if there have been some prior rulings, then just go read the reasons the judges gave for not finding for the individuals.
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 05:42 PMOnar, wingnut poet.
He'll sign programs after the reading......
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 05:44 PM"I have many answers to the question..."
And you are not willing to share even one?
"And if there have been some prior rulings..."
But, but did you not post: "...why haven't there been any cases filed raising the 'issue'?" Any cases?
Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 06:00 PMboggled,
why should republicans be allowed to marry? it opens the door to bestiality.
Posted by Turkana at May 15, 2008 06:35 PM"why should republicans be allowed to marry? it opens the door to bestiality."
No actually, most of the beasty women I have seen are on the Left: hairy and smeling of patchouli.
But, seriously, Turkana: Please provide one argument in favor of gay marriage that does not also argue in favor of incestual marriage or polygyny or polyandry?
Oh, I am sorry, I forgot that you have an averson to answering questions.
P.S. Have you found your DD-214?
Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 06:53 PMgive me one argument in favor of republicans being allowed to marry that doesn't lead directly to bestiality. once again, you couch your bigotry in false argumentation.
Posted by Turkana at May 15, 2008 07:32 PMOh, hell, Turkana, I'd settle for one decent beleivable argument in favor of Republicans being allowed to marry that doesn't lead directly to gross inequality, if not slavery, based on the status of one's Y chromosone.
Posted by idiosynchronic at May 15, 2008 08:11 PMPlease provide one argument in favor of gay marriage that does not also argue in favor of incestual marriage or polygyny or polyandry?Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 04:03 PM
What a stupid trollish exercise in which you've engaged yourself. Plus, it's obvious in incest.
As for polygamy and polyandry, if they're willing, why not? Seriously, there's nothing wrong with polygamy and polyandry when the participants aren't forced into the situation. No matter how silly our morals may be around those situations.
Posted by Moses at May 16, 2008 11:07 AMpoor Bagless Bagley (why aren't you posting from Iraq?), this isn't 2004 and people are MUCH more concerned about the economy, high food and gas prices, losing health insurance, and the Iraq quagmire than they are about marriage equality for Gays and Lesbians
suck on it, you're ending up on the trash heap of history
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 16, 2008 11:40 AMStill no argument in favor of gay marriage that does not also argue in favor of incestual marriage or polygyny or polyandry?
Well, except for Moses who appears to approve of polygamous marriages.
But, Moses, I am curious...
"Plus, it's obvious in incest."
...what is obvious?
A mother marrying a son. A father marrying a daughter. A broother marrying a sister. The employee benefits and tax benefits associated with marriage are not predicated on a sexual relationship.
Posted by Bagley at May 16, 2008 04:08 PMgee, Bagless Bagley, what's wrong with polygamy? isn't that in the Bible? oh wait, marriage hasn't changed, has it?
I have no problem with FREE people having more than one spouse. As for incest, there are genetic and consent issues. Nice strawman.
Now where's Osama?
Posted by gay veteran at May 17, 2008 02:04 PMTurkana...Have you ever started any of your "articles" based on fact? Yeah, I didn't think so either.
euzious...Typical, no answers, only name calling. The court decision is also why states, one after the other, are adding it to their constitution. Even the far left state of California is going to add it to theirs in November. Marriage is between a man and a woman, how is that so difficult understand?
g-v,
"I have no problem with FREE people having more than one spouse."
Ok, then. It seems that we have established that Leftists are in favor of polygamy.
(What is your objection to Mormonism again?)
"As for incest, there are genetic and consent issues."
As I posted...
"...not predicated on a sexual relationship."
Not a strawman: no sex, no birth defects. (Also, is it the case that two hetrosexual men can get married...and sleep with women as part of a "free-love, polygamous marriage relationship?...or do you need the bona fides of being a veteran of the local interstate rest-stop where you happened to have performed your "service?")
Posted by Bagley at May 17, 2008 07:00 PM