UPDATE 2: Happy Happy Joy Joy! Here is The Peter:
How Will California Homosexual Couples Consummate their Counterfeit ‘Marriages’?
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AT ITS WORST: This will always be immoral. California’s highest court has created a “fundamental” marriage right out of behavior - homosexuality - that is fundamentally wrong and destructive. At left is a homosexual male kissing scene as it appeared on the CBS soap “As the World Turns.” Everywhere Americans turn - TV, media, schools, in corporations and the courts - this unhealthy and immoral behavior is being promoted
(UPDATE: Bam Bam Barber of Concerned Women weighs in below the fold.)
Ah, before we get to the Freepi, how about this delicious reaction from the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, who believes civil rights should be determined at the ballot box.
I can’t wait for the flying spittle from Focus on the Anus, Bam Bam of Concerned Women for America and The Peter. Right now, take a look at the swamps of Freeperland as they wail, and in one case seems to be calling for violence (big surprise).It’s outrageous that the court has overturned not only the historic definition of marriage, but the clear will of the people of California, as expressed in Proposition 22. said FRC President Tony Perkins. The California Supreme Court assumed the powers of a legislative body by imposing same-sex marriage. However, in 2000, the people of California spoke loudly and clearly on the value of marriage when 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22.
The California Supreme Court has taken a jackhammer to the democratic process, and the right of the people to affect change in public policy. Four judges discarded the votes of 4,618,673 Californians who approved the states Defense of Marriage Act. Voters understand that children should not be deprived of a mother or a father, added Perkins.
Things are just as sunny over at the Alliance Defense Fund:…and the country continues its downward spiral toward oblivion.
Caligula would be proud of this decision. What next, animals?
There is a constitutional amendment in the works for voters to vote on in November, which could overturn this ruling. But California may be too socially liberal to overturn this court order. Stay tuned.
Unfortunately I”m unable to listen to Rush, has he mentioned this? And more importantly has he commented on this?
The militant homosexualists and their communist allies have now forced us to go to the labor and expense of amending the California constitution to make it absolutely clear that marriage will not be redefined out of existence in this state.
So be it. The amendment will pass in a landslide.
Here come the polygamists over the border to win their “rights” via the courts too…just wait a couple weeks.
California is beyond hope; let the Mexicans have it
In the years past this would be a big event. National Coverage, huge battle, Major Protests……now it even bare got covered in evening news.
Disastrous turn of events. Maybe the Religious Base would get motivated now.
Doesn’t look like it. We are doomed.
As a long time California resident, I knew this disgusting day was coming. California was once a model state, the model in every respect for the other states of this country — fiscally, in education, and its politics. It was clean state, free from mega-perverison, copious numbers of illegal immigrants, and we had politicians that gave a damn about something other than their personal empowerment obtained through pandering and runaway spending.
Actually, I am surprised the vote was so close, given the runaway PC crap and liberalism that has turned California into a socialist dung heap. All this done too, without the regard for the legal nightmare that this move is going to make — as usual, ONLY LAWYERS WILL PROFIT from this. Meanwhile you will have to explain to your young children, how Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith can be man and “wife” — Actually, I am headed for San Francisco now, to marry my dog.
No, little boys and girls in public schools, that’s who’s next. And polygamy,.. and anything else until the word marriage has no meaning at all.
God instituted marriage way back at the “beginning”. And, satan’s been trying to destroy it ever sense. But, we all know (or should) who wins in the end.
This is probably the worst thing that could have happened for the liberals in this election. While it may not have the same deep impact as it did in 2004, there’s no way this helps Obama or the Dems in this election and it provides fuel for such constitutional amendments in both California and Arizona and Florida that will be before the voters this year. Any conservative fuel on the fire will make the Dems worry.
As for that fruitcake judge Ronald George, you’ve been living in Frisco, too long, Mr. Judicial Activist. You’re such a fruit.
Once again a few fruitcakes in black robes have overturned the will of the people.
I no longer wonder if their will be a revolution to save America but when.
Amazing!! You know why the gays fight so hard for “gay marriage”, right? Now every school must teach that this is an alternate lifestyle included with all others….that is the main reason. Your 6 year child will now be brainwashed into thinking this is “ok”….what a sick group of people. They won’t let 16 year old kids drink, smoke or drive, but they’ll let or support them having sex and risk getting all sexually transmitted diseases including HIV!!
BTW, did you know that 95% of civil unions end up separated before 3 years!!! 95%!!!!!
38 posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:37:53 PM by Lancey HowardIt was inevitable. Never mind what the majority of California citizens want. The narcissistic judges follow the money showered by narcissistic gays who are so enamoured of their own bodily orifices and appendages that they crave others built exactly like themselves to play with, like toddlers. I recently read that the gay market has $60 billion in disposable income, which is why they are pandered to by politicians, media, and corporations. And you ain’t seen nothin’ yet, wait ‘til Obama is president. Can we just find a state and secede NOW?
Any Constitutional Amendment is dead in the water because the GOP are milquetoast.
Much of “conservative” talk radio is in the back pocket of militant homo lobby due to their preponderant status in entertainment and advertising.
Now, more than ever, we need Alan Keyes for President. Before it’s too late. http://alankeyes.com He’s the complete Reagan conservative who has been right all along. The McCain GOP will do little more than wink at this travesty.
“The government should promote and encourage strong families. The only way to make sure it does so in California is to amend the state constitution to protect marriage. That’s ultimately the only avenue to ensure that no one interferes with the will of the people,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy, who argued before the court (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4413).Let’s go to Bob Adams of Alliance for Marriage (its board includes zero-sum civil rights activist Walter Fauntroy):“The ruling from the court today ignores the will of the people of California who approved Proposition 22. The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father,” Lavy explained. “The court’s decision clearly demonstrates that marriage is not ultimately safe from tampering by activists and others in government until the voters have amended the constitution.”
“In the most populous state in the Union, radical activists have convinced judges to ignore the will of the people and to follow the destructive lead of the Massachusetts courts in striking down the common sense definition of marriage,” said Matt Daniels, president and founder of the Alliance for Marriage Foundation. California is now ground-zero in the Battle to Protect Marriage, and the fight in California must now be joined in the Congress.Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America bleats (via The Peter)……”Given the continuous attacks upon marriage in courts across the country, AFM’s Marriage Protection Amendment is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws,” Daniels added.
Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues [Barber is on the Board of Americans For Truth], said “The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. If anyone then had suggested the ridiculous notion, early Californians would have laughed their smocks off.“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.
“The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called ‘same-sex marriage’ is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies.
“If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that’s their prerogative, but we shouldn’t destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit.
95 Responses to “Freeper, fundie heads exploding over CA marriage ruling”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
can someone tell me why allowing two loving individuals, both of which are human, means that someone is going to think it’s a good idea to marry their dog? or do these freepers just bring new meaning to animal lover, and just don’t want to admit it?
Seriously, though, I’m happy for the people of California, it’s about time all that mattered was whether you love the person. Equal marriage hasn’t destroyed Massachusetts (I’m sure the Freepers would disagree, either that or we’re a lost cause), I doubt it will do anything but make California a better place to live.
Once again, Congrats to California
California’s legislature already passed this once. It was vetoed, and said that he felt it should be up to the courts to decide.
Which they did.
To which I can only respond “woohoo!”
Just let religions have the word marriage, a two tiered system like the French - civil unions with written contracs is all that the state should have an interest in!
I always find it amusing how the idiot brigade, when challenged, falls into a single refrain about “the chillldrrunn!”.
When MA universalized marriage for all adult couples, a local NPR affiliate had one of the opponuts on to face the music. After a lengthy oratory about how it’s about kids this and it’s about pseudoscience about children that and children and children and children, and how the Supreme Judicial Court was wrong because they rejected any consideration of the children, and children, they went to a caller who asked “Oh, so marriage is about children and that’s it?
“Yes” said homobigot.
“Well then, how are we going to explain to my 70-something father and his newlywed 70-something wife that they are expected to procreate?”.
(silence) but … but … but …
It’s just hilarious how they can bloviate about the next horrible step being polygamy, and simultaneously obsess over marriage “as God intended it”.
Have these idiots ever read the Old Testament? Where do they think the Mormons et al got the idea for polygamy in the first place — rural, 19th-century swingers’ mags?
Suspect classification! I just about lost it when I read that the Court elevated sexual orientation to a suspect classification. The wingers have no idea how big we won today.
I love this argument. The Old Testament has Jacob with two wives, Abraham with one wife and one concubine (or whatever Ishmael’s mother was called), and lots of other fun combinations. They got married pretty young back then, too. So are we really going to go back to God’s way of defining marriage, which was a pretty fluid definition?
Fundie “logic” is fun.
Fixed.Well, hear hear.
What do we do about the guy with the sniper rifle?
>they crave others built exactly like themselves to play with, like toddlers.
*jaw drops* Ho. Lee. Crap. That is some quality wingnuttery, right there.
I, for one, am delighted–that stupid ban has been a blight on us for too long. We’re usually pretty good on rights and liberties (I mean, we have reproductive freedom written into the state constitution), so our marriage-discrimination amendment is *especially* stupid.
Congrats to all the newlyweds and soon-to-be-weds!
MAJeff, I agree!
Even if they do (which I honestly doubt) manage to pass their anti-marriage amendment, it wouldn’t invalidate the very blunt statement that gay and lesbian people are, for the purposes of the California Constitution, a suspect class, guaranteeing strict scrutiny.
I also loved how they very explicitly said that since the Constitution requires equal treatment as a fundamental right, that the two choices were 1) give everybody marriage, or 2) take it away from everybody.
While I doubt they would do it, it would be fully consistent of them, in response to a Consitutional Amendment limiting marriage to only opposite sex couples, to then strike down all benefits and responsibilities associated with marriage.
It’s probably important to remind everyone that we here in California have at least our fair share of nutcases, fundies, wingnuts, anti-LGBT bigots, general all-around Archie-Bunker-style bigots, and every other type of human effluent imaginable.
I would not be surprised at all to see a large win for Obama accompanied with a win for the forces bigotry via a constitutional DOMA.
We’re a very weird state…
MAJeff,
My knowledge is a little empty in this area… what exactly is a “suspect classification”, and why is that huge? Thanks!
You can filter out every Freeper comment and just focus on that picture of the “When all else fails, vote from the rooftops” t-shirt with the drawing of the sniper rifle, because that’s the real face of the modern “conservative” movement.
The Republican Party: When in doubt, kill everyone who’s different from you.
I love how they completely mistake the purpose of the court. The court is a check on the legal and executive. It’s meant to protect the rights of the minority, despite Ledbetter and all Roberts Court evidence to the contrary.
It doesn’t matter if most people vote to lynch black men–they have rights deliminated in both the state and national constitutions.
This quote really tickles, b/c after whining about how the courts are thwarting the will of the people, they start whining that the “will of the people” may not mean what they want it to mean.
If the courts and the people rule and vote for equality, what’s a poor freeper to do?
I really think most of our problems would be solved if these folks read Mathew 6-7 and kept their religion to themselves.
Your bigoted church will never be forced to sanctify a gay marriage. But, by the same right, your bigoted church shouldn’t have a say in civilian matters.
Ok I looked it up myself on Wikipedia (here for anyone else who didn’t know). Wow, that IS huge. Big, big precedent by the Court.
According the 1930s marriage quiz, marriage is about how straight your stockings are.
…and of course reading the freeper droolings is always a pleasure.
Their president has been fucking us all over (them too) since he got into office, our economy continues its slide into depression, Iraq continues to be an open pus-filled wound on the soul of America, and all they care about is making sure some segment of society remains as unhappy as possible.
God I love this country…when I don’t hate it…
Whoa! He’s halfway there! If he wants to dress up and worship at a bigoted church, well that’s his prerogative, too.Come on! You can do it! Realize your religion and the laws of the land ARE SEPARATE. Feel free to hate all you want on your own time, just leave everyone else be.
(If you can’t avoid temptation without threat of jail, if you require a theocratic sharia-like state to stay pure, well, perhaps you really do have to go to hell after all.)
In constitutional jurisprudence, there are basically two levels of analysis: rational basis and heightened scrutiny. Different states may have different levels, and Federal jurisprudence has sort of a middle one for gender, but these are the two basic ones.
Rational basis is the lowest level. It basically assumes that laws are constitutional if the state can show a rational reason for making the law–in this case, the state would need to have a “good enough” reason to distinguish between gay and lesbian people. Under this standard, the burden is on people challenging a law to show that the state does not have a “good enough” reason to deny the right.
The higher level is strict scrutiny. At this level, the burden falls upon the state to demonstrate is has a “really really good” reason to deny a right or treat people differently.
There are generally two ways to bump the analysis up to strict scrutiny. The first involves the denial of a “fundamental” right. Generally, those are the ones listed in constitutions, but things like marriage and privacy, although not explicitly listed, have been included.
The other way is through a suspect classification. At the Federal level, race is the only category that bumps this analysis up. Gender occupies sort of a middle location. Sexual orientation has no status at the Federal level
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first state supreme court to list sexual orientation as a suspect classification. That means that in every case moving forward, the burden is on state actors–and not on gay challengers–to show they have a really fucking good reason (a necessary reason) for denying a right to gay people or treating them differently than straight folks.
This case is going to have ripples way beyond the marriage issue.
I hate to be the cloud on this sunny day, but I’ll feel better if/when a constitutional amendment fails. I live in Arizona, which did defeat a constitutional marriage amendment because 1) they went too far and tried to take away DP benefits from all couples (in AZ these also are extended to straight couples, like our many, many elderly that don’t want to remarry and lose pensions from deceased spouses) and 2) there was an argument that we don’t need a constitutional amendment here because it’s already illegal. Several moderate Republicans in our state Legislature have been holding up a renewed attempt at a constitutional amendment (w/o the DP benefits thing that doomed it last time) precisely because same-sex marriage is already illegal. The California ruling gives a lot of fuel to the fire to get the amendment back on the ballot here. In no way, shape or form am I suggesting this wasn’t a very significant ruling, but I fear that in November we’ll be right back where we started or even worse off.
MAJeff - thanks for the explanation. Really made my day - learn something new, and it’s a big win for the White Hats.
I understand the need for balanced journalism, but why does every news article about gay marriage have to include a reaction from “Pro-family” jackholes? They don’t need to balance every article about black people with a quote from the local KKK office, do they?
No one on any of the cable news shows talking about this ruling mention this salient fact about those “librul, activist” judges…
6 out of the 7 of them were appointed by Republican Governers!
Just remember folks–I’m not a lawyer. Just a geeky sociologist who is studying the issue…so, take any legal analysis from me with a grain of salt. I think I’m on fairly solid ground, though.
I think I’m on fairly solid ground, though.
You are. Excellent layman’s explanation!
Thanks, Jeff. That’s huge. No wonder they freepers are uphappy.
Congrats to all the soon-to-be-married folks in CA!!
“What do we do about the guy with the sniper rifle?”
Nothing. He’s probably getting used to the taste of the barrel by now.
Can I just say how much it cracks me up every time Concerned Women for America sends out a male spokesman? What have they got, like two women and 200 men over there?
Freepers and Fundies:
‘IT’S THE SLIPPERY SLOPE TO MARSUPIAL SODOMY… WWWWWAAAAAHHHH!!!!”
Yes, wagonjak, what about the baby kangaroos? WHAT ABOUT THE CUTE LITTLE BABY KANGAROOS?
Yep. People who don’t live in California underestimate how deeply weird most of the people here can be. There are plenty of people who will happily pull the lever (or Inkavote) for the Democratic presidential nominee while voting in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Also, don’t put any faith in what Gov. Arnie says about not fighting this. As far as both Republicans and Democrats are concerned, the governator is not a Republican, so the Republicans will feel no loyalty whatsoever towards him and will fight this thing tooth and nail.
Knowing our California Republicans, I was astounded that McCain won over Huckabee. But, then, Huckabee thinks that taxing rich people is okay, and that’s never going to fly in anti-tax California. Our schools can go down the toilet, our budget gap can get bigger and bigger, our police and fire departments can go begging just as long as homeowners and corporations can keep paying the same property taxes they did in 1978.
can someone tell me why allowing two loving individuals, both of which are human, means that someone is going to think it’s a good idea to marry their dog?
They both involve sex which isn’t strict man-on-top p-i-v missionary position, you fool!
Can’t you see where this leads? CLINTON!!!!
Other people have mentioned it, but one big factor (that seems to have played out in Massachusetts among other factors) is that it is generally much harder to convince people to take away rights and privileges that someone already has than to prevent them from getting them in the first place.
So, even if the amendment gets on the ballot this fall, with the Republican governor opposing it, and a lot of the Republican funding drying up, they are going to be trying to get people to annul existing marriages that were legally contracted - and in many cases, held in churches. That’s going to be a harder sell.
I hope.
The effect on other parts of the country, though, especially those with pending DOMA or amendments, may be another story.
It’s REALLY funny that the wingnuts keep going on (ad nauseum) about how the MAJORITY VOTE was ignored and what an injustice this is blah, blah, blah…But those same twits had no problem whatsoever with our democratic system being hijacked in 2000 when those of us in the majority who voted for one sane, intelligent individual were stunned to watch the bumbling moron we’re still enduring enter the White House. Hypocrisy is a splendid thing.
A similar situation happened in Canada. When the Liberals passed the amendments to the federal laws allowing for gay marriage, there were mumblings about provinces using the Notwithstanding Clause to get around it, that if the Conservatives took power they’d get rid of it, that polls showed that at best a majority were ambivalent…
Cut to several years later and it’s a complete non-issue. The Conservatives don’t even try to bring it up anymore, with Harper intentionally holding a vote he knew he’d lose in Parliament in order to give him an excuse to make the issue go away from ReformaTory platform. He’s a sufficiently savvy politicians to have recognized it wasn’t going to gain them any votes they didn’t already have because for most of the population, after a very brief period, simply accepted it and got on with their lives.
I would not be surprised at all to see a large win for Obama accompanied with a win for the forces bigotry via a constitutional DOMA.
So I’ve not lived here very long so there may be details of the local political landscape I don’t understand, but I think this is actually not so bad. It seems like the conditions here and now are basically the best possible for getting the voters to affirm marriage equality. We have the Republican governor on our side. We have a Republican presidential candidate who’s going to have trouble campaigning effectively against equal marriage in California, or getting synergy with any campaign for the state marriage amendment, since in 2004 McCain opposed Bush’s federal marriage amendment on states-rights grounds. The right is stymied on multiple levels from getting a boost on this issue from the fact this is an election year; meanwhile, the left is already known to be energized for this election. The fact this is an election year may actually work in our advantage.
The 2000 proposition passed by… what? 13 points or whatever? That’s not encouraging, but on the other hand that was 2000– that was before gay marriage was really “on the table” and I don’t think people had had the opportunity to seriously be confronted with and think about the issue. Meanwhile, whereas the 2000 vote was a simple referendum on an abstract intellectual issue (since gay marriage would have been barred in California no matter whether the proposition passed or not), here the voters will be forced to face whether they want to actually amend the constitution to take away rights from a group– and by that point these will be rights that the group actually holds, since there will be same-sex marriages issued from next month right up until the November election. People will be seeing gay couples get married in their own hometowns, be confronted with this issue in real human terms. Probably this will just piss some voters off. But I think for a lot of others it will be a lot harder to see their neighbors getting married, see civilization failing to come to a halt, and then go to the ballot box and vote to take that away.
I think we’ve got a really good opportunity here. I hope the forces for marriage equality really mobilize on this one and I’m looking forward to doing whatever I can to get this amendment defeated. (And I’m hoping Sen. Obama makes it easy for such efforts to be compatible with the volunteering I’m already doing for him…)
Congratulations, gays of California: you are now one of the usual suspects!
But, if gays can actually marry in California, doesn’t that vastly reduce the quantity of californication that goes on?
mcc, I sure hope you’re correct.
But watch how quickly the wingnuts will get the signatures for a DOMA proposition.
Granted I live in a red part of California, but the only people I ever see gathering signatures are always doing so on behalf of yet another attack on somebody’s civil rights, when they’re not doing so toward another attack on our education system or infrastructure. And they usually make it to the ballot, even if they’re defeated later.
I don’t think McCain has a prayer here. But beyond that it gets really tricky to predict…
“…if gays can actually marry in California, doesn’t that vastly reduce the quantity of californication that goes on?”
No.
Californication is any activity between consenting adults, of any combination of genders or gender expressions, where at least one participant is or can be claimed to be a Californian.
…and a fairly decent album by the Red Hot Chili Peppers…
Mike: They’ve got the signatures already, I think. Says here. that the signatures were turned in on (with a deadline of?) Apr 28 and they needed 700,000 to get on the ballot. I hear they had about 1.1 million. It looks like all that remains there is for the secretary of state’s office to verify it.
Sorry, I’m just too happy! This means that a second state recognizes love. Sorry, I’m all giddy.
… in every case in California. Unfortunately, state supreme court judgments are not binding on any other court. That said, they’re quite persuasive - every other court will read this decision, and it’s a really well spelled out decision, going explicitly through the process that led them to their decision.Still, though, it depends on the judges involved. While I don’t expect this to change opinions in some states, Rhode Island has indicated that it’s leaning this way, and Connecticut is going to be hearing a case soon on it. I expect this to fall roughly the way of the blue/red state divide unfortunately, at least for the next 20-30 years until members of my generation are the old crotchety retired people who religiously vote every election. Then we’ll start seeing some serious change.
Time to remake The Gay Divorcee?
The Barack Obama and John McCain campaigns issue statements on the ruling. The Clinton camp doesn’t seem to have said anything yet.
(That’s a pretty awkward statement, but I think it’s encouraging in that he’s not running from the issue like Kerry/Edwards did. I find the appearance of “states rights” language there in support of California legalizing gay marriage interesting; I wonder where if anywhere that argument is going to go and how it will interact with Obama’s support for a full DOMA repeal…)
(That’s a fascinatingly narrowly defined “right”, there.)
As someone entirely outside the issue and therefore not making any suggestions or recommendations, tactically it seems like a good move to me: we know that separate-but-equal is at least palatable to a large portion of the country, and we know it’s also unconstitutional. Moving for the former gets widespread acceptance, and then using precedent to remove the segregation gets actual equality.See, here’s the funny (and I don’t mean “ha ha”) thing about Obama and Clinton and their support for civil unions:
What, exactly, is a “civil union”?
At present there is no universally understood legal definition for the term “civil union,” just as there is no universally accepted legal definition for the term “domestic partnership,” “civil partnership,” whathaveyou. Each state, each municipality defines those terms for itself.
If “civil union” should be exactly like marriage in the eyes of the law, then why not just have full marriage equality?
If “civil union” should have some differences from marriage (say, oh, no presumption of parentage, or some such), then there are innumerable carve-out potentialities where anything can be held back (adoption, social security, tax filing status, etc.) - in which case we are still second class citizens.
I just can’t get fully behind Obama or Clinton because of their hair-splittings on this issue.
And as Sarah in Chicago put it at Shakes’ place the other day, “this is our lives!”
Incidentally, great picture that appeared in a thread on Fark.com about this:
http://carryabigsticker.com/images/mirko_lib_just.jpg (safe for work and such)
Supreme Court is next stop? (I doubt they gonna give it up that quick.)
Supreme Court is next stop?
Nope. Decision is based in the California constitution. They may try, like the did in Massachusetts, but there’s no basis.
It’s going to the voters. A rough and tumble political campaign is the next step. There will be no real threat from the federal courts. There may be attempts, but they’ll be slapped down (esp in the 9th Circuit).
But does McCain support the right of the people to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a man and a woman?And isn’t it a judge’s JOB to make decisions about the legality of a law–whether or not it violates someone’s civil rights?
Crazy Grumpy Old Grampa.
The Peter really made me go “huh”. His last comment, the one to sell the whole thing and make it clear–
I realized in my happiness over the decision, I hadn’t actually thought about men having sex with one another.I thought about couples who love each other being able to validate it publicly and get all those 1100+ rights every hetero couple gets. I thought about the families who can now be assured that their children will be protected by the legal framework of marriage.
I thought about all sorts of stuff, including lesbians, but I didn’t really think about SEX at all.
Maybe it’s b/c I’m not hung up on promiscuous sex, but really, that’s what’s bugging him? That teh gay is going to have sex?
What does he think they’re doing anyway?
What does he think a marriage is? Is he like Schlafly, and thinks it’s a license to rape at will? If so, no wonder he’s so scared of teh gay marriage, b/c in a situation where gender is not a variable who’s the wife?!!!11?!
“Maybe it’s b/c I’m not hung up on promiscuous sex, but really, that’s what’s bugging him? That teh gay is going to have sex?”
It’s fascinating how no matter the immediate subject, the obsession with gay sex, especially anal, is always waiting in the wings…
…closely followed by comments accusing LGBT people of wanting to engage in bestiality, pedophilia, and “recruiting” children because they can’t reproduce on their own…
Sick. Stupid. Pointless. Illogical. Bigoted.
But still fascinating…
100% thrilled.
2 down, many to go…but go they will.
And, yes, the Republican squealing about “activist judges” has already begun. Which is why Schwarzenegger punted it to the courts in the first place. If he’d allowed the Legislature to pass the bill and signed it, Republicans wouldn’t get to ride their “activist judges” hobbyhorse into the ground once again.
Well, they’ll probably have a little champagne first, and maybe some strawberries and chocolate.
I expect some kissing’s involved. Probably hugging, too.
Honestly, what sort of dolt is this guy? /rhetorical question
I realized in my happiness over the decision, I hadn’t actually thought about men having sex with one another.That just goes into their women as property agenda. Traditionally, to “consummate” the marriage was to be the first guy to penetrate the bride and thus she was “owned”. They’re probably very confused about who’s the “women” in the relationship and thus, who is “owned”. Much like the freeper bleating; Meanwhile you will have to explain to your young children, how Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith can be man and “wife” it all goes to gender roles as the defining item of marriage and gay marriage pretty much kills that by making marriage totally equal because your sex characteristics aren’t going to determine what your duties are within the marriage but you both will.
And then there’s this gem:
I had fun picturing this freeper scrambling like mad to the nearest radio, trying desperately to find out what master wants him to think/do next.
That second quote should be in italiacs, sorry.
Over at TPM, it was suggested in the comments that Obama is dog-whistling us. “Marriage equality” is the language activists FOR gay marriage use, and as NJ shows, once you have civil unions the push for full marriage equality only grows.
I’m heartened by Obama’s response. In just 4 years since “teh states decide on gay marriage” we’ve got the presumptive Democratic nominee defending “marriage equality” and advocating for civil unions. In another 4 years we should be advocating for full marriage equality.
Wow, I saw the “vote from the rooftops” photo and my vision turned red. Literally. I didn’t think that really happened.
It’s a good thing I saw that here, instead of on someone’s shirt at the local pub. I would have gone ballistic, and not in a verbal way. That’s probably the most offensive thing I’ve ever seen in my life.
Kind of like how no one ever mentions that one of the first laws legalizing abortion in the United States (pre Roe) was signed into law by the Republican Governor of California, Ronald Reagan.
John McCain probably doesn’t give two shits either way. But he knows what he has to say to appeal to his base.
McCain tried “straight talk” back in 2000 and look where it got him. Now he knows better. But those who lie down with dogs wake up with fleas…
“Homosexualists”?
I think I just peed my pants laughing.
Heard the wonderful news less than 3 hours ago on NPR (National Public Radio for non-US sluts). I haven’t been this happy to be a Californian since the California voters overturned the parental notification law for the second time.
Of course, the dissenting opinions (it passed 4-3) were the typical crap. My answer to all the religiotard blathering is this: No one is forcing your or any church from performing/recognizing gay marriages or even accepting GLBT people themselves. Legal marriage is a civil union between two consenting adults. Churches/religious organizations are free to be as bigoted and homophobic as they care to be. What they ARE NOT free to do is make their discriminatory religious beliefs the law of the land. Try as you might to make it one, the United States is NOT a theocracy. If we wanted to live in a theocracy, we’d hightail it to Iran or Saudi Arabia or any number of gawd-fearing utopias (/sarcasm).
“How will homosexual California couples — say, two men — consummate their “marriages”?”
Don’t you love how these clowns, claiming to be experts on marriage, don’t have a fucking clue about anything? Consummation has no basis whatsoever anymore. By extension, he is essentially claiming that without consummation, a marriage isn’t legal. BS. Try to convince a court of that.
Meanwhile, um… duh. One hopes that they will consummate their marriages with much sweating and grunting. And gasps of joy.
But then, I have to assume that the moron doesn’t have much of a sex life. Outside of the porn.. I mean, research projects…that is.
I just realized the downside: I’m gonna have to buy three wedding gifts at least. And what do you get two guys who have been together since the Truman administration?
Anyone who didn’t listen to Mike Savage’s radio show today missed out on Savage comparing the Supreme Court Judges being compared to - and I am not making any of this up - Hitler, Stalin, communists, Fascists, treasonists, an invading Chinese army, and so on and so on. Additionally - and, again, I’m not making ANY of this up - this marks the end of America.
This is what happens when you don’t listen to talk radio
Just a guess, but something gold?
Maybe an electroplated Buick?
The “consummation” thing is a dogwhistle, and not a very subtle one — OMG TEH GAY SECKS!!!1!! They didn’t pick ‘two men’ accidentally. Because gay marriage is, like, the first step towards government-mandated sodomy!
Sooner or later, America will realize the promise of equality under the law for all its citizens. Now it’s up to the people of California to stand behind this decision.
“O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.”
Langston Hughes - Let America Be America Again
A very nice frame for the marriage license?
(or do people display those anymore?)
What a sad day in America, but is it any real suprise, it is California. What a sad, sad day!
Poor cookie. Now he has to go get ass-fucked.
“This is what happens when you don’t listen to talk radio”
Thanks, Jonathan, for letting me know what I missed.
I now appreciate not listening to the propaganda arm of the Reichwing just that much more…
BTW, as born-and-raised Californian, I really look forward to seeing lines of happy (gay) couples waiting to get hitched.
I know there are a lot of wingnuts out there that will be coming unglued, and seeing that will be a joy of its own.
But I also know several gay couples (mostly lesbians), who have had VERY long term relationships, who deserve to have their commitments legally recognized.
I long for a day when there are no “second class” citizens, when no one has to hide their perfectly reasonable desires, and when the government, and the fundnuts, are finally made to butt the hell out of aspects of people’s private lives that are not their concern…
…and just knowing cookie is upset makes it that much sweeter.
Look at the bright side, cookie. No supreme court has banned tasers - yet - so you can still get some sick authoritarian kicks for a while longer…
Jeff, I am sure you broke out the gerbils and had a big old celebration. I just glad my state still has enough sense to know what marriage really means.
Mike,
We should hook the taser up to cookie’s dildo.
cookie, and I mean this the nicest way possible,
take yourleave the gerbils alone and go straight to hell, you fucking bigot…“We should hook the taser up to cookie’s dildo.”
…just as long as he wears the wetsuit too, that sounds great!…
you two guys are the biggest ass clowns I have ever seen. Because I believe marriage is only between a man and woman, I’m a bigot. So, the majority of Americans are bigots too? just because they believe as I do? You’re such a moron!
ok guys, happy fudgepacking, just take it easy on those poor gerbils, don’t want those PETA heads getting on your ass. Till next time. GOD BLESS!
“Because I believe marriage is only between a man and woman, I’m a bigot.”
Yes. It really is that simple. Although I suspect strongly that’s not the ONLY reason you should be called a bigot…
“So, the majority of Americans are bigots too? just because they believe as I do?”
Civil rights are not up for majority approval. Anti-miscegenation laws were wrong too, and it was the courts that finally killed them. If we had waited until “the majority” decided it was okay, we’d still be waiting. Of course Jim Crow would still be in affect too - but I assume you’d be okay with that…
“You’re such a moron!”
Coming from you, cookie, that’s an amazing compliment…
“ok guys, happy fudgepacking…”
cookie, It sounds to me like your obsession with anal sex really needs “further exploration”, if you know what I mean. Some day, your inner gay man just might “come” bursting out yet…
And, as usual, if there’s a god, may he send you straight to hell for your bigotry…
cookie, next time try and see if you can be even more disingenuous. You’ve already set a high bar.
Cookie, you are welcome to believe that YOUR marriages should only be about men and women marrying.
You are also welcome to believe that interracial marriage is not your cup of tea.
You are welcome to go to a church that believes as you do in either case.
HERE IS THE RUB: you are NOT WELCOME to say that just because YOU don’t like men marrying men and women marrying women, universal marriage should be prohibited by law.
You, cookie, are not the king. Your personal beliefs are not the basis of civil rights conveyed by a secular government. Go back and read the founding documents and all of the reasons the bill of rights exists to start with for more information.
Never mind that if we deprivileged marriage, this wouldn’t be a legal issue. So long as being married conveys special rights, those special rights need to be available to either every adult couple or to NOBODY.
Simple enough, but maybe not simple enough for Trollhouse Cookie.
you two guys are the biggest ass clowns I have ever seen
Well, cookie, you seem to be a real size queen about your ass clowns, hey? Whatever spins your wheels. I for one won’t vote to outlaw your peculiar fetish just because it makes me squick, so long as its about consenting adults.
Gay marriage will completely destroy America … just look what it did to Canada, now that gay people can get married there are daily riots, churches are being burnt to the ground and I’m pretty sure our prime minister just married a dog or a monkey or something … everything has just gone to hell.
Save America from the horrible fate that has befallen Canada! It’s not too late! (may I also suggest burning witches … I’m not sure how they tie into this … but I’m pretty sure it was gay witches that made gay marriage legal in Canada … so yeah get on those witches)
DeadMan
What a sad day in America, but is it any real suprise, it is California. What a sad, sad day!
Yep, nothing worse than people who have been living together happily for a dozen years getting married. I mean, really, what is the world coming to when people are actually allowed to marry people they love instead of the people their parents choose for them?
Personally, the only downside for me is that I get to hear fulminations from the pulpit at my cousin’s Catholic wedding about how this is the End Of Civilization. I can’t decide if I want to have a massive, uncontrollable coughing fit or if I just want to walk out and tour the mission’s gardens for the rest of the mass.
cookie, since you are fascinated with asses, I would suggest that gay couples’ getting married is no skin off yours.
But Hector, if they all get married it means fewer assclown-fetish boyfriends for him to cheat on his wife with!
I half wonder if the Catholic Church is so upset, in part, because stable and committed homosexual males marrying each other means fewer potential priests. Hey, they might have to allow women to lead mass!
I half wonder if the Catholic Church is so upset, in part, because stable and committed homosexual males marrying each other means fewer potential priests. Hey, they might have to allow women to lead mass!
There’s always the NAMBLA crowd.
Huh. Cookie seems to know an awful lot about supposed homosexual practices. Why are the fundies so obsessed with anal sex and, as Trollhouse’s comment would indicate, rodents?
I reckon the small pets in the Trollhouse household should be afraid, very afraid.
Step away from the gerbil, troll boy.
And doncha love the little, all-caps, “God bless” at the end? It’s like he’s saying, “I hate you, but here, have a helping of lurve from my imaginary sky daddy.”
I just wanted to add that these horrible judicial activist judges on the CA Supreme Court? Only one was a Democrat. Oh those Republican bastards. I hope New Jersey steps up and is the first state to pass a marriage bill legislatively (I know CA has done so–but Gov. Corzine has agreed to sign it into law). No judicial activism there.
I hope this becomes a shitstorm for the Republicans because now McCain is going to have to go on a right-wing appeasing tour. Eh, who am I kidding. He will continue to pander and the media will continue to lick his boots.
I love Our Peter: to heck with marriage as a fundamental human right, and committed couples celebrating the fact that they can finally inherit and qualify for health insurance and visit each other in the hospital… no, first thing he thinks of is TEH BUTTSECKS. Yet more proof that the freepi spend waaaaaay more time thinking about gay sex than actual gay people.
>Meanwhile you will have to explain to your young children, how Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith can be man and “wife”
“I don’t think women should be doctors! I don’t want to have to explain to my young child that ‘Dr. Smith’ is a WOMAN!”
Seriously, what’s the with the big deal over explaining it to kids? “Children, this is Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones. They’re husbands.” Or “They’re spouses.” End of explanation.
Meanwhile you will have to explain to your young children, how Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith can be man and “wife”
Translation: How do you tell the kids which one is the property?
Why the convoluted explanation? “They’re married.” Full stop.
Canada’s Worst Driver 3 had a gay couple from Vancouver on the show. When they did the intro to the drivers in each episode they simple said “This is Jason, nominated by his husband Adrian.” It was absolutely no big deal at all.
It cracks me up that so many people think that children are so fragile that the idea of two men married will break them. I’ve found that children are remarkably flexible: much more so than their adult counterparts.