Same Sex Is The State Of Marriage In The State Of California (Trees And Things)

postillion: Re: of barn doors and hinges and heterosexuals

Fri, 23 May 2008 01:55:44 EST

Railing against marriage as imperfect is one thing, but supporting an even less perfect alternative just seems foolish.

Actually, I would say that both heterosexual couples as well as gay/lesbian couples have the same percentage of making their m

gerrymander: Re: Same Sex Is The State Of Marriage In The State

Mon, 19 May 2008 13:19:02 EST

during the 70s and into the 80s, straights were pretty involved in that party atmosphere as well...with many choosing to take a pass on marriage and live that disco lifestyle.

I don't disagree, but remember that we're talking about conservatives

gerrymander: Re: of barn doors and hinges and heterosexuals

Mon, 19 May 2008 12:47:46 EST

the only group of folks causing damage to the institution of marriage are the heterosexuals who disregard their vows with wild abandon.

1fastdog, this is somewhat of a tautology. Because only straight marriage was recognized, and because gays onl

JimmyHavok: That's good news, Lou

Mon, 19 May 2008 03:58:16 EST

My girlfriend and I have vowed not to marry until it is legal for gays. It's gotten to the point now where it's a little bit inconvenient to be unmarried, so this came just in time. We plan to get married the next time we are in California.

postillion: Re: Same Sex Is The State Of Marriage In The State

Sun, 18 May 2008 18:38:51 EST

Thanks, gerrymander, for your response to my question about why conservatives might be opposed to gay marriages. It was a serious, as well as a seemingly informed, response about that sector is concerned about in regards to this issue.

I would hav

1fastdog: of barn doors and hinges and heterosexuals

Sun, 18 May 2008 10:40:51 EST

Interesting comments gerry, but what really stands out is the fact that all of those arguments, as you acknowledge in your first para, can also be applied to heterosexual marriage. Indeed, one could argue that the vast majority of all those points regardin

Lou: Re: Same Sex Is The State Of Marriage In The State

Sun, 18 May 2008 10:29:21 EST

Good points, but I would like to add that during the 70s and into the 80s, straights were pretty involved in that party atmosphere as well...with many choosing to take a pass on marriage and live that disco lifestyle. And even though the disco has pa

uncarved block: Four Years Gone

Sun, 18 May 2008 09:20:45 EST

Maybe, maybe not. You've spoken at length (somewhat out of character, and thanks for the extended comments) about why this matters to folks. But will it be an issue this fall, as it was in 2004? Dems have been accused before of trying to win

gerrymander: Re: Same Sex Is The State Of Marriage In The State

Sun, 18 May 2008 00:31:05 EST

Why don't conservatives embrace gays and lesbians getting married? I would think they'd love it; it's like gays and lesbians embracing the heterosexual lifestyle instead of the more partying lifestyle that the gays had during the 80s, or that they still

postillion: Re: Nationally, neither party has a dog in this hu

Sat, 17 May 2008 12:23:10 EST
Until polls indicate 70-80% of the electorate wants gay marriage approved then watch Clinton et al flip.
I think it's too risky a topic to even depend on polls. I think that what either Clinton or Obama would do (probably Obama at this poin

Lou: Re: Nope, no contradiction at all

Sat, 17 May 2008 10:16:21 EST
You may be right. When I said contradiction, I meant mean spirited, 15th century assholedness.

port1080: Re: Same Sex Is The State Of Marriage In The State

Sat, 17 May 2008 10:05:44 EST
My understanding is that civil unions are not the same legally as marriage, and that marriage is actually a much stronger legal definition.

Acco

MayorBob: Re: Nationally, neither party has a dog in this hu

Sat, 17 May 2008 09:46:38 EST
"Until polls indicate 70-80% of the electorate wants gay marriage approved..."
Trust me, that isn't about to happen. According to the latest Gallup poll results I looked at (May 15th or such), while a majority of the populat

uncarved block: About "Activism"

Sat, 17 May 2008 09:39:16 EST
That tag was apparently very much on the mind of the court-- check out Dahlia Lithwick at Slate. She ultimately closes with some kind words for Schwarzenegger, despite an earlier "w

pO157: Re: Nationally, neither party has a dog in this hu

Sat, 17 May 2008 09:00:14 EST
If you take a look at what Clinton, McCain and Obama have said about gay marriage, it's pretty much that they are opposed to it.
Until polls indicate 70-80% of the electorate wants gay marriage approved then watch Clinton et al flip.
I h

zyxwvutsr: Re: Nope, no contradiction at all

Sat, 17 May 2008 08:24:34 EST
In other words, there is no contradiction.

profwhat: Deep misgivings

Sat, 17 May 2008 07:41:01 EST
I want gay marriage, for both political and personal reasons. But the use of litigation and courts to get it gives me deep misgivings. It seems strategically unwise: it will not change minds or build consensus. It leaves you with an annoy

profwhat: Arnold

Sat, 17 May 2008 07:29:33 EST
And now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he supports the court's decision and will also campaign against the constitutional amendment to ban ma

PenitenziAgite: Re: Here we go again

Sat, 17 May 2008 00:57:32 EST
A swing state in what sense? That McCain will win it? CA Supreme Court (mostly appointed by Republicans) strikes down a referendum driven state law that passed by a thin margin, and now California goes red?
I don't think so.

postillion: Re: Same Sex Is The State Of Marriage In The State

Sat, 17 May 2008 00:41:17 EST
My understanding is that civil unions are not the same legally as marriage, and that marriage is actually a much stronger legal definition. Part of the weakness of civil union, of course, is that each state has a different definition of civil union a

Lou: Re: Nope, no contradiction at all

Fri, 16 May 2008 22:38:30 EST
What contradiction?
Hate the sinner...hate the child. Unless of course the child comes back all prodigally. Even then Mr. Keyes will probably want to see the blood and semen stained sheet proving that her daughter no longer lusts for

zyxwvutsr: Re: Nope, no contradiction at all

Fri, 16 May 2008 20:28:55 EST

...considering that Mary Cheney's orientation was well-known during the 2004 election but no one in the GOP's voting block seemed to care about the contradiction between Bush and Cheney's support of the Defense of Marriage Act

logan: Nope, no change at all

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:59:25 EST
A firm stand either way on same-sex marriage is of no benefit to any of the candidates and all three candidates will do everything they can to stay out of this one. McCain is already shifting to the right to pander to the Evangelicals and the Libertarians,

MayorBob: Nationally, neither party has a dog in this hunt.

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:41:45 EST
If you take a look at what Clinton, McCain and Obama have said about gay marriage, it's pretty much that they are opposed to it. All three say they believe gays should have the same legal protections as heterosexuals which can be rendered under civil unio

gerrymander: Here we go again

Fri, 16 May 2008 12:10:01 EST
If nothing else, this ruling will help the Republican "get out the vote" campaign. Pass or fail for the proposed "one man, one woman" amendment in November, California just became a swing state.