Comments on: CA Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage @ 10 AM PST

By: A Different Peter H

A Different Peter H — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:35:13 +0000

Screw so-called “internal homophobia” because you agree that marriage is defined by a male (sex not gender) and a woman (sex not gender)! I’m so sick of hearing that because I don’t subscribe to the idea that to be a gay person that you have to be liberal. By this logic, then any black person that calls others n*gger is an internal racist? Leave marriage to the church, let the government recognize civil unions with the same rights, and lets then try to find our own word for what us same-sex couples share. How about love?

By: North Dallas Thirty

North Dallas Thirty — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:16:38 +0000

If people had any respect for gay citizens as people, this sort of referendum would never even make it off the ground in the first place. Gee, I wonder why they don't?

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:46:07 +0000

PSU Dain, this is not a question of rights, much as gay marriage advocates and the California supreme Court misrepresented, but about privileges.

If the issue were the freedom of two individuals to live together and call themselves married, that would be one thing, but the issue here is whether or not the state should recognize their union and accord them the privileges it does to different-sex couples who elect marriage.

By: PSUdain

PSUdain — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:29:36 +0000

If advocates for gay marriage had any respect for the democratic process

Rights should never be up to the democratic process. If people had any respect for gay citizens as people, this sort of referendum would never even make it off the ground in the first place.

By: Draybee

Draybee — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:23:46 +0000

No. The governor can only veto legislation, not ballot initiatives. The check on initiatives comes from the courts.

By: queerunity

queerunity — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:58:00 +0000

The governor can’t veto a people-passed amendment, only court amendments? I thought he could veto it.

http://queersunited.blogspot.com/

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:07:00 +0000

Queerunity, my point is simple and based on the record. When state Supreme Courts rule in favor of gay marriage, referenda opposing it gain steam. When they don’t so rule, those referenda don’t do as well at the ballot box.

I fear a backlash should this pass especially since California voters already weighed in on the matter. The appropriate route to change the state’s definition of marriage is through the ballot box.

If the amendment does pass this fall, the governor will not be in a position to kill it.

Casey, maybe turnout was low in 2000, but it was on the ballot. Glad at least that you’re not afraid of the referendum. I think the serious advocates would relish a battle, giving them a chance to make their case for state recognition of same-sex unions as marriage to the people of the Golden State.

Too many gay marriage advocates would rather bypass the people where they would need discuss the meaning of the institution rather than fit into a discussion of rights.

By: Casey

Casey — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:54:52 +0000

The democratic process? Sure, technically. 4 million out of 34 million Californians voted on the issue, in a primary election where the nominees were basically decided – so basically, it was passed by virtue of a social-conservative get-out-the-vote effort, rather than any kind of real involvement by the general CA populace. This November would be a different animal – not only will there be MUCH higher participation, it’s also 8 years later. Massachusetts has had marriage for 5 years, and the sky hasn’t fallen. Thousands of other things have changed regarding gay recognition and respectability – isn’t it fair to say that the time may have come to reconsider this?

And one more thing about Prop. 22 – they marketed it as a way of preventing CA from having to respect marriages entered into in other states, leaving the choice about same-sex marriage up to Californians. Our legislature has passed a bill – twice – which would change California’s policy on marriage, and our governor vetoed it saying that the courts would have to rule. Today they will, and God willing, they’ll rule that the state constitution’s promise of equality under the law means exactly that – equality under the law, in the form of equal protection for everybody’s fundamental right to marry the person of their choice (within reasonable, narrowly tailored restrictions, of which gender is not one).

If that means we face a fight in November, I’m not afraid. I trust that the people of California are better than that, and that with enough work, they can be persuaded that our cause is right and just. I am willing to do that work. Are you? Or will you just sit there and snipe from the safety of your keyboards? That, my friend, is disrespecting the democratic process more than anything the Court could say today. I say, bring it on.

By: queerunity

queerunity — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:05:36 +0000

if you want the gov't out of the bedroom they shouldnt be deciding who marriage is for based on bedroom practices. why should straight people have marriage and gays civil unions? sometimes i think conservative gays are suffering internal homophobia. http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

By: heliotrope

heliotrope — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:36:18 +0000

Amen to A Different Peter H.

By: A Different Peter H

A Different Peter H — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:01:39 +0000

Jeez! Get the government out of my bedroom and out of my laundry room! Regardless how the government wants to define marriage, that doesn’t prevent the gay community to lobby for civil unions. Leave the marriage for the straight people, but give us our civil unions. If we’d just drop the word “marriage” and “equality”, we’d probably get much farther (further?).

By: James

James — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:23:05 +0000

I will give up golf until we have equal marriage rights.

By: queerunity

queerunity — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:02:47 +0000

patriot the logic isnt adding up for me here. If we don't hope for a marriage equality ruling, we won't have marriage. If we do get it and the amendment gains steam, atleast we will have marriage and have to fight to keep it. So it is basically no marriage, or marriage and a big battle, no? The governator also promised to veto any amendment, he said that to the Log Cabin Republicans, so hopefully even if the amendment passes the governor will kill it. http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:03:14 +0000

If advocates of gay marriage had respect for the democratic process,

There’s been a few liberal measures, around the country the last few years, which have gone down in defeat. Of course, the liberals said “SCREW YOU! We’re gonna do it anyway!!!”