In the wake of the California Supreme Court decision to strike down the state’s provisions recognizing only traditional marriages, Pajamas asked me to offer my thoughts on the topic. I offer the first few paragraphs here:
Earlier today, holding current “statutory provisions” limiting “marriage to opposite-sex couples” unconstitutional, a divided California Supreme Court overturned the state’s retention of the traditional definition of the institution. In short, the court mandates that the Golden State recognize same-sex marriages.
The court found the existing domestic partnership legislation affording same-sex couples “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges” and imposing “virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties” violated the state’s equal protection clause.
As a gay man who supports the ideas the institution of marriage embodies, I should be pleased and to some degree, am grateful that this issue has received the attention it is getting, but feel nonetheless troubled by the decision. To be sure, the court makes some valuable arguments about the merits of recognizing same-sex unions, but, I believe those arguments should be made to the citizens of the Golden State, 62% of whom voted in 2000 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest of the post.
It’s pretty simple – The CA Supreme Court affirmed the concept of equal protection under the law as it applies to marriage between consenting adults.
When Brown vs. The Board of Education struck down long-standing “separate but equal” statutes, recognizing that separate is inherently an un-equal state of being.
The excuse I often see here is that marriage is such a special and sacred institution, that people’s minds need to be changed about it. Well, many years ago, many people believed that separation of the races was something sacred and that white people were had some kind specialness to them that non-whites didn’t have in them.
It’s pretty sad that people want to use decisions like this as an excuse to knock down 1/3 of the checks and balances that exist in our governments. Don’t like that a law you’re trying to pass is unconstitutional (whether at a state or federal level)? No problem, just insert a clause in your bill to try and make it exempt from judicial review. That little trick was attempted a few times in laws that were deemed so special that that no should be able to refute it; pretty scary thinking actually.
The institution of marriage can be whatever it wants to be for the people involved. there are clearly many people out there (same sex and opposite sex) who are in relationships that doesn’t define itself by a government issued piece of paper. The thing is though, government at all levels in this country have chosen to afford people who obtain that piece of paper sts of special rights not afforded to people who don’t have that piece of paper. By government getting itself involved in that manner, it is necessary that that these same rights be granted to all citizens, not just a select group. If marriage (as granted by government) was a simply a piece of paper just declaring marriage, I doubt anyone would really care getting that piece of paper.
Checks and balances, Kevin? Overturing a centuries-old institution on a clever legal argument and judicial whim? It seems your side is the one knocking down those checks and balances.
Wrong. The CA Supreme Court took away the right of the people to define what the purpose of the marriage institution they are subsidizing is in the first place.
There is no equal protection issue whatsoever. Every single adult in America is free to spend their life with whomever they want, and every single adult in America is free to enter into the institution of marriage which exists to encourage a behavior, not to encourage love or validate people, but to encourage men and women to form legal bonds with eachother so that, ideally, if everyone gets married, every child will be born into a legally binding relationship between their father and mother.
Whether you like it or not, that is a “compelling state interest”, and the people have a right to promote it.
The court today said the people do not have that right to decide what the value of the marriage institution is to society in the first place.
That is oligarchy, and I would hope people could try to master their emotions and see how oligarchy is detrimental to liberty.
The court that can bestow rights can also take rights away.
Excellent piece GPW! Especially impressive considering the deadline!
Thanks, American Elephant, your words mean more to me than you know. I had to get this in under a deadline, but needed to read an opinion which was very poorly written–and skimmed most of it.
And also, as I’ll address in a later post, was a bit off-center and had as I mentioned in a previous post a lot on my plate today.
That others would find a I wrote a good essay under those conditions flatters me to no end.
It is a good step. However, it is all meaningless until it is adopted FEDERALLY and we can enjoy the benefits of leaving our Social Security to our partners. I really don’t care what you call us — I just want him to be taken care of when I’m gone. One totalitarian government already ripped his life off (Cuba), but here he’ll not do well without my income.
So, until it is TOTAL, to me it is just eyewash.
Yawn. This issue is so ’04.
We all know what’s coming; the James Dobson crowd and the Bill O’Reilly crowd will endlessly rant and cry and moan, but one can’t stop progress. Gay marriage will be legal everywhere in the U.S. (yes, even Alabama) within the next decade.
Why should a young girl who can get an abortion without parental consent be denied the right to marry without parental consent? Why should a young teen male and a thirty-five year old male who are sexually attracted to one another be prohibited from marrying? Why should a group of like minded people be restricted from marrying?
Why should the state have any compelling interest whatsoever in regulating marriage?
Has the Supreme Court of California offered reasonable guidance that will make the answers to these questions clear and obvious?
Can I marry my bowl of ice cream now in California?
2: Yes, well, slavery was a cherished, centuries old institution too.
8: That’s sophistry for the sake of it. You’re using analogies that have nothing to do with the topic. Why can someone vote at 18, but not run for president ’til they’re 35? Pretty much every civilized / democratic societies have some kind of age of consent laws when a person can make decisions as an adult. The topic here is allowing 2 consenting adults to enter into what is essentially a contract provided by the state that provides special rights and privileges not easily available without it.
9: Thanks, why don’t you just use the tried and true anti-gay slur about gays marrying goats?
Hardly sophistry, Kevin. Indeed, if you’re looking for sophistry, try reading the majority opinion of the CA Supreme Court, poorly written and hardly addressing the meaning and origin of the traditional definition of marriage.
And to bring up slavery is ludicrous. In slavery, an individual was denied sovereignty over his own person. Here, same-sex couples just don’t get the same state privileges accorded to different sex couples who elect marriage.
Sorry Kevin, but I agree that this is a yawner of an issue. It will only increase the level of hate spewed by certain groups against gays, and by you against all Christians.
So I for one hate to see this judicial fiat that specifically overturned a popular vote on an issue. The fact of the matter is it proves how pathetic the gay community has been on moving the American public to our side on any issue.
I think I will marry that last bowl of strawberry ice cream I had … I did love it.
Wow!!! The original blog by GayPatriotWest hinting that the rights for gays & lesbians to marry should be decided by the people of California and not by a court (or a single person) is right on. That’s why I always thought Abraham Lincoln was such a war monger and enshrining him forever is such a travesty forced upon us by the neocons. If the negros back in the civil war time wanted any rights, those rights should be voted to them by the white folks and not forced upon the white folks by this war monger, one trick pony, half breed jew Abraham Lincoln. After all, more than half of the country didn’t even consider them human at that time. Not only this war monger Abraham Lincoln forced his personal belief upon more than just one state but the whole country, he also made millions die for his belief. He must be burning in hell right now.
If you haven’t detected my sarcasm, you’re not very bright. Of course, Abraham Lincoln is not a war monger. He’s the greatest president this country has ever had the luck to be lead by. And he’s not forever remembered and worshiped by the people of this country by asking people to vote away their wrong doings. He makes sure that wrongs are righted at any cost. GPW knows that the rights for gays and lesbians to marry is essentially right and denying that rights to them is wrong. But unlike Abraham Lincoln fighting what he believed was right, GPW would rather have other people do it. Well, I’m not complaining. Having one less shrine to build is more than any one can wish for.
GPW,
Please go to http://www.goodasyou.org and talk some sense into Jeremy Hooper and the others there.
I’m like a voice in the wilderness on that site!
I’ve been back and forth on this issue the whole day. Was fired up (in a bad way) at first, but now think it was probably a good call. The issue of the “courts going against the electorate†is a valid one, but only to a certain point.
Laws, even constitutional amendments, that are voted on and approved by the majority of the public can still be ruled un-constitutional. Just because most people want it, doesn’t mean it’s right.
That said, I think the larger issue here is not whether gays should or should not be allowed to marry, but how and why the gay community is seen the way it is. As with the ruling in MA, we should expect to see a fair amount of legislative backlash come November in California and other states. Instead of spending their time and money in the courts, gay-rights groups need to consider revamping our “imageâ€.
We cannot possibly expect equality when we are constantly highlighting our differences.
A couple things.
1. The state ruled that separate is not equal. Arguing against a principle enshrined in Brown is silly and counterproductive.
2. The decision to marry is part of a person’s autonomy and sovereignty. While we can go back and forth all day about the privileges of marriage, that doesn’t address the fact that a denial of marriage does deny people of what should be sacrosanct aspects of their personal sovereignty in forming relationships (hospital visitation, estate planning, etc.).
3. The California constitution is also an expression of the will of the people. According to the Court, Prop 22 violated that expression of it. An initiative does not overrirde the constitution, and the Court is well within its bounds to strike it down. That’s pretty much why the Court is there – to prevent legislatures and voters from violating the fundamental rights of the individual as delineated in the constitution.
It seems to me that the “will of the people” rhetoric is lazy shorthand for “We don’t like this decision.” And there’s nothing at all conservative in ignoring the fact that all three branches of government support same-sex marriage. This isn’t the case of some rogue court swooping in and creating rights out of thin air. You have a legislature that has passed domestic partnerships and then voted to pass same-sex marriage twice. Yet that has not stopped conservative commentators from going on and on about the usurpation of the legislature. Christ on a crutch, does anyone know what goes on in that state?
The reaction to this decision is, IMO, totally knee-jerk, and reliant on the lazy political shorthand that the commentariat reaches for whenever the issue arises. “What are the Republican talking points? Ok, let’s go with those.”
Really the only part I agree with is how the Court goes on and on at length about dignity and acceptance. Lord, it’s a legal matter. The judges should stick with the law and leave the social commentary in their memoirs. The law is good enough. California has two systems of partnership. Two separate, but equal systems. The judges struck it down and said the equal protection clause protects same-sex marriage (the same as Loving).
Tradition, hell. Seriously, if we cited tradition as the be all and end all determinant of when we should withhhold rights, none of us would be voting, owning property, or doing much of anything at all in this country.
Like I said, it’s lazy, lazy, lazy.
You know I respect you, Dan, but I think the knee-jerk reaction smells just a touch like trying to preserve conservative/Republican street cred than trying to understand the dynamics of the state of California, the actions of the legislature, and understand how ample precedent and statute law gave the Court more than enough room to rule as they did.
While you and I would personally like it if the initiative had been repealed followed by action of the legislature, the fact remains that no serious commentator can see three branches of government supporting something, then moan about the lack of democracy of it all. We’re a Republic, functioning as intended.
Great post and such logic! The problem with those who do not mind when a court divines a “right” is that the same court can take away a “right”. It is convenient for frightened politicians to depend on a court to decide an issue that they, our elected officials, should be deciding, with the consent of the people. Many people’s attitude towards gays and lesbians are natuarally changing and for the positive. My own views are evolving and somewhat sympathetic. It is the way that the issue will change in the favor. Not by a court that in this case will create a backlash. That backlash will be in November. Many people will vote FOR a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage because weasly politicians and a diluted state supreme court do not take their responsiblity seriously.
60% of Californians, supposedly one of the most liberal states in the union, voted that keeping marriage between 1 man and 1 woman was important.
That is hardly just the Dobson or O’Reilly crowd, That is what is known as mainstream.
Or Californians will pass a constitutional amendment, as so many other states already have, which will make it that much harder to achieve gay marriage. There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court would ever overturn a states constitutional amendment unless the court becomes considerably more liberal than it is now.
Gay activists may very well have pushed gay marriage back decades.
The state ruled that separate is not equal.
Actually, what the state did is throw out anything that made same-sex and opposite-sex couples look different, and then claim that doing so made it “separate but not equal”.
In that case, as the other commentors here have noticed, they should throw out those pesky age, blood relation, and multiple-wife “differences” that also prevent people from marrying who they “love”.
While we can go back and forth all day about the privileges of marriage, that doesn’t address the fact that a denial of marriage does deny people of what should be sacrosanct aspects of their personal sovereignty in forming relationships (hospital visitation, estate planning, etc.).
Thank you for enlightening us, Robbie; prior to today, I had absolutely no idea that it was impossible to set up a healthcare proxy or a will without being married.
(end sarcasm)
And there’s nothing at all conservative in ignoring the fact that all three branches of government support same-sex marriage.
There is if you’re unaware of the fact that the California Constitution subordinates all three to the voters — precisely because California’s founders had experience with Mexico’s system of patently-unrepresentative and unfair “elected officials” and judges.
Honesty isn’t one of your stronger suits, is it?
Dan: Good column. I agree with AE on this point – impressive job considering the deadline you were under. Since I’m obviously conflicted about the wisdom of this move, even if I do support SSM, I’m going to reflect more upon this before posting more on this. Perhaps I’ll do so this weekend after I finish helping my brother move.
AE:
Considering the insane system they have in California where a mere majority can actually amend their constitution for any reason, I find this argument to be wholly without merit. When you add to this that the legislature has twice voted for SSM, and that since 2000 support for SSM hasn’t cost legislators their jobs in the intervening elections, or the Justices who’ve all been retained with over 60% of the vote, this argument is weak. If a majority of the people truly believe the Court is wrong on this, overturning the decision is very easy. This issue aside, I still maintain that having such a system of amendment is monumentally stupid and no wonder California has a constitution of over 30,000 words and 120 pages!
RIW:
WIshful thinking. Deluding oneself only sets you up for a heckuva fall when reality sets in.
GP:
There have been many poor arguments on both sides of this debate and I don’t think parroting the worst of them from the anti crowd is helpful. When your frozen custard achieves sentience, along with the container it rests in, perhaps this will have merit.
Chad:
Unless it can be shown to violate the US Constitution, which obviously takes precendence over any State constitution, the courts cannot strike down an amendment to the document which empowers them. Well, then again this is California and I personally think their system is so convoluted and insane that who knows what loopholes are in their constitution now? Majority vote to amend, that’s ridiculous.
AE:
Call it pessimistic, but this is what concerns me.
I asked:
and Kevin answers:
I asked:
and Kevin answers:
I asked:
and Kevin answers:
I asked:
and Kevin answers:
And then I ask the fundamental question that lies at the base of the foregoing inquiries:
and Kevin answers:
So much for enlightened debate. Apparently, the California Supreme Court has opened no can of worms. Move along, folks, nothing to discuss here. Only homophobes, imbeciles and sophists don’t get the picture.
When you add to this that the legislature has twice voted for SSM, and that since 2000 support for SSM hasn’t cost legislators their jobs in the intervening elections, or the Justices who’ve all been retained with over 60% of the vote, this argument is weak.
Not really.
First off, same-sex marriage has never been voted on in an election year. It’s something that you can set your clock by every two years; indeed, Mark Leno specifically stated at the beginning of this year that he would not push his bill again since Democrat leaders didn’t want it to come forward.
Second off, California is one of the most hopelessly-gerrymandered states in existence. The only thing both parties actually agree on is that redistricting reform is required because the current map is just too odious.
Third, the justices have never before voted in favor of same-sex marriage; in fact, they’ve repeatedly turned it back. Hence, it cannot be said that the judges have been “voted on” relative to this; indeed, they may not survive the recall round.
Fourth, California’s constitution is written the way that it is because we were well familiar with non-representative representative government under Mexico. The ultimate authority is given to voters because we are well aware that legislators, judges, and even governors cannot always be trusted; the referendum and initiative process is to ensure that Californians need neither wait for people to be voted out of office or be forced to vote someone out with whom they disagree on one or two key issues, but otherwise support.
You mean like Texas? About the only thing both parties agree on is seeking to keep themselves in power and screw really representative districts.
Perhaps. Yet while they may not have voted in favor gay marriage before, considering the number of “pro-gay” decisions this court has handed down and that many people expected yesterday’s result sooner or later, this doesn’t seem to be that surprising. Yet it doesn’t matter, the people will still have their say on their ruling in November and can vote on retaining these Justices later on. My prediction: the amendment passes (approx 55% range) and these Justices are retained.
Hey it’s your state, live under whatever kind of crazy system you like. I prefer the wisdom of the Founders in making amendments to the Constitution difficult so popular passions don’t screw things up. If change is needed it should require far more agreement than merely 50+1.
Dan GPW, we are on opposite sides of this issue but I want to compliment you on a very well-written article, an especially well-written piece considering the deadline you faced.
Robbie, in #!7, your comments were also well-written. Even though we will see them tomorrow when they are graduated from college, my wife is on the phone right now reading your comments to our twin sons, Taylor and Tyler, who are gay. The points you made will certainly reinforce the arguments Taylor and Tyler are making in support of what the California Supreme Court has done. They would much rather move to California than to Massachusetts, where winters are cold. I want them to move to England, where both major political parties respect gays, but their Mother and Grandparents want them closer to home.
How on earth do people have “rights” to keep other people from doing things that don’t affect them in the least. How does the marriage of two people of the same gender (for argument let’s say Ellen and Portia) affect the marriages of those already married in the more traditional way? If find that line of argument bizarre, Elephant.
How on earth do people have “rights†to keep other people from doing things that don’t affect them in the least.
Technically, your neighbor having sex with his daughter or marrying a ten-year-old doesn’t affect you in the least either, Houndentenor. Why don’t you mind your own business and call for repeals on those bans? Why should your “traditional” moral values interfere with someone marrying whomever they “love”, especially since “equal protection” means that the state has no right to deny marriage to anyone?
Houndentenor,
My marriage of 44 years to the same woman is not affected in the least by the polygamists in the Texas cult. Nor did the whore with multiple partners that lived next door when I was a child leave any scars. My good friends Pat and Lou have lived together for the thirty years I have known them and we are frequent guests at each other’s table. No harm there. I have known countless illegitimate children who have had no affect on my marriage. I have a sister who has had a common law marriage for decades. My cousin can not limit himself to any one homosexual partner for more than 24 hours. None of these examples affects my traditional marriage in the least.
Perhaps, if we follow your line of reasoning, we can do away with marriage entirely. We can say that inheritance laws, property division, etc. should never, ever be a matter of state interest.
Imagine a world with no state interest in divorce. Your Portia comes home to find that Ellen has moved on leaving two of the three adopted children, while taking the new car, the silver and jewels and the bank account. No state interest is involved, it is just “tough luck, Portia.”
OK, you didn’t actually say you favor taking the state interest out of marriage. But you somehow seem to think that the state should automatically favor the minority viewpoint. Or something. In fact, what are you trying to say?
I don’t know about you but I believe in marriage and don’t think society would benefit from eliminating it. This isn’t about other people’s sexual morality either. While I may disapprove it is not my job to police the sex lives of other people. I have enough to deal with in my own life without running anyone else’s.
This is about the legal recognition of a unique status between people who have chose to make a life together, such as you and your different-sex partner have. I hope you have a happy marriage and if you do why would you deny that to your friends? Do you see their relationship as less serious or of lesser status than your own? How can you claim to be friends with people who you see as inferior.
I always find these conversations odd. I probably currently socialize with more straight people than gay people (just a quirk of work and current living situation). They are all more thrilled with this decision than even I am and are more vocal about the rights of gays to marriage than I am. I do understand that. I fight for my friends. I want them to be happy and live the fullest lives they possibly can. I don’t understand anything else and hope I never do.
Gays do not want to destroy marriage. That’s just a lie of the religious right. We want to be a part of it. Why is that so hard to understand. And if you think that not being legally married doesn’t create numerous problems in times of great crisis then you don’t really know many gay people because everyone I know can tell at least a dozen stories of people they know personally who discovered in their most stressful time (death of spouse, illness, etc) that they had no legal standing under the law and that often family members, often family members who have been estranged for years, can suddenly show up and exercise rights over you. Oh yes, it’s possible to pay a lawyer a lot of money to set up dozens of legal documents to protect against such things. Wouldn’t it just be easier to allow those couples who choose to do so to marry rather than spend ten thousand dollars in legal fees?
I think most straight people take marriage for granted to such an extent that they can’t quite comprehend what it means to live for 30 years with someone and wake up one morning and realize that you have no legal standing. None. Maybe we should get rid of marriage for awhile so straight people would understand what they have. I don’t really wish that but perhaps if people just imagined for a few moments they would realize what the big deal is.
Off to dinner. I hope David Hyde Pierce is in good health. I am paying a lot of money and don’t want to see the understudy.
So you’re down with pederasty as long as it doesn’t crimp your style, right?
Houndentenor,
You are totally able to marry someone of the opposite sex. You want to have a nontraditional form of union because that is your way of making yourself happy. You refer to the legal complications of having your loved one die. That can be repaired with a civil union. However, many gays want to have some sort of government license that says homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are of equal value in the eyes of society.
I flat out oppose gay marriage; I have no quibble with civil unions.
So, back at you: why is the redefinition of marriage so critically important to you? How do you make a civil right of the action one takes to reach sexual gratification?
You ask me: “How can you claim to be friends with people who you see as inferior.”
My gays friends are not “inferior” and I do not regard them as such. I would be delighted for them to have a civil union. Not one of them is an advocate of gay marriage. I know that because we have had the conversation. Nor does any one of them feel inferior. We know what is different in our sexual orientations and we just don’t dwell on it.
If you have a way to define gay without bringing sex into the equation, please instruct me.
Oh for crying out loud! It appears to be a prerequisite of being a liberal to have no farking clue what a right is.
No one is “keeping” you from doing ANYTHING, you have the right to associate with whomever you want for however long you want. You have the right to tie your finances to each other, grant each other power of attorney, bequeath everything you own to one another and there are even churches and synagogues that will perform the ceremony.
Its called the freedom of association and it is a God-given, inalienable right, protected by the assembly clause of the first amendment.
It is being denied no one.
Marriage is a set of incentives given to encourage a behavior that you are entirely capable of but refuse to do.
You are driving a Hummer and demanding the same tax credit people get for buying a prius.
Um, I’m sorry, but a constitutional amendment cant be ruled unconstitutional.
I’ve got a perfect idea:
Ban “straight” marriage.
Self-governance is without merit???
The people of California CANNOT amend their constitution in any way that violates the US Constitution. Which is why, with all due respect, it is your argument that is without merit, not mine.
When you consider that most people admit in polls that they base their votes on many other issues before gay marriage, and the fact that the people themselves voted by 61-62% against recognizing same-sex marriage, it isn’t weak at all.
The right of the people to govern themselves is never a weak argument. Especially given the fact that civil rights are protected by the US Constitution.
The CA decision took away the right of the people to even determine what the hell the PURPOSE of marriage is in the first place!!! If the people can’t decide what the purpose of an institution is, what on Earth can they decide???
Democracy is tyranny, plain and simple. That’s why we don’t have one. We have a representative republic, and a system of checks and balances to keep one branch of government from becoming too powerful.
And have you seen what society values these days? How about things it used to value? You act as though society has never been wrong.
Wrong, they ruled that the state has no right to recognize the glaring and fundamental difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. A decision made farcical by the mere fact that each of us exists. They ruled that different is the same. It’s newspeak.
Brown NEVER enshrined the principle that all differences are equal. It enshrined the idea that inconsequential things like pigmentation do not make us different, and that the law where there are no significant differences, the law must treat us the same. Which is proven by the fact that the law doesn’t treat us the same. The law prohibits men from using the womens restroom, and women from using the mens. The law prohibits women from performing certain jobs in the military for which they do not possess the strength, the law allows private employers to discriminate against people who cannot perform the required work, the law treats elderly and the handicapped differently, the law prevents obese and handicapped people from sitting in the exit aisle, it prohibits blind people from driving, and on and on and on.
Brown NEVER said we must treat all different things equally. Nor does the 14th amendment. It only requires us to treat things the same when there is no significant difference.
Wrong again. The freedom of association is part of a person’s autonomy and sovereignty. And you have the freedom to associate with whomever you wish for as long as you wish. It is protected by the assembly clause of the 1st amendment.
Marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is me giving you my hard earned money to encourage you to settle down with a woman, make babies, and raise them. You don’t have a right to my money. Ever.
If we all get together as citizens and decide we want to also give out our money to encourage same sex couples to settle down, even though they have no prospect in hell of producing and raising their own babies, then and only then you may have some of my money. But you never have a right to it.
And just because we encourage same-sex relationships does not mean we have to pretend that homosexuality can provide everything to society that heterosexuality can. Because that would be a lie.
You already have the right to bequeath your estate to whomever you wish and you are allowed to determine who may visit you in a hospital.
No, it is shorthand for self governance.
Their entire argument hinges on dignity and acceptance, because their decision could not be supported by either the CA or US Constitutions.
Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality. Children come from heterosexuality. Children can never come from homosexuality. A heterosexual relationship is the only kind of relationship in which children can be raised by both their biological parents. California had two separate systems precisely because they are not equal.
The court lied.
Actually, the governor vetoed it. And he got re-elected too. The fact is that the people got a chance to vote on it directly, and they voted overwhelmingly against it. Just under two thirds.
The fact that People re-elected the same democrats who voted for it, and the same governor who vetoed it pretty much shows that people were voting based on other issues. And the fact that polls still show a majority of Californians opposed to gay marriage makes it clear that Democrats got re-elected in spite of voting for it, not because of it.
No, for now, you’re an oligarchy. At least until the people have their say again.
Cool! I can smell the reference to “husband” or “wife” being flushed down the crapper because it calls attention to the difference between married heterosexuals and married homosexuals.
“Different sex parter of John Smith, may I introduce the different sex partner in our marriage, Mary?”
It fairly trips off the tongue, it is so lyrical.
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive (pretend equivalence)!”
The will of the people = mob rule.
#43: The will of the gay left = sob rule.
#44: How dare you accuse me of being a leftist. How dare you.
#42: Your “pretend equivalence” between gay marriage, polygamy, incest and bestiality is worse.