Yay.

Look for a right wing activist federal judge to step in rather than allow the state of California to stand with the ruling of its highest court. Despite their claims to federalism and states rights, these people like to tyrannize from the very top.

Does this mean sinf   will be moving back to Calif ?

Why should he?  He's *ALREADY* in a civilized state.

I saw this a few minutes ago on the MSNBC site. I burst out laughing thinking of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth among the holier-than-thous.

"I'd rather live next to a flamer than a fundie any day" -Benjamin Franklin

Gay folks now have exactly the same rights to be miserable as straight folks.

But, Random - Ted Kennedy lives in that state...

Exactly.

Gay folks now have exactly the same rights to be miserable as straight folks. 

Serves 'em right.

 "Gay folks now have exactly the same rights to be miserable as straight folks" -

At least they got what they wanted. im sure this isnt the last we will hear of this topic though.

That's why there's a famine in the area of Martha's Vineyard.

Shoulda used Denny Hastert instead.  If they could pry him away from his boyfriend.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today regarding the state Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

(apologies for cut-and-paste.)

Great news now my home state has joined MA in recognizing same-sex marriages.

For those who oppose same sex marriage here is some simple advice:

1. Don't attend a same-sex marriage
2. Don't enter into a same-sex marriage
3. No Church, minister will be forced to perform a ceremony for a same-sex marriage
 

Tomorrow the sun will still raise as sure as the price of gas is going to go up.

We have far more important matters on hand to work through than attempting to overturn the courts ruling. We have higher price for food, gas, utilities, state & national debt, health care, poverty, national security.

AllRed, not to worry, I am not moving back anytime soon. Though I was there in Bakersfield for a week taking care of a sick relative.

How about that, it took a judicial fiat to make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. What other religious sacraments are being targeted by a government that is supposed to stay out of religious affairs, and to protect them instead of undermining them? Now we can see why it behooves us to vote McCain into office so we don't have anymore funny legislating from the bench.

There's always the initiative to amend the state Constitution to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. Maybe this would serve as a nice little wake-up call to get the voters out en masse to trump this decision should it make it onto the ballot. Take heart, folks, Christ did promise victory in the end, making the supporters of this abomination feeling indeed very foolish.

P.S. Cut and paste THIS, johnburnssucks and RF.

SF, here's hoping you have some friends' weddings to attend in California soon. :)

It took a judicial fiat to install Bush into office, too.  Ya notice most of the justices voting yes were put into office by Republicans?

.

Absolutely no religious sacraments are involved, Pax, and you should be thankful for that.  There's a "wall" of separation preventing the state from making any changes to your little bigoted ceremonies.   You're free to discriminate just as much as you want, you just can't force *OTHER* churches to follow your discrimination.

.

The bigots failed to qualify the anti-777 fiasco.  They need a supermajority to pass their little gay-hate constitutional amendment if it qualifies for November, and *ONLY* a constitutional amendment will do.  I've been told that this ruling supercedes that plan, too--but haven't verified it yet. 

Can we legalize polygamy now??

Nope.  Sorry. 

.

Different question altogether.

So much for equal rights I guess....

RF, thanks for the Christian-hating rhetoric to remind me about the new shot at overturning an offending section of SB 777. While that fell short of required number of voter signatures to make it onto the last ballot on a short notice, there is twice more time to succeed the second time around. Plus it's a lot more convenient now for folks to sign up. Before it wasn't possible to post the petition online and download it. Now they can. Go to

Can pro-family, pro-life advocates march in Gay Pride Parades?

You're welcome.  Consider it your change from your gay-hating bigotry.   Folks are seeing through the seething hatred of your obsolete world-view.  That's why they're switching from Roman Catholicism in droves.  If it weren't for immigration, your pews would be visibly emptying.  Thank Zeus.

.

Plenty of churches will be willing to perform same-sex marriages.  The RCC need not worry.

Sure they can march, Pax.  In fact, I'm sure the great majority of such marchers *ARE* both pro-family and pro-life (in the *REAL* sense.)

Gotta go hug a gay person.  Toodles!

I think even gay people cringed at that last remark......

It's about freakin' time.  I know that many people in this country want to retain the mentality of the 1950's, but when we look back at imperative social issues during that time (McCarthyism, inter-racial marriage, etc.), we realize how silly that mentality was.  Same thing with same-sex marriage--after enough time passes, people will look back during this debate and think, "Why was that such a big deal?"

Wit, I too thought he was taking a lot for granted. The most obvious being there's a gay person that would be willing!

It's very easy for the likes of RF and nkoby3 to stray from the narrow and hard path that Christ said leads to him. Many other folks did the same back in his days, even his own disciples. They certainly are free to pretend they're cool and progressive by Pied Pipering folks down the path that is wide and easy but leads to destruction. Hopefully on Judgment Day they aren't at a loss for excuses when Christ asks them where their brothers and sisters are. It's OK to tell the truth for once and let him know that you helped lead them to hell. Even Satan told the truth once when Christ encountered a demoniac in the temple, prompting him to proclaim: "Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God."

Nah.  First woman I ever hugged on a nude beach was gay.   Everybody loves hugs.

.

And I, for one, don't see anything wrong with two men expressing their love for one another through a hug, either:

Pax, Christ himself had no problem with teh ghey.  You and the church you front for need to grow up and follow his example.

What a great piece of news concerning equal protection and rights under the law.

McCain appears to be trying to slow dance with Bush. Pandering to the gays?

I guess it would do little to remind everyone that, despite the rhetoric, this isn't a Christian Nation....

Adam Payne, how about extending equal protection to the unborn. If not, why not? How'd you feel if yo mama had a scissor plunged in to pop your skull and had the rest of you suctioned out to be disposed of in the nearest sanitary landfill?

As for RF, how about you growing up and following Christ's advice to "go and sin no more"?

Pax, how about extending equal protection to gays first?  Then we can worry about nonhuman rights.  By the way, regarding that little "sin no more" story--who wrote that?  Because he wasn't *THERE*, so how can we trust the quote?

.

Witbee, Mc894 will pander to *EVERYONE* by the time this is over.  Notice how his eyes are shut, so he can savor Der Leader's aroma?  The guy's in love...

 Saxon237: I guess it would do little to remind everyone that, despite the rhetoric, this isn't a Christian Nation....

You can thank activist judges who go against the will of the people for that. Can't win at the ballot, so just grovel and plead for the justices to keep them from being losers.

So this isn't a Christian Nation? Read and weep: http://books.google.com/boo...
 

I'd rather not read your propaganda, I'll reside with the facts and the Constitution, thank you.

No, Pax, your fairy tale has been refuted again and again.  If we were, there'd be some mention of it in the Constitution.  And there ain't.

http://www.infidels.org/lib...

 .

Again, you should be glad.  If the US *WERE* a Christian nation, it most assuredly would not be *YOUR* sect making the rules.

Apparently, the rule of law and the idea of Separation of Power no longer means anything in California.  The voter approved law very clearly says that gay "marriage"  is banned in California.  Domestic partnership provisions have been given to homosexual couples.  What does this do except try to destroy marriage?  Another victory for illogical judges.  I think we all learned in high school about the judical power to interpret laws, the congress (or the legislature, people of California in this case) power to make law, and the President (or in this case the Governors) power to enforce law.  No matter how you spin this, the FACT is that the state supreme court has just made law and overuled the will of the people of California.  This is a sad day for Constitutional Democracy.

California. Truly the land of fruits and nuts.

I would also have to put forward the argument that we live in a Post-Christian Nation.  Just something to think about no matter what you think about the intermingling of faith and politics.  

This is a perfect example of why judges are so important and the choice of them are.

I'm not sure how I feel about this decision, not because of the result but because I thought California voted the other way multiple times and now that is reversed by a few people, the judges

Those people just made law they did not enforce it. What happens later I wonder?

States should be able to make any and have any laws they want as long as its not unconstitutional. As far as I know Gay marriage or marriage of any kind isn't unconstitutional, California voted to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman. That should be upheld until voted the other way if at all.

I just don't like this legislate from the bench crap.

Does this make sense to anyone or just me?

The majority of judges ruling on this case were appointed by Republicans. 

.

And they made the correct legal decision, too.  They are merely pointing out that the voters were in error when they tried to impose an unconstitutional ballot measure.  I would think you'd appreciate the correction.  How else could you know about mistakes, but to have them pointed out?

And they framed it properly, and it will set precedent for other cases--possibly including Pax's little bigot-ridden anti-777 petition. 

As to what happens later, why, a whole lot of happy couples get married and every straight marriage in the state is instantly invalid.  (I made up the last.)

.

Neverleft, you forgot the flakes...

I don't see this as being a huge knock against anything, really.

The voters approved of a discrimatory, and thusly, illegal ban against people with different sexual orientations (and, obviously, 'religious' beliefs) than the norm, and the California Supreme Court finally woke up and said "yeah, that actually was wrong".

But I guess this merits much more outrage than, say, when the people of California voted in the Medicial Marijuana law and had the feds say "Yeah, right."

The folks who cry "state's rights" when they want to discriminate will support overturning this decision.

.

Fortunately, unless they cite  Bush v. Gore, SCOTUS won't touch this.

Apparently, the rule of law and the idea of Separation of Power no longer means anything in California.

That is precisely what the decision was based on.

saxon 237 this is a christian nation, it values serve as a basis of our country's morals from the beginning until now, what an ignorant statement...try reading the constitution,

RF, I like that pic you posted, I don't think he's trying to pander, I think he's trying to lock Bush in the McCain death grip...

Bigjpop, interesting, you could definitely argue that...definitely worthy of discussion

RandomFactor  "The voters were in error."  You do realize that comment makes you a political tyrant.  And homosexuals have been afforded minority rights under domestic partnership laws.  Bloggers: here are your study topics tonight.  Separation of Powers, Constitutional Democracy, Federalism, Interpreation of Law, Majority Rule.    I expect a 3 page essay on how these principles apply to this case.  

No, bigjpop, it makes me opposed to political tyrants.  The rule of law protects the minority from the majority through the very part of the Constitution cited in the decision.

.

Were you asleep during Government class, or possibly home-schooled?