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.

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....

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!

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....

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...

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?

No, I went to $35,000 a year college and had a 4.4 GPA at South High.  I also served as a legislative assisstant in the Senate.  Would you like to say anything else to make you feel better about yourself?  Don't attack my credentials.  If you want to debate then stick to the facts.  I already posted on minority protections under the domestic partnership laws.  In fact just don't talk to me anymore if you can't be civil.

Like most everything else Mc894 tried, BS, it apparently failed.  What's more, he got Shrub all over him.  You can smell it. 

.

You might try reading the Constitution.  See how many times the word "God" appears in it, for example.  Exactly once, in the preamble.  "Christian," not at all.

Gay unions only became a problem to human beings after the intoduction of religous restrictions on private adult behavior.

We're  finally as smart as cro magnum man.

4-3 is a victory and a precedent, Pax.

.

Bigjpop, you are astoundingly ignorant of the Constitution, then.  Drug use? 

Does the term "Separate but Equal" mean anything to you?  Hint:  It was in all the papers.

AudreyB.  I would argue that logic alone can prove that Gay unions don't make sense.  How in any way do gay unions benefit humanity and further our species?

They don't have to benefit humanity and further our species.  They only need to benefit the two people involved.