Unwise haste on gay marriage

I n the old story, a preacher gives an inspiring sermon, which he concludes by asking his congregants to stand up if they want to go to heaven.

[Danaidh]

This seems about right to me.

There will be a backlash against gay marriage now that will set back the progress made over the last two decades.

And that's exactly what those who have forced this ruling deserve.

[Martin]

When have those arguing 'to soon' and 'not yet' in equality's long fight ever been vindicated? Was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation to brash? Should women have listened to Wilson and waited to acquire the right to vote? Perhaps Rosa Parks should have given up her seat?

Why would you choose to stake your argument in such territory? Why would you choose less freedom?

The Constitutions of our States were written to reflect our Nation's founding document, including its striving for a more perfect union. It's not hard, nor was it meant to be, to find more equality in words that codify the pursuit of ever greater freedom. To suggest that Justices have to invent concepts of equality completely ignores the inherent intention our Constitutions - and by extension our Democracy.

You wrote of the ballot initiatives likelihood of being placed on the November ballot. Would you care to estimate its likelihood of success should that happen, perhaps even back-up your estimation with a bet of some kind? Or, can you not yet face what side of history you have so cowardly chosen?

[allie topeka]

the problem here people is our country cannot deal in moral issues. every one's morals are different. a free country does not have the luxury of listening to its peoples morals. you live here and enjoy the right to speak about your morals, the right to believe what you want, but the government cannot legislate morality. that is not its job. america is a difficult place to live. it is advanced citizenship. just because some felt, that blacks were inferior, did not give us the right to take away their rights. if equal rights for blacks had been left up to voters, we'd still have segregation. if you want to live in a free country, then the freedoms must be extended to all of its citizens, not just the ones you agree with. some of you may be familiar with the phelps cult. they are a hate cult. they hate everyone and they hate america. they are a detestable group and my anger overflows everytime i see their hateful pickets. i would love to see them censored, but, they are americans and have the right to free speech and a right to their beliefs just like everyone else. our country is great and for it to continue to be so, ALL of its citizens must enjoy the same rights and freedoms. that is why your votes against gay marriage were overturned.

[Happy Day]

Martin wrote:

When have those arguing 'to soon' and 'not yet' in equality's long fight ever been vindicated? Was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation to brash? Should women have listened to Wilson and waited to acquire the right to vote? Perhaps Rosa Parks should have given up her seat?
Why would you choose to stake your argument in such territory? Why would you choose less freedom?
The Constitutions of our States were written to reflect our Nation's founding document, including its striving for a more perfect union. It's not hard, nor was it meant to be, to find more equality in words that codify the pursuit of ever greater freedom. To suggest that Justices have to invent concepts of equality completely ignores the inherent intention our Constitutions - and by extension our Democracy.
You wrote of the ballot initiatives likelihood of being placed on the November ballot. Would you care to estimate its likelihood of success should that happen, perhaps even back-up your estimation with a bet of some kind? Or, can you not yet face what side of history you have so cowardly chosen?

AMEN!!!!

[Dubya]

Oh, great. What do we have here: someone who thinks we should wait another 300 years to have the same rights as every other human in this country? Give me a break! The so called "family" people (read anti-gay) need to know that the time is now, and they better get out of our way. It's time to let the bigots beware. Join us or go away. We're not responsible for casualties!

[NE Jade]

Why do you care so much about gay marriage Willy/Bea? I couldn't care less what skank you marry. Get a life and a reason to live. Your crusade to bash gays is just plain annoying. Take your mother out for a day of sunshine! Air out the smoke filled house and get some exercise. Your mother is way too controlling. Put her in a home and get on with what is left of your life!

[beatrice]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any other group in America that's had it's civil rights VOTED ON? Did African-Americans get the right to vote because the white Americans had a referendum and decided to extend voting rights? Did women become capable of owning property because the male voters overwhelmingly voted to allow it?
No. That's not what happened. In each case of civil rights advancement, the three branches of government overrode popular opinion. This isn't new - it's the way civil rights advancement happens. Popular opinion doesn't usually catch up for about a decade. Why are gay Americans the only group that has to wait until some strangers who've never met a gay person decide that gay Americans are worthy of full equality under the law? It's not a matter of popular opinion, it's a matter of LAW.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Mo Shizzle wrote:

As a 50 year old gay man, yes, of course I embrace the right for gays to marry. However, I agree with Steve Chapman's posit that California probably is rushing this issue into law with some serious backlash from the religious right. Not only does this decision risk a California constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and possibly limiting the existing domestic partnership rights but this could have negative national repercussions with respect to gay rights. I would not be surprised if the Republicans try to turn this into a national issue in the presidential race which could have enough traction to move the race in McCain's favor. These cultural war tactics of the Republicans have worked before and might work again to take the spotlight off the Iraq war and the tanking economy.

I agree 'somewhat' in your thoughts,, however.. IF that was to happen, then this country will signal its death nell and the "christian riech" will have destroyed it's next victim..
Unfortunately for them, we are headed into another "crusades" but this time will be much different. We have given any and all 'adversaries' the tools needed this time to destroy in its entirety, the 'christian faith/church/circus'.
They WILL meet thier god.. and the planet will continue without them.

[we live in the stone ages]

i'm a str8 guy that thinks its ridiculous in this day and age that two people can't get hitched. seriously, what year is this? people have nothing better to do then stand in the way of their fellow human beings happiness (or unhappiness depending on how you view marriage haha).

someone freeze me and thaw me out in the future when people come to grips.

which...may be never.

[Kevin]

Thanks for your comments Steve and I understand that you may think that this is moving too fast.

But it's not your kid that's being called a bastard because his gay parents aren't married. And that's not by other kids but by adults. Exactly how long do you think I should be happy with that situation? And how long should I wait for it to change?

[The Real Reality Check]

Not to worry "we live in the stone age"

Good Southern Christians got over losing their god given right to own slaves as long as they were from a different country. Good Christians will at some point get over this too...

And for some reason..... These Christans that have a gay child that wants to get married get over it faster than the ones that don't

[Jim]

I challenge the assertion that marriage between opposite gendered people as it exists today in the US represents the same tradition that marriage has enjoyed for "eons."

Women are no longer the property of their husbands, cannot be legally beaten by their husbands, and enjoy many protections under the law that didn't come along until relatively recent times.

I also challenge the idea that marriage isn't replete with "amorphous concepts." How can you make that argument after you just talked about the "tradition" of marriage?

Finally, I challenge your concept of equal protection as defined by the California state constitution. Marriage between two men or two women is what we're really talking about. Their sexual orientation is frankly their own business, it is their gender that is being discriminated against, or in the words of the Constitution you quote, their sex. Marriage licenses don't ask about the participants sexual orientation, but they do spell out the gender requirements, and that is what is discriminatory.

To be afraid of backlash means that no social progress will ever happen. These things take time, successes often come hand-in-hand with setbacks, and those very successes commonly serve to galvanize opposition. But, fear of these consequences means accepting the boot on your neck and giving in to oppression.

[1noteasilyfooled]

Jim wrote:

I challenge the assertion that marriage between opposite gendered people as it exists today in the US represents the same tradition that marriage has enjoyed for "eons."
Women are no longer the property of their husbands, cannot be legally beaten by their husbands, and enjoy many protections under the law that didn't come along until relatively recent times.
I also challenge the idea that marriage isn't replete with "amorphous concepts." How can you make that argument after you just talked about the "tradition" of marriage?
Finally, I challenge your concept of equal protection as defined by the California state constitution. Marriage between two men or two women is what we're really talking about. Their sexual orientation is frankly their own business, it is their gender that is being discriminated against, or in the words of the Constitution you quote, their sex. Marriage licenses don't ask about the participants sexual orientation, but they do spell out the gender requirements, and that is what is discriminatory.
To be afraid of backlash means that no social progress will ever happen. These things take time, successes often come hand-in-hand with setbacks, and those very successes commonly serve to galvanize opposition. But, fear of these consequences means accepting the boot on your neck and giving in to oppression.

Jim.. I am SO ready for the backlash! the worse it is the better I like it! Makes me even stronger in my convictions of absolute adherence to LAW. I have no time for theological arguments. Civil law is civil, and to that end it will be enforced!

[moquif]

Robin Hood wrote:

<quoted text>
One reason for the rush (so that even "ya'll" can understand, WillyBea/aka "Danaidh") is that same-sex couples are paying $4500.00 in tax money annually for the 1138 Benefit package that they do not receive (PDF)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
That puts a serious "hurry-up" on the process. Tax time is coming at us fast.$4500.00 is a lot of money to be tossing down the toilet every year.

I agree. Also by striking down the "marriage penalty" tax Duyba created a "gay penalty" tax by creating a financial benefit not all couples can receive. There's no legal reason not to give the same kind of tax relief to homosexual couples.

[Conspiracy Man]

PLEASE don't let this turn into another distracting issue for this election. I agree that gays absolutely should be accorded the right to marry, but there are many other issue that are more important right now. It would be tragic to see this become a red herring issue at the expense of more pressing issues - we are at war and our ecomony is in the toilet and our kids are so poorly educated that our future will be a train wreck.

Watch and see how this issue will get twisted out of proportion. Watch and see who appeal to the cretins in this country to split the vote down these lines. Watch all of the shortsighted cretins vote on the basis of this issue despite the fact that their candidates will screw them over on every other issue.

[Conspiracy Man]

PLEASE don't let this turn into another distracting issue for this election. I agree that gays absolutely should be accorded the right to marry, but there are many other issue that are more important right now. It would be tragic to see this become a red herring issue at the expense of more pressing issues - we are at war and our ecomony is in the toilet and our kids are so poorly educated that our future will be a train wreck.

Watch and see how this issue will get twisted out of proportion. Watch and see who appeal to the cretins in this country to split the vote down these lines. Watch all of the shortsighted cretins vote on the basis of this issue despite the fact that their candidates will screw them over on every other issue.

THIS ISSUE IS PERFECT FOR DEMAGOGUING. WAIT AND SEE.

[JDAZ]

GREAT ANALOGY BALOGNA!!!!!!!

I forgot to add the "rediculous ananolgy" category in typical arguments back.

If you can't tell the difference between marraige,(union between a man and a woman) and Pimps and Porn,

I can't help you.

Unbelievable. Can someone help this guy out?

[Rey]

'prisoners...'

[Lee]

Mortimer wrote:

So, if you legalize Gay marriage, you also have to legalize polygamy - equal rights, you know. Hey, how about marriage rights for pet owners? There are lots of people who want to marry their dog, cat, pig, horse, etc. Equal rights again. In fact, why don't we just abolish any laws regulating behavior - anarchy is such a wonderful state.

This is so tired. Can a pet consent? No. Polygamy in it's current form subjugates women. So no, that doesn't work either.

[Robert Salm]

This is the kind of thinking that got George Bush elected in 2004--that those who vote are an amalgamation of thought of the entire nation. This country has always erred on the side of wackos and hypocrites in politics and social agenda. Those who believe they are correct, regardless of sensibility and fairness vote as a block with a unified zeal, and those against usually remain fragmented. This is what happened in Florida that eventually tipped the balance toward Bush becoming president in 2000.

Let us remember the law school maxim for understanding the rationale of the Supreme Court: "The Supreme Court is not Supreme because it is right; it is right because it is supreme." The same could be analogized of the electorate at large.