…and this is a 
I hear wedding bells…
Category:
Posted on: May 15, 2008 4:00 PM, by PZ Myers
Good news for fairness, justice and equality: California has made gay marriage legal. It's a small triumph for civil rights.
Now to celebrate, I don't expect you all to run out and marry a same-sex partner — I think my wife would object, and I'm really not in the market — but wouldn't you know it? The media is responding to this news with…stupid internet polls! How else can they possibly trivialize an important court decision, after all?
The LA Times is asking, "Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision today?" (as if, perhaps, enough internet geeks squawk they will change their minds). MSNBC asks, "What do you think about the court decision in California that allows same-sex couples to marry?" — strangely, one of the possible answers to that one is "Don't think so," which doesn't make much sense. It's also currently leading.
I'm sure you gay readers can think of a more suitable way to celebrate this little bit of recognition, but the rest of us can settle for poking at a radio button on the internet. Do so gaily, OK?
And if you want to do something more substantive, promote equal rights legislation in your state, so that all 50 states someday offer this basic privilege to everyone.
Comments
This is a HUGE fucking decision. I'm working my way through it, but the major highlights thus far:
1) It isn't just Prop 22--the restriction of marriage initiative a few years ago--that's unconstitutional, but the separation of same-sex couples into a different institution (Domestic Partnership) that's unconstitutional. We've got to be treated as full equals in our ability to select a marriage partner.
2) It elevates sexual orientation to a suspect classification. That's a HUGE deal. From now on, the pressure is on the state to prove that treating gay people differently, instead of on gay people having to prove its wrong to treat them differently.
I was surprised to hear we'd won today. As I read the decision I'm becoming stunned. This decision is far bigger than just marriage. We won BIG TIME in this decision today.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 15, 2008 4:07 PM
It looks like everyone who frequents the LA Times website is already enlightened.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 15, 2008 4:10 PM
*kaboom* Oh no, my heterosexual marriage just exploded! Curse you, California!
Posted by: lapo | May 15, 2008 4:10 PM
But the more national outlet, MSNBC, shows how far our country still has to go...
Posted by: Dennis N | May 15, 2008 4:11 PM
Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs! We're all doomed! Dooooooooomed!
Posted by: JimboB | May 15, 2008 4:11 PM
Congratulations to everyone who worked hard to make this decision possible. I look forward to the day when I can explain to my grandchildren that I lived in a time when homosexuals were treated unequally under the law, but that they no longer have to live in such dark times.
Posted by: H.H. | May 15, 2008 4:12 PM
Ten years from now, California will be a wasteland where traditional marriages can no longer flourish.
Just kidding, obviously.
Posted by: Stephen | May 15, 2008 4:13 PM
This goes against my Biblical morals that state that marriage is between one man and one woman (and her woman-servant, and my 6 other wives).
Posted by: Dennis N | May 15, 2008 4:14 PM
California and Massachusetts.
OK, bets on the first red state to permit gay marriage.
Posted by: chancelikely | May 15, 2008 4:14 PM
Being a godless, queer liberal (haha PZ, I embody 3 things that conservatives hate, one more than you), I was excited to hear about the California decision today.
However, being from Michigan, we have had a shitty week when it comes to gay rights. The Michigan Supreme court just upheld a ruling saying that same-sex couples do not deserve healthcare benefits due to a 2004 anti-gay marriage amendment that passed with a good majority. One more reason I want to get out of this shithole of a state.
Posted by: Nate | May 15, 2008 4:23 PM
Congratulations to everyone whose human love was previously unrecognised and/or illegal because holy books somehow trump anthropology in defining 'traditional' sexuality and marriage.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2008 4:23 PM
OK, bets on the first red state to permit gay marriage.
Well, California has a Republican governor. Doesn't that make them something of a red state already? Outside of liberal evil Hollywood, that is.
Posted by: Carlie | May 15, 2008 4:24 PM
"California and Massachusetts.
OK, bets on the first red state to permit gay marriage."
Which one has the highest cowboy population? Texas?
=P
Posted by: Ernie | May 15, 2008 4:24 PM
The Court also got this right: the issue isn't the right to same-sex marriage but the right to choose one's marriage partner. This is a far stronger decision than the Goodridge case here in MA.
This is a really, really good decision.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM
Every now and then I kind of almost nearly come close to not loathing my fellow human beings quite so much.
Go California Supremes!
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | May 15, 2008 4:27 PM
@#9:
It might be Arizona. We've got two very blue counties which hold, collectively, about a third of the state's population, and already defeated one attempt at christofascism in 2006.
There's another proposal that wants to limit marriage here, but with the strong Libertarian bent of many rural areas, and with the increasingly cosmopolitan makeup of Phoenix, it might not stand.
From there it's just a question of floating a more "enlightened" measure rewording marriage to mean a partnership of consenting adults.
Posted by: Warren | May 15, 2008 4:27 PM
Now, can we expect a flood of people explaining to us that they "didn't realize" that banning gay marraige is bad for gays, and that if we just ignore the problem, it will disempower the legislators and make 'em quit all their hatin'?
Seriously, though, this is so fantastic. Just the joy on the two women's faces in the first article is so heartwarming. Could you imagine being forced to wait 34 years before being allowed to marry the one that you love?
Posted by: EntoAggie | May 15, 2008 4:27 PM
If anyone is interested, HRC is currently directing the funds collected directly to the upcoming fight in CA over the decision.
Here's the link: https://secure.ga3.org/03/caequalpac
Posted by: Chris | May 15, 2008 4:27 PM
Now by the slippery slope logic of the neo-con god-bots, I should be able to expect my marriage to an octopus legal in 5 years or so.
I'm sure my wife wouldn't mind...
As for the decision, my sis and her wife are already planning on getting hitched for real now! Its good that CA has some pretty progressive partnership laws, it's not equal.
I cant wait to drink at her and her wife's wedding.
YAY!
Posted by: Architeuthis | May 15, 2008 4:28 PM
#3:
Reminds me of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
Posted by: JRQ | May 15, 2008 4:28 PM
It will be great when all 50 states let us marry, but even better when the Federal Government allows equal rights.
Posted by: Mary in Vermont | May 15, 2008 4:33 PM
Crash Poll! Crash Poll Gaily! YA! YA! YA! Will be more gayer in next poll crashing!
MSNBC Poll: Good idea? (17,777 responses)
46% - Yes
51% - No
2.5% - No answer
Crash poll faster Werewolves!
Posted by: James | May 15, 2008 4:34 PM
All, I can say is "Wow...". After hearing countless stories here and in other outlets of fundies run amok, it's nice to see the forces of good win a big one once in awhile.
Congratulations to all you "same-sexers" out there. And thanks to all you "diff-sexers" out there who support them.
We've taken a step in the right direction--let's hope it sticks...
Posted by: SiMPel MYnd | May 15, 2008 4:34 PM
Yes, this is a good thing.
But the battle has just begun. In November there will probably be a ballot referendum on a constitutional initiative to define marriage as between one man and one woman. This ballot initiative would not be subject to judicial review.
Current opinion polling indicates an even split among Californians on this matter. Hopefully, the essential unfairness of nullifying the thousands of marriages which will occurr between June 15 (whjen the Ca. Supreme Court ruling takes effect) and Nov 11 will sway the citizens to reject this amendment.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | May 15, 2008 4:38 PM
On the MSNBC poll, this option is leading with 51%:
Man, I know that some guys really like the lesbian pr0n, but why would they want only women to be able to marry?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 15, 2008 4:38 PM
Sigh. Yawn. Sittin' twiddling my thumbs here in Massachusetts.
Seriously, I am very happy about this. I know I'm just an icky girl, Jeff, if you were sitting right here, I might even hug you. ;-)
First Red state? Errm... Is New Hampshire Red?
Posted by: Kseniya | May 15, 2008 4:39 PM
And thus is my faith in the American judicial system restored. A little bit, anyways.
Posted by: amphiox | May 15, 2008 4:39 PM
We won BIG TIME in this decision today.
Indeed, just reading the first 12 pages or so shows an incredible smack-down on several of the more common anti-gay-marriage rhetoric.
-Richard
(not Dawkins, nor the other one who's been posting recently)
Posted by: Richard | May 15, 2008 4:39 PM
This is awesome. My cousin, who lives in Redondo Beach, lives with her same-sex partner, and they've been a couple for years; I am glad they are able to marry now and enjoy all the benefits that heterosexual couples do.
Posted by: Katharine | May 15, 2008 4:40 PM
@#7 Stephen --
Maybe not so obviously.
My high school's Gay-Straight Alliance club (in CA) had a debate on gay marriage with the school's Republican Students club. At one point, a guy brought up the "sanctity of marriage" argument, and I asked what I intended to be a rhetorical question: "So, if you were in a loving relationship with your wife and the government enacted a law allowing gay marriage, do you think that would make your marriage less meaningful in the eyes of God?"
He answered, in total seriousness, "Yes."
At that point, I just gave up. IMO they should just make it *all* civil unions. Get the government out of marriage all together if so many people consider it a religious institution.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 15, 2008 4:40 PM
When I hear folks talking about "Defense Of Marriage" I throw in something like "Oh, good - they're finally going to make divorce illegal" and watch their reactions.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | May 15, 2008 4:40 PM
#10: Godless, gay, liberal, trial lawyer, worked with the ACLU. Got you beat by two. ;-)
Posted by: grog the pirate | May 15, 2008 4:41 PM
@#16 Warren:
I'm not sure I agree with you on Arizona being the first red state to support same-sex marriage. I live in AZ, too, and I've personally witnessed a lot of hate-mongering around here. Any place that can continue to re-elect a moron like Joe Arpaio for sheriff (in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix) doesn't really rank right up there on the "enlightened" list. But, I really hope you're right and I'm wrong...
Posted by: SiMPel MYnd | May 15, 2008 4:44 PM
I'll put my money on Montana. They've always seemed to be REAL conservatives there- that is, people who are for minimal government intervention in ALL spheres, not the perverse minimum service / maximum control "Conservatism" that's become so popular.
Posted by: Nentuaby | May 15, 2008 4:45 PM
Posted by: Suspect Device | May 15, 2008 4:45 PM
#22: The point of these polls is to generate traffic and hit counts without the publisher doing the work of providing real content that would give real readers a real reason to revisit the site.
They probably love it when you crash their poll.
Posted by: Bruce | May 15, 2008 4:46 PM
Seriously, I am very happy about this. I know I'm just an icky girl, Jeff, if you were sitting right here, I might even hug you. ;-)
I'd probably start crying. Yeah, I'm the radical cynical queer. I also get choked up when I'm recognized as part of the nation, when I'm valued as a human.
I remember talking to folks about 15 or so years ago, convinced I would never see anything like this in my life time. I managed to make it to Cambridge and Boston City Halls when it became legal in MA.
I never thought I'd be a citizen.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 15, 2008 4:46 PM
@#33:
Heh, Arpaio is a thorn, to be sure. But Pima and Coconino counties make up for a lot of it, despite all the redneckery and bigotry that I, too, have encountered -- both in rural and metro areas.
The reason I wonder about AZ is the speed with which a lot of the demographics are shifting here. I don't think most other red states have this kind of influx of people from other parts of the nation, though I could be wrong.
Posted by: Warren | May 15, 2008 4:47 PM
Exactly! This is my opinion as well. But most people look at me like I'm crazy when I say it...
Congrats to everyone in California :)
Posted by: kmarissa | May 15, 2008 4:48 PM
PZ said- "The LA Times is asking, "Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision today?" (as if, perhaps, enough internet geeks squawk they will change their minds)."
As if said internet geeks have even read the CA State constitution. I expect answer "D. How the fuck should I know? I didn't even go to law school." to be wildly popular.
Posted by: Cpl. Cam | May 15, 2008 4:49 PM
OK, bets on the first red state to permit gay marriage.
Is Iowa red? There's a case going through the courts there, and it already won at the district court level.
I would love to watch my Dutch Calvinist relatives who are members of Focus on the Family suffer heart attacks if Iowa's Supreme Court did the right thing. As much as if Kenny dropped of one today.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 15, 2008 4:49 PM
Okay, I'm all for celebrating, but let's think about some of the more serious ramifications of this: are we going to need to legislate increased protection for bridesmaids now that bridezillas can be 250 lb biker men?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2008 4:50 PM
Good one, Paul. ;)
Defend the marriage at all costs! Oh, the marriage!! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the marriage???!!!
*Ahem*
Etha, I agree. Even back when Bush was trying for the federal constitutional amendment, he was talking about the "sanctity" of marriage. I felt like I was taking crazy pills...nobody else could see why I thought it was against reason for the president to describe a secular contract in religious terms.
I've always said--if some church doesn't want to perform or bless a homosexual marriage, that is fine--it is not my power or want to force them. But, the marriage contract is a secular thing. Until they can come up with a secular reason as to why gay marriage would be a bad idea--and I haven't heard one yet--then they should leave it the hell alone.
Posted by: EntoAggie | May 15, 2008 4:52 PM
Posted by: Efogoto | May 15, 2008 4:53 PM
Don't quit your day job, Brownian.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | May 15, 2008 4:54 PM
Brownian -
The '250 lb biker men' stereotype was not cool.
Posted by: Katharine | May 15, 2008 5:00 PM
@Chris #18
"If anyone is interested, HRC is currently directing the funds collected directly to the upcoming fight in CA over the decision.
Here's the link: https://secure.ga3.org/03/caequalpac"
I have just donated. I'm sure there's going to be a big fight come election time, so every penny helps. I strongly encourage others to donate if they can.
Posted by: Sharon | May 15, 2008 5:01 PM
I always get a kick out of Lewis Black's take on the whole "gay marriage as death of american civilization thing".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz1fd3gmHY
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 15, 2008 5:02 PM
The only downside I see to this is that 1) someone will now introduce, via the initiative process, a CA Constitutional amendment that will overturn this decision, and that 2) said proposition will bring out the conservative vote in CA in far, far larger numbers than you can imagine (remember: Prop 22 passed easily, even in CA), which will 3) cause McCain to win CA, clinching Bush's third term in office (this is definitely one point Obama has right).
This decision scares me, for all the wrong reasons. I think it's stupid that the government has intervened in these marriages for all these decades; this is a fair and just ruling. It scares me because, trust me, McCain is one happy camper today. This is the best news he's had all month.
Posted by: MikeM | May 15, 2008 5:02 PM
There isn't a gay marriage anywhere that can damage the "sanctity of marriage" more than did the two lying, cheating whores who married my brother (not at the same time)
Posted by: Pablo | May 15, 2008 5:03 PM
It would be nice if the media actually got around to spending more time researching and informing people about the facts than constantly asking and reporting their opinions about something that the people don't actually know any real facts about...
Posted by: Joe Shelby | May 15, 2008 5:05 PM
OK, bets on the first red state to permit gay marriage.
Posted by: Carlie
Alaska might be a good state for gay marriage, just due to the male/female demographics.
Posted by: Jaycubed | May 15, 2008 5:07 PM
@#49:
Who do you imagine might vote for McCain now, who wasn't already going to anyway?
[BTW, Brownian, I'm surprised you weren't taken to task for the "bridezilla" comment. The "250-lb biker" thing just made me think of a firefighter on a Harley. Oh my, NSFW images...]
Posted by: Warren | May 15, 2008 5:07 PM
btw, I'm just waiting for the next earthquake in the north or super-fire in the south for Robertson and Hagee to yell "see, God is punishing your state!".
The tragedy is that such a fire will likely happen right on schedule in October, just in time for the November election where the right-wing nutcases are planning to try to get the constitution amended to override this once and for all.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | May 15, 2008 5:07 PM
MSNBC won't let me vote more than once per identity.
EVERY VOTE COUNTS!
Posted by: 3rd chimp blues | May 15, 2008 5:08 PM
This is hands down the best news I have heard in a long time.
Posted by: Nancy | May 15, 2008 5:11 PM
Jeff, I hear ya on the citizen thing, and hug or no hug I feel like crying anyway, though I have no first-hand personal stake in this. I guess it's empathy, or something, or my joy and seeing my beloved country take one small step in the direction I so strongly believe it should be heading - towards fairness, compassion, inclusivity...
Etha, and EntoAggie, I'm right there with you. The government should be faith-blind when it comes to marriage, and deal with the secular, social, legal aspects only. Let the spiritual side (if any) take care of itself.
Sanctity of marriage. What an illusion THAT is. I've nothing against marriage, but holy crumbing shortcake. How blind can one be? I love the "make divorce illegal" angle. That's brilliant. And hey, we can always lobby to bring back the stoning of adulterers.
O_o
Posted by: Kseniya | May 15, 2008 5:11 PM
@25 Blake Stacy FTW
I voted for the "don't think so" option simply because it makes so little sense.
Posted by: The Uncredible Hallq | May 15, 2008 5:12 PM
Wedding bells in October!!
Posted by: BMS | May 15, 2008 5:16 PM
Warren, they weren't going to vote at all. That's the pattern with conservatives in California. If it looks like they're getting crushed on some national issue (i.e., the presidential vote), they stay home. But when something like this comes along, it galvanizes them.
I know that's the pattern in many states, but this effect is especially strong on CA.
There's nothing to vote on in CA as of this moment, but I'll just bet you they have all the signatures they need to qualify for a November vote within weeks. That's the way it goes in CA.
Posted by: MikeM | May 15, 2008 5:18 PM
Cats and squid living together --where will it end?
Posted by: Polyester Mather D.D. | May 15, 2008 5:20 PM
They did the right thing, which is why my hackles went up. I am so suspicious of the government that I'm already looking for the black lining inside the silver cloud.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | May 15, 2008 5:21 PM
In fact, I'm already off on my timing. I was too optimistic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-anti16-2008may16,0,7598579.story
Posted by: MikeM | May 15, 2008 5:21 PM
At that point, I just gave up. IMO they should just make it *all* civil unions. Get the government out of marriage all together if so many people consider it a religious institution.
I agree, but I might go one step further. I have never had the slightest desire to pair-bond, so it annoys me to no end to hear about additional "rights" given to those who marry. Seriously, the most the government should do is come up with some formal way to recognize an "emergency contact" for when one is incapacitated, and perhaps an official heir. Marriage is ultimately about property, inheritance thereof and sex. I have no problem with the government ensuring a peaceful and smooth transfer of property upon someone's death, or recognizing power of attorney, but it really has NO business in the bedroom, gay or straight or cephalopophilic.
That being said, as long as we have to live with government recognized marriage, then gay marriage should be obvious. Hooray California!
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 15, 2008 5:24 PM
@MikeM#60:
This, followed by your comment at #63, is just plain damn spooky, man.
Posted by: Warren | May 15, 2008 5:24 PM
By the way, please don't shoot the messenger. I will obviously vote against this stupid proposition. I want to make very clear which side I'm on.
It's just that it'll make it twice as crappy if it boosts McCain to a win.
I sincerely apologize for being the one to leave the turd in the punchbowl.
Posted by: MikeM | May 15, 2008 5:25 PM
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 15, 2008 5:24 PM
I'd like to recommend a book, Nancy Polikoff's Beyond Gay and Straight Marriage.
Her basic argument, to which I am very sympathetic, is that we value marriage--as a specific family form--too highly in this society. There are lots of families--interdependent relationships--that are not formed with a license and ceremony. Such things as hospital visitation (she's got a great example from MD), she argues, shouldn't be based on the form of the relationships but the content.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 15, 2008 5:28 PM
#30
As a computer scientist I've always liked the idea of using class-inheritance models for the whole marriage/civil-union thing. Civil Union would be the base/super class containing all of the properties like economic and insurance benefits. Marriage would be derived/sub class, inheriting the properties of a civil-union while subtyped properties would handle the religious attachments.
|CivilUnion|
Posted by: HumanisticJones | May 15, 2008 5:28 PM
Posted by: RamblinDude | May 15, 2008 5:29 PM
Oh, a few did take me to task for the biker quote. I only meant to make a play on the stereotype of the bride making the bridesmaids wear ugly outfits, shop incessantly, etc., which groomsmen don't currently have to deal with (at leat not to the same degree) and how such behaviours might be common among male brides, but I obviously wasn't very good at it.
S'okay. I'm no stranger to misfiring jokes. Alright, I won't sully this otherwise happy day with any more bombs.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2008 5:30 PM
MikeM, that's it. I have just lost my patience with the human race. Can we financially eviscerate the conservatives?
Posted by: Katharine | May 15, 2008 5:31 PM
Hey, I want to hug MAJeff too!
Posted by: Carlie | May 15, 2008 5:33 PM
Can't we find something that will calcify them instead...?!
Posted by: Kseniya | May 15, 2008 5:33 PM
Hey, shouldn't the religious right be all for gay marriage? They've been warning us for decades that the "last days" are upon us when "men become lovers of men" right from the Revelation playbook. Wouldn't you think that in the mind of a fundie-sheeple-drone the more gay-marriage the better, because that will finally bring into play God's hand?
Or are Christians just inconsistent?
Posted by: Suspect Device | May 15, 2008 5:35 PM
I sure wish we could, Katharine.
This, on top of what our beloved governor is proposing to balance the budget. Anyone else hear about this? Borrowing against the CA Lottery? One of the most fiscally irresponsible proposals I've ever heard.
It's as though insanity caused by one drug, and they all went out and took some at the same time.
Seriously, California governors have been recalled for less than this.
Posted by: MikeM | May 15, 2008 5:35 PM
Can't we find something that will calcify them instead...?!
Well, it worked in the Bible with that Lot guy...
Posted by: Carlie | May 15, 2008 5:35 PM
@ #18 - Chris
I think you need to elaborate on the "HRC" you cited. The website identifies the Human Rights Campaign, but most of us non-Californians in recent months identify those initials with the female presidential candidate. I almost did a double take at the idea of Hilary extending that level of support to equal marriage rights.
Posted by: chezjake | May 15, 2008 5:36 PM
Hey, I want to hug MAJeff too!
If you don't mind, MAJeff....
GROUP HUG!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2008 5:37 PM
That's for damned sure.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 15, 2008 5:38 PM
MikeM, et. al.:
For what it's worth, I think the turnout models have shifted a bit in the past eight years. Prop 22 was passed in 2000, back when the religious conservatives had great infrastructure and ground game, and its opponents weren't able to match that. Compare that with 2006, however, where even in the states that passed anti-gay amendments, well-organized progressive groups were able to use the issue to drive up progressive turnout, especially among younger voters. In Wisconsin, for example, the anti-gay amendment passed, but the GOP took a pounding up and down the rest of the ballot as a result.
Any constitutional amendment in California may be a tough fight, but I don't think it's going to help McCain or the rest of the GOP as much as it might have four or eight years ago.
Posted by: grog the pirate | May 15, 2008 5:38 PM
Yeah, but they've already got that base covered by arming the Middle East. Maybe it's like a double negative thing, where if you legalise same-sex marriage OR build a wall through the Holy Land, it brings about the End days, but if legalise same-sex marriage AND build a wall through the Holy Land the End Days never come and we'll have to start thinking of social policies in cycles longer than four years.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 15, 2008 5:42 PM
Just in case anyone thinks I was just making it up about the lottery, here you go:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/939952.html
Just amazingly stupid. I don't think this is a sorta-bad, perhaps debatable idea... Oh, no. This passes all the way into gross incompetence. If Arnold actually gets this on the ballot, you may be looking at a 90% no vote. My guess is he'll realize that, and this idea goes away.
Posted by: MikeM | May 15, 2008 5:42 PM
I hope you're right and I'm wrong, Grog.
That's the real reason I'm replying. It's not every day you get to refer to someone as Grog.
Arrrr.
Nice parrot ya got there.
Posted by: MikeM | May 15, 2008 5:45 PM
I agree there will be repercussions. This ruling is a "sign of the end times!" to a good number of religious undecided--- who will be more inclined now to vote conservative.
this argument suggests it to be inevitable anyway.
Instead of trying to artificially "calm" the nutbaggers, I would suggest instead motivating the rational to vote against them.
fear is a two-edged sword.
If fundies can be motivated by fear to remove rights, then then non-fundies can be motivated by fearing a loss of their rights to protect those rights, yes?
It's quite sad, but obvious, that we as a society have not really moved far away from fear as a primary motivator.
I would think arguments pulled almost verbatim from the the fight for the Civil Rights act still apply to this as well.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 15, 2008 5:46 PM
HOORAY! Now tell me...how exactly is this going to destroy the sanctity of marriage? That's because there IS no sanctity in marriage. Divorce is at an all time high, especially among religious people! My husband and i are atheists and we've been married 26 years! We've been married longer than any of our siblings, a majority of which have been married several times EACH. Ridiculous....
Posted by: Hereticchick | May 15, 2008 5:48 PM
Nentuaby:
"REAL" conservatism is small economic intervention+large social intervention+tradition. What your describing is Libertarianism (small economic intervention+small social intervention+minarchism or anarchism (there's a split in Libertarianism based on which).Posted by: Nova | May 15, 2008 5:48 PM
Oi, i've been trying to post on the LA times website but to no avail, is anyone having the same experience?
Posted by: mkuriluk | May 15, 2008 5:51 PM
Jeff, Nate, and all the other gay Pharyngulites:
yes, this is huge. Congratulations. And I'm sure I don't need to elaborate why it's huge for us breeders as well. But I will anyway. It is huge for us for the same reason that the defeat of the Confederate traitors was huge for white Americans of good will; it is huge for us for the same reason that the fall of the apartheid state was huge for white South Africans of good will. (These things were also huge for American homophobes, Confederate slaveholders and racist Afrikaaner as well, of course, even if they were too ignorant to recognise it.)
But everybody:
Expect a concerted rightwing effort to have the court's decision reversed through a state constitutional amendment. And worry that those efforts might very well be successful. If a sufficient number of trogs amend the CA constitution to provide that only one man and one woman can marry, then that's that. (Unless the USSC decide that this provision offends the 14th amendment; and don't hold your breath on that one so long as Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are drawing theirs.)
Anyway:
Even if the mouthbreathers manage to reverse this decision, we can take heart, a little, that in the world-historical grand scheme of things, Ozymandias is being steadily hacked off at the knees. Still: that will be cold comfort if, in the hard here-and-now, the mouthbreathers can continue to deny my gay friends what should be theirs by right; if they continue to devalue my own marriage by denying the same happiness to my friends.
And, oh yeah, PZ; one minor quibble:
so that all 50 states someday offer this basic privilege to everyone
No, and if you were a lawyer, I'd have to beat you about the head and neck with a deep-frozen codfish for saying that. But as you have been spared that fate (of being a lawyer; I cannot speak to your encounters with frozen seafood), I will instead suggest that what you wanted to say was "so that no states will attempt to deprive any one of this basic privilege".
Finally, architeuthis @19:
I should be able to expect my marriage to an octopus legal in 5 years or so
I'm terribly sorry, but there are limits. You cannot reasonably expect decent people to approve of marital relations between an Architeuthis and an octopus.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | May 15, 2008 5:53 PM
I agree there will be repercussions. This ruling is a "sign of the end times!" to a good number of religious undecided--- who will be more inclined now to vote conservative.
In Massachusetts, since the handing down of Goodridge, pro-equality legislators have consistently won re-election, even in difficult races. Anti-equality legislators have been turned out. Indeed, in the races in which this has turned out to be a decisive issue in determining whether or not to turn out an incumbent, we've come out ahead. In other words, supporting marriage equality has been a winning position.
I'm not saying that every state is going to be like this. but, ya know what, we're not the complete kiss of death. Politicians need to get over their fear of the bigots and stand up for equality--it may actually HELP them win.
Fuck the wingnuts. Don't back down, don't respect their position. They are actively working to make people's lives worse. They are attempting to make families less secure, to make children's lives less stable. They are actively working to harm people. And they need to be called out on it at every chance.
Standing up for equality can be a winning position. But it's one people have to embrace. Cowering in fear from the wingnuts isn't exactly a position from which one can make stands for equality.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 15, 2008 5:55 PM
UncredibleHallq,
What doesn't make sense about it?
And I thought you were just as pro-gay rights as I am.
Seriously, what the fuck happened in your brain?
Posted by: Katharine | May 15, 2008 5:57 PM
High fives all around, my GLBT friends! Once marriage equity comes to NY, I'll be looking forward to two of my co-workers tying the knot. Now, though, is the time for vigilance, not only will the right wingers stage a backlash, but Rick Santorum might come a-looking for your dogs!
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | May 15, 2008 5:57 PM