Its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve--though more Adam and Steve would help with population problems.
I think we need a gay bomb.

Funny that this comes out in time for the election. Could be another effort to get the religious right out for repulsicans.

We have gay marriages in Massachusetts, and the sky has not fallen. It's always the right time for progress to happen; and it's always the wrong time as far as the haters who will kick & scream and attempt to impede progress. I'm so happy for the people of California! Hopefully, soon, all gays & lesbians will be able to marry. And the message will be sent to the homophobic cultures of the world to stop their nonsensical harming of their gay citizens.

Right-wingers have lost the abortion fight, now they're slowly but surely losing the gay marriage fight. All they have left to hang on to is the Bible. And hate, of course.

But the Bible is a poorly written, filthy work of fiction that has become irrelevant. And their hate is only eating them alive, so I hope they keep hating.

I hope they change their deluded thinking and become loving human beings. It's never too late to join in loving others. Giving up their homophobia is always something to hope for - and it CAN happen, esp. if we are loving towards them.

Well, rats. I was so sure that any altercations I might have with my heterosexual marriage could now be attributed to gay marriage! What am I supposed to do now?

So when I get huffy about the toilet seat not being put down (and I collapse onto really cold porcelain in the middle of the night), or he gets tired of hearing my complaints about the unfortunate antics of my grown kids, or we butt heads in a poker game and one of us loses our entire stack, I guess I'll have to chalk it up to the realities of relationships.

Just when we thought we had it all figured out and the gay community was wrecking marriage-as-we-know-it, California has to go and spoil it all.

That nagging anarchist voice inside my head, that hasn't shut up since my early 20's asks, "why is it considered a success and victory that the state has legally sanctioned loving and caring relationships?"

You know, it's challenging enough for people to remain in committed, supportive, nurturing relationships. Of any stripe. Voices of sanity from the state's highest court. Societal recognition long overdue.

BTW, my cat, now long gone, would purr, not scowl like the societal retrogrades.

Let's talk about denfense of families and communities through universal health care, dealing with domestic and all violence in our society, an end to the new draconian bankruptcy laws, saving our environment & selves, dealing with resource depletion/peak oil and an economy that works for "We the People."

I am happy for my gay and lesbian friends that they have experienced this step forward in freedom's march. And it's some good news I appreciate as well. Yeah!

"Ain't gonna let nobody turn us around ..."

I'll believe all of this "progress" when single people have the same rights, especially tax breaks, social security beneficiary rights, property ownership rights, personal representation rights, that the married folks have. And I mean the kind of rights the court will actually acknowledge and respect. Lord knows, a will and advanced directives just ain't what they used to be.

I always get a laugh when the local religious nut brays about gays destroying marriage when he (it's almost always a he) is on his third or fourth.

Well, having devolved from skeptical to cynical and fully expecting the Democratic Party to screw this up in spectacular fashion, recent events force me to conclude with all certainty that Hillary Clinton will be chosen as Obama's running mate.

"Why?" you ask.

Just as in 2004, a typically liberal state has ruled to allow gay marriage.

In an election year.

I've no problem at all with the ruling, but, let's see... what can be done to energize the disenchanted Republican base... hmmmm... Gay marriage! And... and... Hillary Clinton!

Perfect storm!

Giving full voice to my paranoia I also must ask, "Rove, you insidious bastard! How did you pull this off?"

(Disclaimer: I fully approve of gay marriage. Yahoo! But couldn't it wait until Christmas?)

Marriage that is.

Frankly, I found this article mean and hateful. Hardly the sort of thing that would promote useful understanding and diologue. Sarcasm rarely does anyway.

Would it not be better to understand one's political opponents rather than to mock them? To be sure, the liberal left wins this round, at least in California. Ought not winners be gracious in victory? Furthermore, the issue is not going away. We can either fight a culture war... which is what this article is contributing to... or we can work on understanding, communication, and attempt to rationally present whatever viewpoint we think is right.

I also found the article reflecting a rather depressing view of marriage in general. Sad.

To me it seems pretty darned obvious why Christian fundamentalist Republicans hate the idea of gay marriage:

It's the exact same reason why they hate the idea of evolution: They think that if you admit that gay marriage is okay and that evolution is a reality, then you're admitting that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, because the Bible says gays are evil and doesn't mention evolution, and that scares the bejeezus out of those people. If they had more faith in their own God, maybe neither gay marriage nor evolution would bother them.

>>ticondroga: "If they had more faith in their own God, maybe neither gay marriage nor evolution would bother them."

Johnny Mo: Mark Morford is our beloved California (San Francisco) commentator and he is always satirical. He is not to be criticized. He understands his political opponents perfectly; that's why he writes as he does. Are you suggesting that the hate-filled biblical fanatics merit serious attention? Why should we be gracious in victory? The gay and lesbian community has been fighting this hateful bigotry for years. When the blacks won the right to sit in the front of the bus, were they supposed to say "thank you" to the whites who had been pushing them to the back for so many decades? Bigotry does not deserve to be treated with the gracious equality one accords an honorable opponent. It deserves to be stamped into the ground, smashed into little pieces never to be reconstituted. Have you heard the kinds of things the biblical fanatics have said about gays and lesbians? Would you call that "dialogue"? Would you call that "gracious"?

I'm a Cherokee Indian. My grandfather was shot on his front porch by a white man who didn't like Indians, and the police didn't even investigate. Should I politely dialogue with the white man who hates my race?

The gays and lesbians finally won something they should have had all along. And Mark Morford's comments were right on point.

Marriage is not about children, otherwise couples would be required to have children before wedlock.
Marriage is not performed by "God," who has yet to officiate at any function.
Marriages are performed by the state for the purpose of the dispensation of property.
Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings should lose legal recognition of weddings performed by their clergy.
♪This is not my beautiful house…♫

Can someone say when the gay marriage issue first became part of a national dialogue? It seems to me it came out of nowhere not long after Bush took office.

You're right, Johnny Mo May, that is what I wrote.

I would have said that marriage was all about ensuring that women were under the correct reproductive contract to a male -- oh, yeah, ensuring "the dispensation of property" (handed over from daddy to hubby).

True conservatives and real libertarians should be fighting against State required "love" licenses altogether, not just the gay ones.

Two humans (or three or four or X) deciding to share and co-mingle their lives voluntarily should not be any of the State's damn business.

All bulldust just because its legal to have same sex crap don't make it right when you have a bull only riding other bulls, its hamburger time for him same with a cow who wont take a bull

The issue of Gay Marriage or "civil unions" is not just about our mimmicking heterosexual ceromonial display of sexual and romantic commitment with weddings and divorces; it is about true equality and establishing kinship. Why should not any adult be able to choose his/her next of kin and establish it legally?
And, by the way JohnnyMO, there is no way to talk sense to the rightwing homophobes who wish us nothing but suffering and death. Were you disappointed that the article wasn't actually claiming the Gay agenda to be Satan's plan?

The issue of Gay Marriage or "civil unions" is not just about our mimmicking heterosexual ceromonial display of sexual and romantic commitment with weddings and divorces; it is about true equality and establishing kinship. Why should not any adult be able to choose his/her next of kin and establish it legally?

And, by the way JohnnyMO, there is no way to talk sense to the rightwing homophobes who wish us nothing but suffering and death. Were you disappointed that the article wasn't actually claiming the Gay agenda to be Satan's plan?

Johnny Mo: Your Concern is noted.

Three cheers for California! We were long overdue for some happy news in this country. Any time bigotry and ignorance get kicked in the teeth, we all should celebrate. Let's hope other states jump on the bandwagon.

When women fought for and won the right to vote, there were many who thought that families would fall apart and western civilization would collapse. Didn't happen, did it? When gay people can fully participate in our country's social and cultural life, it won't happen either. Nor will their God smite us, regardless of what people like Fred Phelps and his crazy, hate-spewing, incestuous little band of followers say.

This article is hilarious. It's too bad that some readers are a bit too humor-impaired to appreciate it.

Johnny Mo wrote: "Would it not be better to understand one's political opponents rather than to mock them?"

When the opponents' bigotry is founded in religion, then NO. Religion is devoid of logic and reason, there can be no understanding.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B Anthony

Funny article, amusing comments.

Marriage is about property. In days past it was the transfer of property (Daughter) from one man (Father) to another (Husband). Traditional marriage is all about having one master and all the slaves he can afford. It can't be made obsolete fast enough.

Clemsy...I agree with you 100 percent. I had the same thoughts this morning as I listened to this story on NPR. Here we go again. An initiative on the ballot in November is going to bring out all the right wing Christians who may have otherwise stayed home on election day. And then we're ALL screwed for at least another four years. Just maybe those 'moderate Republican' judges had an unsavory motive...because maybe Obama running for president isn't going to be enough to scare the base so they need to strike fear anyway they can. Pretty soon the abortion issue will come up again, just in case the black man and the gay couples still aren't enough to scare 'em to the polls. And for the record, I believe anyone should be able to marry whomever they please, whenever and wherever. And I'm voting Obama.

There is a reason why this came up when it did

THE ELECTION

The regressives desperately need SOMETHING to appeal to the christianist demographic because without them they are toast, and gay marriage & abortion are about the only tricks that work

Very good point, MisoPretty.

Marriage is such a struggle.
I don't know if 'congratulations' or 'condolences' are in order.

Gay marriage is an issue which has always brought the reactionary homophobes of both parties out of the woodwork on election day. We have seen too often how people will vote against their own self-interest in order to "bash fags". I'm suspicious that Republican justices on the CA court have apparently come down in favor of "gay marriage" in an election year. It's too convenient to be a coincidence.

I'm in a committed relationship with another man, and we passed the 20-year mark last November. We aren't together because of a piece of paper, but because of our commitment to each other. I think marriage has devolved into a religious concept which has no place in civil institutions. It breaks the wall between church and state. I believe that marriage should be restricted to church, and the state, if it insists on regulating adult human relationships, should only acknowledge civil unions with equal treatment for all.

That's my 2 cents' worth.

Let's see Adam and Eve begat Cain and Able. Hmmm, Whom did Cain and Able do the begettin' with?
(a) Mom, (b) the beasts of the field, or (c) each other. And this is the philosophy Western civilization is based on?

As I said in another post - Yays for the Gays!! I, like Rich Griffin, live in the great blue state of Massachusetts and thus far God does not seem to have taken vengeance on us for allowing people of the same-sex to marry. Thanks to the Cali Supreme Court for realizing it...

I do have a question regarding the upcoming ballot, so if anybody in this thread is from Cali or knows, I would so love to be enlightened here. My understanding is that the city of San Francisco passed the resolution recognizing gay marriage, then were sued and it was overturned by the state appeals court. Then it was appealed to the Supreme Court, which just made this ruling, claiming that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. But now there is a ballot initiative to try and get voters to approve a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Now, my question is: how can anybody put to a vote a matter that is supposed to be a constitutional amendment, when that amendment has already been ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court? In simpler terms, how do you get permission to have people vote on an unconstitutional constitutional amendment??

In response to Class Act, I would like to, as much as i hate to do it, come to the defense of churches who don't want to perform same-sex marriages in their church. I feel strongly that if a church membership does not agree with same-sex marriage, they should not be forced to perform them or be penalized for not performing them. I think this is a direct violation of the First Amendment. The state should have no say in what marriages churches choose to perform, just as the church should have no say in what unions the state chooses to recognize.

Rich Griffin: I do believe there are no gay marriages in Massachusets, they are civil unions. The only place in the world that has gay marriages is Quebec.

How is an amendment issue (if it even makes the ballot) in one state supposed to affect the general election? Does anyone really think there's any danger of California going red anytime in the forseeable future, let alone in this most Democratic-leaning of years? Only California residents can vote on an amendment to the California constitution, so it won't drive voter turnout anywhere but there. Not to mention that it will also drive liberal Californian voters to the polls in strongholds like San Fransisco to defend gay rights. This isn't playing out in podunk kansas, it's happening in California. I think the fears of this skewing the Presidential election are overblown.

Not to feed the trolls, but... Jonno said: "All bulldust just because its legal to have same sex crap don't make it right when you have a bull only riding other bulls, its hamburger time for him same with a cow who wont take a bull"

Jonno, are there actually homosexual cows and bulls, or were you just using a colorful (and gross) metaphor? I've heard of homosexuality in many other species but never, so far, cows. If it's true, I hope you realize that the fact that same sex relations happen throughout the animal kingdom just emphasize the truth that it is quite a natural thing. It's all part of the human (or bovine) condition.

kitty_tc, scream "Hollywood" loud enough and you'll get increased conservative turnout. Add gay marriage and the very Republic, especially the god fearing republic, is shaken to its foundation.

Glory!

California isn't just a state. It's where ideas hit the road and head East.

All conservatives and homophobes need to back to the dark ages. there they will be safe from the freedom of speech and love.

Even though marrage does ruin relationships
gender combination should not stop people from tying the knot. Same gender relationships can also help control the population.

Another good point is what is not to love about two guys kissing :P Sorry that had to be said

No, we have full marriage rights in Massachusetts.

I don't know what you all are saying here but I just want to add my vote of support for this move. From what I heard so far, it's a good thing. It's a human rights issue, not a "gay" rights issue. What's so important about gender or physical equipment? Human rights now. Ignore them at your own peril.

PS. I hope Hillary doesn't give up. Trust no MSM.

Lizard, I will second Rich here. We have same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, according to Mass General Law c.207 "The same laws and procedures that govern traditional marriage also apply to same-sex marriages. There are no special procedures for a same-sex marriage." As much as I adore Canadians, the Quebecoise no longer have a monopoly on gay marriage.

Check out this link for confirmation if you need it...

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/gaymarriage.html

Bottom line: Money. The right-wing block heads realize that they may have to pay up to social security down the road or now because marriage would entitle both persons survivor benefits. otherwise, why should anyone care what other people do in their own homes. However, that doesn't excuse the many gays who parade their affection out in public. Some are downright nasty in front of people and children. More nasty than heterosexuals in public. Public displays of sexual innuendos is disrespectful and who hasn't seen hundreds of gay displaying their sexual orientation to the unease of by standers? Seems now is the time for gays to mind their P's and Q's.

PPS. Yes, human rights does not extend to behaving badly in public. Get a room please!

Actually, Earl Simmins, according to the Bible God made man and woman twice. The first couple he didn't name and they just disappeared somewhere. Then a short while later he made Adam and Eve. So maybe Cain married a daughter of the first unnamed man and woman. Why the first two weren't good enough for God to name, the Bible doesn't say. Maybe they were the first Neanderthals, who later evolved into Republicans. I don't know. Again, the Bible doesn't say.

I always get a laugh when the local religious nut brays about gays destroying marriage when he (it's almost always a he) is on his third or fourth.

--------

It's even funnier when you find out through the media he's also porking the family babysitter -- or a cross-dressing male hooker.

RE: We have gay marriages in Massachusetts, and the sky has not fallen.

Good point.

Adam and Yves - Addie and Eve.

RE: Let's see Adam and Eve begat Cain and Able. Hmmm, Whom did Cain and Able do the begettin' with?

Wasn't Adam's first wife named Lilith? Didn't Lilith produce offspring every time a man had a wet dream?

vaudree;
I think Lilith was Adam's first wife, but refused to submit to his authority. Can't imagine why any woman would do something like that tho... K, maybe I can.

Every wet dream produces a kid? Sounds like a crossover myth from the ancient Greek Gods who'd always concieve when they shagged, each time, every time. There'd be more humans than bugs if ever there was a woman who could accomplish that feat.

lizard, Same-sex marriage in Spain was legalized in 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain