Court Approves Evil Gay Agenda

I always love Morford's articles. Humor and sarcasm ooze from every nook and cranny.

And 'rebelnow' . . . awesome first post! I couldn't agree more (and my anarchist voice is just as loud and nagging). Ultimately, why is it a victory when Love gets co-opted by the Fascist State?

paddy -- absolutely, recently a lesbian couple sued a photographer for discrimination for not wanting to take pictures of their 'commitment ceremony'.

Why in the world would you want to force someone to take pictures of you for any reason ? Just find someone else who will not bring the energy of 'not wanting to be there' to the event. Now the photographer is in trouble for being honest (from the article, it sounded like the couple deliberately sought her out, knowing that she was religious, in order to make a statement).

It's that kind of in-your-face gay gloating that bothers people. But what can I say, I'm one of the apparent minority who believes for reasons that have nothing to do with mainstream thought that certain sexual behaviors are totally inappropriate and if people want to act like a..holes its probably because they are addicted to same. Gay people are so sensitive to criticism because we are not supposed to think critically about the fundamental gay male act. Because critical thinking will unveil the addictive aspects of it . . .

The following point of aurgument (stated above) is often made re gay marriage:

"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."

To which I would say: Can you imagine any couple - gay or straight - setting out to spoil their special day - their wedding celebration, this public expression of love & commitment - by trying to force the involvement of an unwilling or hostile member of the clergy in the ceremony?

Why would anyone do that, when there are any number of clergy who would be very glad to perform the marriage.

Dory135: I just believe that the Constitution states all people are created equal; our tax laws give married people far more breaks than it does the single crowd. The 2000 census gives a bit of info; depending on where you live, adults from the age of 18-65 constitute 43-48% of the population. It seems unfair to ask me to pay all this hard-earned money, yet I have few benefits or priviledges. I can't name a beneficiary for my social security account, I pay a lot of property tax and I don't even have kids in school. Then there is the issues with sharing property with another adult (not married to) and if the other partner dies, I could loose my home, business; I need a contract for joint tendency in common (I think). I have a will, but challenges by family can be daunting, especially if I leave assets to non-family members. Too many lawyers and too many contracts!
Then there is the health and privacy issues and letting non-family adults have their say or be informed - even with papers that allow a personal representative, getting family to respect wishes is a real issue for non-married adults. And pray tell, why can't I help a friend in need by electing to put them on my medical insurance plan? If I pay the premimums, what's the problem? Married folks are just 2 non-related adults with a license to co-habitate and breed.

I think we should just do away with all the tax provisions surrounding marital status. Everyone who works pays their fair share; non-working adults can claim an adult dependency exemption and the kids can be "divided" between parents and who ever gets the best deal tax wise, claims the rug rat(s). Same with social security; everyone gets to name a beneficiary; married folks claim each other. Single folks get to name a beneficiary (I would claim my brother),I make lots more $$$ than he does and if I name him, then he could get a bit larger payment, if I was unable to claim the benefit myself.
I too would like to get married, but not for tax purposes; I would just like to have a partner and companion and I think that is the real reason a lot of homosexual couples want to get married.

>>>
BreeMass wrote:

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
>>>>>>>>>>

Thanks,BreeMass....Your point deserves re-posting. People of conscience should never be required to act contrary to their beliefs, whether those beliefs are sacred or secular.

This entire battle has arisen precisely because one group seeks to impose its will on other people who are just as adamantly determined to follow their own principles. As a long-time agnostic, I have felt the weight of 2000 years of "christianity" telling me that, not only must I believe in God, but also I must worship him in one of many quaint rituals with their own taboos and their own particular "mysteries".
--------------------------------------------------

"If you'll promise not to pray in my school, I'll promise not to think in your church."
-- Anonymous

RE: I think that the real Gay agenda would most correctly be defined as "just leave us alone".

I presume that most gays have straight friends and straight family members.

Actually, this is the real gay agenda:

'm just an ordinary average guy
My friends all are boring was are all
And so am I
We're just ordinary average guys

We all lead ordinary average lives was live
With average pets
With big droopy eyes

We all go bowling at the bowling lanes
Drink a few beers
Bowl a few frames
We're just ordinary average guys
Ordinary average guys

And every Saturday we work in the yard
Pick up the dog do
Hope that it's hard (woof woof) if the dog songs is even necessary
Take out the garbage and clean out the garage
My friend's got a Chrysler
I've got a Dodge
We're just ordinary average guys
Ordinary average guys

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e3x10xxt6fk

I you want to be informed about the gay agenda check Fred Phelp's

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Mike Peters wonders:

Poet: You might ask yourself why the Gay thing gets you going so…hhmmmmm thanks for the laugh.

************

It isn't the "gay thing" that gets me going, it is Mark Moreford's attitude. If the Klan, Dr. James Dobson, John Hagee, and Pat Robertson had tried, they couldn't have concocted a more provocative gay bogeyman cum buffoon than Mark Moreford as he writes in the above article.

For any readers whose minds are "stuck on stupid" out there let me assure you that I don't care about whether gays get married or not--I think that the real Gay agenda would most correctly be defined as "just leave us alone".

Thank El-Farouk Khaki - he is behind both Salaam and the CMU. Al-Fatiha is the American support group for gay Muslims. McCain would think that the latter sounds like a terrorist group so he would be afraid to negotiate with them.

El-Farouk Khaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El-Farouk_Khaki

My prosaic view: I doubt that Reverend Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. reads Morford, but I commend Morford for sharing his perspective while riding on the rare and welcome updraft of delight precipitated by the Court's wise and just decision.

It's way past time for sexual bigots to have their stuffy blue noses rubbed well in to the reeking dungheap of their confused vicious ignorance and self-serving oppression. Maybe the noses that don't break off entirely, like the rotten beak of a decomposing vulture's carcass, will regain a human tint.

There are moments when a movement has to shake off The Fear, and assertively, joyfully, and openly embrace breakthroughs along the fault lines in the foundation of a pathological, corrupt, and unjust status quo.

ACC: Perfectly said! I look forward to Morford's column in the Chronical and I'm glad CD prints them.

Mark, like most of us, is "mad as hell" at the system and uses his wit writing about it.

Three cheers for Mark Morford!

Mikepeters: Well said!

'The Silver Rule'... "Live and Let Live."

For you folks obsessed with gays and how they are going to destroy civilization, would you prefer more hetero couples like George W.and Laura, Dick and Lynn, and couples of their ilk, as opposed to two men or two women that love and care for each other, who are responsible citizens in the community and knowledgable about current events, and like most decent people, are against the "heterosexual" criminals in Washington, D.C. who have commited crimes against the human race.

Rockerbabe1, you have hit on the real issue! It is all about "Singles Rights", not the marriage business.

Marriage has as many pitfalls as it does protections. Couples are responsible for each other's debts and can benefit financially from each other when the marriage is over. (Look at Heather Mills and Paul McCartney!; remember how Debbie Reynolds had to pay off her husband's debts when he died?)

I cannot understand why gay/lesbian couples or heterosexual couples would even want to get married with all the legal problems and costs that entails.

I believe we should concentrate on Singles Rights and forget about the marriage institution, period.

Beautiful, indeed. From a beautiful person. Thank you. Why aren't there more Vaudrees in this world?

you have to admit, it's a great wedge issue. what else have they got? roe v. wade and that's about it.

beautiful comments by vaudree, directly above....

RE: Most Americans are church goers of some type

I guess that they would be afraid of Al-Fatiha - or even the CMU.

The Canadian Muslim Union (CMU) is a grassroots organization that provides a voice to Muslims who seek a progressive vision of Islam. We believe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian constitution and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are paramount in pursuing that vision.

As Muslims we believe in a progressive, liberal, pluralistic, democratic, and secular society where everyone has the freedom of religion. We want our communities to be equal and active contributors and participants in the development of a just, democratic, and equitable society in Canada. And we want our organisation to be just, democratic and equitable as well.

The CMU will seek to engage the larger Muslim community in issues of human rights, human dignity, social justice and alternate progressive and inclusive visions of Islam. In so doing, we aim to instil joy in the celebration of our identities as Muslims and as Canadians with social consciences and a commitment to social justice and human dignity.

* We believe the separation of religion and state should be respected in all matters of public policy.
* We oppose the fanaticism and extremism that afflicts some elements within the Muslim community.
* We believe gender equity is enshrined in Islam and will work to ensure that it is practiced in our Mosques and our Communities.
* We believe that homophobia has no place in our society and will oppose it where ever we find it.
* We will work for a progressive, equitable and accessible public policies in Canada.
* We will work to build a Canada where personal initiative and creativity are celebrated and rewarded, but not at the cost of our responsibility towards the broader community.
* We will work to build communities free from the ravages of racism, intolerance, ignorance, disease, and poverty.
* We will work for a world where religion becomes a force of joy, enlightenment, democracy, peace and bridge-building, rather than hate, oppression, war and division.
* We support the right of people around the world to live free from oppression and with economic and social justice for all

http://muslimunion.ca/links.html

"Salaam is my family where I am complete, the only place I am absolutely comfortable being who I am, a lesbian follower of Islam. Salaam reinforces my belief in Allah, that God is love, and obviously accepts us all and uses each of us to help others to grow into more compassionate beings. I was born lesbian and chose to follow my heart and became a Muslim."

http://salaamcanada.org/study8.html

So Mark MOreford, resident smart-ass gay advocate, not satisfied with a court ruling has got to rub straight America's nose in his glee.

Yo' Marky boy consider the following:

1. There are 9 of them for every one of you. That means if they want to they can crush you like an annoying cockroach uder their collective feet.

2. Most of "them" are at the present as disgusted with the Bushies as are you and would even vote for an African American (or more likely just stay home and sulk) instead of electing McCrazy McCain.

But with enough smart-ass popping off by the likes of you they would gladly resurrect the gay menace card to play as a way of energizing their base of discouraged voters. They would love to blame the economy and screwed up war on someone othere than themselves and you are giving them a gold plated invitation to do just that.

3. Your hot-dogging column above also reinforces the "flaming faggot" stereo-type used to anger and convince many potentially eligible voters that gays are really in need of harsh repression and censure.

4. Most Americans are church goers of some type and most Churches be they Roman Catholic or Orthodox, or Protestant, or Mormon, or Muslim or Jewish have scripture that teaches them that people like you are sinners.

You certainly don't have to agree with that but you ought to be willing to recognize the reality of the overwhelming majority of the people among whom you dwell.

Marky boy, how about giving your gloat act a rest for a while? Thanks.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

No, we have full marriage rights in Massachusetts.

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

vital dust 8:57. Right on:

"A German zoo's plans to tempt its gay penguins to go straight by importing more females has been declared a failure.

The female penguins were flown in especially from Sweden in an effort to encourage the Humboldt penguins at the Bremerhaven Zoo to reproduce.

But the six homosexual penguins showed no interest in their new female companions and remained faithful to each other.

Zoo Director Heike Kueck said: "The relationships were apparently too strong."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1279583.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

jbw3d 7:31
What about this idea? ALL marriages to be civil and totally equal in every way, as in Blind Justice for all, and then if people WANT to be married in a church, that's their choice. That would cover protection for important legal rights, such as inheritance, etc.

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.

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??

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?

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.

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

Very good point, MisoPretty.

ACC 3:28PM. What you said!
I'm pleased as punch for my gay and lesbian friends. Finally, justice. Though too long in coming, I won't let it dampen the joy I felt for the gay couple on TV who said they had been together for 21 years and are now planning marriage. A lot of straight couples could learn something from them.

JONNO 4:28PM. You need to get out more. I think the cow patty fumes have gotten to you.

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

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.

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.

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

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: Your Concern is noted.

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?

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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…♫

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.

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

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.

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.

Marriage that is.

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?)

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.

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.

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 ..."

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.