Good As You

It's about time.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've just been beaming over this news! Now, on to november so we can defeat this proposed amendment. Even knowing that it's going to be a tough fight can't bring me down right now.

Yeah baby...my state RULES!!!

Yes, Alonzo -- it rules REASONABLY!

This is GREAT! I just called Patty (my dear, sweet, loving partner) and was almost crying when I told her! We're getting married June 28, and we definitely canNOT wait!

and did I hear correctly the court is made up of 6 republicans and one democrat (at least in terms of their appointments)? Guess they can't really blame those "activist judges"

OMG! That's absolutely jaw-dropping! I think I need a Kleenex and a big group hug!

db

Ron, take a second to check out some the press releases from our good friends at FRC and Americans for Truth. They are, in fact, not wasting ANY time playing the activist judge card ;-) I guess ee probably should't say we're surprised.

All of the dissenting opinions and press releases I've read in the past 30 minutes as they've gone up also ALL fail to mention that marriage equality was passed by our legislature twice. They love to use emotionally galvanizing language like "the will of the people being robbed," but only because they're ignorant of our representative democracy, or more likely they simply just don't care that they're spinning the crap out of the issue.

If it wasn't early on a workday, I'd suggest a drinking game wherein we take a shot every time a dissenting opinion appears on a socially conservative political website that DOESN'T mention:

1. that it was 10 years since prop 22 was passed, and since then public opinion has changed.

2. that the our elected legislature passed marriage equality legislation twice

3. that of the 7 justices, 6 were appointed by republican governors.

I hope and pray it really will help us secure full equality under the Law in all of these United States even Kansas.

Excellent news. The courts and legislators are erratic and undependable at best but they’re also very political and when they’re faced with a mass movement that won’t take no for an answer they occasionally rule to placate the movement.

Late to get news... But I hope you don't mind my saying, I told you so. I listened to the entire proceeding the day it was discussed, and all the judges questions, many of which brought out those specific features as to how and why the definition of family and protections for the same are STATE duties, that 'CU's' or 'DP's have been proven not to ensure family rights. That only full marriage equality will do so. It sure seemed well presented to me.
Did to 4 judges too!... So great!
As noted by someone yesterday it takes 30 days for SCourt orders to be 'implemented.' So June 28 should be fine for Gretchen and Patty... Congrats!

zortnac,

and the Democratic judge's first judicial appointment was by a Republican. The author of the decision was first appointed by Ronald Reagan.

Hmmmm, I guess if they want to avoid "liberal activist judges" they shouldn't support Republicans.

(but your "10 years" isn't correct. Prop 22 passed in 2000, not 1998)

And it's going to be harder to argue that courts are overturning the will of the legislature when CA's house and senate pass gay marriage and the governor holds a big signing ceremony.

I am completely blown away! Most of the California Supreme Court Justices were appointed by conservatives . . . and even they see the error of Prop 22. The fundies are PISSED! I was out when the ruling came down, and listened on the radio. They are PISSED!

We now have to defeat this constitutional amendment.

I haven’t read the ruling yet, does anyone know if it is in effect immediately? or if it orders the legislature to make changes necessary to accommodate us?

Thanks for the correction Timothy :-) I was trying to remember which year it was when I remembered myself, still in the closet, watching the polling information come in on the local news, feeling frustrated and sort of helpless when I saw it winning.

But anyway, yeah, 8 years. Check. thanks :-)

I wonder if all the people that got married when Gavin Newsom allowed equal marriages in San Francisco, and then their marriages were overturned (annuled? I don't know what verbage they used to do it), can show their original marriage certificate and be "reinstated," as it were.

Its a good day to be from CA.

As usual it's up to me to rain on the big parade.

"This is a true game-changer that just might go down in history as the beginning of the end for the "protect marriage" movement." You mean the way Roe v. Wade was the end of the "protect unborn children" movement? Get real.

I'm very sorry to have to say this, but you are all being bad citizens. The CENTRAL RIGHT in a democratic nation is the right of the people to govern themselves. Today, however, four members of the California Supreme Court took it upon themselves to create a new legal institution, one which has no precedent in California's history. Despite the protestations of these four judges to the contrary, that is judicial activism on its face.

If the people of California are to enjoy the right to govern themselves then the creation -- or non-creation -- of new institutions like same-sex marriage must be decided by the people themselves or by their elected legislators.

With the issue of same-sex couples the people of a state have several options:

1) They can grant such couples no legal recognition and no legal privileges.

2) They can grant such couples certain legal privileges without formal recognition.

3) They can grant formal recognition but without all the privileges that married couples enjoy.

4) They can grant formal recognition that is the pretty much the same as marriage but by a different name.

5) They can make no distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.

Today four judges decided to force solution #5 onto the citizens of California. It is absurd to think that anything but their own views on homosexuality drove them to do so.

You may not like Matt Barber; Hell, even I think he's an ass. But as the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. When Barber wrote the following,

"It’s absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there’d be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered."

he was correct. Just when was the California Constitution amended to to make the traditional marriage definition a no-no? And how did this change escape everyone's notice until now?

The answer, of course, is that no such change ever occurred. Those cheering this decision do not care about the California Constitition, proper jurisprudence, or the people's right to a republican government. They only care about the policy result. Which, as a said before, is bad citizenship.

Yay, that is fabulous news! Go California.

Really so happy about this, it brings tears to my eyes.

All: After engaging/indulging David (two comments above) for over a year, I finally wised up this week and realized that every last dialogue we have shared has been completely fruitless. And not in just a "we disagree" way -- I enjoy engaging in reasoned dissent, which can be both fun and even educational. David, however, is simply not open to any exchange of ideas. I have gone over every comment he has ever made on here: The aggressively closed-off tone is the one consistent. His mind is made up, and any attempt at discourse with him will fall on the deafest of ears.

So I will no longer dignify any more of his self-aggrandizing, non-productive, school marm-like comments. It might be in everyone's best interest to do the same.

**Note: Oh, and David is trying to recruit others to come here and back him up. Here is what he left today on Gay Patriot's conservative site:

Please go to http://www.goodasyou.org and talk some sense into Jeremy Hooper and the others there.

I’m like a voice in the wilderness on that site!

"Oh, and David is trying to recruit others to come here and back him up. Here is what he left today on Gay Patriot's conservative site:"

Snort! I saw that and pissed myself laughing. I've been dogpiled at GP's site numerous times and never went begging or help. I just stood my ground and kicked their brains in 8^)

Damn, homocons are punks.

Huzzah

I thought, Jeremy, you weren't going to respond to my posts anymore. But then you seldom respond to any points I make, and didn't here.

I laughed out loud when you just gave up on the "Osteen getting Bakked" thread. Now I have to laugh again when you talk about my "aggressively closed-off tone." Not all of my comments have been critical -- which you well know if you actually reviewed them all. So I don't see how you can say such a tone is the one costant. However, when I have made criticisms, how have you typically replied? Either by saying you don't understand how anyone could possibly think this way, or with the attitude, 'Me agree with you? You've got to be kidding. Why, you oppose abortion!' Yet now you whine about my closed-off tone.

So I'm "self-aggrandizing" and "school marm-like," am I? Are you sure you're not engaging in psychological projection? Those terms accurately describe a good deal of what you do on this site.

Have you not condemned apoltical evangelicals for holding to a theology that isn't as gay friendly as you'd like?

Have you not crowed about American values, all while considering it perfectly proper for judges to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't agree with your view that homosexual unions = heterosexual marriage?

Why, yes, Jeremy you have. So don't talk to me about being preachy and self-serving.

The problem you have with me is simple: I've broken the pattern typical for commenters here. Most people who reply to your posts are either (rarely) the very "'mo foes" you blog about or (commonly) fellow lefties who cheer you on. I am neither.

I challenge your prejudices, Jeremy. I ask questions you don't want asked. I bring up matters you don't want to understand. So you've finally just given up talking to me, and are encouraging other readers to do the same. No matter. I don't care whether you or anyone else replies to me.

I congratulate you on having read enough of GayPatriot to have seen my post about you there. I am sorry if you thought I wanted a lot of conservatives to just gang up on you. I thought perhaps Bruce, Dan, or some of their regular readers could get through to you where I had failed.

When I first came across your site I liked it. I was impressed by your use of humor. The more I read of it over time, however, the more I found that I disagreed with. I thought by sharing my different perspective I could get you to question your more stridently leftist opinions.

I now see I was overly optimistic -- foolishly so. You are too much of a far-left, secular-progressive idealogue. I have not given up all hope, but I would probably have been smarter to try converting Rush Limbaugh to communism.

I think David might be in love with Jeremy.

I think David just has delusions of grandeur.

It's about time! And not to take away from this event, but other states should consider this too!!!

The ability that the web provides to post one's opinions with one's face unseen and one's voice unheard can bring out the worst in people. Coupled with politics, which certainly seldom brings out the best in folks, this provides an opportunity for all sorts of nonsense and nastiness.

Of course, the chance of senseless trash-talk is increased when conversing with left-wingers, as most are left-wingers because they are stuck in adolescence.

So on top of being called a "punk" for making a desperate plea elsewhere, my comments also earn snide remarks about my being in love Mr. Hooper.

These don't deserve any further comment from me, and I wouldn't have mentioned anything at all if it weren't for Ted's accusation against me, which I just can't let pass.

No, Ted, I do not have delusions of grandeur. What I do have is a strong, basic belief in the right to self-government.

Not one of the commenters here, including Jeremy, has made a substantive, law-based argument in favor of the Court's ruling. I effectively pointed that out by making a reasoned argument against the ruling. What is my reward? Personal insults. What a pleasant bunch the gay left are.

Ted, perhaps you are the one with the delusions of grandeur. You most certainly are an @sshole.