Calif. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill

[SeaCat]

Okay, everybody ready to get pissed off? Good!
Why doesn't Ahnold like the law? Maybe he's afraid of getting too many propositions. Who knows? I know I surely don't care.

My views on the whole damned thing? Okay I'll tell you:
I'll start out by saying I'm purely Hetero. I also could care less what you do with parts of your body, or put into your body, as long as you don't push your views on others. In other words have a blast.

We are all human people. We shit, we piss, we fart, and we love. (Maybe most importantly we love.) If you want to raise kids, who am I to say your lifestyle is better for the raising of kids than mine? If you don't want to have kids, fine, that is your choice. Either way don't push it on me.

In other words as long as you are not going out of your way to hurt other people then have fun, and I respect and support you. (If you go out of your way to hurt other people, who don't want to be hurt you are liable to meet me on a dark night. I never said I was nice.)

People like Goerge, Jeb, Arnold, and even more than a few here don't like people like me because I believe in a persons rights and am willing to protect those rights. If you wish to marry someone of your gender, have at it. If you wish to marry someone of the opposite gender, have at it. If you wish to marry something else, I'm more than willing to talk. (Again my only worry is about others being hurt.)

Cat

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

I knew I loved Connecticut for some reason.
Connecticut, sees reason

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

A couple of things.

It's not about marriage or anything else and any attempt at gay rights of any form will be resisted and defeated because people hve the brains of toads. For many of the resistors, they view gays as sinners and Satan-touched and therefore inhuman. They do not want any possible validation of their love as love or their existence as human and equal to that of a Protestant straight person.

Now, their push comes from an appearance of strength, but the true story is to get these "impressive large majorities" on these bills they've had to resort to outright lies about the bills intent. The country isn't unprepared for gay marriage. It is on the crux. Is it quick? Yes. But unlike the earlier part of the 20th century, information moves faster, more books are produced, universities are quicker adaptors. Sure, the generational barrier exists. People who couldn't support black on white marriage now having to deal with man on man marriage, but among the youth, even the conservatives aren't pushing for the amendment.

I think truthfully, instead of relinquishing the charge to the specter of angry dying republicans, the main fight is on of rhetoric. That is undermining the lies with massive money and most of all blasting the airwaves with the truth that this will do nothing to affect marriage in the eyes of the lord, only the state and federal and that such discrimination is not only illegal but unamerican. It's about time liberals stopped rolling over and taking it up the ass and actually showed a backbone for once.

Furthermore, the idea of refraining for a backlash worries me. It shows a total fear and abdication to the evil sect of far-right lunatics who have hijacked this country with pretty words and a bullshit speed of 1200 lpm (lies per minute). Don't do it, it'll anger the right. Well, the right is angry and have gotten angrier the more we have abdicated our beliefs. Always is the saying, don't do it, it'll create a right-wing backlash. But where is the fear of a left-wing backlash? When they threw out the idea of creating an amendment to block a person's rights due to a misapplied religious belief, were the airwaves filled with people saying, no don't do it, it'll prompt a liberal backlash? When rights were removed, when the right-wing wish list came out, when they did everything in their power to block and destroy liberalism, was there ever a cry of no, half the country is liberal, it'll galvanize the left? Fuck no. Liberals have no illusion of strength these day. We are not scary to the men in power, no one fears driving the moderates to the left and yet everyone cries about not driving them to the right. Why? Because we have let it be so, not stood up with equal effort and undermined the belief that the center is between far-far-right and far-right.

The young are behind this issue, the moderates support it if talked to for three seconds to unpropagandize. This is not the overly one-sided issue we are meant to believe it as and every year, gays are more visible, more accepted, and more understood than ever before. One might say it doesn't have legacy, but what of the last 40+ years or more? At least the same as civil rights or we wouldn't even be considering it today. The truth is that for this issue, this is the 60s for racism. All looks bleak, there's a "backlash", arguments cite scare tactics to create the illusion of strength, but at the end of the day the bigots will be made to look like fools and the history books will talk about it in the "but we're all better people now" kind of way.

Also, fear of backlash? What else can they do? They already want to amend the constitution, they already kill fags and claim that homosexuality as a defense for their actions, they already ban them from organizations, discriminate them as much as the law will bear, already allude to them being child rapists and unnatural things. There is no more back to lash to, they've already put it out in the open and frankly the galvanizing won't work if liberals stop whining for once and publicize and soundbite several key truths on every source they can. Even without and even with a court ruling that gays can marry, they won't pass their amendment. People don't like amending the constitution for that and people already believe the courts to be "liberal" due to soundbites from the past. The usual suspects will scream what they've screamed for years, with actual marriage, people will finally see that gays are actually human and that it didn't end the world, there will be a PR blitz, but it won't convince the requisite number of democratic localities and congressmen to go along with the only attempt that has meaning.

Movements to block marriages in church will only find that it is fully legal to block a gay couple from marrying in your church and cries that these unions aren't true in the eyes of the lord will go the way of those same arguments the first time atheists got married in civil marriages or pagans who got married in the church. Furthermore, news will follow the scent of "interesting" follow-up stories, flooding the market with happy couple stories of strong lifelong commitments, of raising kids. The demonization will fail as it has failed for the youth.


This is not the beginning of the Dark Ages, not if we don't let it. This is our generation's 60s and frankly we've been waiting for it.

 

[matriarch]

GNN
Government News Network

Monday 21 February 2005 11:16
CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS BEFORE CHRISTMAS 2005

The landmark Civil Partnership Act will be brought into force on 5 December this year. Any couple wishing to form a civil partnership will be able to give notice of their intention to register at a Register Office from that date.

This will allow the first civil partnerships to be formed in time for Christmas on 21 December, after the 15 day waiting period has passed. Some Register Offices in areas such as Brighton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham and the London Borough of Camden have already started to take expressions of interest from couples interested in forming a civil partnership after the Act comes into force.

Deputy Women and Equality Minister Jacqui Smith said:

"I know how much this legislation means to a great many same-sex couples across the country who are eager to finally get legal recognition for their relationships.

"This legislation is going to make a real difference to these couples and it demonstrates the Government's commitment to equality and social justice.

"I hope this Act will help create a more equal society. It opens the way to respect, recognition and justice for those who have been denied it for too long."

The Civil Partnership Act allows same-sex couples to make a formal, legal commitment to each other by forming a civil partnership. At present, same-sex couples have no way of gaining formal legal recognition for their relationship and as a result suffer a range of problems in their everyday lives.

Important rights and responsibilities will flow from entering a civil partnership, helping same-sex couples to organise their lives together.

Provisions in the Act include:

* employment and pension benefits;

* recognition under intestacy rules;

* access to fatal accidents compensation;

* recognition for immigration and nationality purposes.

* a duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partner and any children of the family;

* civil partners to be assessed in the same way as spouses for child support;

* equitable treatment for the purposes of life assurance;

The process of entering into a civil partnership will be administered by the local registration service. On the day of registration, each member of the couple will sign in the presence of the registration officer and two witnesses.

The Act also allows for same-sex couples who have entered legally recognised overseas relationships to be treated as civil partners in the United Kingdom.

There will be a formal, court-based process for dissolution of a civil partnership.

Implementation involves significant changes in many areas, for example in court rules, the registration service as well as training and guidance for employers. These changes will be put in place over the course of this year.

 

[Guest]

thats it, we're moving to the UK.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

A couple of things.

It's not about marriage or anything else and any attempt at gay rights of any form will be resisted and defeated because people hve the brains of toads. For many of the resistors, they view gays as sinners and Satan-touched and therefore inhuman. They do not want any possible validation of their love as love or their existence as human and equal to that of a Protestant straight person.

Now, their push comes from an appearance of strength, but the true story is to get these "impressive large majorities" on these bills they've had to resort to outright lies about the bills intent. The country isn't unprepared for gay marriage. It is on the crux. Is it quick? Yes. But unlike the earlier part of the 20th century, information moves faster, more books are produced, universities are quicker adaptors. Sure, the generational barrier exists. People who couldn't support black on white marriage now having to deal with man on man marriage, but among the youth, even the conservatives aren't pushing for the amendment.

I think truthfully, instead of relinquishing the charge to the specter of angry dying republicans, the main fight is on of rhetoric. That is undermining the lies with massive money and most of all blasting the airwaves with the truth that this will do nothing to affect marriage in the eyes of the lord, only the state and federal and that such discrimination is not only illegal but unamerican. It's about time liberals stopped rolling over and taking it up the ass and actually showed a backbone for once.

Furthermore, the idea of refraining for a backlash worries me. It shows a total fear and abdication to the evil sect of far-right lunatics who have hijacked this country with pretty words and a bullshit speed of 1200 lpm (lies per minute). Don't do it, it'll anger the right. Well, the right is angry and have gotten angrier the more we have abdicated our beliefs. Always is the saying, don't do it, it'll create a right-wing backlash. But where is the fear of a left-wing backlash? When they threw out the idea of creating an amendment to block a person's rights due to a misapplied religious belief, were the airwaves filled with people saying, no don't do it, it'll prompt a liberal backlash? When rights were removed, when the right-wing wish list came out, when they did everything in their power to block and destroy liberalism, was there ever a cry of no, half the country is liberal, it'll galvanize the left? Fuck no. Liberals have no illusion of strength these day. We are not scary to the men in power, no one fears driving the moderates to the left and yet everyone cries about not driving them to the right. Why? Because we have let it be so, not stood up with equal effort and undermined the belief that the center is between far-far-right and far-right.

The young are behind this issue, the moderates support it if talked to for three seconds to unpropagandize. This is not the overly one-sided issue we are meant to believe it as and every year, gays are more visible, more accepted, and more understood than ever before. One might say it doesn't have legacy, but what of the last 40+ years or more? At least the same as civil rights or we wouldn't even be considering it today. The truth is that for this issue, this is the 60s for racism. All looks bleak, there's a "backlash", arguments cite scare tactics to create the illusion of strength, but at the end of the day the bigots will be made to look like fools and the history books will talk about it in the "but we're all better people now" kind of way.

Also, fear of backlash? What else can they do? They already want to amend the constitution, they already kill fags and claim that homosexuality as a defense for their actions, they already ban them from organizations, discriminate them as much as the law will bear, already allude to them being child rapists and unnatural things. There is no more back to lash to, they've already put it out in the open and frankly the galvanizing won't work if liberals stop whining for once and publicize and soundbite several key truths on every source they can. Even without and even with a court ruling that gays can marry, they won't pass their amendment. People don't like amending the constitution for that and people already believe the courts to be "liberal" due to soundbites from the past. The usual suspects will scream what they've screamed for years, with actual marriage, people will finally see that gays are actually human and that it didn't end the world, there will be a PR blitz, but it won't convince the requisite number of democratic localities and congressmen to go along with the only attempt that has meaning.

Movements to block marriages in church will only find that it is fully legal to block a gay couple from marrying in your church and cries that these unions aren't true in the eyes of the lord will go the way of those same arguments the first time atheists got married in civil marriages or pagans who got married in the church. Furthermore, news will follow the scent of "interesting" follow-up stories, flooding the market with happy couple stories of strong lifelong commitments, of raising kids. The demonization will fail as it has failed for the youth.


This is not the beginning of the Dark Ages, not if we don't let it. This is our generation's 60s and frankly we've been waiting for it.

I think you misunderstimate the media, as W would say. The first followup I saw to Canadian Gay marriage was the couple who divorced.

I think you also underestimate the depth of resistance. Youth is behind it? Not in Mississippi, or Alabama, or Texas, or Kansas. In fact, ouside the urban centers, youth are as likely to be just as stubonly against it as their folks, even here in liberal New York.

The article Vella posted on Connecticut is Fucking A right on. In the places where resistance isn't so ingrained and virulent, advance the cause in steps. Spousal rights, Civil unions, Domestic partner laws. Build some background and some case studys and segments of the populace who are used to it and to whom full marriage rights is no longer a big deal. Give yourself exxamples that are fact and not conjecture, by whixch you can show the most fearful predictions to be wrong. Lay the foundation for deamnding full marriage rights.

If you don't think an amendment could get sent to the states, then you have a much greater trust in politicans than I do. If it comes to it, there are a lot of Dems who will feel trendous political presure to support it. And they will. the'll couch it in terms like "I'm all for leting the people decide" and i"I have faith the people won't pass it, but they have a right to speak out" etc. etc. etc.

It only takes a 2/3rds majority in the house and senate to get an amendment sent to the states. It then takes a 3/4 majority to pass it. 38 states basically.

So you need 13 states to say no. There are currently on 11 states, with no state approved defense of mariage laws or amendments to ttheir consitituion. Some of the most often liberal states in this country have them including California, Oregon, Dleaware, and even hawaii.

Believeing one wouldn't be ratified is placing a lot of faith in people to change their stripes and do the right thing Luc.

It's not a given, but if it came to pass, you would have to get 38 states to agree to repeal it. I can think of 11 states wehre you would not ever get a majority to vote to repeal. It only takes two more and the amendment would sat on the books forever.

Again, i am not saying abdicate or give up. I am saying approach it in the manner that has proven historically successful. IN short, win the battles in places wehre you can easily do so. Incrementally establish the precedent that you should enjoy those rights. Work your position from minority support to majoiruty support by winning the toughest fight, the fight against fear on the local and personal level. When you have won those battles, then go for the ultimate goal. Demanding full marriage rights without laying the founation is a dangerous gamble. The extreme end of a risk/reward proposition.

What sense is there in taking that long odds bet when you have other options that don't incur the attendant risk?

 

[minsue]

thats it, we're moving to the UK.

We'll start a commune

 

[amicus]

Reading every post on every page of this thread, one is left, at least in my mind, with a rather large question.

How to phrase that question without being offensive or overly blunt is a bit of a problem with me personally as I think it is obvious yet being ignored.

It is as if those who, in the past and in the present, those who have opposed progressive liberal measures such as enforced racial equality, feminist equality and now, 'gay' equality were really all stupid religious fanatics without an ounce of brainpower, and no ethical or moral principles at all.

In other words, without saying such, those on this thread completely dismiss the opposition as unworthy opponents without a moral, or ethical foundation.

This observation takes on even more meaning as the proponents of 'gay' equality, present their position as an 'absolute' one whereas most liberal progressives deny that any issue is 'absolute'.

I offer Colleen Thomas the highest praise possible for continuing to present her pragmatic argument in fine fashion. However, pragmatism is a failed philosophy and properly so.

Life requires passion, aggression and risk taking. Some people project a life style of pleasant agreement and accomodation between thinking people as the 'practicle' means to solve problems.

They see this 'peaceful' avenue of resolution as an end to war and conflict between peoples and ideals. It is an irrational projection of idealism that avoids the harsh reality of the nature of man and the nature of society, and in fact, the nature of existence, reality itself.

I for one, while not expressing an 'absolute' opinion on the issue at hand, am greatly aware of the 'possible' detrimental effects of a gay life style on young people, on the institutions of education, marriage and family. As I am with the 'possible' detrimental effects of full feminine and racial equality enforced by law.

Perhaps if those of you who are so immersed in the 'rightness' of your quest, would look outside your own personal little box of beliefs to the wider world, you might recognize just the 'possibility' that there are other viewpoints as valid as yours.

amicus..

 

[LadyJeanne]

I for one, while not expressing an 'absolute' opinion on the issue at hand, am greatly aware of the 'possible' detrimental effects of a gay life style on young people, on the institutions of education, marriage and family. As I am with the 'possible' detrimental effects of full feminine and racial equality enforced by law.

Perhaps if those of you who are so immersed in the 'rightness' of your quest, would look outside your own personal little box of beliefs to the wider world, you might recognize just the 'possibility' that there are other viewpoints as valid as yours.

amicus..

What are these detrimental effects of a gay life style on young people, the institutions of education, marriage, and family?

'Cause I live in the gayest city in the country and I'm not sure I see the detrimental effects. Children don't become gay by being around gay people, this is one of those cities with the highest numbers of college degrees among the population, and there's plenty of marriage and family all over the place if all the frickin' strollers clogging the sidewalks are any indication.

What are these detrimental effects I'm not seeing?

 

[elsol]

Life requires passion, aggression and risk taking.

*burp*

This isn't life; it's politics.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

What are these detrimental effects of a gay life style on young people, the institutions of education, marriage, and family?

'Cause I live in the gayest city in the country and I'm not sure I see the detrimental effects. Children don't become gay by being around gay people, this is one of those cities with the highest numbers of college degrees among the population, and there's plenty of marriage and family all over the place if all the frickin' strollers clogging the sidewalks are any indication.

What are these detrimental effects I'm not seeing?

Please don't....

Because if I have to hear about the possible detrimental effects of giving me the same rights as a white man, some people are going to die.

There is a reason I support gun rights... cause at some point, I fully expect to check out in protest.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[LadyJeanne]

Please don't....

Because if I have to hear about the possible detrimental effects of giving me the same rights as a white man, some people are going to die.

There is a reason I support gun rights... cause at some point, I fully expect to check out in protest.

Sincerely,
ElSol

I usually skip over ami's red herrings.

http://bestsmileys.com/notlistening/2.gif

 

[matriarch]

I usually skip over ami's red herrings.

http://bestsmileys.com/notlistening/2.gif

*giggle*......wise woman.

 

[amicus]

thanks for the welcome back...I see nothing has changed...

funny, a liberal supporting the right to own a weapon....(amicus scratches his full head of hair...)

amicus...

 

[elsol]

thanks for the welcome back...I see nothing has changed...

funny, a liberal supporting the right to own a weapon....(amicus scratches his full head of hair...)

amicus...

Sorry, Ami... you have me confused for someone else.

I'm an extremist moderate.

The constitution says I get to own a gun; I consider it a paradox to defend one part of the document and not the others.

Always found that paradoxical about the parties... will defend free speech but not gun ownership or vice versa.

I really hate inconsistency.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Liar]

Perhaps if those of you who are so immersed in the 'rightness' of your quest, would look outside your own personal little box of beliefs to the wider world, you might recognize just the 'possibility' that there are other viewpoints as valid as yours.

amicus..

My god, the irony, it's too much.




Oh, and how does "not wanting to be discriminated against" equal "a liberal"?

 

[elsol]

My god, the irony, it's too much.

Oh, and how does "not wanting to be discriminated against" equal "a liberal"?

Because it means I'm not willing to see past my desires to how there could be some 'possible' benefits for others to keep the boot on my neck.

I need to be a little less selfish.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

Of course, I'm sure that's not really what Ami meant.

He was probably talking about things like affirmative action, reparations for slavery, etc.

*burp*

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Guest]

ami,
its good for you to vocalize your beliefs be they liberal (we know you arent) or stauchly republican... that is what free speach is all about.
however, that being said, i think you pigeon holed everyone on this thread. it is difficult to get in all angles of the situation especially when not all of them are known. ..and some of them are only supposition.
i take a great deal of pride in looking at as many possible outcomes as possible...and...i listen to everyone even if i disagree before i make any descisions.

my belief is that i harm no one with my lifestyle. i also believe that i should be afforded the same rights as anyone else. i see no detriment this would cause...infact, if i were able to have my SO on my insurance, that might take one or two people out of medicaid system.

i am thinking of the whole picture, not just parts of it that please me.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think you misunderstimate the media, as W would say. The first followup I saw to Canadian Gay marriage was the couple who divorced.

I think you also underestimate the depth of resistance. Youth is behind it? Not in Mississippi, or Alabama, or Texas, or Kansas. In fact, ouside the urban centers, youth are as likely to be just as stubonly against it as their folks, even here in liberal New York.

The article Vella posted on Connecticut is Fucking A right on. In the places where resistance isn't so ingrained and virulent, advance the cause in steps. Spousal rights, Civil unions, Domestic partner laws. Build some background and some case studys and segments of the populace who are used to it and to whom full marriage rights is no longer a big deal. Give yourself exxamples that are fact and not conjecture, by whixch you can show the most fearful predictions to be wrong. Lay the foundation for deamnding full marriage rights.

If you don't think an amendment could get sent to the states, then you have a much greater trust in politicans than I do. If it comes to it, there are a lot of Dems who will feel trendous political presure to support it. And they will. the'll couch it in terms like "I'm all for leting the people decide" and i"I have faith the people won't pass it, but they have a right to speak out" etc. etc. etc.

It only takes a 2/3rds majority in the house and senate to get an amendment sent to the states. It then takes a 3/4 majority to pass it. 38 states basically.

So you need 13 states to say no. There are currently on 11 states, with no state approved defense of mariage laws or amendments to ttheir consitituion. Some of the most often liberal states in this country have them including California, Oregon, Dleaware, and even hawaii.

Believeing one wouldn't be ratified is placing a lot of faith in people to change their stripes and do the right thing Luc.

It's not a given, but if it came to pass, you would have to get 38 states to agree to repeal it. I can think of 11 states wehre you would not ever get a majority to vote to repeal. It only takes two more and the amendment would sat on the books forever.

Again, i am not saying abdicate or give up. I am saying approach it in the manner that has proven historically successful. IN short, win the battles in places wehre you can easily do so. Incrementally establish the precedent that you should enjoy those rights. Work your position from minority support to majoiruty support by winning the toughest fight, the fight against fear on the local and personal level. When you have won those battles, then go for the ultimate goal. Demanding full marriage rights without laying the founation is a dangerous gamble. The extreme end of a risk/reward proposition.

What sense is there in taking that long odds bet when you have other options that don't incur the attendant risk?

True, I am likely optimistic. I realize the depth of resistance in areas where they will never see a gay man outside Hollywood, where their only knowledge of it is from an anti-Christ (one who teaches against the values of Christ) pastor. In that, the youths will be behind it. Until their first resistance. Until they pick up their first comic book or indy movie or watch a show from somewhere. The first sympathetic picture of the thing they hate so much in something they like.

I don't know. I suppose we disagree on whether the politic growth or the social growth is the correct barometer. Because socially, the gays are winning the war. People who were against it a scant 4 years ago are being converted into pro-gay rights zealots. Seeing Ellen not just out on a show, but starring in a popular pixar movie, being discovered as a provider of family-friendly stand-up. I know died-in-the-wool "d&d is a trap set by satan" psycho rightists who have said and I quote: "That Ellen is a credit to this nation." People who voted for the old proposition nowadays tell me they'd support the opposite (giving gays full marital rights). This gives me hope and you know I'm not generally the optimist.

Politically, I fully admit it looks bad, but amending a constitution is different in the minds of people than passing an act or prop to "keep gay sex from being taught in elementary schools" (this is how they passed it in the liberal states). There is an illusion of strength that is being exploited at this point and I think we shouldn't cower in fear. There were political recriminations agaisnt blacks in the 60s and there wasn't a precedent of spousal laws and etc etc. We have legal marriages in a couple of places that have been popping up for the last decade and frankly things move faster these days. Anyone witnessing the collapse of American society following 9/11 can attest to that.

I understand the trepidation, it is only MY belief that if one can defeat the Paper Tiger, that this is the time socially for gay rights to occur. There have been civil unions, have been marriages, have been various stages of spousal rights, and a huge surge in the social opinion of homosexuality. More people are seeing it in terms of people who are gay. People they can relate to. People.

I don't think socially both the states or the Democratic Party if the liberals do not roll over and die will sacrifice the rights of people for all conceivable time. Most people don't think like that. The people who signed the Prop thinking it would prevent gay sex being taught with color pictures in their kids classroom isn't going to swallow the belief that the constitution needs to be amended to stop the threat of gays.

Overall we agree on our perception of things. I see there being precedent with the reccent marriage and union attempts and successes, with society in general becoming more and more knowledgable and sympathetic to homosexuals, and even with the waves of backlashes with no real frontlash. I see this as not only being the time most resembling when interracial marriage began its big battle, but as a time the big battle must occur. The right is pulling out all guns in realization that society is against them, time is against them, that they will ultimately be revealed to be in the wrong both legally and morally. That means the war has already begun, no matter which one of us is right. Whether it is the "right" time or whether it really could've waited another decade, the war has begun and people who believe in America and the belief that no man or woman is above the law and none should be below it have to stand up and play their roles and fear if the evil, the bigoted, the moralless will finally gain a victory.

Perhaps it is the only thing I'm this optimistically sure about, but I believe history will repeat.

 

[juanjsojr]

who knows what will happen but we'll see what happens with gay marriage there

 

[matriarch]

who knows what will happen but we'll see what happens with gay marriage there

Wow.
That almost made sense.
Juan's been taking lessons.

 

[rgraham666]

who knows what will happen but we'll see what happens with gay marriage there

I was sure this individual was on my 'Ignore' list.

Easily fixed.

 

[Couture]

The Gov. left the decision in the hands of the courts. If you are gay or if you are straight and support Gay rights, that's exactly where you want the issue. Because in the curts, you just might get a win based on teh 14th amendment's equal protection clause. In any forum where the general population has a say, you are going to loose.

I maintain the position this country isn't ready for gay marriage to be leaggal. I further maintain, if you keep trying to jam it down the throats of an unwilling populace, the backlash is going to be fearsome. I suppose it would be a good time to remind everyone that passage of a feeral ban ends any possiblity of help fromt he courts. Conservative or liberal majority, makes no difference. If such a ban becomes part of the Constitution, you loose ALL avenues of making gains and convincing the populace at large gay marriage isn't a threat to them.

I agree with you to an extent Colly. I don't think the US is ready for gay marriage to be legal. However, this whole process here is how that happens.

This governor didn't sign this bill. Maybe the next one will. Or the next.

It wasn't that long ago that if you said, "Gay marriage," people wouldn't even know what the hell you were talking about. If you came "out" IN my highschool, you would be out OF my highschool.

So, even if America isn't ready this moment, I think people should keep working at it because it's the right thing to do.