Let's hope California can avoid a constitutional amendment overturning this morning's state Supreme Court ruling that laws excluding gay and lesbian couples from the right to marry are un(state)constitutional - which follows on the heels of twice legislatively passed (but twice gubernatorially vetoed) marriage rights bills.
(Gov. Schwarzenegger, who voted the bills, nevertheless says he supports the court's decion and opposes the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment expected to be on the November ballot.)
If the amendment can be defeated and same-sex marriage becomes an everyday reality in the nation's most populous state, then the pressure will certainly mount to challenge the (federal) constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the U.S. government from recognizing state-sanctioned same-sex unions for purposes of joint tax filings, spousal immigration, Social Security survivors' income, and myriad other benefits that married heterosexuals take for granted.
More. From the New York Times:
Gay marriage is an issue on which the three major presidential candidates - John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton - are pretty much in agreement. All oppose it, while saying at the same time that same-sex couples should generally be entitled to the legal protections afforded married couples. All think the decision should be left to the states.
So they're all pretty much in agreement, but you can bet HRC and the rest of the LGBT beltway gang will be going all out for a McCain defeat (and, if history is a guide, it will be their top electoral priority, dwarfing any efforts to stop state anti-gay marriage amendments).
Changing topics. Beware political hysteria carried forth on a wave of emotional charisma, and be prepared for the unhappy consequences. This picture, for me, invokes visions of Nuremburg.
33 Comments for “Golden State Equality”
posted by queerunity on
good things are happening, we are going to have obama and gay marriage
href=”http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com”>http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
posted by Casey on
Screw “let’s hope” – let’s work to make sure it doesn’t happen. Talk to your families, friends, coworkers. Donate to the campaigns at “Let California Ring” or Equality California. Volunteer when they ask you to get involved. Register to vote, and get your friends to do the same. There’s work to be done. Hope’s nice, but I want results.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Yes, great things are happening–we’re going to have gay marriage and Obama is going to be revealed for the smarmy, sexist, homophobic, ageist charlatan he is. I will not support a man with connections to those like McClurkin. Go Hillary!
Back to this great day–I’m very excited. In the past, I have suggested that the gay community as a whole is perhaps not yet ready to bear the mantle of responsibility marriage brings. However, I think that once gays have the option to marry, most will move toward marriage and away from the excesses of the mainstream. Now, when I say, “I’m waiting to have sex until marriage,*” and gays mock me, I can say, “I’m just using the rights we’ve all fought for to express my sexuality in a way that means something to me.”
*and/or until Dominic Purcell comes out and moves to Central Nebraska to find himself.
posted by Charles Wilson on
People of good will who are interested in practical solutions rather than scoring rhetorical points could solve this in a half an hour.
Take the government out of the marriage business. Declare that any two consenting, unrelated adults may enter into a domestic partnership, conferring a set of rights and obligations now attached to “marriage.” If children are involved, a body of law relating to custodial issues would attach.
As part of such a deal, any material benefits (public or private) conferred upon people by what has been called “marriage” would transfer to those within domestic partnership contracts. Thus, if a company puts spouses on the group health plan, it would have to do the same for a party to a domestic partnership contract. Social Security survivor and other insurance benefits (i.e., disability and life insurance) granted to spouses and survivors, would be given to those in domestic partnership agreements.
“Marriage” would become a private matter. If the Catholics, the Baptists, the Mormons or any other religion won’t marry a particular couple, fine. If someone else will do it, fine. But none of that would be the state’s business.
Dissolution of domestic partnership contracts, i.e., “divorce,” would be governed by current divorce law.
Do this, and the majority would be satisfied. The government would be neutral in the matter, doing what governments ought to do to begin with: recognize and respect the choices of free people, so long as those choices don’t infringe the rights of others.
There would be two groups who’d be dissatisfied with such a compromise: The far right-wing, which hates it that homosexuality might exist in the open, and some in the gay community, who think that it’s the government’s job to “sanctify” their relationships.
Those objections from those two groups should be politely rejected.
posted by Amicus on
@Ash
Listen, it’s not a good thing that you feel that the entire gay community needs to “come around” or something for you to feel at home in the world.
While there is a new door open, today, another degree of freedom, sexual liberation – mainstream or not – isn’t going way overnight tonight.
Find a separate peace, if you will.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Not withstanding the opportunity of many secularists in the gay community wishing to re-sanctify marriage and turn it into something akin of domestic unions, just now called marriage… the thing that makes this narrow 4-3 split decision troubling for many gays in OTHER states is that gays in CA are again projecting the image (via the MSM and “our” community’s spokesmen out there) of being unreasonable and willing to strip marriage of the very thing that nearly 60-70% of voters in MOST states think critical… leaving marriage as a unique institution for 1 man, 1 woman.
It’s doubly so because nearly every commentator in the MSM over the last day noted that CA already has all the protections granted to married hetero couples under the state’s civil union laws… and they generally reduce this to a battle over the word “marriage” and it’s application to gay couples.
For all of us in the 27+ states who suffer under DOMAs, this will make it HARDER, not easier, to secure gay civil rights of the same kind that CA gays had before this split decision overruled the will of the people and declared voter sentiments.
It’ll make things harder for other gays in other states to secure the same civil rights now available to CA gays… and drive the wedge between gays and mainstream voters even further.
It’ll be a double-whammy for gay civil rights progress in other states if, in Nov, CA voters approve a Constitutional amdendment overriding the split decision.
Frankly, we keep shooting ourselves in the feet, legs and thighs and brains because we allow a few radicialized voices on the gay marriage issue to monopolize the market place of ideas… just like we do with DADT.
Gay activists in CA may be happy for the moment, but this “victory” will likely end up kicking all gays in the ass for years to come.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Oh… and given that this was a REPUBLICAN majority on the Ct and REPUBLICAN Gov Arnold came out and supported the decision immediately, I’m expecting all those gay slave votes down on the Democrat Plantation to put down their hoes and come over into the light of their new mas’ta, the CA GOP.
Of course, that’s just silly. But it is ironic that REPUBLICANS delivered a “victory” to the gay community… will it win any fealty? Hell no.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
One other thing… Casey is absolutely correct… the gay community in CA has to work triple hard to make absolutely certain that the Nov initiative goes down to defeat… not a narrow defeat; a resounding, smashing defeat.
And all gays in America have a stake in that effort. If you live in a different state and care about gay civil rights at home, you need to support the CA gay community’s effort to defeat the Nov ballot question.
MM partner and I will be sending out our checks to CA Equality today. I hope all the keyboard warriors here from the Left and Center will do the same.
As a person who fought Michigan’s DOMA ballot question in 2004, I can tell you that the voter sentiment against gay marriage is strong, visceral and not prone to movement… it’ll take registering sympathetic voters and making sure they get to the polls.
Time for all non-CA gays to stand up and be counted. And be moderate in your passionate advocacy with others… we’ll get more than being harsh or unyielding.
posted by tavdy79 on
“Gay activists in CA may be happy for the moment, but this “victory” will likely end up kicking all gays in the ass for years to come.” – Michigan-Matt
In 1989, Denmark legalised Civil Unions – the first country to do so. The process of legalisation since then has been slow, but now almost 320 million Europeans live in countries with some form of recognition of same-sex relationships, be it full gay marriage, civil unions or registered or unregistered partnerships; the total is likely to hit 400 million within the next decade.
The social success of civil unions, and later gay marriages, in those states that adopted them early on is the main reason why this has happened. There’s a lot more inter-state mobility in the US compared to the EU (mainly because of language: the US has a dominant language, the EU doesn’t) so in theory the effect should be far more profound in America than in the EU.
So far that has been the case – and quite spectacularly so. In the US, it was four years after VT legalised Civil Unions that MS legalised gay marriage (2000 to 2004); in the EU it was twelve years after DK legalised civil unions that NL legalised gay marriage (1989 to 2001).
I think it likely that Washington will pass a federal act legalising gay marriage or civil unions long before Brussels/Strasbourg passes a directive or (less likely) regulation with the same effect.
posted by Charles Wilson on
the thing that makes this narrow 4-3 split decision troubling for many gays in OTHER states is that gays in CA are again projecting the image (via the MSM and “our” community’s spokesmen out there) of being unreasonable and willing to strip marriage of the very thing that nearly 60-70% of voters in MOST states think critical… leaving marriage as a unique institution for 1 man, 1 woman.
It’s worth mentioning here that Michigan Matt is on record mocking gay marriage and calling it an idea of “the far radical Left.” This is the same so-called “moderate” who has declared himself to be better than most gays, who he regard thusly: “Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up.”
Michigan Matt’s viewpoint should be regarded in relation to his disdain for himself and his community, which is all too typical of the wingnut fringe that calls itself the Log Cabin Republicans. If it were up to them, homosexuals would be fighting for the privilege of meeting in alcohol-free bars, where they would be monitored carefully to insure than no one stood within a foot of each other.
And, if someone happened to be attacked in one of those places, Michigan Matt’s response would be to side with the attackers, and tell those who were attacked to put away the victim/pity card.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
tavdy79, the quote you used was made in reference to my point that CA gays (helped by gays all over the US) need to work doubly, triply hard to ensure that the Nov CA DOMA initiative FAILS in CA or else, I opined, it will embolden the proponents of state DOMAs (as well the the opposition to gay civil rights) to thwart efforts in other states that might have DOMA but could move forward with civil unions, etc.
If the inevitable Nov CA DOMA initiative passes, it will be kicking gays in other states in the ass for a long time. CA gays aren’t operating in a vacumn… that’s why I thought their move to grab the word “marriage” when they had all the benefits many of us lack, was untoward.
But now that’s done. We have to insure the initiative doesn’t pass.
posted by Charles Wilson on
it will embolden the proponents of state DOMAs (as well the the opposition to gay civil rights) to thwart efforts in other states that might have DOMA but could move forward with civil unions, etc.
Says Michigan Matt, whose tells victims of anti-gay violence to put away the victim/pity card. Perhaps he can explain how effective the Log Cabinettes were in persuading the Republican Party to knock it off with the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments in 2004.
Of course, he won’t do that, because in fact, he has has mocked gay marriage as an idea that comes “from the far radical Left.” Let’s face it, everything about Michigan Matt would lead a reasonable outsider to believe that he’s on the side of the opponents of gay marriage who will be trying to defeat it in California this year.
And if that should happen, well, not to fear, because Matt knows that he’s a better kind of homosexual, unlike these poor souls: “Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up.”
I think this stuff needs to be said, because if there’s any group whose views ought to be taken with a pound of salt, it’s those of the anti-gay gays who make up the wingnut disaster known as the Log Cabinettes. Their track is fair game.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Let’s look at what this ruling is going to create this fall:
– Take 1/2 of a disgruntled Democratic electorate (the Hillary camp) that will either sit out the election or vote for McCain out of spite;
– Add a highly pissed and motivated religious right;
– Sprinkle liberally with socially conservative Hispanics;
– And stir until boiling until election day.
What do you have? A recipe for a very possible McCain victory in CA, and the definite passage of an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment that could potentially put gays farther back than they were before this ruling. Sorry, but don’t shoot the messenger.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
So, Michigan Matt
If you could vote for or against marriage equality, which one would YOU vote for?
Just asking…
posted by Regan DuCasse on
“Sprinkli liberally with socially conservative Hispanics.”
Actually, something in there reminds me that we’ve had likelihood of voter fraud in this state.
There is no requirement to produce legal documents that prove your identity.
There are of course, gay Hispanics and for the most part liberal policies on Latinos tend to ride other civil rights laws.
With the advent of so many Hispanic elected leaders, who have shown themselves to be quite disloyal to their constituents and moreso to GANGS and other exponentially illegal aspects of Latino presence in CA, I’d be interested to know if the anti gay marriage would court those ineligible to vote, the way they have black Americans.
After all, it DOES look like illegal immigrants have far more concession which DOES adversely affect our nation if not our state, than gay citizens do.
And one wonders if we should be following the money on that too. Up to the Vatican maybe?
posted by Richard on
You will be hard pressed to find cases where non-citizens have tried to vote illegally.
Requiring some type of personal ID runs into problems if it is something that certain adult citizens struggle to obtain due to income or disability.
Also, McCain has not — to the best of my knowledge actually supported civil unions for same sex couples. Nor has he supported other gay rights legislation.
I am still personally undecided about how I will vote, but lets at least try to be honest.
posted by BobN on
The NYT’s editorial — and this thread — are a bit disingenuous.
“All think the decision should be left to the states.”
Uh… Hillary believes that CUs are the answer. She supports them, INSTEAD of marriage at the state level. At the federal level… well, she tries not to talk about the federal level too much.
Obama, to the best of my knowledge, personally perfers CUs but does not believe that individual states should NOT institute marriage. He calls for federal recognition of BOTH as equivalent to marriage.
McCain says it should be left to the states and supported a DOMA-type law for HIS state that would have also banned CUs http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0826initiatives26.html. He is no friend to gay people, especially gay Arizonans.
Incidentally, the Arizona state constitutional amendment is the ONLY ONE that has failed before the voters. The citizens of AZ are far ahead of their Senator on the issue. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5931522_ITM
posted by avee on
BobN intuits that Obama “does not believe that individual states should NOT institute marriage.” Except that he has stated that he believes marriage is only between a man and a woman — same as Hillary and McCain. I know it’s hard to believe that the great messiah who is without blemish is actually little to no different from the rest of the gang, but time to open your eyes.
posted by Patrick on
KingCharles, the racist bigot and “journalist” located deep in his Mom’s basement says: “I think this stuff needs to be said, because if there’s any group whose views ought to be taken with a pound of salt, it’s those of the anti-gay gays who make up the wingnut disaster known as the Log Cabinettes. Their track is fair game.”
As for anti-gay gays, I think your version of hate 24×7 takes the cake, the bait, the prize and the dance KingCharles. You really do hate any gays who succeed in life because your personal envy of their success eats you alive.
No, I’d say that what irritates you most about people like Michigan-Matt is that they have a life, live in the sunlight of truth, operate in a functional world, have a long time partner and spouse, and he isn’t bitter and angry like you are because your partner was promiscuous, an addict, an alcoholic and died to get away from you.
Not only that, but that in order to appear to have a life you have to make up stories, smear people with falsehoods, speak hate to truth and get kicked off blog after blog, after discussion groups, after community boards, after political sites, after medical sites and so forth.
And then, in pure hate, you transfer the obsessive stalking behavior you’ve shown for nearly 5 years against MSanchez over to Michigan-Matt… and obsess over him in sending out disgusting emails to him, IM’ing him with obscene messages, adding his email address to porn sites, escorts services and Democrat leftwing sites.
In the meantime, you work double hard to cover your tracks by deleting entries in blogs, as at least 3 other former targets of yours have proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
You’re the sicko, KingCharles. And a brat. I thought you’re mommy raised you better? Oh, that’s right, you weren’t born, you were hatched like a serpent.
posted by Patrick on
KingCharles, look… everyone who reads or comments more than once in this site knows you have a stalker/sicko obsession with both Michigan-Matt and others.
Could you please refrain from these ancillary rants and try to keep at least one thread on-topic?
You have to be the MOST annoying pain in the ass village idiots anyone could ever find. But, I guess, you’ve been told that more than a few times in the past.
Grow up you little spoiled brat; it’s not always ALL about you. We don’t care what you’re obsessive stalker personality thinks about MM or others here… stay on the topic or get on your meds.
posted by Charles Wilson on
You’d really better be careful, Patrick, or your head will explode. Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Regan asks: “So, Michigan Matt
If you could vote for or against marriage equality, which one would YOU vote for?
Just asking”
Tell me what you mean by the phrase “marriage equality” or give me the text of the ballot proposal and I’ll tell you if I can support it.
Regan, my partner and I are lucky in that we’ve had excellent legal representation to create for us an acceptable web of protections around our marriage, our assets, our family. Not everyone can afford that luxury and shouldn’t have to… if the question is do I support equal, parallel rights for gay partners that hetero couples now enjoy? Yep. Solidly. Does it have to include the word “marriage” to be equal? No.
What did you mean by marriage equality?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Careful Charles, that dementia is starting to show again.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Regan, my partner and I are lucky in that we’ve had excellent legal representation to create for us an acceptable web of protections around our marriage, our assets, our family.
Why of course. You see, Michigan Matt has overcome his criminal roots (the uncle, a murderer, who spent 50+ years in Alcatraz) to become a certified “A-gay.”
Michigan Matt is much better than every other homosexual. And, in the time-honored Republican tradition, he’s not shy about saying how much better he thinks he is: “Most gays I know are debt ridden, living paycheck2paycheck, on their 4-5-6th real LTR and still have furnishings left in their household from the 1st LTR move-out and break up.”
Nope, Michigan Matt would never be only of those dirty boys who goes to gay bars. That’s why he felt comfortable giving the following advice to someone who decried the attempted murder of four people in a gay bar: put away the victim/pity card.
Rather than stain the knees of his chinos in some nasty back room, Michigan Matt would grab a towelette and cruise the Internets for the likes of Matt Sanchez, the never-gay Republican gay whore. The Internets make it possible for gay-hating wingnut homosexuals like Michigan Matt to simultaneously proclaim his homespun values, while pronouncing that, at $200-$250 an hour, his closet lust object the ex-Marine hustler “was a bargain in any book. Woof. Damn.”
Should anyone point out the hypocrisy of all this, Michigan Matt has a ready answer: “I think you guys are just upset that the GOP has better studs … uber, macho-males you idolize. Come on, admit it. Maybe this is just penis-envy? ? Pathetic, sissy drama queens here that are still mad they’re the last out of the bar on Friday nite.”
After all, Michigan Matt isn’t one of those “sissy drama queens.” He is a Republican A-Gay, and he is better than everyone else. As such, when someone complained that a re-write of security clearance rules would make it easier to exclude homosexuals, Michigan Matt accuses him of being a pervert.
This is what the Log Cabin Republicans have been offering to gay people for lo, these 30 years. Since they sprang into existence, the Republican Party has become steadily more vicious toward gay people. It’s the Michigan Matts of the world who can step up and take full credit for that, because they’ve stood and played cheerleader the entire way.
Sis, boom, bah! Nice job, Matt! Did you get up on stage and tell all of your “friends” exactly what you think of them, or did you do what Republicans usually do and show them your happy face?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Careful Charles, that dementia is starting to show again.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Poor Michigan Matt. Lied about ignoring me. The cowboy just can’t quit me. And when nailed with his own words, how does he respond? With an old lie. Naturally. He’s a Log Cabinette wingnut. It’s what they do. Woof. Damn. Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles, I think you need to reflect seriously on the simple, indisputable fact that people here are now coming out to condemn your behavior as… let’s see… the word used is “atrocious”.
Need some synonyms for that, Charles.
loathesome would be one
foul another
and the others
disgusting
foul
horrid
nasty
nauseating
repellent
repulsive
revolting
sickening
ugly
unwholesome
vile
heinous
monstrous
scandalous
shocking
That’s just the beginning of Roget’s list.
Oh, beleive me with all my heart and sincerity, I could quit you in a second and never look back Charles.
You, on the other, would still be lonely, bitter, filled with hate and typing out of your Mom’s basement… the click of the keyboard your only companion.
What a sorry, sick state of affairs you lead.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Oh, Matt, are you melting? Ha!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles Wilson, not at all.
Hoever, most here would think that IF you had any character or conscience, you’d be ashamed of the things you’ve written here in the last two weeks.
It’s why readers here have called your behavior “atrocious”, “boorish and abusive”, “the village idiot”, “childish”.
People are ON to you Charles Wilson and you can’t handle it. How long before you get banned, barred and blocked from this site too?
Most people here would answer: not soon enough.
posted by Charles Wilson on
It’s why readers here have called your behavior “atrocious”, “boorish and abusive”, “the village idiot”, “childish”.
Those readers consist of you, and your sockpuppet/squire Patrick. Your calls for “civility” are, like the rest you offer here and elsewhere, wholly insincere and belied by your actions.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Charles, the people who have been saying those things are not my sockpuppets… they are people who were here long before I came here and people who I have had some civil disagreements with in the past.
You might like to see a vast rightwing conspiracy being laid out against you, but the truth is that’s just paranoia.
I’m glad the reminders you’ve been given from the IGF Editors is having some effect. I wonder if it would have been different on those other blogs, boards, threads, forums, sites and communities if you had heeded their warnings before being banned, barred, blocked and blacklisted.
Well, it’s a start.
posted by Charles Wilson on
You might like to see a vast rightwing conspiracy being laid out against you
There’s no VRWC, Matt. There is you and your squire/sockpuppet who have called me every name in the book on these forums, and who have done your best to disparage my late partner and blame me for his death.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Exactly Charles… there is NO vast right wing conspiracy out to get you… no matter how convenient you made it in the past to contend that’s the case. I’m glad you put the paranoia excuse to rest finally. Good for you!
Wow, with that kind of admission… this really has been a day of moderate growth for you and small steps toward your redemption on this blog.
Good for you, Charles. Bravo on being a tad civil and welcome back into the light.