Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down In California

Justice marches on.

This entry was written by Brian, posted on May 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm, filed under Personal and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

12 Comments

  1. jimthomp87
    Posted May 15, 2008 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    This issue has been put on the “back burner” in the presidential campaigns. It will be interesting, in light of the California Supreme Court decision, to see if it becomes a “front burner” issue again.

    It will also be interesting to see if any of the candidates modulate their stances on the issue if they feel the political tide turning after today’s events.

    McCain…
    (a)supports heterosexual marriage only
    (a)opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (”individual states should decide” )
    (b)favors some legal benefits for same-sex couples.

    Obama and Clinton both…
    a)oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions.
    b)oppose a constitutional ban on same-sex unions.

    JimT

  2. Brian
    Posted May 15, 2008 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    @ jimthomp87: I’m actually surprised to learn that McCain supports some legal rights for gay couples. I think this might make gay marriage an issue for the short-term, but I believe (read “hope” ) that most people realize that just because a candidate runs on a strong anti-gay marriage platform, it doesn’t mean that they are actually going to do anything about it.

    Bush ran on the premise of getting rid of abortion and banning gay marriage, but has he done either? Actually, he’s the first president that has presided over LEGAL gay marriage. Oh, the irony! :)

  3. jimthomp87
    Posted May 15, 2008 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    LOL–love the irony, that is too funny.

    JimT

  4. Brian
    Posted May 15, 2008 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    And so it begins…

    McCain rejected the will of the state’s high court even as he tried to maintain his long-held stance that the issue should be left to the states. He suggested that he backs an effort by California’s religious conservatives to put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman on the November ballot.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gay_marriage_politics

  5. Lena B
    Posted May 16, 2008 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    There’s an article in SFGate by Mark Morford on this, you should check it out:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/05/16/notes051608.DTL&feed=rss.mmorford

  6. Brian
    Posted May 16, 2008 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    @ Lena: That article was beyond hilarious! Thanks for sharing the link.

  7. Mitch
    Posted May 16, 2008 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    I used to think that letting the states decide was the right thing to do. After careful consideration I am sure this should be a federal decision. The Ca. Supreme Court made their ruling because they thought it was time to stop treating a group of people like second class citizens. So, would it be ok to discriminate in one state but not another. What if a couple got transferred because of their job to a state that didn’t like them? If states decide then what about federal pensions and social security or inheritance? I wonder if blacks would think its ok to ride in the front of the bus in New York and the back of the bus in Mississippi.

  8. Brian
    Posted May 16, 2008 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    @ Mitch: Fantastic points! I believe that the federal government will be forced to deal with this situation eventually, and I see absolutely no way that they can decide against it.

  9. JimT
    Posted May 22, 2008 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Brian,
    Did you catch McCain on Ellen today? Talk about uncomfortable.
    JimT

  10. Brian
    Posted May 22, 2008 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    @ JimT: I didn’t watch the whole interview, but I saw the clip where she talked to him about gay marriage. I thought she was very brave and explained her position extremely well. He couldn’t (or wouldn’t) even explain why he didn’t agree with her.

    I almost got the feeling that he really didn’t disagree with her, he was just too scared to agree and offend his base. What did you think?

  11. jimthomp87
    Posted May 23, 2008 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    I agree with you. He was not able to articulate a rationale for his position, only “we agree to disagree”.

    I know she was joking about her offer for him to walk her down the aisle later this summer (using humor to bail him out of an awkward moment, which was very gracious of her), but I think it would speak volumes if took her up on the offer :)

    JimT

  12. Brian
    Posted May 23, 2008 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    @ JimT: He might take her up on the offer… if she waited to marry after the election. :D

One Trackback

  1. By New York To Recognize Gay Marriage « In Repair on May 29, 2008 at 7:35 am

    [...] New Jersey, and Connecticut all have civil unions. California has a domestic partnership law, but is expected to recognize and allow same-sex marriage sometime this [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*