Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[War-Horse]

As we know all too well, people who quote the Bible, reference scripture, and teachings of “the church” are the worst sinners of all: I do not share your psycho-spiritual beliefs so its tenets are really nothing to me, but those of you whom love to invoke it routinely violate the teachings of your own faith.

How bizarre that you would expect a nonbeliever to follow your psycho-spiritual beliefs when you cannot do so yourself.  It is you who are damned. 

Good luck with that.....

[Deicide]

And no answer to why people like anal sex and coat their dicks with feces.

[Benny B]

And no answer to why people like anal sex and coat their dicks with feces.

I'm waiting on Bay's classic f@g response as well.

I admit to...eh...experimenting with the activity on occasion with a former girlfriend, simply because she liked it and wanted me to stick it in her butt.  As a straight man I've never have had any real desire for anal sex. That's the exit hole...not meant for entry. I think for some men it is a power trip to have a woman submit herself to that act. It basically implies that she is willing to do anything to please you if she lets you bang her anally.

[Deicide]

I'm waiting on Bay's classic f@g response as well.

I admit to...eh...experimenting with the activity on occasion with a former girlfriend, simply because she liked it and wanted me to stick it in her butt.  As a straight man I've never have had any real desire for anal sex. That's the exit hole...not meant for entry. I think for some men it is a power trip to have a woman submit herself to that act. It basically implies that she is willing to do anything to please you if she lets you bang her anally.

Yuck....

[MCWAY]

I've heard the "activist judges circumventing the will of the people" argument too many times, and I've had enough. Sadly, in American history there have been all too many cases when the will of the people was narrow-minded, ignorant, and exclusionary. Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia, also apealed to the justice system to pave the way for legalizing interracial marriage - which her state outlawed. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that Ms. Loving should have allowed the citizens of Virginia to vote to abolish their legislatively-approved Racial Integrity Act, or that Chief Justice Warren was an "activist judge" who circumvented the will of the people.

— Leah, Boston

That comparison isn't valid for one simple reason: Interracial marriage was ALREADY LEGAL in the state of Virginia, unless it involved white people. The Supreme Court pointed that out.

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

And...

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

[MCWAY]

Californians narrowly reject gay marriage, poll finds
Voters also back a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions, a new Times/KTLA survey shows.
By Cathleen Decker
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 23, 2008

By bare majorities, Californians reject the state Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages and back a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at the November ballot that would outlaw such unions, a Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.

But the survey also suggested that the state is moving closer to accepting nontraditional marriages, which could create openings for supporters of same-sex marriage as the campaign unfolds.

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

The results of the survey set up an intriguing question for the fall campaign: Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?

Either way, the poll suggests the outcome of the proposed amendment is far from certain. Overall, it was leading 54% to 35% among registered voters. But because ballot measures on controversial topics often lose support during the course of a campaign, strategists typically want to start out well above the 50% support level.

"Although the amendment to reinstate the ban on same-sex marriage is winning by a small majority, this may not bode well for the measure," said Times Poll director Susan Pinkus.

The politically volatile issue leaped into the forefront last week after the court made its judgment in a case that stemmed from San Francisco's unsuccessful effort in 2004 to allow gay marriage in the city. The court's decision, on a 4-3 vote by judges largely appointed by Republican governors, came eight years after Californians overwhelmingly banned gay marriage through a ballot measure, Proposition 22.

The court's verdict threw the issue forward until November, when Californians are expected to be asked to amend the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. An affirmative vote on the amendment would reinstate the ban and lead to more litigation over the issue.

Before the court took action, opponents of same-sex marriage already had submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office to put the matter on the November ballot. Secretary of State Debra Bowen has said she will determine its fate by mid-June, but the backers are believed to have collected enough signatures to qualify.

Asking for a delay

Thursday, supporters of the proposed amendment asked the court to place its decision on hold until after the election. Failure to do so "risks legal havoc and uncertainty," lawyers for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund argued, noting that same-sex marriages entered into between now and November would be under a legal cloud if voters approved the ban. Court experts, however, say it is unlikely the justices would agree to such a lengthy delay in implementing their ruling.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two bills sanctioning gay marriage, has said that he respects the court's decision and that he will not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Californians were split on his stance, with 45% agreeing and 46% disagreeing.

The governor, who in his nearly five years in office has often butted heads with his GOP colleagues, was once again on the opposite side of most in his party: Nearly 7 in 10 Republicans disagreed with his views on the court decision and the amendment.

Becky Espinoza of Kerman, an agricultural town west of Fresno, said that if the amendment made the ballot, she would vote for it. But she acknowledged some ambivalence about the matter coming before voters at all.

"I just don't believe a man and a man should be married," said the 57-year-old Republican. "How can I put this -- it's just not right. I was brought up very old-fashioned."

Even within her own family, however, there are differences of opinion. A younger daughter, she said, feels "there's nothing wrong with that."

"To kids nowadays, it's like 'Oh well.' Maybe it is 'Oh well.' They see it. We didn't see it. It was one of those in-the-closet things."

On the opposite side is Lena Neal of Perris, who said she supported the court's decision and would vote against an amendment. Neal, a Democrat, based her views on the experiences of an elderly family member, who she said was part of a decades-long same-sex partnership. When one of them entered the hospital, she said, the other was not allowed to visit -- that benefit was restricted to family members.

"It's their right," she said of gay marriage. "They're humans."

Indeed, the poll found that views on gay marriage were greatly influenced by personal connections. Of those who said they knew a friend, a family member or a co-worker who was gay, nearly half approved of the court's ruling -- more than twice the proportion among those who said they were not acquainted with a gay person.

The divide was as stark when it came to the proposed constitutional amendment: 70% of voters who said they did not know a gay person would vote for it, a position taken by just 49% of voters who said they knew a gay person.

The poll, under Pinkus' direction, interviewed 834 Californians, including 705 registered voters, on Tuesday and Wednesday. The margin of sampling error is 3 percentage points in either direction overall and 4 points for registered voters. Margins were larger for demographic subgroups.

The poll found the state polarized when it came to gay marriage. In most surveys, majority views are somewhat ambivalent -- but on this issue they were sharply drawn. More than 4 in 10 Californians said they strongly disapproved of the court's decision, while almost 3 in 10 strongly approved. Smaller groups described their views as lukewarm.

Generally, the poll found consistency between views on the court decision and the proposed amendment. Overall, Californians opposed the court's view by a 52%-41% gap. The strongest opposition came from Republicans and self-described conservatives. Married respondents, those without college degrees, senior citizens, white evangelical Christians and those in suburban Southern California were also strongly opposed.

Those same groups were also among the strongest backers of the proposed amendment.

Most supportive of the court decision were liberals -- more than 7 in 10 of whom favored the ruling -- Democratic men and Democratic women, whites with college degrees and Bay Area residents.

Majority support -- if barely -- came from the two political groups whose backing generally spells success in California: The state's largest party, Democrats, backed it by a 55%-39% margin, and the fastest-growing political group, independents, supported it 51% to 40%.

Yet support for the ruling did not necessarily lead to opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment, and vice versa. Democrats and independents narrowly backed the amendment despite their support for the court action. Democratic men favored the ruling but were split on the amendment. Democratic women, meanwhile, approved of both the court decision and the amendment.

Effect on the election?

The interaction between the amendment and the presidential election is difficult to divine six months from election day. Among the reasons is that the court put itself at odds with the candidates -- neither Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois, nor Republican McCain, a senator from Arizona, has backed gay marriage. All have sided instead with civil unions that would ensure benefits for same-sex partners.

For the candidates, the confluence of the gay marriage issue and the presidential election represents risk. For the Democratic nominee, the party's traditional allegiance with the gay community could lead to pressure on the candidate to embrace gay marriage -- perhaps alienating more moderate voters here and elsewhere.

McCain, meanwhile, will be pinched between the party's religious base, which is strongly in favor of the amendment, and the independent voters who generally recoil from social issue battles but whom McCain needs in order to win.

Some leeway

The poll suggested that the candidates may have a little leeway: Only 1 in 4 registered voters said they would vote only for a candidate who agreed with their own position on marriage. Almost 6 in 10 said they could vote for a candidate with whom they disagreed -- suggesting that the issue was far from the top of most voters' agendas.

Responding to a separate question, only 10% of registered voters said that gay marriage was the most important issue facing the state, although more than 5 in 10 voters characterized it as important, just not the most important. Another third of voters said it was not important at all.

Among those who felt it was the most important, more than 6 in 10 were conservatives or those who consider themselves part of the Republican religious base. They were overwhelmingly voting for McCain, the poll found.

But those who felt it was either not important, or not the most important issue facing California, were siding with a Democratic candidate over McCain.

The problem with that, BayGBM, is that, when an amendment goes to the ballot, the percentages by which it passes is higher than the sample poll taken in the same state (even in blue states).

And, if memory serves me correctly, this went down in Hawaii, an very-blue state, over a decade ago. Its Supreme Court ruled that the laws that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman (1M-1W, for simplicity's sake) were unconstitutional. However, the voters put a constitutional amendment on the ballot and passed it by a 69-31 margin.

There's only one way to find out how the voters feel about this issue: Take it to the ballot box.

[MCWAY]

This cartoon is 4 years old... is it still relevant? 

Nope!! Not now, not then.

When "gay marriage" advocates get a call in their favor (i.e. what went down in Mass. an California), it's a banner day for America, a great day for "civil rights", etc.

Yet, when they get beat (i.e. a constitutional amendment gets passed, as could happen in six months in the Golden state), all of a sudden, we've got more important issues to address.

After all, American simply can't spare the extra 3-5 seconds it take to punch "Yes" or "No" on the part where there an amendment that defines marriage as a 1M-1W union.

[Dos Equis]

The problem with that, BayGBM, is that, when an amendment goes to the ballot, the percentages by which it passes is higher than the sample poll taken in the same state (even in blue states).

And, if memory serves me correctly, this went down in Hawaii, an very-blue state, over a decade ago. Its Supreme Court ruled that the laws that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman (1M-1W, for simplicity's sake) were unconstitutional. However, the voters put a constitutional amendment on the ballot and passed it by a 69-31 margin.

There's only one way to find out how the voters feel about this issue: Take it to the ballot box.

Correct.  Three justices in Hawaii tried to impose this on the people.  Seventy percent of the voters then reserved marriage to a man and woman.  And this is arguably the most liberal state in the country.  Only 11 of our 76 state legislators are Republican.  Liberals have controlled the state for over 40 years.   

[MCWAY]

Correct.  Three justices in Hawaii tried to impose this on the people.  Seventy percent of the voters then reserved marriage to a man and woman.  And this is arguably the most liberal state in the country.  Only 11 of our 76 state legislators are Republican.  Liberals have controlled the state for over 40 years.   

The folks in California are asking the state Supreme Court to stay its decision, until this get solved at the polls. The Court decision becomes final on June 14. However, there may be another hiccup. By the same state Constitution, legal forms can't be changed, unless such is passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor (in this case, a certain 7-time Mr. Olympia).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=65172

http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9906



According to the WorldNet article, the earliest this can happen is January 2009. If that's the case, this puts a monkeywrench in the plans of same-sex couples. By the time this process even gets started, the voters of California can approved the amendment, hence putting this issue to rest in the Golden State.

Also (per the Campaign for Children and Families site):

"Unlike Massachusetts, which has no statutes on marriage licenses forms and processes, California cannot change its standard marriage form or processes until the Legislature passes and the Governor signs legislation in response to the Supreme Court's ruling," explained Thomasson.  "The Governor's people cannot unilaterally change the marriage forms. That requires legislation or an initiative."

"The Supreme Court can't require the Legislature to do anything," said Gary Kreep, executive director of the California-based United States Justice Foundation.  "All the court could do is declare a statute unconstitutional, although in this case there was no basis for it.  After that, it's up to the Legislature or the voters to respond.  The Schwarzenegger administration can't do anything to the marriage form and processes until the Legislature passes a bill changing the existing statutes."

The California Constitution expressly prohibits the judicial and executive branches from making laws (Article 3, Section 3); only the Legislature and the people using the initiative process may change the law (Article 4, Section 1).  The Governor must faithfully implement California's statutes (Article 5, Section 1).  The Constitution can only be changed with voter approval (Article 18).


This also causes a problem from non-California residents with plans of getting "married" there and returning to their home states, demanding that their marriage licenses be recognized. Some legal experts see this as a ploy to ultimately reverse the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defines marriage as a 1M-1W union and declares that states do not have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.

[Dos Equis]

The folks in California are asking the state Supreme Court to stay its decision, until this get solved at the polls. The Court decision becomes final on June 14. However, there may be another hiccup. By the same state Constitution, legal forms can't be changed, unless such is passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor (in this case, a certain 7-time Mr. Olympia).

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=65172

http://www.savecalifornia.com/getpluggedin/news_details.php?newsid=9906

According to these articles, the earliest this can happen is January 2009. If that's the case, this puts a monkeywrench in the plans of same-sex couples. By the time this process even gets started, the voters of California can approved the amendment, hence putting this issue to rest in the Golden State.

This also causes a problem from non-California residents with plans of getting "married" there and returning to their home states, demanding that their marriage licenses be recognized. Some legal experts see this as a ploy to ultimately reverse the Defense of Marriage Act, which federally defines marriage as a 1M-1W union and declares that states do not have to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.

Interesting development. 

I've always questioned what will happen when a court-ordered homosexual marriage in one state runs up against the Defense of Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in another state.  Maybe Decker can comment on this? 

[MCWAY]

Interesting development. 

I've always questioned what will happen when a court-ordered homosexual marriage in one state runs up against the Defense of Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in another state.  Maybe Decker can comment on this? 

That hasnt been an issue, because the lone state in which gay "marriage" is legal already has a separate law that states that it will not issue marriage licenses to any couples, who reside in states where such would be illegal.

As for the Supreme Court, there are two cases that address this issue (indirectly). One is Murhphy v. Ramsey, which aimed to stop polygamy:

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.


The other is a Minnesota Supreme court decision backed by the federal Supreme Court, Baker v. Nelson. It basically rejected the right to same-sex "marriage", as defining marriage as a 1M-1W union did not violate the 14th amendment. When this ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, it was rejected for lack of a substantial federal question (thus making it binding on all lower courts). The high Court has not addressed this issue since that time (1971).

So, if it does go up again, gay "marriage" advocates must make the case as to why defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates the 14th amendment now; whereas it did not 37 years ago.

Also of note is that the gay couple who filed the suit, tried using Loving v. Virginia, which occured less than 5 years prior, to make the case for gay "marriage". However, that tactic was ineffective.

[Deicide]

I wish these religious nutters would come clean and go to a court and say that it is all in a magic book of myths and fables and therefore gay marriage should be outlawed; that's what they think; that's what they should do.

[Dos Equis]

That hasnt been an issue, because the lone state in which gay "marriage" is legal already has a separate law that states that it will not issue marriage licenses to any couples, who reside in states where such would be illegal.

As for the Supreme Court, there are two cases that address this issue (indirectly). One is Murhphy v. Ramsey, which aimed to stop polygamy:

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.


The other is a Minnesota Supreme court decision backed by the federal Supreme Court, Baker v. Nelson. It basically rejected the right to same-sex "marriage", as defining marriage as a 1M-1W union did not violate the 14th amendment. When this ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, it was rejected for lack of a substantial federal question (thus making it binding on all lower courts). The high Court has not addressed this issue since that time (1971).

So, if it does go up again, gay "marriage" advocates must make the case as to why defining marriage as a 1M-1W union violates the 14th amendment now; whereas it did not 37 years ago.

Also of note is that the gay couple who filed the suit, tried using Loving v. Virginia, which occured less than 5 years prior, to make the case for gay "marriage". However, that tactic was ineffective.

Good points.  I hope this is something that is ultimately decided by voters. 

[bigdumbbell]

And no answer to why people like anal sex and coat their dicks with feces.

u dont do colonics?

[BayGBM]

Disney opens Fairy Tale Wedding service to gays
By GARY GENTILE, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- The Walt Disney Co. has changed its popular Fairy Tale Wedding program to allow for commitment ceremonies between same-sex couples.

Disney had previously limited access to the program to couples with a valid marriage license.

The company said it will now include ceremonies for gay couples at its parks and cruise line after being contacted by a gay couple that wanted to participate in the program.

"We believe this change is consistent with Disney's long-standing policy of welcoming every guest in an inclusive environment," Disney Parks and Resorts spokesman Donn Walker said Friday. "We want everyone who comes to celebrate a special occasion at Disney to feel welcome and respected."

The Fairy Tale Wedding service offers packages starting at $8,000 and running to $45,000 or more.

Ceremonies are offered at Disneyland in California and at the Walt Disney World Resort in Florida, as well as on Disney's cruise ships.

Packages include flowers, dining, music and other extras, depending on the location. Walt Disney World has a dedicated wedding pavilion and for an extra fee, couples can exchange vows in front of the park's iconic attractions, including Cinderella's castle.

The more lavish packages also include having Mickey and Minnie Mouse in formal wear as guests.

Groups not affiliated with Disney have held annual "gay days" celebrations at Disney parks for years. Company officials have taken a tolerant attitude to the weekend, allowing party promoters to rent out parks after hours and rebuffing religious groups that condemned Disney.

In 2005, Southern Baptists ended an eight-year boycott of the Walt Disney Co. for violating "moral righteousness and traditional family values."

[OzmO]

I heard on the radio on the way to work this morning, on the Armstrong & Getty show, that 51% of people in California favor the legalization of Gay Marriages while 42% oppose.

[BayGBM]

CALIFORNIA MAJORITY BACKS GAY MARRIAGE
Field Poll director calls results a milestone
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 28, 2008


In a dramatic reversal of decades of public opinion, California voters agree by a slim majority that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, according to a Field Poll released today.

By 51-42 percent, registered voters said they believed same-sex marriage should be legal in California. Only 28 percent favored gay marriage in 1977, when the Field Poll first asked that question, said Mark DiCamillo, the poll's director.

"This is a milestone in California," he said. "You can't downplay the importance of a change in an issue we've been tracking for 30 years."

While opposition to same-sex marriage has been weakening for years in California, supporters have remained a minority. In March 2000, for example, voters overwhelmingly backed Proposition 22, a statute that said the state would recognize only the marriage of a man and a woman. A 2006 Field Poll showed that half the state's voters still disapproved of same-sex marriage.

But the state Supreme Court's decision this month to overturn Prop. 22 might have turned the tide, DiCamillo said.

"There's a certain validation when the state Supreme Court makes a ruling that you can't discriminate when it comes to marriage," he said. "That may have been enough to move some people who were on the fence about same-sex marriage."

Younger voters and those living in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and other Democratic urban strongholds were the most supportive of same-sex marriage, the poll found, while older voters and those living in the more conservative inland areas were more opposed.

The poll also provided a boost for groups planning to battle a measure to ban same-sex marriage that is expected to go on the ballot in November as a constitutional amendment. By 51-43 percent, registered voters oppose changing the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to the poll.

Results differ from other poll

A statewide Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll released last week showed different results: 54 percent of registered voters said they would support the initiative that would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

"When we get results that we think are surprising, we double- and triple-check our numbers, and that's what we did here," said DiCamillo. "Everything in this poll is consistent internally."

It's not unusual for two polls to have conflicting numbers, said Steve Kinney, a veteran GOP pollster.

"It's all in the methodology, who you actually talked to and whether they accurately represented that state as a whole," he said. "But even if you have confidence in your numbers, you're always scared if you come up with something totally different. Are you wrong, or is the other guy?"

Support for same-sex marriage has been growing steadily in California, and the youngest voters are pushing the hardest. Among voters 18 to 29 years old, 68 percent back gay marriage, compared with only 36 percent of those 65 and older, the Field Poll found.

It's a "generational replacement, with older folks being replaced by younger voters very much in favor of same-sex marriage," DiCamillo said.

Those younger voters "have grown up with people who are out in their lives, whether it's politicians in the news or people they know," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, one of the groups opposed to the proposed initiative to ban same-sex marriage.

But the dramatic movement on the issue over the past few years hasn't been by accident, Kors said. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's dramatic - and later overturned - decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004, the Legislature's passage of two bills to authorize same-sex marriage and other efforts have helped educate people about the issue and bring same-sex marriage into the California mainstream, he said.

"Legislators voted for same-sex marriage, and none of them were voted out of office," Kors said. "This (poll result) is what we'd expect, but it's also the first time we've seen a majority for same-sex marriage, and the Field Poll is as credible as it comes."

Supporters of the new initiative shrugged off the poll results, saying that it is a long time until the November election.

"The Supreme Court ruling only just happened," said Karen England, spokeswoman for the Capitol Resource Institute, one of the groups backing a ban on same-sex marriage, which is expected to be approved for the ballot in mid-June. "Once we have the measure on the ballot, the campaign can change everything."

England said plenty of voters calling her group are outraged that the Supreme Court overturned Prop. 22 after it passed with 61 percent of the vote. She also questioned the accuracy of pre-election polls, noting that support for Prop. 22 on election day was much stronger than was shown in polls taken days before the vote.

"People might say one thing to a pollster, but they make their own decision in the voting booth," she said.

How state splits on issue

The new Field Poll highlights the battleground for the fall campaign, showing the state splitting dramatically along regional, ideological and religious grounds.

The heavily Democratic urban areas strongly support same-sex marriage; 55 percent of Los Angeles County and an overwhelming 68 percent of the Bay Area are in favor. By contrast, only 38 percent of the Central Valley and 41 percent of Southern California outside of Los Angeles are in favor.

Same-sex marriage also digs a chasm between California's heavily populated coast and its inland areas; 55 percent of coastal voters back same-sex marriage compared with 40 percent in support inland.

The issue divides along liberal-conservative lines; 85 percent of strong liberals are in favor, and 85 percent of strong conservatives are opposed.

Protestants, who make up a third of the state's voters, oppose same-sex marriage 34 percent to 57 percent, while Catholics are split almost equally, 45 percent in favor to 48 percent opposed. Those with no religious preference back same-sex marriage 81 percent to 12 percent.

America will be watching the fall campaign over same-sex marriage, which will have national implications, said Kors of Equality California.

"It's going to be an intense and enormous undertaking, but we're confident we'll win," he said. "But we also know that the other side is out there working just as hard and feeling just as confident."

The poll is based on a telephone survey of 1,052 registered voters taken May 17-26. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Status report

The law: The state Supreme Court this month overturned a ban on same-sex marriage approved by voters in 2000.

Weddings: Counties are preparing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples when the ruling takes effect in mid-June.

New initiative: A constitutional amendment declaring that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid" is likely to qualify for the November ballot.

[MCWAY]

Those polls mean absolutely nothing. It only matters, when it's all on the line, when the amendment is on the ballot.

What gets me is, if those who believe that marriage is strictly a 1M-1W union can get signatures and have state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot, what's stopping advocates of gay "marriage" from doing the same? Where are their ballot drives? Where are their petitions?

Again, something similar happened in Hawaii. The state court overturned the marriage law. There were polls cited about alleged accepted of same-sex "marriage". But, the constitutional amendment (defining marriage as a 1M-1W union) passed 69-31.

[OzmO]

Those polls mean absolutely nothing. It only matters, when it's all on the line, when the amendment is on the ballot.

What gets me is, if those who believe that marriage is strictly a 1M-1W union can get signatures and have state constitutional amendment placed on the ballot, what's stopping advocates of gay "marriage" from doing the same? Where are their ballot drives? Where are their petitions?

Again, something similar happened in Hawaii. The state court overturned the marriage law. There were polls cited about alleged accepted of same-sex "marriage". But, the constitutional amendment (defining marriage as a 1M-1W union) passed 69-31.

Agreed.   But it's inevitable, it will happen at some point in the future.

[MCWAY]

Good points.  I hope this is something that is ultimately decided by voters. 

From what I've read so far, it should happen. Unlike Massachusetts, the legislature has no say as to whether or not a constitutional amendment can be put on the ballot (and neither does the governor). All that is needed is the correct amount of certified signatures from registered voters. 1.2 million signatures were submitted; 695,000 are needed to get it done.

[MCWAY]

Agreed.   But it's inevitable, it will happen at some point in the future.

What will happen, gay "marriage" supporters will start petitions for constitutional amendments or gay "marriage" will get legalized nationwide, courtesy of a federal Supreme Court ruling?


Concerning the latter, that is what some who support same-sex "marriage" would like you to think. Voter apathy appears to be a strategy used, whenever this issue pops up. But, consider that less than 5 years ago, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage strictly as a 1M-1W union.

Now, 27 states have that, with Florida and California on tap to became 28 and 29.

The only chance that gay "marriage" becomes legal nation-wide is if the Supreme Court overturns its backing of Baker v. Nelson.

Because California doesn't have a residency requirement, the tactic will be for out-of-state gay couples to hit the Golden State, then sue to have their licenses recognized in their home state. That's a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does NOT require a state to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.

That may happen if there's no stay of this decision and licenses are issued, especially if the California amendment passes 6 months later.

[OzmO]

What will happen, gay "marriage" supporters will start petitions for constitutional amendments or gay "marriage" will get legalized nationwide, courtesy of a federal Supreme Court ruling?


Concerning the latter, that is what some who support same-sex "marriage" would like you to think. Voter apathy appears to be a strategy used, whenever this issue pops up. But, consider that less than 5 years ago, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage strictly as a 1M-1W union.

Now, 27 states have that, with Florida and California on tap to became 28 and 29.

The only chance that gay "marriage" becomes legal nation-wide is if the Supreme Court overturns its backing of Baker v. Nelson.

Because California doesn't have a residency requirement, the tactic will be for out-of-state gay couples to hit the Golden State, then sue to have their licenses recognized in their home state. That's a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does NOT require a state to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.

That may happen if there's no stay of this decision and licenses are issued, especially if the California amendment passes 6 months later.

Again, I don't disagree with anything you said here I think.   I'm just saying at some point it will be legal.  How that happens?  When that happens?  I'm not sure.  I don't think it will take another 50 years.

Personally, I don't care either way, what happens.  But i think BB is correct when he says it will happen at some point.

[Colossus_500]

What will happen, gay "marriage" supporters will start petitions for constitutional amendments or gay "marriage" will get legalized nationwide, courtesy of a federal Supreme Court ruling?


Concerning the latter, that is what some who support same-sex "marriage" would like you to think. Voter apathy appears to be a strategy used, whenever this issue pops up. But, consider that less than 5 years ago, only 4 states had constitutional amendments, defining marriage strictly as a 1M-1W union.

Now, 27 states have that, with Florida and California on tap to became 28 and 29.

The only chance that gay "marriage" becomes legal nation-wide is if the Supreme Court overturns its backing of Baker v. Nelson.

Because California doesn't have a residency requirement, the tactic will be for out-of-state gay couples to hit the Golden State, then sue to have their licenses recognized in their home state. That's a direct challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does NOT require a state to recognize gay "marriage" from another state.

That may happen if there's no stay of this decision and licenses are issued, especially if the California amendment passes 6 months later.

All the more reason that the upcoming presidential election is crucial seeing that whichever candidate wins will be replacing at least 2 Supreme Court Justices.

[BayGBM]

New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere
By JEREMY W. PETERS

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.

Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

[CARTEL]

Wait till some twinks start asking for union support and take half the earnings from some Bears.

Welcome to hell, funboys!

Be careful what you ask for