Ok. I'm glad this one got the green, even if mine was first.

:(

Uh, I don't get it.

So Gavin Newsom will not DIAF, after all!

Next up: Marrying your cat.

Let the orgy begin...

meh - gay's aren't illegal, nor were their partnerships

Ha good headline!

YEAH GIRLFRIEND!!!!

HOORAY and Jodie Foster is back on the market just in time!!!

Why are Conservatives against Liberty and Freedom?

I now pronounce you Man and Manuel?

Kome: Let the orgy begin...

*removes pants*

I don't get it either.

tomlennon: meh - gay's aren't illegal, nor were their partnerships

Yeah, but now there can be a LOT more "marriage for citizenship" kinda deals.

Did these people learn NOTHING from Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, Canada, Mexico City, or Massachusetts? All those places have been utterly destroyed by an angry God! Swarms of gay frogs spitting blood descending from the sky! The acid hurricanes! The explosive diarrhea locusts!

Ooooh....

*grabs popcorn*

This is going to be good.

What kinds of marriage do these quotes describe: (new window)

Ahhh... the ol' bait-and-switch, subby?

TheCharmerUnderMe: Next up: Marrying your cat.

2/10

I want to marry a turtle.

So the roommate will be moving to CA soon...

Back to the pile!

Next logical question: Does the full faith and credit clause make the rest of the states honor it?

Barnacles!: YEAH GIRLFRIEND!!!!

Supermodel

/WORK!
//Work it, girl!

ShawnDoc: Uh, I don't get it.

Many "illegals" are hispanics.
Hispanics are by and large devout Catholics.
Catholics hate teh ghey.
Therefore, gays congregating in California will be a deterrent to gay-hating Catholic hispanics.

...or something like that

great, let the gays do whatever they need to do, cause then it will take away attention from the fact that you can buy Medical Weed here!

ShawnDoc: Uh, I don't get it.

Me too. WTF????????

TheCharmerUnderMe: Next up: Marrying your cat.

Or dog, or patio furniture, or.....

Civilization ends

Suicidal Writer: What kinds of marriage do these quotes describe: (new window)

It's comforting to know that my goofy image is likely to drown out whatever foolish message you're trying to push.

lohphat: Why are Conservatives against Liberty and Freedom?

Well they DO quote a radical hippy liberal Jew in the process of pushing said agenda.


('cept all that fairy "peace" crap.)

Subby,

Yay equal rights!

Here's some early analysis of the opinion, found here:

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a "marriage" whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a "domestic partnership." The question we must address is whether,
under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

...

... we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish - with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life - an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.

...

The Attorney General, observing that fundamental constitutional rights generally are defined by substance rather than by form, reasons that so long as the state affords a couple all of the constitutionally protected substantive incidents of marriage, the state does not violate the couple's constitutional right to marry simply by assigning their official relationship a name other than marriage. Because the Attorney General maintains that California's current domestic partnership legislation affords samesex couples all of the core substantive rights that plausibly may be guaranteed to an individual or couple as elements of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry, the Attorney General concludes that the current California statutory scheme
relating to marriage and domestic partnership does not violate the fundamental constitutional right to marry embodied in the California Constitution.

...

Under the current statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple's constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

...

Footnote 2, page 3:

We note that although much of the academic literature discussing the legal recognition of same-sex relationships frequently uses the term "domestic partnership" to describe a legal status that accords only comparatively few legal rights or obligations to same-sex couples, the current California statutes grant samesex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law. (The few relatively minor differences that remain are described below (post, pp. 42-44, fn. 24).) In light of the comprehensive nature of the rights afforded by California's domestic partnership legislation, the status of such partnership in California is comparable to the status designated as a "civil union" in statutes enacted in recent years in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont

Doesn't appear as if the decision is based on the "relatively minor differences" in rights, but rather on equal protection grounds (using strict scrutiny) and on the basis of language.

Further gives credence to my belief that what is really being fought over in the gay marriage debate is not the underlying rights gay couples receive versus straight couples, but rather the language used to describe their relationships.

Lawnchair: The explosive diarrhea locusts!

Ugh. That's the worst part.

TMBGfreak: Next logical question: Does the full faith and credit clause make the rest of the states honor it?

Not likely, seeing as California doesn't honor concealed carry permits from Texas.

kennedy311:

Wouldn't that be: 3. Make him open the box?

I see what you did there subby.

*golf clap*

Wow, this weekend's Gay Pride Festival in Long Beach will be the gayest of all with that announcement!

California complies with Republican requests to reduce the number of illegals. Bonus points for creativity in doing so strike down domestic partnership ban so they can exploit the issue in November and scare religious Southerners into turning out in record numbers.

FTFY

As long as I stay the pitcher.

Although it would be nice to have a man to replace all the man chores I do now, plus the yardwork.

DeadZone: kennedy311:

Wouldn't that be: 3. Make him open the box?

Yeah, I thought about that after I posted it. Dammit.

vernonFL: Yay equal rights!

What "right", afforded by law, did a straight man have that a gay man did not?

Welcome to the world of a spouse in California having an automatic right to spousal support and community property. Better get those pre-nubs worked out 1st.

Lawnchair: Did these people learn NOTHING from Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, Canada, Mexico City, or Massachusetts? All those places have been utterly destroyed by an angry God! Swarms of gay frogs spitting blood descending from the sky! The acid hurricanes! The explosive diarrhea locusts!

That one surprises me. From apartheid to progressive in less than thirty years is pretty damned impressive!

SchlingFo: Not likely, seeing as California doesn't honor concealed carry permits from Texas.

Zing

TMBGfreak: Next logical question: Does the full faith and credit clause make the rest of the states honor it?

i doubt it..
marriages that were done in MA aren't recognized in any other state...