..."democracy" and "populism".

The people said that homosex marriage isn't marriage, and the supreme cout of CA corrected that populist ideal.

Urge folks to keep in mind that "populism" and "democracy" aren't inherently in congruency with freedom and liberty.

As an addendum, I fully support folks' life decisions, and I give not one damn what sort of orifice you prefer. I think it's a shame that there are people who would discriminate based on whether you prefer a hairy tush or not. Having said that, this is another valuable lesson that "populism" and "democracy" do NOT equate to freedom and liberty.

Keep this lesson in mind the next time that some tells you to support something because 50% + 1 of the polled electorate agrees: the electorate doesn't give a shit about your freedom.

The electorate be damned. Choose freedom whenever you can, please?

So, in contrast with GWB: freedom and democracy are not the same. Freedom is fundamental; democracy is a tool to choose laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm happy about the result, but unhappy about the timing. The Republicans will use this to rally the troops and boost turnout, which will be important because many of those on the far right are ambivalent about McCain. Most evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics would rather destroy themselves economically, prolong a losing war and trash the planet by re-electing Bush's policies reincarnated as a senile jingo with a wife who looks like Tammy Faye Bakker's anorexic twin sister than let two consenting adults who love each other get married.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why can't Gays wait until it's not a presidential election year to push this through..?

Think of all the deaths attributed to Bush and the radical right wing here in America since 2004 that could have been averted had there not been those decisions in Massachusetts and weddings in San Francisco and here near by in New Paltz NY..

In 6,000 years of recorded history marriage has been between a man and woman 6,000 years so why why why can't we wait one more lousy year to get Democrat in the White House to change this so Gays can get married like idiots and then divorced and sue each other over custody of their stupid mangy cats and wicker lawn furniture..?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We will WIN in (CA) November/2008 with our votes to BAN homosexual marriages with an amendment. We lost a battle in May/2008 but will WIN the WAR.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hope all the homo's and Latino's are happy now. Wouildn't bother me if California suceeded from the U.S. and called it Gayfornia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guess which US state has the lowest divorce rate?
(hint: it's that liberal and progressive one in the northeast, where they realise that gays getting married actually does not mean straights' marriages are doomed...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

indicate a false, erroneous, destructive position. GLBTQ are not trying to 'change human nature' - except perhaps, in the sense of continuing the change away from bigotry, prejudice and intolerance. But if you want someone to blame for that particular change, you can go back at least as far as Jesus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First - the proposed amendment in California was already in the works, already targeting the November general election - and announced as an effort to get conservative voters to the polls for the presidential election.

In other words, conservatives had already launched an attemt to make this a wedge issue for the 2008 election long before the CA Supreme court made their decision.

Second, voters tend to have a short-attention span, and $5 a gallon gas in July will chase most of the uproar about same-sex marriage off most people's radar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are two basic sources of laws in the United States: Statutory, or laws that occur as a result of legislative action, and Common, or laws that arise as a result of judicial interpretation of existing laws and constitutions.

The second source, when it arises from the Supreme Court of the United States of America, is the "law of the land," trumping all other laws. In 1967 (Loving v Virginia), the Supreme Court came to the same conclusion about the right to marry as the California Supreme Court did this week. The only difference being that the 1967 decision addressed interracial marriages.

We are a nation of laws. Laws whose sole purpose is to protect the individual rights and liberties of citizens. Therefore, the California decision must become the law of the land or the land will lose the authority upon which its laws are based.

This should be a time for celebration for all Americans who embrace, who extol, who love the American ideal of individual liberty and responsibility.

God bless the Supreme Court of California. God bless the Supreme Court of the United States as it fulfills its responsibility to America's citizens. And, finally, God bless America as its people come to embrace the values we hold so dear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Get thee to the back, you slimy fag." That should have been your topic title.

Or

"You're to blame if McCain wins the election."

Or

"Wait just a minute. I mean another year. No, I meant another decade. Oh heck. Just go away forever."


CIVIL RIGHTS DO NOT WAIT FOR A 'CORRECT' TIME.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why get in married in the first place?
In the second place ...

Everybody Wake Up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Legal entanglements?
More shysters please!
The right yes.
While the Timing is chosen by the opposition
To further their evil plans.
Bring every crack pot out of the closet for this one.
Black Boxes and caging aside.
They want to prolong their evil control.
The McBUSH & Co water slide to HELL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]