I like the ruling on principle.

<link>

On other hand, I think it was the whole gay marriage flap that partly helped Bush to victory to 2004, it galvanizes social conservatives and drives them to polls like almost nothing else does. Of course, this time there won't be any more constitutional reforms at state level on the ballet, but I can't help wishing that the CA court waited 8-9 more months before passing this ruling.

Yup, I know that's a very moral stance, and fellow pro-gay-righters are entitled to boo me. But the timing of this does worry me.................(though it would be interesting from an academic POV to see how Obama handles this on the trail).

I don't know. At this point (on this day), I'm feeling less than optimistic about the state of this country in general and the hatred and intolerance many Americans feel for one another specifically.

In that light, is it more important to get your candidate in office? Or to air our dirty racist, homophobic secrets in the light of day for all to see and really try and acknowledge and address for a change? I'm not sure where I stand on this...

Ok, you asked for it.

Boo, boo! Rubbish, slime, filth, muck! Boo, boo, boo!

The article's pretty clear about it; there's a history of gay marriage votes, voter initiatives, and now a ballot measure to enshrine their intolerance in the state Constitution. This would have been in the works whichever way the judges decided. And I just don't know if gay marriage supporters could have timed this case any better, if they had any control of it at all. If they did, certainly they're not doing themselves any favors.

I think the timing of letting females vote has hurt us too - it has allowed the Repubs to attack Pelosi and Hillary and.

MLK had something to say about people like you.

"I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

...

" I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

These people were married, and then had their marriages declared invalid by bigots - YEARS ago and have been waiting for this sludgy court to finally acknowledge their rights.

Sorry if that is inconvenient for you

Like the Rev. Wright/elitist stuff....better now than in September/October.

BTW, "gay marriage" might be yet another issue that McCain will go "wobbly" on, in his bid to win over moderates and Independents.

Yup, I know that's a very moral stance, and fellow pro-gay-righters are entitled to boo me.

******************************­******************************­*********

Sorry, typo! I meant 'NOT very moral stance' -- as in I very much want this ruling -- I just want it on ...say...Nov 6, 2008!

Tip, your ire is quite justified on face of my top-post....but no, I wasn't talking about 'wait another 3 years' etc etc....I was merely bemoaning the fact that it came so close to -- and yet before Nov 4, 2008! And its partly because....well, frankly, I'm quite convinced the fate of Roe v Wade hangs on this election, however much other folks assure me that McCain is a closet pro-choicer.

So, (and agreed, I'm a happily married heterosexual and so its easier for me to take this stance) -- I would have been ecstatic if this decision came on Nov 6. But I'll take comfort in those posts that say better now than in Sept/Oct.....maybe this WON'T be a repeat of 2004!

In that light, is it more important to get your candidate in office?

I think the one thing that George W. Bush proved very decisively is that Presidents DO matter -- and bad Presidents can put the country in a sinkhole out of which it could take decades to recover. While I don't think McCain will be anywhere near as bad as Bush, I still worry.........

Or to air our dirty racist, homophobic secrets in the light of day for all to see and really try and acknowledge and address for a change?

America's homophobia may be dirty but it sure ain't secret! The american right has worn their homophobia like a badge of pride, they've wrapped themselves in it and flaunted it in face of all the nations that have far more progressive and humane policies towards gays. This isn't something that needs to be 'acknowledged' or 'brought to light' the way racism might need to be -- its right out there under the spotlights for all to see!

konark_girl:

On other hand, I think it was the whole gay marriage flap that partly helped Bush to victory to 2004, it galvanizes social conservatives and drives them to polls like almost nothing else does.

It would be, I think, a monstrous mistake for the GOP to try to beat that dead horse one more time. They are in total disarray - full panic after losing a 3rd special election in a solidly Republican district. In the face of corruption and incompetence, another appeal to gay-bashing would be the end of the Republican party.

If I were a Dem running against a Rep, I would pray they make this an issue... and then bury them with it.

Tip's post mentions how long these people have been at it in court -- it's hard to blame them for the timing after four years or so. I doubt they had any control over when the decision came down.

That said...why do you think a gay-bash would spell doom for the GOP, bugger? I would like for the religious right to get wise to how they are being used, but are they coming to this realization now? Or do you think the gay marriage issue has been played out?

It would be, I think, a monstrous mistake for the GOP to try to beat that dead horse one more time. They are in total disarray - full panic after losing a 3rd special election in a solidly Republican district. In the face of corruption and incompetence, another appeal to gay-bashing would be the end of the Republican party.

There is a saying in my part of India -- "may your words receive flowers and incense" -- basically means "I so much hope that your words turn out true!"

I hereby say that of your above post :)

The outing of various closeted gay Republicans since the previous election cycle would seem to temper the desire of the GOP to try to make this an issue again so soon.

Add to that the fact that they did absolutely nothing to follow through on their promises to take up the issue after the 2004 election and I think that you have very little about which to be concerned.

silent.observer:

That said...why do you think a gay-bash would spell doom for the GOP, bugger? I would like for the religious right to get wise to how they are being used, but are they coming to this realization now? Or do you think the gay marriage issue has been played out?

I really think it is. At least for the time being. As KG points out, they played that card heavily in the 2004 election and it helped Bush win. Given his astonishingly low approval rating, I think a lot of people feel suckered.

The GOP revealed their new slogan yesterday: "The Change You Deserve" - a desperate bid to run away from the past eight years. (And unintentionally funny, too! <link>)

If they try to stick with "change" as a slogan (do they really have a choice?) and then come back with the same old crap about gay marriage threatening society, I think any decent Democrat could beat them to death with it.

People are disillusioned with the Republican party - I think any hint of these old school social issues is going to sour real quickly with voters in November.

"MLK had something to say about people like you."

Sheesh, does konark_girl really deserve that kind of browbeating?

Now don't get me wrong, I take your point about "moderates" and justice deferred. (Good move letting MLK Jr. do most of the talking, by the way.) I don’t disagree with it. In fact, I’m glad you made it. Believe it or not, I’ll bet I’m just as frustrated as you are with what feels like the glacial pace of, well, let’s call it “social enlightenment” in this country. It is absolutely maddening to hear mostly well-intentioned but obviously unaffected folks counsel patience or, worse yet, brush away issues that are critical matters of simple justice to some as mere trifles. Easy for them to say… But do you really think k_g was saying either of those things? I sure don’t.

Heck tip, I understand the rationale behind your bulldog tactics. I see a need for them; I get how they can be effective. But if you bite everyone who even appears to be standing in your way, pretty soon most everyone will see you as little more than a rabid, one-issue partisan. We all need friends and allies, don’t we? And reasonable people can disagree about timing and tactics without being traitors to the cause.

Sure, it's true that Martin Luther King Jr. said:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

But he also said:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

And:

“The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be...The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”

And, possibly my favorite:

“Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.”

Take care.

I think Konark Girl raises a legitimate concern -- I am cautiously optimistic that it will not be the galvanizing issue that was the case in 2004.

The second state to do this is not nearly as dramatic as the first, especially as heterosexual marriage in Mass has not yet totally unraveled. Besides, most of them probably figure that California is all fruits and nuts anyway.

"MLK had something to say about people like you."

Sheesh, does konark_girl really deserve that kind of browbeating?

******************************­******************************­************

Thanks for the support, Havelock :)

Though in fairness to him, I can understand how Tip's feeling (and I did say I expected to get boo-ed, though I wasn't expecting such big doses of MLK :)). Possibly if my own rights to marry the person I love were at stake, I'd care less about the next election circle or any other issues at stake and take the legal victories whenever and wherever they came.

I certainly hope this will be a society-changing event for USA. The fact that gay/lesbians who are not CA residents can also go there to get married might make this a more far-reaching change than the MA law.

But I also very much hope that it doesn't become the 'deciding factor' in the '08 elections. I care about gay rights, but I also care about reproductive rights!