What's even worse is the Governator's belief that the judiciary should decide political questions like this one. 

". . . that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America's most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling" according to Yahoo.com news reports.

The Corporate View: It doesn't get much stuffier than this

The Gay View: It doesn't get much funnier than this

No, I was not surprised by that.  What I don't get is why we don't see that there is a desparity between the homosexual community and the heterosexual community.  Heterosexuals routinely live together and loathe the idea of getting married.  "It's just a piece of paper."  While hetero's avoid the marriage bonds like the plague, same-sex couples are desperate for it.  They claim it as a "right."

So, what I don't get, is why don't we heteros see it as a right?  Why wouldn't we want to have that right?  The Court is right when it observes that calling same-sex couples "married" won't hurt marriage; we do that quite well, thank you without their help.

Now it's time for prophecy.  The court hints that perhaps the state would have the right to rename the whole right of marriage into something else.  Would we care?  Instead of "This is my wife," it could be, "This is my state approved domestic partner."  And whose fault will it be?  Well, we will blame it on the gay community.  Surely it can't be our fault for not appreciating what we haved.

Oye! Let the faggots marry! I can't stop them!

Finally, someone isn't being a mouth breathing retard! Two states down and many more to go! Congratulations gay people of America!! I'll never marry and considered selling my right to marry on eBay, but I guess I don't need to now.

California plaintiffs Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis

Today at 10 a.m. Pacific Time, the Supreme Court of California declared that Lesbian and Gay couples have the right to marry, and that the state's attempt to prevent them from doing so violates the most basic principle of equal justice under law.

Proposition 22 is unconstitutional.

I expect the reaction of most Americans is "Okay, the other shoe has fallen. Now we've got Gay marriage. I wonder what's for supper?"

Politicians are already weighing in, and no doubt the decision will stoke all sorts of debate in the media, at least until Britney Spears pops off again.

Meanwhile over at the Church of the Gay-Hating Anglicans, people are running around screaming "The sky is falling! It's the anti-Christ! Run for your lives! America is doomed!" Several welcomed the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, the day the Empire of Jesus Strikes Back. One even predicted civil war.

Feh. Over this, dude?

Get a freakin' life. The world outside my window shows the grass still growing, the trees all leafed out, the winds calm, the earth at peace.

I expect that in the homes of the Lesbian and Gay couples I know, people are wondering about supper too.

Bart and Tony (!) may be having a discussion, "Whaddaya think? You wanna get married?" But the rest of us in the other 49 states (and 194 countries, including Taiwan) are not directly affected. This doesn't mean it's not momentous news; it is.

It will also have a serious impact on the Episcopal Church, which is having to spend way too much time fending off the Church of the Gay-Hating Anglicans.

What the decision shows Episcopalians is that we're not far off in our understanding of what justice requires. The Supreme Court of the most populous U.S. state has come to the same understanding, by a different set of ideas, by secular law.

This is a great day.

Disclosure: I married a wonderful guy named Jack in Cincinnati on Dec. 6, 1991, our fifth anniversary, with the giving and receiving of vows in front of 40 friends, presided over by the late Fr. Wayland Melton. My mom was there! I've got pictures.

Jack and I eventually separated, but we haven't been divorced, and if he needed me I'd be there for him. I didn't just promise Jack in those vows; I promised God as well.

I always wanted to get married, but for many years I held out, until the Church got its act together and approved Gay marriage. However, a major illness intervened, and I married Jack to let him know I'd always be with him.

He survived his illness, thanks be to God. But certainly it screwed up both our lives; ruined our business, destroyed my career. We had to let everything go, but I love him to this day, and he loves me.

I'm currently writing a novel in which a Gay wedding occurs in Chapter 1. Two guys marry each other, all alone, with only God as their witness. Catholic theology believes that the marriage partners perform the wedding, and the priest only blesses it. The novel doesn't articulate the theology, it just describes the action the two guys take.

So what about Bart and Tony(!) in California? They've been together for decades. They are serious, church-going Episcopalians. Should they do California's civil marriage once it goes into effect in 30 days?

Well, they should do whatever they want to, whatever God tells them to. It's not up to me to advise them on so personal a thing.

But I wouldn't be surprised if they wait, as I once wanted to do, until the day they can walk together down the aisle of their parish church, to reiterate the vows they've been living all this time—to do it in front of their friends, in front of the altar, and to receive the priest's blessing on God's behalf.

That will likely take legislation at the General Convention next year in… California. If it passes, it will probably come with another waiting period, as if people don't die while they're waiting.

Of course, we also know that the Church of the Gay-Hating Anglicans (and Mormons, Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Fundamentalists and Holy Rollers of All Sorts, ad nauseam) hope to talk California voters into nullifying the Supreme Court decision. I haven't seen any polls; some worry about a backlash today, which the Gay-Hating Church is hoping to take advantage of.

Voters can overturn this decision, but they can't overturn "Equal justice under law."

The same idea that makes you equal to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett makes Bart and Tony(!) equal to you. Pretty good idea, most people think.

You can't repeal equality. It's foundational, in California and everywhere else. Heck, the Supreme Court of California is dominated by Republicans, and even they can't repeal equality.

My crystal ball for seeing into the future is cloudy. But I seriously doubt that most discussions over the supper table tonight even mention Gay marriage.

(An online poll, the unscientific kind, on today's L.A. Times, got 17,000 votes by mid-afternoon, and Gay marriage was winning, 83% to 17%.)

So if I were advising Bart and Tony(!), here is what I might say.

As long as your health is good, and you've taken advantage of all available legal protections for your relationship and your estate, wait.

As prayerful, Christian guys, it will be a lot more fun to dress up, and walk down the aisle of your parish church, and kneel at the altar, and be solemn in making and receiving your vows before God and your friends, and receiving the Church's blessing.

Then, when you stand and turn and behold your friends in Christ, beaming back at you as the music plays just for your special moment, your joy will be complete.

Isn't that what we wish for all our friends when they get married? Why should same-sex couples be any different?

The good news is, Bart and Tony(!) made their vows long ago, and now even the California Supreme Court gives them its blessing. Heaven is singing today; alleluia.++

(ABC News) While running for the Senate in 2004, Obama called DOMA. "an abhorrent law" and accused those in Congress who voted for it of having only been interested in "perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue," according to a statement that he gave to the Windy City Times, a gay Chicago newspaper.

When he became a presidential candidate in 2007, Obama went on the record in a questionnaire for the Human Rights Campaign saying that he supports full repeal of DOMA.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, though, only supports repealing the portion of DOMA that blocks gays in state-recognized unions from receiving federal benefits. She would keep in place the part of DOMA that says a state does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage legally recognized in another state.

Part of the 1996 law, which was approved by former President Bill Clinton, stipulates that no state needs to recognize a marriage between people of the same sex even if it was legally recognized in another state.

You can read more about this at this link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4866998&page=1

This is definitely a step forward for America, although many countries in Europe already allow same sex marriage, but eh, we're slowly catching up! In the 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation." DUH!?

The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees. Although I don't find this surprising at all since many conservative republicans are gay men who will refuse to live out of the closet!

So congratulations to all the gays and the lesbians out there who can now start to live a "semi-normal" life, and i say "semi" only because they still have a long way to go to be completely free of discrimination, hate and assault.

Es el segundo estado, tras Massachusetts en permitir las bodas entre homosexuales.

Un pequeño paso para Estados Unidos. Un gran paso para la Igualdad.

Click here to read the Supreme Court Decision.

Naturally, gay marriage supporters hailed this ruling as a victory for their cause. However, their battle is far from over.

Currently, a coalition of religious and conservative social groups is putting together a measure that may make it onto the November ballot. The measure needs 694,354 signatures to make it on the ballot and these groups claim they have already accumulated 1.1 million signatures. This measure would allow the voters of California to decide whether or not to put a ban on gay marriage in the California constitution. If this measure passes in November, this will trump the California Supreme Court's decision.

We can be certain that gay marriage advocacy groups will fight any measure allowing the California voters to decide this. Liberal activist groups are rarely successful implementing their agenda with voters or elected officials, so resorting to the judiciary to get their way is what we've come to expect.

The ruling set off a big celebration at San Francisco City Hall. This will, no doubt, be an issue in this year's election process and is a winning issue for conservatives if they choose to use it.

I woke up this morning and it was cloudy, and I thought, darn, I was hoping for Sunshine.

But by 9am, it had burned off and it was sunny. My English Lit class had breakfast picnic in the "courtyard" behind my school. My teacher made us eggs. They were great, it was great.

In fourth period, we went scuba diving (in a tank). It wasn't my favorite thing I've done in Outdoor Ed.

And when I came out of school, it was HOT - the thermometer says it's 86.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Even better - I LEAVE FOR CALIFORNIA IN ONE WEEK!!!! (Wordpress says it's 11:02, but it's 4:07 pm PDT by my clock.

still...ONE WEEK!!!!!

So I say snaps to California for joining Massachusetts to become only the second state to make this move.  Its good to see that two individual states are up to par with a number of companies around the world.

Oh and snaps...thats a Legally Blonde reference for you :-)

This is not surprise, given the dearth of low-cost options available to these employers. Time spent on paperwork and administration aside, most plans require an employer contribution or match. Those that don't typically have high fees, while cheaper plans either offer fewer choices for workers or have long vesting periods.

Today's small businesses and their workers need access to a retirement plan that is:

1. Efficient (low-cost);
2. Safe (well-managed); and
3. Flexible (scalable and portable).

In response, a growing number of states are picking up on the idea of an UVRA to meet those needs.

Um, a what?

UVRA (pronounced: oo-vrah) stands for Universal Voluntary Retirement savings Account.

The basic idea is to use a state’s existing retirement or investment infrastructure to pool the investments of thousands of workers at small- and medium-sized businesses. The result? Extremely low fees; professional fund management; and a portable retirement plan that helps smaller businesses compete with the big boys on the block.

UVRAs aren't intended to replace current retirement plans. They are designed for individuals and businesses without workplace-based retirement investing. It's a supplement to Social Security (which provides a defined benefit pension for older Americans, but alone is barely enough to keep many retirees out of poverty).

A growing number of states are looking into the concept, including: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland (House & Senate), Michigan (House & Senate), Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virginia.

Newspaperman, this is your lucky day. With the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court which in essence overturns the ban on gay marriage, Newspaperman can now live his dream: He can marry David Wright. All of those love letters and naked photos Newspaperman has sent to David Wright hasn't gone for naught. There is now an end goal in sight: Nuptials.

The Jon dedicates this video to Newspaperman who has already created an account on youtube called mrsdwright5 and he wrote this in response to the one of many David Wright videos: omg i love him so much! he is so gorgeous! :)

And if for some inexplicable reason David Wright spurns Newspaperman's advances ... there are a whole lotta Newspaperman to go around ...

Grady Sizemore = Dreamboat

Newspaperman has beaten down the path of this guy too. He even wrote a haiku to his favorite Cleveland Indians outfielder ...

Newspaperman blooms;
Grady deflowered the News
Newspaperman swoons

Newspaperman is a renaissance man folks.

If Sizemore says no, turn to a dazzling smile

Newspaperman found this gem on Jose Reyes, it is a collection of blowup-doll mouths and tongue photos of his favorite shortstop. Newspaperman is a bit disturbed.

To cover his actions on Youtube, he has multiple accounts. This is from his starsbaseball53 persona ... notice the spanish to further cover up his tracks:

los reyes del jose son asombrosos pero el ramierez del hanley es increíble incluso en el vizquel omar del funcionamiento largo es entonces reyes mejores

Unfortunately, they removed the sexual enhancement video

But Newspaperman has the video of David Ortiz where this ensued:

"There are some at-bats where one can't afford to fail, the same is true during the intimate moments. Take Elevex. Take it from me, David Ortiz (big wink) 'Big Papi.'

Announcer: Elevex. 36 hours of pure masculine sexual potency."

But if you even think that would stop Newspaperman in his Ortiz lovefest quest, you have another thing coming. He wrote a letter to Ortiz. It went like this:

Dear David
Hi, my name is Newspaperman. I love you. I like you in that black motion capture suit. It's sexy and brings out the beast in me. I have a black suit too ... a gimp suit.
Tenderly with kisses,
Newspaperman

Dear gaaawwwwd, not this again

Ummm, The Jon can't continue.

The Jon just threw up in his mouth.

Newspaperman, good luck. You will need it in your quest to be a blushing bride.

Sinner.

: : : : : : : : : : :

That's why California gets Love & Affection via Joan Armatrading today.

The next day I did a fun off trail hike to Liberty Cap, a large granite dome that stands almost 1000' above Little Yosemite Valley (different from Yosemite Valley).  More beautiful views.

Oh yeah, the "boring" part of the hike was up and down the Mist Trail past two huge waterfalls.  It is called the Mist trail because the spray from the one waterfall soaks you as you climb up the path.  A real yawner.  (Does sarcasm work in writing?)

http://picasaweb.google.com/stephenmdunbar/YosemiteHalfDomeAndLibertyCap

This is our male Calliope Hummingbird on one of his obviously favored perches along Ashland's Tolman Creek Road just above the 3000-foot level.  I read in some bird books that they nest generally above 4000-feet.  This may just be a warmth-seeking male.  As in many hummers, female Calliopes do all the nest work and brood and raise the young without the conjugal aid of Mr. Calliope with his gorgeous gorget.  He's the only North American hummer with colorful lines across a white throat, giving him a peppermint stripe appearance.

The Calliope has other unusual characteristics.  Next to the Rufous it's the northern-most nesting hummer on the plant.  One of only four species that nest regularly in Canada.  One of only a score that nest north of Mexico.  The Calliope has a relatively short bill, a short tail.  Short length, in fact, about three inches.  So a dozen of them laid end to end would stretch all the way along a yard-stick.  It's the smallest bird in all of North America. You think you feel lonely sometimes?

Yes, that's our Calliope up there on that small bare twig, itself about as thick as a pencil.  All one-tenth of an ounce of the brute, meaning it would take forty male Calliope Hummingbirds to weigh as much as a stick of butter.  Twenty would be the equivalent in weight to a fresh tennis ball.  Despite the lack of heft, this guy counts as Oregon #201.

Calliope Hummingbird is a resident of mountain ranges from Canada southward into Utah.  The male can go into torpor to survive cold summer nights at high elevations.  The female is slightly larger and must maintain body temperature to keep eggs or nestlings warm during cld nights.   They winter in Mexican highlands.

UP HIGH

The road is open without chains and practically without traffic all the way to the Mount Ashland Ski Resot (now closed for the summer) and that's where Bill and I went next.  Added some mountain birds to our year's list:  Dusky and Willow Flycatcher.  The Dusky was helpful, perching high in clear light and calling repeatedly.  "Whit, whit."  Two bright Hermit Warblers, alreayd on territory, in the treetops despite snow covering the ground fifty feet below.  Earlier this spring I has seen some passing through Ashland on migration.  Cassin's Finches were calling next to the parking lot around 650-feet.  The usual pair of Mountain Bluebirds were there as well.  Here's the female staring at the strange biped with the big eye.

Pine Siskins were nesting in a spruce just below the parking lot and Robins were about, proving once again they're among the most versatile of American birds.  This is a long way from Central Park, or you backyard.  On our way downhill a trio of Gray Jays showed themselves and we stopped for a look.  Even during the coldest part of winter they do not come down to the valley floor where most of the people are.

And we even took a few seconds to note the view from Mount Ashland south into California toward Mount Shasta.

Location:     Tolman Creek Road
Observation date:     5/15/08
Notes:     A week ago Olive-sided Flycatchers were calling in this area, saw and heard none this morning.  Bill Hering and I both got great looks at Calliope.

Number of species:     7

Turkey Vulture     1
Red-tailed Hawk     1
Calliope Hummingbird     1--Oregon lifer for me.
Steller's Jay     4
Nashville Warbler     6
Spotted Towhee     1
Dark-eyed Junco (Oregon)     2
------------------------

Location:     Mount Ashland
Observation date:     5/15/08
Notes:     Bill Hering and I found the road still under snow at the west end of the ski area parking lot.  Temps in high fifties with strong gusting wind.
Number of species:     19

Turkey Vulture     3
Red-tailed Hawk     1
Northern Flicker (Red-shafted)     1
Willow Flycatcher     1
Dusky Flycatcher     1
Gray Jay     3
Steller's Jay     4
Common Raven     12
Mountain Chickadee     1
Golden-crowned Kinglet     2
Mountain Bluebird     2
American Robin     4
Yellow-rumped Warbler (Audubon's)     8
Hermit Warbler     2
Chipping Sparrow     2
Lincoln's Sparrow     1
Dark-eyed Junco (Oregon)     2
Cassin's Finch     2
Pine Siskin     8

Check out this article.....this is amazing! Hopefully, other states will follow suit.

"The law is not the private property of lawyers, nor is justice the exclusive province of judges and juries. In the final analysis, true justice is not a matter of courts and law books, but of a commitment in each of us to liberty and mutual respect. ~ Jimmy Carter."

David's Bridal, and other wedding-esc stores in California PREPARE yourselves! California officially ruled as of TODAY that gay-marriage IS CONSTITUTIONAL!!!! ~*~*~*Throw the confetti up into the air! *~*~*~

California's Supreme Court ruled 4-to-3 that gays have the same amount of BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to MARRY than our breeder counterparts. I am sure there will soon be protesters at the capital with zealots shouting indecentries, and spitting with scorn at the top of their lungs, "SAVE OUR FAMILIES!" I say, "What about OUR families?!" This I think California delegates and representatives have finally heard. All I have to say is "Thank-you, THANK-YOU, thank-you, thank-you!!!"

Wikipedia has a state-to-state visual of the condition of same-sex marriage in the United States. ONLY 48 more states to go for FULL & EQUAL rights! TEHE.

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

Was I wrong to have expected bitter catfights played out in the middle of the streets? Or lurid sexual encounters in some store window?

Maybe. Maybe I was hoping for too much: murder, mayhem, natural disasters. But what can I say? It’s all I knew of Santa Barbara, California before I visited it myself.

Back in high school, after all, I was hooked on the daytime soap, Santa Barbara. In university residence, when it was (oddly) shifted to an obscure time after midnight, I’d stay up to watch with another girl on my floor. Then it got cancelled, and I got to sleep again.

I pretty much forgot about Santa Barbara after that. Until I visited the town itself last year.

And it was lovely, it truly was. Filled with ocean views, excellent shopping, this great café where I had hands-down the best sandwich of the trip. The sandwich wasn’t poisoned, though, and there was no dead body floating in the ocean. I didn’t even see any TV-ready corporate raiders trying to back-handedly take over someone’s family farm.

Yawn.

I interviewed someone from Toronto’s tourism board recently, who told me of a new storyline in one of the Mexican soaps – a storyline involving one main character coming to live in Toronto. I’m sure there will be all sorts of campy drama that will follow her around, with Toronto at its centre.

And when those Mexican tourists come to my city, looking for the ensuing excitement, I hope I see them. Because I promise, I’ll put on a show.

I want to make sure they get what they expected.

Photo: Notice the lack of drama? Santa Barbara, California, November 2007 - LV.

Posted by Lisa.

There is still hope for California, as there is a remnant of sanity and morality present among a group who will now seek to have a measure placed on the ballots for this November general election.  This measure would add a prohibition to gay marriage to the California constitution.  As has been the case in all 26 other state where such opportunities have been present, voters have overwhelmingly turned out to support such bans.  Given that they have already done so in California, to the tune of a 61% victory, perhaps there is still hope that the largest state by population in the United States will continue to regard "one man, one woman" as the standard by which marriage laws will apply.

California, sì alle nozze gay

Corte Suprema abolisce legge precedente

Le coppie gay hanno diritto a sposarsi in California. La Corte Suprema della Stato americano ha abolito la legge approvata dagli elettori che vietava le nozze omosessuali. La sentenza, che fa della California il secondo stato dopo il Massachusetts dove le coppie gay possono sposarsi, è considerata una storica vittoria dai gruppi per i diritti degli omossessuali.

La decisione dei giudici californiani potrebbe avere ripercussioni ben al di là dei confini statali, per fare anzi scuola a livello nazionale. "Non siamo in grado di affermare che il tenere ferma la tradizionale definizione di 'matrimonio' corrisponda a un interesse statale da far rispettare", recita il dispostivo della sentenza, adottata a maggioranza. "Ne traiamo di conseguenza la conclusione secondo la quale, nella misura in cui le disposizioni di legge della California attualmente in vigore circoscrivono il matrimonio alle sole persone di opposti sessi, tali disposizioni sono incostituzionali". Corte comunque divisa: a favore della rivoluzionaria decisione si sono schierati quattro dei suoi sette giudici; contrari gli altri tre.

Il verdetto ha concluso una battaglia legale iniziata sei anni fa, quando l'elettorato californiano approvò per referendum un provvedimento normativo con cui si stabiliva che soltanto i matrimoni tra uomini e donne sarebbero stati riconosciuti legalmente. "Limitare la definizione di matrimonio a un'unione 'tra un uomo e una donna'", scrive nella pronuncia il presidente del collegio, Ron George, "è anti-costituzionale e dev'essere eliminato dal testo legislativo". E' insomma prevalso il principio della non-discriminatorietà della legge.

La California diviene così il secondo Stato della Federazione in cui il matrimonio tra gay è legale dopo il Massachusetts, la cui Corte Suprema si espresse in tal senso nel 2003. Vermont, New Jersey e, finora, la stessa California prevedono tuttavia regole piuttosto liberali in materia, riconoscendo ai membri di unioni omosessuali molti diritti appannaggio di mariti e mogli eterosessuali.

IL MIO COMMENTO

Bene, finalmente una bella notizia per tutti i miei amici gay!

Sono felice per lor perché queste notizie aprono la strada e danno coraggio per affrontare nuove battaglie legali! I diritti degli omosessuali vanno riconosciui e la società deve continuare il suo cammino di civilizzazione verso il rispetto dell'essere umano.

Dopo il Massachusetts anche in California hanno cambiato la legge perchè la Corte Suprema ha stabilito che anche gli omosessuali possono sposarsi civilmente.

Il mio augurio e che molti stati seguano l'esempio e pongano fine a questa assurda discriminazione anacronistica!

Speriamo che allo stesso modo seguano altre buone notizie come l'abolizione della pena di morte!

Una volta tanto pertemettemi di gridare:"Viva l'America!"

Prof.ssa Anna Ciriani

Today, the California Supreme Court overturned a state law banning gay marriage.  Kudos to the court.  However, there is already a coalition of religious and social conservative groups trying to get a referendum on the ballot in November that would add an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. Asses.  I find this very disheartening and I've never understood it.  If you are a man and do not want to marry a man, then great - don't marry that man.

I firmly believe in the equality of all man (or woman) and the ideologies of some who propose to interfere with private rights seem inherently unethical.  That is not to say morality is not a public issue, because it is.  However, I believe only inasmuch as in individual’s right to self-determination cannot and should not conflict with another’s.  By that, I mean if you want to do something that may be considered immoral (by whatever means the majority defines it), then as long as it does not affect someone else’s privacy, it should be left alone.

It can not affect me or my family, if a man chooses to marry a man, or a woman a woman. . .  That is a choice, I believe, that should be left to the individuals involved.  I cannot see why it would be any other way.

I can only hope the voters in November see things similarly.  The Court ruled it is a basic “civil right” for a person to marry another person they love.  Should that not be the status quo?

Goddess/Goddess Marriage-speed.

p.s.  Gotta love the gays.  :D

Today, the California Supreme Court overturned a state law banning gay marriage. Kudos to the court. However, there is already a coalition of religious and social conservative groups trying to get a referendum on the ballot in November that would add an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. Asses. I find this very disheartening and I've never understood it. If you are a man and do not want to marry a man, then great - don't marry that man.

I firmly believe in the equality of all man (or woman) and the ideologies of some who propose to interfere with private rights seem inherently unethical. That is not to say morality is not a public issue, because it is. However, I believe only inasmuch as in individual’s right to self-determination cannot and should not conflict with another’s. By that, I mean if you want to do something that may be considered immoral (by whatever means the majority defines it), then as long as it does not affect someone else’s privacy, it should be left alone.

It can not affect me or my family, if a man chooses to marry a man, or a woman a woman. . . That is a choice, I believe, that should be left to the individuals involved. I cannot see why it would be any other way.

I can only hope the voters in November see things similarly. The Court ruled it is a basic “civil right” for a person to marry another person they love. Should that not be the status quo?

Goddess/Goddess Marriage-speed.

p.s. Gotta love the gays. :D

I see this as a big victory for the biggest Civil Rights issues of our time. However, this has to be put in perspective because there will be a constitutional amendment in November that could potentially overturn this ruling.
There is an undeniable trend that people are moving towards accepting homosexual rights, but nevertheless, from 2003-2006, support for gay marriage was still only at 43%. Luckily Obama is nine points up in California, so the turnout this initiative will create shouldn't make a difference in the presidential election, although it will probably affect local races.

I've also been wondering about the best strategy for the movement for homosexual rights. The mayor of my great city, Gavin Newson briefly legalized gay marriage in SF for a few months in 2004, but on a national level, some have argued that this move had adverse effects for the movement. Personally, I do think what Gavin Newsom did was right, but at the same time I understand that it might not have been the most intelligent political move for the movement.

But what about this decision by the California Supreme Court? Although I agree with the legal arguments of the decision (to the extent that I understand them), I recognize that because of the perception of "activist judges" this ruling could definitely have adverse effects nationally.

And yet one has to what is right. On some level, if people are homophobic that's there problem. In the words of MLK, "The time to do right is always right." If not now and us then when and who?

---

On a more personal note, this is a very exciting time for my Mom and her press room who are covering the story. Since my Mom works for a wire service, you could very well be reading her words in the news stories you read but unfortunately she only gets credit for them on alternative news sources.

----

Finally, this brings up the issue of judicial philosophy. I thought that it was interesting to learn that McCain should shy away from his originalist view of the judicial philosophy, because after all, he was born in a US territory and with an originalist interpretation he wouldn't be qualified to run for President.