Sullivan:

It’s the procreation argument again. I need time to read the decision and I’m on a deadline. On a more positive front, Democratic gubernatorial front-runner in New York, Eliot Spitzer, said the following in a rambunctious debate last night:

“I think same sex marriage should be legal. I will propose a bill to permit that to be the case in the state of New York.”

And so the courts begin to retreat and the legislative process gains ground. Recall that the most populous state in the country has already passed marriage equality in its legislature. In some ways, a court pause before a looming legislative triumph may be good news.

John Aravosis:

First, I have to wonder whether we need a cultural and political strategy (answer: YES) to go along with this court strategy. It’s not like judges rule in a vacuum. We’ve done very little to try to convince the public of the rigtheousness of our side in this debate, then we wonder why the courts slam us down. (Having said that, 3 months before the election is NOT the time to run ads on this issue, as noted yesterday.)

Second, we need a political-court strategy - you don’t win court cases when conservative GOP judges keep being appointed to the court.

And finally, this “legalize marriage” court strategy looks increasingly like a runaway train, out of our control and stealing all the oxygen from the good work that’s been done over the past decade on job discrimination and so much more. You pick your battles strategically. (Well, you do if you want to win, and have any political sense.) No one is saying we roll over and play dead. But I am saying that we only have so much time and so much money - we need to use those limited assets wisely. And blowing the entire wad on marriage strikes me as foolish and counterproductive. Someone in the community with some influence needs to stand up and say “enough already,” and get our agenda back.

Horsesass:

Civil marriage is a contract that confers certain legal rights on the participants, and I simply cannot see how same-sex marriage in any way threatens the rights of heterosexual couples. At the same time, same-sex couples will continue to live together and raise children as if they were legally married, regardless of this decision, and it’s hard to understand the state’s interest in denying these families the same rights accorded to others.